Supreme court missed chance to correct Citizens United 'mistake': White House

[Sexyeccentric1]

....decision to strike down Montana law limiting corporate spending 'threatens health of our democracy'

Link to news article

Doesn't matter if your a republican or democrat or whatever, this is a major blow to our Democracy.. and now anybody.. even outside influences, foreign influences can buy elections and their officials.

[i'va biggen]

So much for states law.

[Sexyeccentric1]

...and no this doesn't mean unions can do the same. Alito made sure of that. It is even harder now for unions of the public or private sector to be able to do this. Only big corporations and huge ass billionaires that can now do this. Here everyone was worried about corrupt Unions..lmao

It will be corrupt corporations and influences from other countries that have now been given the "green light" to buy elections and officials. So in essence you have to wonder now if the average persons vote really counts anymore.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

...and no this doesn't mean unions can do the same. Alito made sure of that. It is even harder now for unions of the public or private sector to be able to do this. Only big corporations and huge ass billionaires that can now do this. Here everyone was worried about corrupt Unions..lmao

It will be corrupt corporations and influences from other countries that have now been given the "green light" to buy elections and officials. So in essence you have to wonder now if the average persons vote really counts anymore.

its only fair isnt it?

[Guest123018-4]

Yep makes you sit on the edge of your seat waiting on them to make another big mistake.
Some people forget that we are not actually a democracy but, a representative republic.
Democracy is what gets you the Muslim Brotherhood.

[CuteOldGuy]

Seriously, this was an unwise decision. Only individuals (real, human individuals) should be allowed to donate to campaigns. If they want to voluntarily associate to raise money, fine. But corporations and unions take money from people who may not want to support that particular cause or candidate, and that is wrong. The Court could have addressed that, but didn't.

But when did the average person's vote count anyway? We can go back and forth on issues and candidates here, but do you really think that anything is going to happen that the uber rich rulers of this country don't want to happen? There is no representative of the "common guy" anymore, they all want their power and money, and the corporations and banksters are there with both, if they do their bidding. If they don't, they are out of both money and power. Unfortunately, that is how it works.

[Guest123018-4]

So you have a lot of wavy lines in that statement.
What is a union but an association of people or a corporation for thaqt matter. What is a PAC but an association of people.
Corporations do not TAKE money from anyone.any more than unions TAKE from their members. Unless of course they use the dues for political purposes.
I supose I could split some hairs and say that should the board of directors approve of certain contributins that they are in a way taking from their shareholders.
If I am correct, much of this was spawned under the attempt to silence those that had gathered enough money to buy radio and TV time to post ads for and or against a candidate. The idea that the government has the right to silence any individual or groups of individuals is clearly a violation of the 1st amendment.
The ability of our citizens to create and gather in groups to make themselves heard is as
American as our Constitution.

[essence]

"In his famous speech at Gettysburg during the civil war, Abraham Lincoln talked about America as a country 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' Today, as a result of the supreme court's refusal to reconsider its decision in Citizens United, we are rapidly moving toward a nation of the super-rich, by the super-rich and for the super-rich."


Like I say, the spirit of the founding fathers has been replaced by pedantic lawyers.

I see from the report that a previous ruling had said that 'corporate money is speech'. WTF? Only lawyers could come up with that one. Do you really want these people to rule you?

As a point of information, if a corporation donates to a campaign, does it have to publicly declare that, and the amount? For public and private corporations? If not, why not?

[joe bloe]

We're not a democracy. We're a constitutional REPUBLIC. What SCOTUS really needs to do is get rid of the union's ability to donate union dues to Democrats without the permission of it's members. It always angers socialists to see the private sector try to defend itself from the federal Leviathan. Socialists think the private sector should role over and be passive everytime the feds want to over regulate and tax them out of existence.

[essence]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

We're not a democracy. We're a constitutional REPUBLIC. What SCOTUS really needs to do is get rid of the union's ability to donate union dues to Democrats without the permission of it's members. It always angers socialists to see the private sector try to defend itself from the federal Leviathan. Socialists think the private sector should role over and be passive everytime the feds want to over regulate and tax them out of existence.

So our current economic woes have nothing to do with financial regulation? It's a good example of how, when left to their own devices, the people get greedy and over extend themselves, so other systems are need to exert some kind of restraint. Like regulations. Like, I have to admit, courts of law.

Plus you do the normal and create a lie by saying that democrats want to tax private companies out of existence. Turn on the lights. No they do not. Another lie from you.

Although I agree, neither unions nor companies should be allowed to donate to political parties. We have a big problem in the UK because the unions provide a large part of Labour party funding. I would ban both. Plus funding political parties should be out of taxed income.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

...and no this doesn't mean unions can do the same. Alito made sure of that. It is even harder now for unions of the public or private sector to be able to do this. Only big corporations and huge ass billionaires that can now do this. Here everyone was worried about corrupt Unions..lmao

It will be corrupt corporations and influences from other countries that have now been given the "green light" to buy elections and officials. So in essence you have to wonder now if the average persons vote really counts anymore.

You're probably right about the average person's vote not counting. I highly recommend that you stop.

[joe bloe]

It's funny to see liberals rail against the corrupting influence of money in politics. Obama pledged to take matching funds in the 2008 presidential election. This would have severely limited the amount of money he could spend on the campaign. Obama later realized he had the ability to raise huge amounts of money, and dramatically outspend McCain, if he went back on his word to take matching funds.

McCain abided by his pledge to take matching funds, and was consequently handicapped in his ability to compete with Obama.

I don't remember hearing any Democrats complaining about Obama outspending McCain by more than three to one (771 million to 239 million).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835139848377873.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/adv...cain-vs-obama/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...-4-to-1-i.html

[CuteOldGuy]

It's not wrong when they do it. After all, they want what's best for us. So it doesn't matter how they win, it only matters that they win. Then they can help us.

[joe bloe]

Just imagine if McCain had gone back on his pledge to take matching funds, and outspent Obama by more than three to one, because Obama had limited his spending with matching funds limits. Imagine if Obama had lost under that scenario. The Dimos would have gone nuts (technically, more nuts). It's all they would have talked about 24/7.

[essence]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

We're not a democracy. We're a constitutional REPUBLIC.

Yes you are. You are a democratic constitutional republic. So are most 'western' countries, including UK. You are not special. Get over it.