Most of congress are millionaires

Link

The least effective congress ever, with a lower approval rating than head lice are rich. These are the guys that have tried to repeal ObamaCare 40 times and even failed at that.

There's a reason that in this last primary election I voted against every single incumbent. I'd like to see everyone in congress kicked out and replaced. Can't be any worse then what we've got now.

I can''t understand why Citizens United and McCutcheon even got approved by supreme court tbh. Bribing officials is the same as saying your opinion.

I believe I read somewhere that 94% of the candidates who win an election are the candidates that had the most money in their campaign. Money definitely needs to be removed from politics. From a legal standpoint I can kind of see why the McCutcheon case went the way it did (they argued that it's not particularly constitutional to legislate how someone can spend their money) but it definitely makes it almost impossible for the genuine candidates to get elected to office. I wonder if congressional approval will ever again rise to a positive level?

But a company is not a person! Whoever voted yes for that is a fucking idiot. Money does not equal speech. Speech equals speech... Hell, you're not even allowed to make political commercials here, the only way to get your point and stance across is in debates. Also you aren't allowed to donate do politicians only the party and that is limited to 20 000 bucks or something like that

Yea it's a broken system where money elects, not issues. It's unfortunate, but as to your point of companies not being persons. The Supreme Court has ruled in that past that a company under definition of the law is a person. So they are bound by that ruling unless they choose to take another look at the case and rule differently. But the implications of such a ruling would radically change the corporate environment in the states. I still don't agree with the McCutcheon ruling but if you look at the law it's clear why they did what they did.

@ferrari2001: But any logical person would clearly see that a company is not a person and money isn't free spech

They don't seem to be truly representing 'the majority'.

Sure but the Supreme Courts job is to look at the law, which in the United States says that a company is a person. If you look just at the law then their decision does make sense, no matter how absurd the implications of that decision are.

Indeed 60 some percent are multimillionaires, and despite this we still see politicians try to hammer home the idea that they understand the plights of the common man. What a fucking joke.

Here is a list of the fifty richest members of congress. 2013

http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html

And not just replaced by anyone. We need women, minorities, and younger people in Congress to represent Americans more. Congress is 90% old white men; which America is not. These guys are all stuck in the past and don't give two shits about the country; they only care about re-election and how much money is in their multiple bank accounts.

you people put them in power.

If you're implying that the people with the most money just buy out the election, that's a fallacy. When it comes to financial contributions to campaigns, most people aren't going to want to pour a lot of money into a candidate who doesn't stand a chance. So instead of it being a simple case of well-funded candidates buying the win, it's a little bit more complex than that. There's also a very big element of people GETTING more money in their campaigns BECAUSE they are the better candidate.

I'm not saying that there aren't problems with how things work, but "money being removed from politics"? How the hell is that even supposed to work? Running a successful campaign costs money, so how exactly is that campaigning supposed to get paid for if you remove the money from politics?

Therefore it should be overturned and the law should be get an amendment

Possibly but they would have to overturn the person hood of a business, and since I'm not a legal expert I couldn't being to claim what the implications of overturning that decision would mean.

i am not either, but an amendment could be done through the people contacting state senators and getting it passed that way. I think they need 30 or something to get it passed. There are 2 or 3 states that have done it already