• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Can you tell me which "the good guys" were having their rights repressed prior to this decision?

The people who wanted to use their money to help their candidate.

You know, it's that First Amendment thingy. Some people like it.

The good guys like it, for example.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Can you tell me which "the good guys" were having their rights repressed prior to this decision?

Read the decision and you might find out...........That is what I did.......
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Its called freedom of speech my left wing friend..You leftys are all he time quoting the first amendment......What is the matter????:rofl

Um yeah. I think you missed my point. Or you just ignored it. Perhaps it was too subtle...
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Before this rule change it was like the Olympics when the Commies were involved.

No professionals could compete, and of course the Commies had none, so they had free reign. They trained like professionals in every way. The decks were stacked.

Well, the unions now have competition, and what a wonderful thing it will be to have money pouring in from those who love the free market.

What a week:

Senator Brown.
Air America tanks.
SCOTUS Ruling on McCain/Feingold.
Healthcare vote dead.

Is it Christmas again already!?

.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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.
 
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
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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!!!
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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........
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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.

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".

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.

You think our government is corrupt now?

No.

I know it is.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

"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! :)
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

The people who wanted to use their money to help their candidate.

You know, it's that First Amendment thingy. Some people like it.

The good guys like it, for example.

Really? People?

You think this ruling had anything to do with people?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Thank you for proving my point! I appreciate it! :)

If your point was that the decision invalidating McCain-Feingold was not judicial activism, then you're welcome.

If you point was something else, then you're wrong.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Really? People?

You think this ruling had anything to do with people?

That's the key right there.

The Constitution protects people. That's the exact word that is used in the 14th amendment.

Corporations are NOT 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.

That's what makes this decision judicial activism. It goes against the intent of the framers (who certainly did NOT make corporations "people"). It goes against 100 years of law made by the people. And it replaces the will of the people with 5 justices' opinion.

Corporations are not people. They can't vote. They can't run for office. And many of them are not even American.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

That's the key right there.

The Constitution protects people. That's the exact word that is used in the 14th amendment.

Corporations are NOT 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.

That's what makes this decision judicial activism. It goes against the intent of the framers (who certainly did NOT make corporations "people"). It goes against 100 years of law made by the people. And it replaces the will of the people with 5 justices' opinion.

Corporations are not people. They can't vote. They can't run for office. And many of them are not even American.

Yes. I.M.O., this is a catastrophe for democracy. It is simply hard to believe that any self-described "conservative' can call this a victory for free speech.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

If your point was that the decision invalidating McCain-Feingold was not judicial activism, then you're welcome.

If you point was something else, then you're wrong.

My point was that if you agree with a decision, you don't think it's judicial activism when it CLEARLY fits the criteria, and you'll find some roundabout way to explain why the decision isn't -- whereas if the decision had been a liberal one, many of you would be screaming to high heaven about how the Court is out of control and is overturning the will of the people and blah blah blah.

Here, how's this: If the court were to decide tomorrow that the "people" in the 14th amendment included gays, how would you feel? They would be making that decision despite the will of the people obviously, as passed by legislation. Would you think that would be judicial activism?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I would like for you to answer the question, in your own words.

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..........
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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.

Heh, welcome to the last 100 years. :lol:
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Yes, amazingly, there no corporations anywhere owned and run by either dolphins or robots.

How does restricting the ability of corporations to get involved in politics restrict the ability of individual citizens to get involved in politics?

Answer: It doesn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom