The Supreme Court’s pending campaign finance case could further expand the political power of concentrated wealth while narrowing what America legally recognizes as corruption.
The comment above says it all. Big business is allowed by the courts to influence public policy via politicians. Public policy dictates what in fact is good for big business. The public is not consulted and if they are then they are ignored, the AI data centers are an example. From what I read it appears that the Supreme Court Justices are allowed to take all sorts of perks, so they are in in the game too. Not matter which you cut the public is left out of the equation and is usually robbed blind. The money does not cause the corruption, no not at all, corrupt people cause the corruption.
I have always felt that Citizens United really should not have happened - I mean, obviously, but someone should have called SCOTUS on it right then. "Money is speech" is a truism, like "Might makes right", and as a rule, should not have been enshrined in law, even as a mere precedent.
Whatever the Court's definition of "corruption" is, it is abundantly clear that it does not apply to them as individuals or collectively as the highest court in the country!
The comment above says it all. Big business is allowed by the courts to influence public policy via politicians. Public policy dictates what in fact is good for big business. The public is not consulted and if they are then they are ignored, the AI data centers are an example. From what I read it appears that the Supreme Court Justices are allowed to take all sorts of perks, so they are in in the game too. Not matter which you cut the public is left out of the equation and is usually robbed blind. The money does not cause the corruption, no not at all, corrupt people cause the corruption.
I have always felt that Citizens United really should not have happened - I mean, obviously, but someone should have called SCOTUS on it right then. "Money is speech" is a truism, like "Might makes right", and as a rule, should not have been enshrined in law, even as a mere precedent.
Whatever the Court's definition of "corruption" is, it is abundantly clear that it does not apply to them as individuals or collectively as the highest court in the country!
Money talks, and bullsjit walks as the old saying goes! Money goes to money, and they don’t want to share!