What he is saying, I think, is that because of Citizens United, money controls our politics at this point and it really doesn't really matter what Joe Smith thinks.
We can prove that wrong in November, of course.
EDIT: Its true that the democrats are just as bought, but I have faith that they would also appoint a supreme court that would rule the other way as well.
No. FISA and the two federal courts (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review) created under it in the 1970s do not make this surveillance possible, as it was possible before FISA; instead, they are part of the regime established to restrict it after a number of notorious abuses (the FISA restrictions have been weakened in the post-9/11 era, but are still more than existed prior to FISA.)
Money has controlled politics in the US since the very beginning and without exception. In fact, money controlled politics in the distant US past to a far greater degree than it does today. In Rockefeller's time or before, you could do almost anything when it came to buying political favor, there were few limits on buying politicians.
The Chinese foreign funding scandals that followed the Clintons in both Bill and Hillary's campaigns - what was China buying? That was part of the deal that saw Bill spend vast amounts of time & effort lobbying to get China into the WTO during his Presidency, even going aggressively against his own party and voter interests.
"May 24, 2000, Bill Clinton clinched what many believed would be the last great legislative victory of his presidency. That afternoon, the House of Representatives voted to award China permanent normal trade relations, effectively backing Beijing’s long-in-the-making bid to join the World Trade Organization. The historic deal had been Clinton’s top priority in the waning days of his last term—a move he hoped would improve relations with the world’s most populous nation, while cementing his own legacy of using free trade to advance America’s foreign policy interests. It had been opposed by labor unions wary of competition from poorly paid foreign workers and championed by corporations salivating over 1.3 billion potential Chinese customers (the business lobby had spent millions on TV ads supporting the pact). In the end, after much wrangling, 73 Democrats joined 164 Republicans to pass the agreement, which was expected to glide through the Senate."
You've missed the point entirely, on purpose I imagine. The impact of Citizens United is primarily with regard to corporate lobbying, not campaign contributions. Super PACs, the biggest travesty to come out of Citizens United, explicitly CANNOT contribute to election campaigns or specific parties.
This is another comment that crossed into incivility. If you want to keep posting to HN, we need you to follow the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
Citizens United is especially relevant to presidential elections -- it arose directly out of the 2004 and 2008 campaigns.
"The conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts, which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act..." [1]
In other words, you are wrong about Citizens United, and unpleasant about it.
Mostly because the NSA will enforce the status quo which has made them powerful and the oligarchs rich (and powerful). It's a self-feeding mechanism. Read more about this phenomenon–the beige dictatorship– here: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/02/politica...
It's more complicated than that. You can bet many wealthy people DO care about these things (in fact, I know some who do); however, if they stand up against them then they riak preferential targetting far more than the average citizen precisely because they have influence and need to be shut down.
Can you elaborate on this? Why are the wealthy interested in empowering the NSA?