Court decision opens new avenues for corporate political spending

[Crabtownboy]

I don't like activist courts, and that's precisely why I applaud the overturning of McCain Feingold. And you'll have to point out the "liberalness" of my opinion. I don't see campaign finance addressed, in the constitution. I do see a freedom of speech.

Overturning previous supreme court decisions is activism and making new law. I think you are very liberal in this case.

This court also gave the most activist decision in our history when it allowed doing away with habis corpus under Bush in certain cases. I remember a cartoon showing a judge stomping on 700 years of previous decisions, both here and in England. You can hardly be more activist when you overturn 700 years of precidence.

If you support this court you are supporting activism to the highest degree.

This decision has basically taken the individual out of campaigns. This can hardly be called anything other than very liberal.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I see all kinds of danger in uncontrolled corporate spending.

Can't you just imagine something like the Pfizer Drug Act of 2011?

 

[Crabtownboy]

I see all kinds of danger in uncontrolled corporate spending.

Can't you just imagine something like the Pfizer Drug Act of 2011?

The NRA Act of 1912 making it illegal not to own a rifle or shotgun.

Seriously, this will make politicians even more the pawn of big business, unions, etc. and less responsible to the citizens. I've been accused of being liberal. On this one those who defend the court are very liberal.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The NRA Act of 1912 making it illegal not to own a rifle or shotgun.

Or 2012 even

The Planned Parenthood Freedom of Choice Act of 2013 requiring state examination of any woman pregnant with a 3rd of consecutive child to determine if she is fit to have more children.

 

[targus]

Talk about hysterics and hyperbole! :laugh::laugh:

Crabby, if you think that the sky is falling try wearing a hard hat.:laugh::laugh:

 

[Crabtownboy]

Talk about hysterics and hyperbole! :laugh::laugh:

Crabby, if you think that the sky is falling try wearing a hard hat.:laugh::laugh:

Do you not recognize humor with a serious undertone?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

It's crazy to say that corporations, as legal fictions, have the same speech rights as real flesh and blood people. At the same time, there should be some outlet for their interests in elections. I'm not sure what the answer is, but this ruling will just make it easier for corporations, including foreign ones, to put undue influence on politicians.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It's crazy to say that corporations, as legal fictions, have the same speech rights as real flesh and blood people. At the same time, there should be some outlet for their interests in elections. I'm not sure what the answer is, but this ruling will just make it easier for corporations, including foreign ones, to put undue influence on politicians.

Very good point about foreign corporations. They and multi-nationals will gain great influence on politicians. I doubt that anyone would say that such companies have the good of the average American at heart.

 

[targus]

It's crazy to say that corporations, as legal fictions, have the same speech rights as real flesh and blood people. At the same time, there should be some outlet for their interests in elections. I'm not sure what the answer is, but this ruling will just make it easier for corporations, including foreign ones, to put undue influence on politicians.

As I said earlier, you need to look at the history of the democrats.

It was a democrat President (Bill Clinton) that financed his campaigns with money from Chinese Communists.

 

[just-want-peace]

CTB sez:

Another is what about blatant political lies? What should be done when they are discovered? The Internet has fostered such lies. You know regardless of how outlandish a statement or accusation is when it is made there is a certain percentage of people who will believe it.

Of course you are talking about things like the Ds contention back in (I think) '94 that all the Republicans wanted to force Grandma out on the street and eat dog food, are you not??
And why stop with lies; what about threats? Remember when the bald (expletive) crony of the Cliinton's said that somebody "--ought to shoot Ken Starr's kneecaps off!"?

CTB sez:

Overturning previous supreme court decisions is activism and making new law. I think you are very liberal in this case.

When "activism" creates the law, I guess you could stretch the point and say that reversing that law is "activism" also - tho' very iffy.

 

[Crabtownboy]

CTB sez:When "activism" creates the law, I guess you could stretch the point and say that reversing that law is "activism" also - tho' very iffy.

Every sitting justice said in their testamony before congress that precedence is extremely important ... and yet this group overturned 700 years of percedence and now have overturned precedence again. Did they lie to Congress?

The bottom line of this decision is they have basically taken the 'common man' of of the picture in campaign financing. I think that is very dangerous to our welfare.

 

[targus]

Every sitting justice said in their testamony before congress that precedence is extremely important ... and yet this group overturned 700 years of percedence and now have overturned precedence again. Did they lie to Congress?

The bottom line of this decision is they have basically taken the 'common man' of of the picture in campaign financing. I think that is very dangerous to our welfare.

For for 700 years corporations have not been allowed to make campaign contributions...

... but now - because of this decision - they will be able to for the first time ever?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think that is very dangerous to our welfare.

I agree. I think that this will be a monumental decision and will lead to open corporate ownership of politicians.

I guess the good thing is that at least it will be out in the open.

 

[targus]

Hey Crabby, your math is a little bad.

