Article: Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits - WSJ
Supreme Court opinion: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Dissent starts on page 88.
I’m a conservative who leans with the dissent. Corporations do not vote, do not run for office, and can be run by non-voters and non-residents. I’d much rather have 0 special interest money than no hold barred.
[quote]msd0060 wrote:
Article: Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits - WSJ
Supreme Court opinion: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Dissent starts on page 88.
I’m a conservative who leans with the dissent. Corporations do not vote, do not run for office, and can be run by non-voters and non-residents. I’d much rather have 0 special interest money than no hold barred.[/quote]
Do news programs report on what nut job foreign leaders have to say about US politics? Are books or magazines sold in US that give foreign opinion or support of particular US policy? Should we do away with these? How about anything written or said by others that are citizens but cannot vote?
There is no shortage of special interest money in politics. Maybe only the special interests with financial, legal, and organizational resources of george soros should be able to contribute?
This may not be the end of the world, but it is the end of the United States, at least the end of it as a democratic republic. It took 60+ years, but the fascists won. Now what?
[quote]raybbaby wrote:
This may not be the end of the world, but it is the end of the United States, at least the end of it as a democratic republic. It took 60+ years, but the fascists won. Now what? [/quote]
This may very well be true, but the current USSC decision has nothing to do with it.
One of the worst decisions ever made. Watch this clip starting around 9:27:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june10/sb_01-22.html
Transcript below, starting with:
“MARK SHIELDS: Yes. No, it is – I’m serious – this is big-time. It really is. And the – just the presence of that kind of money, why would anybody volunteer in a campaign?”
And now the multi billion dollar conglomerates can buy their way into office and rape America. Oh Wait…It’s been happening already. But now it will be in the open.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
And now the multi billion dollar conglomerates can buy their way into office and rape America. Oh Wait…It’s been happening already. But now it will be in the open. [/quote]
What’s worse, is that there was an attempt to actually stop it, and it failed. Before, no one bothered to do anything about it, until now. So now we will see political office held by the highest bidder.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
And now the multi billion dollar conglomerates can buy their way into office and rape America. Oh Wait…It’s been happening already. But now it will be in the open. [/quote]
Precisely. Nothing will change. It’s not corporate money that is the problem. It’s politicians who auction off their principals.
I don’t see the harm in corporations supporting candidates that openly support a particular policy. We’ve already seen the most influential form of this with corporations like ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, FOX, or pick your favorite publisher. These are all corporate interests that obviously support specific political campaigns or agendas. Why are they special? Why to they get to speak for the rest of us?
Everyone has the option of voting or not voting for a candidate. The problem is that most of us would never be able to trace much of the money that is spent on campaigns back to a particular interest or company.
The Shadow Party is a very interesting read. Slanted or not, it provides quite a bit of detail on G Soros and the network of organizations he has built to move money to political campaigns. This decision merely opens the kimono on this spending. Special interests could continue to hide political contributions if they like, but the option to simplify the process should provide a bit more openness.
[quote]msd0060 wrote:
Article: Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits - WSJ
Supreme Court opinion: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Dissent starts on page 88.
I’m a conservative who leans with the dissent. Corporations do not vote, do not run for office, and can be run by non-voters and non-residents. I’d much rather have 0 special interest money than no hold barred.[/quote]
A union is an entity which does not vote, do not run for office and can be run by non-voters and non-residents but they can donate what they want to political campaigns.
I applaud this decision. The only thing left to do now is remove all caps on personal donations.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
[quote]Gregus wrote:
And now the multi billion dollar conglomerates can buy their way into office and rape America. Oh Wait…It’s been happening already. But now it will be in the open. [/quote]
Precisely. Nothing will change. It’s not corporate money that is the problem. It’s politicians who auction off their principals.
I don’t see the harm in corporations supporting candidates that openly support a particular policy. We’ve already seen the most influential form of this with corporations like ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, FOX, or pick your favorite publisher. These are all corporate interests that obviously support specific political campaigns or agendas. Why are they special? Why to they get to speak for the rest of us?
Everyone has the option of voting or not voting for a candidate. The problem is that most of us would never be able to trace much of the money that is spent on campaigns back to a particular interest or company.
The Shadow Party is a very interesting read. Slanted or not, it provides quite a bit of detail on G Soros and the network of organizations he has built to move money to political campaigns. This decision merely opens the kimono on this spending. Special interests could continue to hide political contributions if they like, but the option to simplify the process should provide a bit more openness.
[/quote]
I agree. I think it’s great that our buddy Hugo Chavez will be able to funnel millions of dollars of cash through Citgo to whoever he thinks he can buy. And Honda, Hyundai, Chery, Fiat and VW will be able to buy their own earmarks now.
Yippee!
[quote]tme wrote:
[quote]dhickey wrote:
[quote]Gregus wrote:
And now the multi billion dollar conglomerates can buy their way into office and rape America. Oh Wait…It’s been happening already. But now it will be in the open. [/quote]
Precisely. Nothing will change. It’s not corporate money that is the problem. It’s politicians who auction off their principals.
I don’t see the harm in corporations supporting candidates that openly support a particular policy. We’ve already seen the most influential form of this with corporations like ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, FOX, or pick your favorite publisher. These are all corporate interests that obviously support specific political campaigns or agendas. Why are they special? Why to they get to speak for the rest of us?
