No Need To

Limbaugh Looper 2016 Presidential Campaign

Call to Donate

IN THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT, THE KOCH BROTHERS’ CAMPAIGN BECOMES OVERT   One Word, WOW! The Latest Sneaky Attempt to Increase Corporate Political Power                                                                                   

The Campaign Legal Center   -                          THE BREWING BILLIONAIRE FEUD AT THE HEART OF THE G.O.P.


For some of us the Koch Brothers have been overt for years:                               Rated R (HBO): 





                                                                                                                                                                                          






The Koch Network: A Cartological Guide  Dark Money Turns Elections Into Trench Warfare


When is enough enough?  Super PACs and Oil and Gas     


Trump 2017 Inauguration Donors      Top Organization Contributors


This Year's Top Presidential Campaigns Spent Over $1B --

Here's Where It All Went​ 


​Here are the biggest donors in the 2016 elections


​​Dark money, super PAC spending surges ahead of 2018 midterms


Meet the fossil fuel all-stars Trump has appointed to his administration


​​​​​​​Campaign Spending:  Please note we are NOT accepting ANY contributions.   In my humble opinion, too much money is involved in politics now.  I am not the only one who shares this view, Warning, some foul language in this video:


Leftover campaign cash can signal future plans          https://www.opensecrets.org/trump/appointee-giving

                                                                                                                                                           

Two (at most) secret donors funded 93% of pro-Rubio nonprofit


Sadly, now all three branches of some state governments are being driven by money:

​Justice for sale: Editorial     


Speaking of Mississippi Judges, look at what                                            This video explains how power and money    happened to one of them, Oliver Diaz:                                                       are so important:













I agree with this WSJ Opinion: 

Is There Too Much Democracy in America or Too Little?


​"The need for candidates to raise large sums of money to run for office effectively screens out Republicans and Democrats whose views differ from those of the donor class, even if those views are popular with conservative or progressive voters."


"Voter apathy and is a political problem that can be solved only by political reforms that give nonelite voters more actual power to affect policy outcomes — not by a new tax credit here or a wage subsidy there."


The Top 10 Things Every Voter Should Know About Money-in-Politics


A Sisyphean History of Campaign Finance Reform


A great writeup on where it started going wrong:  How Gingrich broke Congress

(Newt Gingrich, not my running mate Bo Gingrich)


What if we put a Federal Tax on Contributions to Federal Campaigns? This was written pre-Citizens United v FEC:  Taxing Political Donations: The Case for Corrective Taxes in Campaign Finance


The really sad part of the fundraising is that most of it is not even necessary.  Most Senate and House races are decided before the election through Gerrymandering: http://www.limbaughlooper2016.com/gerrymandering.html


Money and Uncontested Elections? 


"How Big Business Kills Third-Party Candidates"          Reelection Rates Over the Years


Some may question money's influence when they see decisions like this: 

Colorado Court Strikes Down Local Bans on Fracking   Colorado Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the governor, Colorado Judicial Branch  Someone may ask who contributed to the governor's campaign?  John Hickenlooper's Campaign Finances  Citizens United v FEC must be reversed:  How to Reverse Citizens United   


​​Gov. Jerry Brown allows voters to sound off on Citizens United in November


Someone wrote a book about it:     Corporate Citizen? An Argument for the Separation of Corporation and State 



Citizens United v FEC  you ask?  10 WAYS CITIZENS UNITED ENDANGERS DEMOCRACY












The decision came down on  January 21st, 2010,  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and I was upset when the decision was announced. Someone else was too: 












Someone is trying to make a difference: http://www.wolf-pac.com  Leadership PACs?  All in the Family: House Members Lining Family Pockets with Political Cash     Why isn't campaign finance reform laws a priority in D.C.?  (WARNING! This video might make you mad): 










Steve King employs family as year-round campaign staff, an unusual approach in Congress


Why do people rail against taxes then turn around and are willing to give millions to political campaigns?  http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/  Could some of that money go to making our country a better place?  Repairing Our Infrastructure.


I agree more with Buckley v Valeo:   


"Question

Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses?"


"Conclusion


In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association."


History of campaign finance reform​


I don't have a problem with a Monsanto or an ExxonMobil purchasing an ad as long as they take credit for it. I question why these free-speech seekers want to hide behind astroturf PAC names and try to hide who gives what and how much.


A former student of mine and a future President himself does not share my view on campaign spending and wrote a paper for one of his college classes on the subject and sent it to me.  ​It is a great paper! I don't agree with it, but it is still a great paper!


Updates:   Koch brothers' political network promises to raise and spend more money in 2018 races