Skip to main content

23 replies

GOP Is Overjoyed that Corporations control Campaigns.

N NobluedogPost Master
GOP Is Overjoyed At the Unprecedented Influence Corporations Will Now Have in Federal Campaigns.

No wonder. The ruling is a giant win for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the big corporations, which tend to donate heavily to Republicans.


During the 2008 presidential campaign, the conservative group Citizens United made a movie critical of Hillary Clinton but was barred from distributing it on local cable systems because federal courts said it “looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.” The Supreme Court then took up the case and in its much-anticipated decision, today ruled 5-4 to allow corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds in support for, or opposition of, federal candidates. The monumental ruling throws out a “a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/...in_federal_campaigns
''Freedom of the press is not an end in itself but a means to the end of [achieving] a free society.”
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

N NobluedogPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
Who is for us? The government?



''So you're for ABORTION,
but against killing TERRORISTS?'' You listen to too many dumb republican talk shows and watch way too many fox news programs and come across as a first grader.

You are the government!!! We the people!! We the people need to put a stop to the idiots we voted in who are working against the people. The democrats and the republicans are not for the people, they're for the power and the money that goes with it. GREED!
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
I'm glad the SCOTUS took a stand for the First Amendment, but they did not take it far enough. The most egregious violation of First Amendment rights, as they pertain to elections and campaign contributions, took place here:

Federal Election Campaign Act

Until this heinous piece of legislation is overturned, I will continue to consider the SCOTUS rulings on this issue to be a total failure. Also, see here:

Buckley v. Valeo
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
It doesn't really matter whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent,a Teaparty(er) or a Dixiecrat, the Supreme Court decision of yesterday 1/21/10 is the start of the end of our way of life unless Congress legislates some way to stop it.
What this means is sooner or later, probably sooner, large corporations , and labor unions will own our politicians, and in time, our country will be run by corporations. I know you think it is bad now, and it is, but what this could bring about is catastrophic for government of, by and for the people. This will lead to government of, by and for corporations.

Yesterday will come to be known as "A day that will live forever in infamy "
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
...I do agree with you that lobbyists and special interests should not influence campaigns...



"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
What this means is sooner or later, probably sooner, large corporations , and labor unions will own our politicians, and in time, our country will be run by corporations. I know you think it is bad now, and it is, but what this could bring about is catastrophic for government of, by and for the people. This will lead to government of, by and for corporations.


That's been happening for a long time, and this decision will have very little impact on our corporatist culture. Also, this ruling only changes parts of McCain-Feingold. Can you honestly say that McCain-Feingold (which has only existed for 8 year) has actually changed politics for the better? No, you can't.
PA prince albertHall of Famer
I don't believe I ever seen the Election of one person have the affect that Brown's election had on the democrats, Harry and his Stooges came out from their closed door meetings with a long face and Nancy Pelosi was at a loss as to what to say, I think that the democrats finally got the message that there was somebody that could stop them, I don't want anybody to have a majority, in fact I would like to see it to where both parties would have to compromise to get anything passed, anyway I think that Brown did the country a big favor.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
Seeweed, you need to get out of the sea every once in awhile. This happened long ago.

That's been happening for a long time, and this decision will have very little impact on our corporatist culture. Also, this ruling only changes parts of McCain-Feingold. Can you honestly say that McCain-Feingold (which has only existed for 8 year) has actually changed politics for the better? No, you can't.
-------------------------------------------

The limits on corporate interference in our government was placed by Roosevelt. Not FDR, but TEDDY !! The turn of the 20th century, so if you think this decision only affects recent bills, you need to re-define recent.

Something you may not have thought of yet: this gives corporations, which may or may not be controlled by people in the USA the ability to influence our election process. "You Senator , either vote for legislation that gives us everything we (Chinese) corporation want, or we'll spend $1Billion to get you defeated."
Believe me, this is no gift for the right wing. If they think so, they are not patriotic Americans, or they can't think past bumper-sticker logic.
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
Something you may not have thought of yet: this gives corporations, which may or may not be controlled by people in the USA the ability to influence our election process.


Here's something you may not have thought of yet: corporations, which may or may not be controlled by people in the USA, already have a tremendous influence over our election process, and curbing the First Amendment is not the way to stop that. For what it's worth, I don't think an abundant corporate influence in politics is a good thing. If corporations don't have First Amendment rights, then you must also conclude that freedom of the press is not granted to corporations. Do you want the government telling the corporate owned "news" outlets what they can and cannot say?
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
...curbing the First Amendment is not the way to stop that...


Exactly...it doesn't matter if it was Teddy R, FDR, or J. McCain...The language of the First Amendment is clear...I quoted it in a post above. Congress has no authority to abridge the freedom of speech. And just as clearly stated...that gets overlooked...the right of the people to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Like it or not that is the Constitutionally guarunteed right to Lobby.

No president, or congress can Constitutionally abridge these rights...even though they have. Legally speaking if someone has a problem with a corporation exercising their Constitutional rights, whether that corporation is GE, Haliburton, or certain right to life groups, animal rights groups, etc...then an amendment to the Constitution is in order...not passing laws that are unconstitutional.
T tigrtrekHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
All parties have the right to peition congress. Having an army of lobbyists permanently camped out on K St is the price you must pay for a large government that insists in putting its nose and hand in every facet of life.


This nails it right on the head people. Unless we shrink the Imperial Federal Government to the point it cannot significantly enrich entities and destroy competitors we will continue to see insane amounts of $$$ thrown into elections.
I interventor12Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Seeweed, you need to get out of the sea every once in awhile. This happened long ago.

That's been happening for a long time, and this decision will have very little impact on our corporatist culture. Also, this ruling only changes parts of McCain-Feingold. Can you honestly say that McCain-Feingold (which has only existed for 8 year) has actually changed politics for the better? No, you can't.
-------------------------------------------

The limits on corporate interference in our government was placed by Roosevelt. Not FDR, but TEDDY !! The turn of the 20th century, so if you think this decision only affects recent bills, you need to re-define recent.

Something you may not have thought of yet: this gives corporations, which may or may not be controlled by people in the USA the ability to influence our election process. "You Senator , either vote for legislation that gives us everything we (Chinese) corporation want, or we'll spend $1Billion to get you defeated."
Believe me, this is no gift for the right wing. If they think so, they are not patriotic Americans, or they can't think past bumper-sticker logic.


All that is required is transparency, so the voters may see where the money came from.

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×