Congressman tells it as it is.  Apparently most Republican members of Congress have an AIPAC Babysitter, whom they pay respect to regarding interests of Israel.  It is not far fetched to assume that the same applies to Democratic members of Congress.

 

794,641 views Jun 12, 2024 The Young Turks

U.S. Representative Thomas Massie spilled the tea on AIPAC's low blows against him during his election. Ana Kasparian discusses on The Young Turks.

"Congressman Spills The Tea on AIPAC"

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG9NavF_O6o&t=40s

 

The US Supreme Court under the influence of?

 In an idiotic decision the US Supreme Court not only ruled on the case before them (whether or not a certain film could be aired) but took the unwise decision to open the floodgates by, illegally, allowing unlimited spending for elections by all, including corporations (e.g. PACs, Super PACs and AIPAC), ensuring election influence on steroids.  Campaign spending was not at issue in this case. This basically allowed big money to run the election show.  Instead of Millions of dollars we are now talking about Billions.   

"The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited money on elections.

While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long spent money on campaigns, their role has ballooned as a result of Citizens United and subsequent decisions, resulting in a fusion of private wealth and political power unseen since the late 19th century."  

"The Supreme Court eventually decided 5–4 that Citizens United was within its First Amendment rights to spend its money disseminating the film. But rather than opining solely on the case before it as it had been asked to do, the Court took the opportunity to entirely strike down century-old prohibitions on corporate “independent” spending — money that doesn’t go directly to a candidate or party.  This applied to labor unions as well. Lower courts applying the ruling extended it to invalidate almost all fundraising and spending restrictions for groups that purport to be separate from candidates, many of which are today known as “super PACs.”"

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained 

  

Disclaimer: This writer is not affiliated nor registered with any political party; as a commentator he does not allow himself political bias.

Thank you for sharing this blog with friends and family.  You are helping to overcome the deafening silence from the commercial media on most topics; they just don't want us to know about.
This blog is not monetized; it is strictly produced as a public service.