Yes, judges can be outright bribed but the campaign finance laws -- the current cause of dismay -- are supposed to contend with money spent on elections.

What am I missing?

The politicians could just as easily write a rule that says that any of their members caught accepting lobbyist money will be relieved of office and then they could take it upon themselves to enforce such a rule. The USSC has no jurisdiction over how congress governs itself.

But Congress won't do anything even remotely like that because, like relatively good cops turning a blind eye to bad cops, they know if they turn on the fraternity they will be left to twist in the wind. They protect each other in their corruption.

'just stfu and vote' and please, do not point out the reality that we HAVE DONE THAT over and over again and watched as the people we elected, VOTE FOR RADICAL RIGHT WING SC JUSTICES'.

Shhhhhh, no one wants to talk about that!! And so long as we don't talk about what brought us to this point, we can't fix it, and maybe that is the goal. It's working perfectly for Corporate interests.

Currently there are no publicly funded campaigns on the federal level.

So, without $ how do expect them to get their name and positions out to prospective constituencies?

If they have to accept lobbyist money then there really isn't a point to limiting the amount. Even the Democratic party has its share of billionaires and hedge fund managers. All's fair in love, war and campaign financing, right?

Let's face it, the Democratic party is still far more likely to do the will of ordinary folks than the R party.

While there are Corporatist D politicians, they are much fewer and far between than R's... by a mile.

Why do you think that right after the decision was announced, the RNC jumped right on it w/glee, while Dems denounced it?

The SCOTUS decision is a huge blow for us, because now the R's ability to throw unlimited amounts of cash into campaigns against D's are going to become even more obscene. And it will be to the detriment of all of us.

Why is the TPP going ahead under a D administration?

Why has the financial sector been able to keep Quantitative Easing policy in place in spite of the fact it has not produced the results promised and will leave our economy gut-shot as soon as it ends?

Why are boondoggle defense projects such as the F-35 continuing apace while the tried and true and beloved A-10 is threatened with the scrap heap?

Is the Keystone project truly dead or are the interested parties just jingling their change cup?

We have the best democracy that money can buy.

-bothers me a great deal.

Nonetheless, I'd far rather have the D party (such as it is) in charge of the Senate and WH than a bunch of R fascists.

Fascism, be definition, is the seamless bonding of the state and the corporation. We have already been sold out. It's not the money that is the issue, it is the people taking the money. At the end of the day voters are accepting it because their sacred cow needs preserving and it's the exact same crap the corporations are pulling. They may put up a good show complaining about regulations but at the end of the day those regulations choke their competitors out of the marketplace. Only the mega-corps can afford the teams of lawyers and accountants to navigate 50,000 pages of tax law.

Here is the first definition of 'fascist' I came across using google chrome.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” -- Benito Mussolini

as opposed to what that twisted ideology truly was? I bet he thought he was God's gift to humanity too, but that didn't make it so.

In any event, would you mind answering my first question to you? Otherwise, I think we are done here.

Does Scalia and the other 4 really need a monetary motivation when they may well be deciding as they do because they really are inclined to think that way? I know it's an emotional salve to ascribe criminal acts to what they do but what if they aren't on the take?

else is entitled to their opinion.

Have you seen Feinstein's investment portfolio recently? How about former Goldman Sachs employees working in the WH? It's not just the GOPers.

The troops are in near mutiny over talk of cancelling the A-10 but when was the last time Feinstein voted down a military construction project? Why do you think the QE policy has persisted as long as it has even though it hasn't produced the intended results?

Know that party labels are as much of a lie as anything else...

I mean what the heck would FDR think of Obama? FDR's philosophy was to actually address Congress and bully pulpit for his ideals. Obama stipulates that the separation of the various branches of government mean that he has to sit it out. But behind the scenes, he allows people like Rahm Emanuel to actually write up legislation! (And the bully pulpit was out with regrs to health care reform, but apparently the bully pulpit is okay, when it comes to getting a war on. Then the President suddenly feels the bully pulpit is in order.)

And of course, despite his campaign promise to the middle class that banks would be regulated if they didn't loan to Main Street, he decided upon election to refer to the Heads at Treasury and the Fed, who could care less about any regulations. Which is why we will end up with another terrible economic collapse, which will make '08 and '09 look like a picnic.

And to prove it, I am gonna offer you a job.

This job pays you $190,000 a year.

And it requires you to disseminate MY opinions, instead of your own ridiculous ones.

When I want your opinion, I will give it to you.

Are you tempted at all? Not even a little?

I think I could probably buy 70% of Americans with such a job.

I am pretty sure even I could be bought for that. I mean, why not? Look at the jobs I have already taken for much less.

I hate war, so my first job was with the DOD.
I think most television is a bunch of crap, so my second job was making satellite dishes.
I hate drunken-ness. So naturally I got a job as a janitor for a sports bar.
For three years I worked making over-priced pudding snacks. Not only that, but I was working for a Phillip Morris owned company. Hello, big tobacco, nice of you to hire me - for $18,000 a year.

And if that is not enough, well people like Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews make multiple million dollars a year.

to be in a position of power, to regulate industries that they already favor and will later lobby for.

And they've also arranged it so that, if the people figure them out and vote them out of office, they receive a comfortable pension paid for by those same people.

Give me a break. The system is legalized corruption, government for sale to the highest bidder. If someone doesn't go along with the game, they are out. The problem is the system that equates money with democracy, which is so incredibly ludicrous only the Federalist Society judges could go along with it.

Every system is legalized corruption because those who build the system make carve-outs for themselves. They say they deserve special treatment because they're acting on our behalf. Even if they start that way they soon evolve to the point where they still have their special perks but have forgotten to do the people's work. And as soon as the people take notice they circle their wagons and begin to outright defy and oppose the people.

Corruptible people flock to corrupting environments.

Clean it up, and they will not find it as attractive.