The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
Well, naturally I must assume Justabubba is more learned about the Constitution than five people whose entire lives have been dedicated to its study...
A good day for those that are against government censorship
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
I'd love to hear an explanation for how this decision will corrupt politics in a way that it's not already corrupted, as opposed to your ignorant pronunciations on issues you clearly don't understand.How does our current system prevent this?
If I have a few billion to burn, I create a 501(c)(4) called RightinNYC Solutions. I then give that 501(c)(4) as much as I want, and send it out there to spread my message. All I have to do is couch my message in terms of "voter education" or "issue advocacy."
Come election season, I set up a PAC called RightinNYC Advocacy. Although this one isn't a 501(c)(4), it has the freedom to advocate for actual candidates by name. There are some funding restrictions on it, but I just use the 501(c)(4) to get out the concepts and this one to drive home the points.
If that's not enough, I can just set up a 527 called RightinNYC Principles. I can fund this one as freely as I fund my 501(c)(4), so the donation limits don't come into play. The only restriction on this group is that I don't use a particular set of magic words in my ads. Other than that, I can do whatever I want.
The primary effect of the current campaign finance structure is to mislead the public into believing that we've limited the impact of special interests in politics and to make it difficult for all but the obscenely wealthy to have truly free speech.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that allows massive sums to be spent to influence future elections.
The 5-4 ruling split the high court along conservative and liberal lines. It was a defeat for the Obama administration and supporters of campaign finance laws who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system.
This is the greatest case of SCOTUS incompetence I have ever seen.
Lets all give the cluess assholes who voted to alllow the corporate buyoff of the government a big hand. The justices responsible for voting "yes" on this issue (probably republicans) needs to be removed from office.
This country just lost key liberty and no longer has free and fair elections.
The SCOTUS ... what a bunch of ****ing imbeciles.
2. POlitics and business DO NOT mix. This is a bad idea because it means people with money make the law and poor people get stuck living with it. There is no longer any chance of a fair election. Now businesses will be buying off politics right and left... in a wholesale fashion.
There are already too damn many sellouts in the house and in the senate. Now the corporate scum in this country can buy off the government wholesale.