Page 14 of 105 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 1049

Thread: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

  1. #131
    User Queen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    05-26-10 @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    98

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Winnb View Post
    It's also a huge victory for unions. They're now free to spend even more money backing their candidates. How many of those candidates do you think will be Republicans?

    Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits - WSJ.com
    Comparing the money the unions have to spend on campaigns to the money corporations have to spend on campaigns is like comparing one penny to ten thousand dollars.
    Enough with the dirty, deadly and disgusting oil and coal. Let's get clean, let's go green. Enough is enough!!

  2. #132
    User Queen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    05-26-10 @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    98

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    They voted today and gave corporations the right to give unlimited $$$$$ to political campaigns.

    There will no longer be the Senator from Kansas or the congressperson from Wyoming or the Governor of New York. We will have the Senator from EXXON and the representative from Bank of America and the Governor of Pfizer.

    In 1907 congress banned corporations from donating to campaigns. The 5 conservative judges overthrew these laws without precedent.

    You think our government is corrupt now? Here comes the US of Big Business. Goodbye America.

    The only hope is if this congress can pass laws to stop this corporate interference and control of our government. Florida Democratic Representative Alan Grayson has 5 bills in congress right now. Let's hope they get passed. Obama is against this ruling.

    Iowa Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell has an amendment to the constitution to negate this ruling.

    Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) is also promising legislation.

    If this congress doesn't do it, the next one will have more bought and paid for politicians and it will get worse every election year until the whole government is completely bought and paid for.

    Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he's going to hold hearings on the impact off this ruling.

    Dems Consider New Laws in Response to Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

    Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

    President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

    This is very scary. Can the Democrats fight this off? They have been pretty wimpy so far.

    Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending - NYTimes.com
    Enough with the dirty, deadly and disgusting oil and coal. Let's get clean, let's go green. Enough is enough!!

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    University of San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-14-11 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    672
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    There will no longer be the Senator from Kansas or the congressperson from Wyoming or the Governor of New York. We will have the Senator from EXXON and the representative from Bank of America and the Governor of Pfizer.
    This would have sounded better if you had not acted as if you made that up yourself.

    And really, aren't you blowing this a tad out of proportion?

  4. #134
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    In 1907 congress banned corporations from donating to campaigns. The 5 conservative judges overthrew these laws without precedent.
    But that would mean they used judicial activism, and we all know that judges only use judicial activism when they make decisions that liberals agree with!!!

  5. #135
    Educator Winnb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-22-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    822

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    Comparing the money the unions have to spend on campaigns to the money corporations have to spend on campaigns is like comparing one penny to ten thousand dollars.

    On many occasions Democrats have received far more in campaign contributions than Republicans. Granted corporations now have (imo) an advantage. But we'll have to see how the numbers turn out.

    I'll gladly concede that we will see unprecedented levels of money funneling into campaign coffers and every other coffer in politics.

    It's gonna be nuts.
    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

    -------------------------------------------------

  6. #136
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    But that would mean they used judicial activism, and we all know that judges only use judicial activism when they make decisions that liberals agree with!!!
    Wrong, they used the constitution.........We could have never got this done without President Bush putting 2 conservatiive justices on the SCOTUS........
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    They voted today and gave corporations the right to give unlimited $$$$$ to political campaigns.
    No.

    They restored that right. The law was a violation of the First Amendment.

    You know, the thing the stands in the way of the Fairness Doctrine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    There will no longer be the Senator from Kansas or the congressperson from Wyoming or the Governor of New York. We will have the Senator from EXXON and the representative from Bank of America and the Governor of Pfizer.
    And maybe the Senator From Exxon won't hold meeting at midnight excluding the opposition party and having critical health care votes in private in Christmas Eve, and maybe C-SPAN will get to see what's going on for a "change".

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    In 1907 congress banned corporations from donating to campaigns. The 5 conservative judges overthrew these laws without precedent.
    In 1907 the Congress violated the First Amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    You think our government is corrupt now?
    No.

    I know it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    The only hope is if this congress can pass laws to stop this corporate interference and control of our government. Florida Democratic Representative Alan Grayson has 5 bills in congress right now. Let's hope they get passed. Obama is against this ruling.
    THE MESSIAH opposes this ruling! GASP! That must mean it's absolutely wonderful for freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    Iowa Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell has an amendment to the constitution to negate this ruling.
    Fat chance of that passing. Amendments that nullify the First Amendment don't go far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) is also promising legislation.
    It was his crappy law that violated the First Amendment in the first place. How'd he get re-elected? Don't Democrats care about freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    If this congress doesn't do it, the next one will have more bought and paid for politicians and it will get worse every election year until the whole government is completely bought and paid for.
    You mean the government might stop listening to the people and start passing health care plans EVERY Christmas Eve?

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he's going to hold hearings on the impact off this ruling.
    Since we have major deficits, can he use his own money and do this on his own time?

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
    See?

    With those guys on the Democrats' side, it's no wonder they didn't vote to support the First Amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    President Obama called it a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.
    He needs a teleprompter that defends the First Amendment, not his party.

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    This is very scary. Can the Democrats fight this off? They have been pretty wimpy so far.
    Yes, the Democrats have long been foes of the First Amendment, let's hope they'll continue their recent string of failures well into the next millenium.

  8. #138
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Wrong, they used the constitution.........We could have never got this done without President Bush putting 2 conservatiive justices on the SCOTUS........
    Ooh, snap! You got me! (By completely ignoring what "judicial activism" means of course.)

    I'll try again.

    When the court ignores 100 years of precedent and makes a decision based on the exact same Constitution that existed back then, they are MAKING LAW, not interpreting the Constitution. They are using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, not judicial restraint. They are throwing out the will of the people (through the laws passed by the people) and replacing it with their own personal opinions.

    I thought you conservatives hated that.

    But, as we can clearly see, you only hate it when they do that and come up with a decision you don't like.

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Ooh, snap! You got me! (By completely ignoring what "judicial activism" means of course.)

    I'll try again.

    When the court ignores 100 years of precedent and makes a decision based on the exact same Constitution that existed back then, they are MAKING LAW, not interpreting the Constitution. They are using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, not judicial restraint. They are throwing out the will of the people (through the laws passed by the people) and replacing it with their own personal opinions.

    I thought you conservatives hated that.

    But, as we can clearly see, you only hate it when they do that and come up with a decision you don't like.
    "Judicial activism"...OH! You mean like how Brown vs Board of Edumacation overturned existing laws passed by Congress and reasserted the supremacy of the Constitution.

    Since the First Amendment dominates any law passed by Congress, explain how it was "activist" for the Court to say the law violated the First Amendment and hence was not allowed.

    You're not tyring to argue that because a law was passed in 1907 that the Constitution is nullified, are you?

  10. #140
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    "Judicial activism"...OH! You mean like how Brown vs Board of Edumacation overturned existing laws passed by Congress and reasserted the supremacy of the Constitution.

    Since the First Amendment dominates any law passed by Congress, explain how it was "activist" for the Court to say the law violated the First Amendment and hence was not allowed.

    You're not tyring to argue that because a law was passed in 1907 that the Constitution is nullified, are you?
    Thank you for proving my point! I appreciate it!

Page 14 of 105 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •