Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
The impact of Citizens United is wider…

And yet still totally irrelevant to this discussion. If SCOTUS had decided against Citizens United, Adelson would still be able to give as much as he wanted of his own money.

I'm happy to discuss campaign finance laws, and I suspect we are at least somewhat in agreement about that topic, but it really has nothing to do with Adelson.

My position on political spending: Only US citizens who are eligible to vote should be allowed to donate to campaigns. Not companies nor unions nor non-citizens nor minors, nor people who are ineligible to vote for any reason (like, for example, having been convicted of a felony).

And again, none of this has anything to do with Adelson.


Citizens United has a lot to do with Adelson, because the campaign finance laws which have been negated also limited the sum that can be contributed by individuals, and required disclosure of the donors' identity. All such laws have been thrown out the window.

Elan
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement