No limits. However much money they can manage.
Up to 100 million dollars
up to 50 million dollars
Up to 10 million dollars
Up to 1 million dollars
Up to 500K
Up to 100K
Up to 50K
Up to $200
NONE. All political campaigns should be grassroots with money ONLY from the people
Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.But glad to see you're such a devoted follower of GW Bush.
And the alternative:Bushie imposed tariffs on steel, to "protect" American steel workers.
This raised the price of steel, and steel is used in almost every manufactured good in the country.
So the prices of all manufactured goods went up.
When prices go up, people buy less.
When people buy less, companies make less or don't expand.
Aren't tariffs wonderful?
We don't impose tariffs so it's cheaper to make it elsewhere.
When it's made elsewhere we lose jobs.
When people have no jobs they don't buy things.
When people don't buy things, companies go out of business and employ NO ONE.
The cost of goods might very well increase and people will buy less but at least WE, the USA are in control of the process.
Yes, the price of steel went up. Maybe it was too low because we outsourced it.
There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.
Originally Posted by PogueMoran
I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.
Corporations have been banned from giving money from their treasuries to political candidates since 1903. They are still banned from doing that.
Corporations can sponsor political action committees, which take voluntary contributions from employees, stockholders, etc. and give that money to candidates, but only up to certain limits (usually 10K per election).
The Supreme Court's recent decision didn't change any of the above. The decision affected money that corporations spend directly on speech - buying ads, etc. - that talk about elections. It didn't touch campaign contributions.
And it's illegal for a politician to just go ask someone to buy them an ad, or anything else.
Okay, carry on.
What sense is there in imposing taxes that hurt the economy?
Outside of playing favoritism on the political scene?
The goonion fish cleaners in the American tuna industry were demanding $15 an hour to clean fish. Guamanians were willing to clean fish for a hell of a lot less. Goonions priced themselves out of work, the housewives that made tuna benefitted. So did their kids.
You people suddenly object to the concept of "the greatest good for the greatest number" when it means your goonions aren't benefitted?
What a big surprise there.
Levi Strauss closed it's pants factory in Georgia. Some broad whose only skill was zipper attachment was put out of work. All broads buying jeans saved money. The zipper lady should have learned a more marketable skill.
So you're saying that all the companies that produced products with steel in them would have gone out of business if Bushy hadn't imposed the tariffs?