Page 16 of 105 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 1049

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

  1. #151
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I am not going to do your work for you.......Lets just say this ruling levels the playing field when it comes to contributions to a candidate..............If your not smart enough to figure that out its on you..........
    So you can't answer the question. Fair enough.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  2. #152
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,503

    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.

    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
    Siiiiiiigh.

    Exactly like it all was before 2002, right?

    You people say this like it's a century-old law and now that it's gone, it's a new frontier.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  3. #153
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,503

    Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    I agree with you there. McCain/Feingold needed to be scrapped. It only got passed because the Reiche-wing controlled the house and the senate at the time.
    Oh my GOD, Magnum, you make no sense.

    You started a thread with your typical "ALL THESE TRAITORS NEED TO BE KILLED!!!!!!!!!!! KILLED DEAD!!!!!!!!!" becuase the Supreme Court "scrapped" McCain-Feingold, and now you're saying "McCain-Feingold needed to be scrapped."
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #154
    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 Groucho View Post
    The Constitution protects people.
    I'm fairly certain the Constitution protects "inalienable rights," but hey; I could be wrong. The rights, in turn, do protect individuals from government overreach. But there's a large distinction between a document which aims to protect "the people," and one that aim to protect liberty.

    Corporations are NOT people.
    Aren't they merely a group of people?

    They have certain rights based on previous decisions (such as the right to due process if sued) but never never have they been given ALL of the rights in the Constitution.
    Of course not. But being able to express yourself politically is one of the essential ones, right? It makes no sense to negate certain rights merely because they are being used by many people on a large scale.

    That's what makes this decision judicial activism. It goes against the intent of the framers (who certainly did NOT make corporations "people").
    Judging by the 3/5ths compromise, I'm willing to admit the Founding Father's were not the most astute bunch at deeming what constitutes "the people." But that's a side matter completely

    It goes against 100 years of law made by the people.
    That 100 years then goes against the previous 100+ years where there was no action taken against free associations.

    And it replaces the will of the people with 5 justices' opinion.
    Do you have a poll for that?
    Last edited by Areopagitican; 01-21-10 at 11:56 PM.

  5. #155
    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 Areopagitican View Post
    Aren't they merely a group of people?
    No, not really; not in the same sense that, say, a church or a political action group is. A corporation is a legal entity that is answerable to stockholders and a bottom line and may not even be held by Americans. Face it, American elections may be decided largely by money from China and the Middle East from now on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Areopagitican View Post
    Of course not. But being able to express yourself politically is one of the essential ones, right? It makes no sense to negate certain rights merely because they are being used by many people on a large scale.
    Many corporations worth billions of dollars are privately held and owned.

    I dunno, I just can't understand how a fictional creation can ever be considered a "person" -- especially one that can be taken over by another fictional creation, dissolved, reorganized, and formed into a monopoly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Areopagitican View Post
    Judging by the 3/5ths compromise, I'm willing to admit the Founding Father's were not the most astute bunch at deeming what constitutes "the people." But that's a side matter completely
    I'd be willing to bet that Benjamin Franklin didn't consider his printing press business a "person."

    Quote Originally Posted by Areopagitican View Post
    That 100 years then goes against the previous 100+ years where there was no action taken against free associations.
    There was not a need then; campaigns were cheaper, businesses mostly stayed out of it (at first), and there were no huge corporations of the kind that later developed.

    We need a Teddy Roosevelt populist now.

    Seriously, it amazes me that huge businesses have destroyed our economy, increased the distance between rich and poor in America, made health care unaffordable for many, moved the businesses overseas and taken away our jobs, been full of corruption and crime, bought off politician after politician -- and people want to give them even more power over us.

    "We support our great overlords!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Areopagitican View Post
    Do you have a poll for that?
    I was referring to our laws, passed by our elected representatives, which is the "will of the people" is it not?

  6. #156
    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 Areopagitican View Post
    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?
    Really? Who are you claiming said it first?

    No I'm not blowing this out of proportion.

    The corporations will be buying our politicians. The ones that aren't already bought and paid for will be pushed out with hundreds of billions of dollars. If a pol doesn't vote the way the corporation wants, they will be run out of office by a puppet who will, with unlimited funding.
    Enough with the dirty, deadly and disgusting oil and coal. Let's get clean, let's go green. Enough is enough!!

  7. #157
    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
    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.
    It won't matter anymore whether a politician calls himself a Dem or a Repub. It will only matter which corporation owns him.
    Enough with the dirty, deadly and disgusting oil and coal. Let's get clean, let's go green. Enough is enough!!

  8. #158
    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 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........
    I know. It's sickening how conservatives are so pro billionaire and so anti-regular middle class American.

    Why would any non-millionaire be a conservative anymore? I have no idea.
    Enough with the dirty, deadly and disgusting oil and coal. Let's get clean, let's go green. Enough is enough!!

  9. #159
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

    rolleyes Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    The corporations will be buying our politicians. The ones that aren't already bought and paid for will be pushed out with hundreds of billions of dollars. If a pol doesn't vote the way the corporation wants, they will be run out of office by a puppet who will, with unlimited funding.
    This already happens. It happened before CFR. It happened after CFR. The one and only way to stop this is to reduce the size and scope of government, but since neither left nor right are interested in this, you might as well get used to the concept of your government being in the pocket of the people with the most money.

    Seriously, wake the **** up. There's nothing new about any of this.

  10. #160
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post



    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".



    In 1907 the Congress violated the First Amendment.


    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.

    You really think the Senator from EXXON will have open door meetings? LOL!!! What went on at those Big Oil meetings with Cheney that we weren't allowed to even see the guest list?

    Please. That's just silly.

    In 1907 congress passed a law that gave the power to the people.

    In 2010 the Supreme Court took that power away from the people and gave it to the corporations.

    Democrats love the first amendment. We just don't agree that a corporation is a person. We think people have skin and bones and get sick and have organs and blood and fall in love and die. Corporations don't do any of these things.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1st amendment
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    There's no part of this that democrats are against.
    Enough with the dirty, deadly and disgusting oil and coal. Let's get clean, let's go green. Enough is enough!!

Page 16 of 105 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666 ... 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
  •