A Millionaire to Newt is someone that has two Million Dollar diamond necklaces instead of just one

That’s a bit like Sonny Corleone saying he’s not a victim of gunshot wounds, but rather, a bunch of bullets that decided to get together to run a negative campaign against his bodily tissue.

That’s exactly backwards. It’s more like saying “I’m not a victim of the Second Amendment, I’m a victim of the guy who shot me.”

Newt is, of course, charging Mitt Romney with a crime.
Will Chuck Todd investigate?

Actually, it’s more like “I’m not a victim of the lack of food regulations, I’m just a victim of a meat supplier that decided to not monitor the quality of their pork chops.”

There were always millionaires getting together to affect campaigns, and there always will be.  If someone wants to do something and there are no limits on how much they can do it, they will probably do it more and more.  It is just common sense.  

C. Matthews pressed Newt well on this.

It’s not a bunch of millionaires going after a democrat, it’s a bunch of millionaires going against me.

Mr. Tiffany Account takes issue with millionaires.

Lots of Liberal Class Envy going on…..predictable.

As much as I’m a proud conservative/Jon Huntsman/Ron Paul supporter, outside money needs to be taken out of politics completely, so a candidate(s) is forced to take responsibility.

I’m no fan of Newt, as I can’t stand the guy, and I do believe in free speech, but it makes me sick that a 527/outside group can launch negative ads against candidates in support of Romney, and Romney  doesn’t have to take responsibility for it. 

Outside money should be banned from politics, and if a group wants to attack Newt in support of Romney, let them give their money to Romney, so he can’t hide behind them.

Limits on donating money to a candidate should be removed, altogether, but the outside, unaccountable attack-ads should be made illegal, or something. Newt might be a horrible candidate, but if he’s to be attacked, it should come from one of his rivals, not one of his rivals taking shelter behind a 527 group.

youre an idiot.

Limits on donating money to a candidate should be removed, altogether,
but the outside, unaccountable attack-ads should be made illegal, or
something.

But for that pesky First Amendment…

What a pathetic cry-baby.
This whining, moaning, and bitching, from the person who ushered in, nay, demanded, negative campaigning in the modern era.
Hey Newt, grow up. It’s hardball politics, just the way you envisioned it, and NO ONE gives a rat’s ass about your problems, nor does anyone want to hear your blubbering.
And what are those lies, anyway? Or is telling the truth what constitutes negative campaigning in your satanic mind?
You vile piece of crap.

But, is it really “free” speech? No one is responsible for what an outside attack ad contains, so someone like Romney can just hide behind a group without supporting them, giving them money or even acknowledging them.

It’s just a cheap way of getting free attacks off on your opponent, and it’s not the same as an “individual’s” free speech being protected by the First Amendment.

I’ll explain it, Tommy; I know you are a lib and all you understand is orders, groupthink, and propaganda, so I will be patient.

1. CF laws like McCain-Fiengold, FECA, etc. get passed; they claim to address “money in politics” but instead are written by the incumbents to favor themselves.   This is because…

2. …said laws force unions, interest groups, and corporations, who, having had their free speech taken away, now must instead go only through these shady vehicles called PACs, where they can pretend they are a “concerned independent group” instead of who they actually are.  Don’t worry!  The PACs are bound by “donation limits”, which means…

3. …incumbents with lots of money and connections are essentially the only ones who can handle the volume of individual donations, PACs and “bundlers” necessary to evade the “donation limits”.  See the scam? But then…

4. The SC said the whole thing is yet another progressive farce in Citizen United and violates the First Amendment anyway (a position also supported by those rare constitutional liberals like Glenn Greenwald IIRC).  Unions and corporations can contribute as much as they want.  But then…

5.  The DC Circuit rules in Speechnow v. FEC that Citizens United obviously (and unfortunately) then has to apply to the PACs, so those corrupt vehicles created by Big Government now become Super PACs.  (Funny how you and Chunk Slobb left this little fact out, btw, or maybe you both are that clueless).  

So in short, the rats at Big Government attacks free speech and creates the PACs to benefit themselves, the SC upholds free speech, but the rats continue to abuse their own laws written specifically to abuse them.  The obvious answer is to get rid of these ridiculous PACs once and for all and let people instead stand by their free speech.

BTW, looking forward to your article on Obama when he eventually uses his $1B to crush the Republican nominee through his own Super PACs.

In essence Newt has revealed the truth about our elections – its millionaires using their money to run ads to elect whomever they choose to.  The country is run by millionaires for millionaires.

I don’t think “hilarious” means what you think it does. Otherwise you’d be suffering paroxyms and gasping like a fish every time a cloud passed over the sun or a parrot burped. Okay the parrot burping would be pretty funny but I think you get the gist of my drift.

·         I really hate “sour Grapes” and Newt has the worst, ill-mannered tact of anyone I’ve ever known. With his history there was no way he had a chance of surviving beyond Iowa. He earned the scorn directed toward him. Some of us “remember back when”.It is time to go home and get over it.Besides a leaning to Moderate Republican is the only candidate that will be acceptable to the general population. Extreme right-wind reps need to wise up and start thinking about getting Obama beaten in Nov.

This only goes to show how stupid Gingrich really is. Citizens United is EXACTLY what this allows. Only now that the tables are turned on this idiot, he doesn’t like it. Republicans are the greatest group of whiners well, ever.

Well, spaceboy, what;s clear is you just don’t get Citizens United. No matter how much you try to deny it, this is the current version of Swift Boating. And all of a sudden, Newtie doesn’t like it. Waaaah.

And, for the record, your final statement makes 0 sense. You’re forgetting that the $1bn raised by our President was mostly from grassroots … hardly a superpac. Idiot.

Very poor analogy.  More like it’s the gun that shot me…not the man.

You ain’t seen nothin’ yet…wait until Obama’s PACs get going.  Then you’ll see blood!

Of course if that PAC said anything that really wasn’t true…..But then again, Newt is his own worst enemy and clearly doesn’t have the temperament to be president.  If you can’t stand the heat, then…well, you know the rest.

Of course this is a Tommy article.  What the hell does Citizens United have to do with Gingrich complaining of a negative campaign against him?  Is Tommy dense enough to believe negative campaigns by third party groups didn’t exist since the beginning of friggin time?

 The smartest guy in the room is such a moron.

There’s a pretty strong argument to be made that corporate persons, in the sense that they are legal fictions, should not benefit from rights reserved for people in the biological sense.

A corporation is made up of people, but that does not make it a person.  And I’m fairly certain that the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not intend on those certain unalienable rights to be applied to legal constructs.

How can he say yes, when he supported Citizens United. Payback is a bitch Newt. You wanted to haul in judges with whose decisions you don’t agree with. I’ll bet if the Justice Roberts leaned left, he would propose to haul him in.

…which would mean that newspapers, news networks, magazine publishers, this website, charitable organizations, religious organizations and labor unions have no free speech rights. 

I can’t remember the last time I saw so much ignorance and lying packed into two short paragraphs.

Wow, Tommy, I had no idea that negative ads from third party groups didn’t exist before Citizens United.  Thanks for clearing that up.

That might be true if unions, newspapers, etc., etc. claimed to be individals as was claimed by the Repubican Supreme Court.

Let’s see here, Newt has made a career (and gotten wealthy) out of peddling influence and access to Washington to the rich and powerful, A bunch of rich and powerful people get together using a bought and paid for Supreme Court decision to derail his campaign. Looks like poetic justice to me.

Look who produced the documentary Newt & Calista’s Gingrich production company coproduced  http://www.ninedaysthatchangedtheworld.com/ - scroll to the bottom of the page on the right