Everyone has the option of voting or not voting for a candidate. The problem is that most of us would never be able to trace much of the money that is spent on campaigns back to a particular interest or company.
The Shadow Party is a very interesting read. Slanted or not, it provides quite a bit of detail on G Soros and the network of organizations he has built to move money to political campaigns. This decision merely opens the kimono on this spending. Special interests could continue to hide political contributions if they like, but the option to simplify the process should provide a bit more openness.
[/quote]
I agree. I think it’s great that our buddy Hugo Chavez will be able to funnel millions of dollars of cash through Citgo to whoever he thinks he can buy. And Honda, Hyundai, Chery, Fiat and VW will be able to buy their own earmarks now.
Yippee!
[/quote]
And how many have funneled money through the big unions to influence elections? Is that okay? If so how come?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And how many have funneled money through the big unions to influence elections? Is that okay? If so how come?
[/quote]
You’re right of course.
Union == all that is evil.
Corporation == all that is good and shiny.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Gregus wrote:
And now the multi billion dollar conglomerates can buy their way into office and rape America. Oh Wait…It’s been happening already. But now it will be in the open. [/quote]
What’s worse, is that there was an attempt to actually stop it, and it failed. Before, no one bothered to do anything about it, until now. So now we will see political office held by the highest bidder.[/quote]
It’s the American way…
[quote]tme wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And how many have funneled money through the big unions to influence elections? Is that okay? If so how come?
[/quote]
You’re right of course.
Union == all that is evil.
Corporation == all that is good and shiny.
[/quote]
Although I am particularly a fan of most unions either, they certainly don’t have the kinds of money at their disposal that corporations do.
This bill was designed to silence groups like the NRA primarily. I agree with the decision, but I’m a life NRA member. It allows groups like us to take out political adds, so why is that a problem? We don’t have the right to be heard?
[quote]tme wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And how many have funneled money through the big unions to influence elections? Is that okay? If so how come?
[/quote]
You’re right of course.
Union == all that is evil.
Corporation == all that is good and shiny.
[/quote]
As far as good and evil, Unions = Corporations. Both are self serving as they should be.
[quote]tme wrote:
[quote]dhickey wrote:
[quote]Gregus wrote:
And now the multi billion dollar conglomerates can buy their way into office and rape America. Oh Wait…It’s been happening already. But now it will be in the open. [/quote]
Precisely. Nothing will change. It’s not corporate money that is the problem. It’s politicians who auction off their principals.
I don’t see the harm in corporations supporting candidates that openly support a particular policy. We’ve already seen the most influential form of this with corporations like ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, FOX, or pick your favorite publisher. These are all corporate interests that obviously support specific political campaigns or agendas. Why are they special? Why to they get to speak for the rest of us?
Everyone has the option of voting or not voting for a candidate. The problem is that most of us would never be able to trace much of the money that is spent on campaigns back to a particular interest or company.
The Shadow Party is a very interesting read. Slanted or not, it provides quite a bit of detail on G Soros and the network of organizations he has built to move money to political campaigns. This decision merely opens the kimono on this spending. Special interests could continue to hide political contributions if they like, but the option to simplify the process should provide a bit more openness.
[/quote]
I agree. I think it’s great that our buddy Hugo Chavez will be able to funnel millions of dollars of cash through Citgo to whoever he thinks he can buy. And Honda, Hyundai, Chery, Fiat and VW will be able to buy their own earmarks now.
Yippee!
[/quote]
What was stopping him before this decision? Why do we care? Dollars don’t vote. If TV and radio adds are what you base your vote on, maybe you shouldn’t be voting. The fact that you are unable to think this through, tells a lot. Maybe the SC will product a TV add that will change your mind about the decision. Whether it works or not, point made.
Maybe you are concerned with other uneducated voter? Why is it ok for corporations like NYT, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc. to shape their opinion but not the complany that hires them? Wouldn’t you be a bit more interested in how a particular policy or platform will effect your employment, than what Kieth Olberman or Shawn Hannity think of it? Why do they get to be on the air waves up until election time? Corporations can run adds during these programs, but they have to let the talking heads to the talking? Seems silly and arbitrary to me.
[quote]tme wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And how many have funneled money through the big unions to influence elections? Is that okay? If so how come?
[/quote]
You’re right of course.
Union == all that is evil.
Corporation == all that is good and shiny.
[/quote]
Good straw man, and nice way to avoid my point.
My point is that both should have equal access or neither.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]tme wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And how many have funneled money through the big unions to influence elections? Is that okay? If so how come?
[/quote]
You’re right of course.
Union == all that is evil.
Corporation == all that is good and shiny.
[/quote]
Although I am particularly a fan of most unions either, they certainly don’t have the kinds of money at their disposal that corporations do.[/quote]
No, they have much more than the average corporation.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]tme wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And how many have funneled money through the big unions to influence elections? Is that okay? If so how come?
[/quote]
You’re right of course.
Union == all that is evil.
Corporation == all that is good and shiny.
[/quote]
Although I am particularly a fan of most unions either, they certainly don’t have the kinds of money at their disposal that corporations do.[/quote]
Even if that was the case, so what? Just because everyone isn’t equal means that you have to put them on the same playing grounds? Sounds like Communism to me. I am all for this decision. Corporations can now run ADS advocating a candidate. Like dhickey said, how is this any different from the news companies he mentioned expressing their own opinion? It is still up to the VOTERS to do their own goddamn research (I wish that were the case) and vote.