[geeks] geeks Digest, Vol 157, Issue 2

[hike]

Someone wroteb&bBut I really wish there were a mechanism
by which the Supreme Court could go back and re-examine and revise its
own decision in the light of experience of its [apparently] unintended
and unforeseen side-effects.b

Your wish has been granted because there is a mechanism already.

It is to sue in a different but similar case.  The Supreme Court has
reversed itself a number of times when a similar case (or a second case)
has been brought before it (again).

Money helps when a politicianbs message bresonatesb with some voters.
Money doesnbt help when a politicianbs message does NOT bresonateb
with
most voters.
Big money is not the problem.  Bad politicians are the problem.  Bad people
are the problem.
But it is easier to treat symptoms than to cure the
disease/infection/infestation and that is why the emphasis is placed on
bBig Moneyb instead of the real problem b the bad people.

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Lionel Peterson <lionel4287 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> See below...
>
> Lionel
>
> > On May 16, 2016, at 8:12 AM, Phil Stracchino <phils at caerllewys.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe a group should be barred from voicing a collective
> > opinion.  I simply don't believe that it should he a "he who brings the
> > most dollars to the table wins" type of argument.  Our system of
> > government is supposed to be based on 'one man, one vote', not 'one
> > dollar, one vote'.
>
> Dollars spent do not equal votes - just ask Jeb Bush... Or Donald Trump.
>
> It's convenient to conclude that dollars spent = votes received, but that
> isn't how leaders are elected. The political parties chum the water with
> negative items about the other political party, and the party establishment
> (effectively, if not literally) picks the party nominee.
>
> Just ask Hillary 'Super Delegate' Clinton.
>
> >> You personally may be in favor of it, as might I, but such a decision by
> the
> >> court would eliminate the *possibility* of a collection of individuals
> >> effectively countering the much louder political 'voice' of a
> well-heeled
> >> individual that holds a different position.
> >
> > It's all but impossible for groups of individuals to counter the deep
> > pockets now.
>
> Depends on the group. Also, the track record of millionaire and billionaire
> 'king makers' is not looking so good right now - Sanders is rising despite
> the
> obscene amount of money Hillary is raising.
>
> >>> The Supreme Court *blew* that decision,
> >>> and the ACLU had the wool pulled over its eyes or simply didn't think
> it
> >>> through far enough.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> > I'm not arguing that what Citizens United *intended* to do should be
> > undone.  But I do feel that it needs to be re-examined to try to put a
> > cap on the things it *was not* intended to do, but did anyway.  The idea
> > was good.  The implementation desperately needs work.
>
> To 'put a cap on things' would squash the political power of Greenpeace,
> the
> Sierra Club, labor unions, and so on - I see no way to limit 'bad'
> organizations without limiting 'good' organizations, whatever your
> definitions
> of 'good' and 'bad' are.
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks