Search Results: one campaign

link

In short: Some years ago Wells Fargo made a mistake with mixing up this man with his neighbor. Claiming he owed money when really he owed nothing and his neighbor was the one behind. They admitted the mistake, but STILL foreclosed on him anyways. He took them to court, but he died in court before it was settled, but it turns out the L.A. County Superior Court Judge Laura Ellison had indicated that she intended to side with Wells Fargo in a summary judgment. Even with so much evidence (from what I can find out) against Wells Fargo.

So I wonder what others think? What do you think should have happened?

Personally, I say to hell with that judge and Wells Fargo. Just another example of the big banks d***ing over the little people even when they aren't wrong just so they can get more money. And another example of our failing justice system. And I'll bet in some way Wells Fargo paid off the judge or they've been a campaign contributor for her in the past. But I can't find that information so it's just speculation. Given our current system and the way most in the government are though? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

link

Basically, there'll be a ruling on whether someone can donate even more money to politicians (raising the current cap per election term of how much could be donated to rather obscene levels of 3million+). Now, given the history of the Supreme Court and Campaign Finance, it's likely they'll rule in favor of increasing the cap.

What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I think it's pretty damn devastating. More legal bribery being allowed by the Supreme Court for the rich to legally pay off our politicians.

I mean, wouldn't you find it interesting that the average cost to run a congressional campaign is generally around one million dollars (likely more)

link

So what would this ruling do? Allow the rich to buy more politicians without the aid of a super PAC or others getting involved. You can argue money is speech all you want, but all you're doing is then giving more speech to others for no real fair reason. If you want to claim that money is equal to speech, then I'd say you better start redistributing that money so everyone has equal speech. But, realize, I don't want to redistribute and I don't equate money to speech. I think that's a pretty fallacious comparison.

link - money is not speech and this guy makes some good points as to why money is not speech.

Regardless, all this ruling does is give more legal bribery for our politicians to accept from the rich. But, I'm curious how those who are OK with the cap being raised can claim it's OK, especially without using the "money is speech" fallacy.