Some good news with an “if"

[KeithE]

Yesterday SCOTUS ruled that donors that give more than $200 to politics action committees (PACs) must be made public.
.

This is good news, but only if the public learns and pays attention to who is donating, how much and why. You will see that most campaign money comes from self-serving corporations and a small number of ideological rich people.

This does not end the disastrous Citizens United that allowed unlimited donations from corporations. Nor does it end lobbying for special interests. More work is needed to get back to a truly representative democracy.

But this is a first step. It will be a better first step if we pay attention to who (people) and what (corporations) are donating and judge for ourselves why they are so donating. And then 1) make your voice heard and 2) vote. Campaign money does not always determine the outcome but it has an outsized influenced.

--------------

BTW Kavaughn advocates that 'corporations are people' and should be allowed to donate without limits. This has resulted in a corptocracy/autocracy and dismantling of environmental protections.

Please read:



Kavanaugh’s youth is certainly not sterling and that is important, but what we should also be looking at is his judicial history and his truthfulness.

.

I’m for overturning Roe vs Wade but I don’t think that overrules all else - abortions will still occur. Resurrecting our democracy, reducing our still growing inequality, and ending the assault on our environment are big with me.

[Jim]

[Sandy]

That is good news, though I'd like to see Citizens United go away for good. And I'd like to see PAC's outlawed. Let them depend on individual contributions alone, and limit the amount of those inside of any given year.

Lobbyists are a problem, though I've participated in volunteer lobby efforts on occasion, and I really have to say that the accessibility of most congressmen and senators is a good thing.

I really believe that if every member of congress, the senate, and the President were restricted to a small budget for re-election, and had to find ways to get themselves and their name out there, they'd figure it out.

I don't think you can rely on the political affiliation of a Supreme Court justice prior to their appointment to the court to determine how many "votes" there would be for overturning a particular decision, or making one for that matter. I'm not sure there is a single justice on the court at this point who would rule to overturn the Roe decision, even Gorsuch has used the terminology "it's the settled law of the land." Current courts aren't necessarily prone to overturning previous decisions, especially from decades back. And at any rate, if a decision went down party lines, not all Republicans are for overturning Roe, including John Roberts, the chief justice. So you still have Roberts, who is the major decision maker regarding the docket, who is a "No" when it comes to overturning, and you have four "Democrats" who have also indicated they would be a "no." Conceivably, Thomas and Alito could be yes, but they have both also used the "settled law of the land" terminology. And all overturning it would do is allow states to restrict access, which means that it would become a tourist industry in the 20 or so states that would still allow it. I'm in favor of restricting, or ending, abortion on demand, but making it a political single issue has only led to the election of a group of incompetent, inept legislators. Perhaps if Christians and churches would evangelize more, and caucus less, they would see the numbers of abortions decline by personal conviction, not legislative restriction.