From Stark
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned key election campaign spending limits in the Citizens United case two years ago, there were dire warnings that the court’s 5-4 ruling would unleash a flood of campaign cash into the political process. Now, the GOP presidential primaries are providing evidence that those warnings were justified.
The Citizens United case removed campaign spending limits that federal law had imposed on political action committees (PACs) not directly affiliated with a candidate’s campaign organization. The result: in South Carolina, PACs are outspending the campaign organizations 2-1, MSNBC reports.
In this report from USA Today, some analysts say the new funding sources are helping to keep some candidates in the race despite lackluster showings in Iowa and New Hampshire. Newt Gingerich and Rick Perry, for example, can still rely on millions of dollars’ worth of indirect support from SuperPACs in their corner.
In this editorial, the Philadelphia Inquirer says attack ads financed by pro-Mitt Romney SuperPACs turned back a surge from Gingerich, and pro-Gingerich SuperPACS are returning the favor in South Carolina.
But the Romney campaign and unaffliated SuperPACs still have the most money to spend in the Palmetto State, according to this report from McClatchy.
Editorial comment: If we choose our leader based on the content of political advertising, we deserve what we get.
And we have been getting it, don’t you know!
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Today I observed a large ad on the side of a bus.
The ad had head shots of 3 young, friendly looking people, probably in their early 20′s.
A caption under each of their faces read, “I am a Mormon.”
Many of the fundamental Christian churches such as Baptist believe that Mormonism is a cult, but then again some of them just hate everyone who doesn’t believe in the Bible.
However, my immediate thought when I saw the ad was that Romney’s supporters (the Mormon Church?) have started their ad campaign, and their intent is to desensitize the Christian Right to the ‘evils’ of Mormonism in order to get their votes.
Of course the Mormon church could simply be recruiting more souls, but I don’t think so.
Ms. C, you said, “[S]ome [fundamental [sic] Christian churches such as Baptist just hate everyone who doesn’t believe in the Bible.”
Mormons do believe in the Bible: “Mormonism is a form of Christian primitivism that shares a common set of beliefs with the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement, including use of, and belief in, the Bible, as well as other religious texts including the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.”
Wikipedia
Note that to a certain extent, the Jews also believe in “the Bible.” The first 5 Books of the Old Testament are the Torah. And in my experience, Mormons are and have historically been great friends of the Jews, as have been the most fundamentalist Christians (albeit when they’re not praying for our salvation).
My point being (since you didn’t mention Judaism, but made a global reference to those who don’t “believe in the Bible”): Let’s keep religion out of the political discussion. Too complicated, and nearly wholly irrelevant.
That is not what I said; you have quoted me incorrectly.
American politics is already drenched in religion, I didn’t make it up.
If you believe Romney has not, or won’t be, attacked for being Mormon, you would be incorrect.
And?
How many version of false advertising are there?
“And after there had been false prophets, and false preachers and teachers among the people, and all these having been punished according to their crimes…
1830, they think that’s ancient?
Camille is very correct, IMHO in politics nothing is off limits; religion, sex, or even the dreams of your father could be questioned.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
On thing about Citizen’s United that needs an answer, how did Joe Smith get up and running so fast?
My God, that Utah Beehive works at the speed of light?
When word concerning the plot of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reached the circles of Government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution. See Smoodin, “Compulsory” Viewing for Every Citizen: Mr. Smith and the Rhetoric of Reception, 35 Cinema Journal 3, 19, and n. 52 (Winter 1996) (citing Mr. Smith Riles Washington, Time, Oct. 30, 1939, p. 49); Nugent, Capra’s Capitol Offense, N. Y. Times, Oct. 29, 1939, p. X5. Under Austin , though, officials could have done more than discourage its distribution—they could have banned the film. After all, it, like Hillary, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may be fiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWyEc7FAMTg
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Visionaries, eh sheepdog?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joseph_F._Smith_family.png