The majority also reversed part of a 2003 decision upholding the 2002 overhaul of federal campaign finance regulations. That law barred corporate and union treasury spending in the weeks leading up to an election if the advertisements mentioned a federal candidate. The court yesterday invalidated that so-called electioneering restriction.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-in-overturning-campaign-finance-rulings.html

I's pretty sure that 2002 was only eight years ago - not 700. :laugh:

 

[targus]

For all the chicken little who think that the sky is falling...

Did coporations own all politicians before the 2002 law limiting political activity by corporations?

By the way McCain-Feingold did nothing in the real world.

There is far and away - almost beyond belief - much more money spent in campaigns now then there ever was befor 2002.

If you don't believe me just ask George Soros and moveon.org. :laugh:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Overturning previous supreme court decisions is activism and making new law. I think you are very liberal in this case.

That is ridiculous. If it was liberal, the liberals would be happy.

This court also gave the most activist decision in our history when it allowed doing away with habis corpus under Bush in certain cases. I remember a cartoon showing a judge stomping on 700 years of previous decisions, both here and in England. You can hardly be more activist when you overturn 700 years of precidence.

America doesn't yet have 700 years of precidence. And if we never overturned precidence, we'd still be under the Dred-Scott decision. And that was Clinton's SCOTUS< not Bush's. He had yet to nominate any.

If you support this court you are supporting activism to the highest degree.

That is your opinion. Mine is that McCain-Feingold was an activist ruling.

This decision has basically taken the individual out of campaigns. This can hardly be called anything other than very liberal.

Again, ridiculous. If corporations picked presidents before McCain-Feingold, Reagan would not have won two landslides. You are rewriting history. And the "liberal" tag is just you being silly. The biggest liberals in America all have their heads spinning around over this.

 

[Crabtownboy]

[/SIZE]

That is ridiculous. If it was liberal, the liberals would be happy.

I guess you are not honest enough to admit you have taken a liberal stance. I thought that on some issues you are a closet liberal.

America doesn't yet have 700 years of precidence. And if we never overturned precidence, we'd still be under the Dred-Scott decision. And that was Clinton's SCOTUS< not Bush's. He had yet to nominate any.

You are right, but England does and that is where habies corpus that we have honored comes from. Study your history.

That is your opinion. Mine is that McCain-Feingold was an activist ruling.

What is your point. I have said nothing about McCain-Finegold. Show me where, other than here, I have used those terms.

I am talking about the thread the current Supreme Court has brought to the nation.

Again, ridiculous. If corporations picked presidents before McCain-Feingold, Reagan would not have won two landslides. You are rewriting history. And the "liberal" tag is just you being silly. The biggest liberals in America all have their heads spinning around over this.

You are not thinking. It will be big money that ends up selecting the candidates and we are left with politicians whose souls are owned by big money. That will be all we have left to vote for, bought, bound and tied politicians. The big money will win in funding the campaign chests of politicians who are willing to sell out the American people for money and power but be slaves of big money.

Step back and look at what has been done. Do some thinking for a change and stop being a parrot.

Your stance here is very liberal.

 

[Steven2006]

Everyone keeps acting as if corporations are going to be handing over unlimited funds tdirectly o the candidates, and therefore 'buying" them. That is not the case, they can't do that. They will be able to now spend to express their views with advertising, which while yes might effect some races, it hardly is buying anyone. There has been plenty of influence already, this is just eliminating the impossible decision of where to try and draw the line on where or who can spend money to do so.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I guess you are not honest enough to admit you have taken a liberal stance. I thought that on some issues you are a closet liberal.

You are crazy. Call me a liberal if you want. Call me an oil tanker, if you want. I'll say no more about it.

You are right, but England does and that is where habies corpus that we have honored comes from. Study your history.

Our supreme court should not care what England does. I know I don't. To cite their precident on one of our cases is useless.
And Habeus Corpus is O/T. You are trying a liberal tactic of dragging the subject off.

What is your point. I have said nothing about McCain-Finegold. Show me where, other than here, I have used those terms.

Ummm, yeah. I won't play games, C.T.Boy. And if you are not smart enough to know what we are talking about, then I just won't bother.

I am talking about the thread the current Supreme Court has brought to the nation.

Umm, thread ? Im sure you probably meant threat. I see no threat. I see an overturning of a liberal, activist court decision.

You are not thinking. It will be big money that ends up selecting the candidates and we are left with politicians whose souls are owned by big money. That will be all we have left to vote for, bought, bound and tied politicians. The big money will win in funding the campaign chests of politicians who are willing to sell out the American people for money and power but be slaves of big money.

Step back and look at what has been done. Do some thinking for a change and stop being a parrot.

Your stance here is very liberal.

OK. I guess this is where I ask you to prove it. Sounds like fear-mongering and hyperbole, to me. Your stance is just like Kieth Olbermann's.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I remember a cartoon showing a judge stomping on 700 years of previous decisions, both here and in England. You can hardly be more activist when you overturn 700 years of precidence...and yet this group overturned 700 years of percedence and now have overturned precedence again.

"700 years of precedence(sic)", huh?