Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits. Dear God.

reply to post by Jazzyguy


The people do not enjoy the 'right' to vote either at the Federal level.


On to the OP. I will be back on this but first I need to do some more research and deeper thinking regarding the issue.

Two sides going on here that I think a lot of people are overlooking.

the one thing this does is level the playing field a bit. Big unions and some corporations could already spend all the wanted, now its all of them. At least we will get both sides.
for example
GE could spend all it wanted since they have 'media' which was exempt from the law.
But say 'whirlpool' (do they even still exist?) were limited.

Ya it will be an advertising free for all but it spreads it out.
I am happy, for now.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

The people do not enjoy the 'right' to vote either at the Federal level.


On to the OP. I will be back on this but first I need to do some more research and deeper thinking regarding the issue.

Two sides going on here that I think a lot of people are overlooking.

Do you mean freedom of speech, more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for flashier campaigns,
product placements during debates on CSPAN, that they can buy a politician with
check engraved with the image of Odie and Garfield???

Save yourself the thought and come hither, this is GARBAGE, you couldn't put enough ketchup on it... This is going the complete opposite way the public wants to travel,
everyday on ATS I hear end the lobby, while this is an exaltation of the lobby and a
one blow CONSTITUTION KILLER.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by niteboy82
reply to post by endisnighe

 

You raise a very good point, and between Ron Paul and the Tea Party Movement it is very likely that there was enough fear placed in the establishment to push through something that would guarantee a difficult time for any potential 3rd party candidates.

I have a hunch that Ron Paul likes this kinda stuff. He'll support this ruling.. quietly maybe.

"Campaign Finance Reform” Muzzles Political Dissent by Ron Paul

reply to post by Janky Red


Now now Janky you are right. I shouldn't think for myself and follow the mindless dribble and allow my knee to jerk and start spouting off a rant.

On one hand most here, including me have the feeling that this is a wrong step because of the amount of monies that will be poured into campaigns from corporations.

What a few have said here, and have been basically shouted down for it, is that the SCOTUS did its job. It applied the Constitution to a current law, mainly parts of the CFR. It found that there were statutes in the CFR that violated the Constitution. The reason that certain aspects violated the Constitution is because of related laws, i.e., laws pertaining to corporations were violated.

You all scream and moan on here but why doesn't anyone get a group of citizens together and start bringing up a constitutionality case against laws pertaining to corporations, specifically ones that allow a corporation to act as a separate entity and gain some limited constitutional protections?

EDIT: Just because the ruling didn't go the way you wanted, doesn't mean the ruling was wrong. Constitutionally wise, it was the correct ruling.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]

Haha this supreme court decision rounds off an awesome week.

Socialized medcine killed deader than dead is Mass.

1st amendment rights resoundingly reinforced by Supreme Court.

It seems that many on these here ATS boards are raging liberals what don't know they're liberals (or have been brainwashed to think that big gov't = freedom, Arbecht Macht Frei!).

You're going to defend McCain-Feigngold? Really? Do you want to rethink that position? Two big-government stooges Russ Feigngold and the inimitable Johnny Mac team up to prevent groups of individuals (i.e. corporations) from criticizing incumbents.

So I take it you're ok with George Soros pumping in billions to the liberal machine? Its cool that Obama and his uber liberal compatriots draw hundreds of millions of dollars from Goldman Sachs et al. (Dems outdraw Repubs on WS 3:1)? "Corporations" like the New York Times and The Washington Post get to throw their entire market cap behind the candidates of their choice.

This law, in practice, prevented the release of an anti-Hillary documentary. So a dude makes a political movie and the courts say "no you can't show that b/c of McCain-Feigngold." Umm, this isn't Pinochet's Chile or Mussolini's Italy. We have the 1st amendment.

This is awesome. The supreme court finally found it's sack and voted for the constitution.

Originally posted by tetrahedron
1st amendment rights resoundingly reinforced by Supreme Court.

The founders never intended corporations to have rights under the constitution. This was an activist ruling.

"The founders never intended corporations to have rights under the constitution. This was an activist ruling."

Nonsense. A corporation is nothing more than a group of individuals. This applies from Mom&Pa's Cherry Pies in Chatanooga, TN to General Electric. Restricting the rights of a group of individuals restricts the rights of each constituent member.

The best part about it? McCain-Feigngold favors political speech from uber-large corporations like GE (thus NBC), Goldman Sachs, Pfizer, et al. which ALREADY have immense power in the political system based on their unlimited ability to throw billions at lawyers and lobbyists.

This ruling levels the playing field between the big boys (the Newspaper Corporations, Multinational Industrials and the little people who band together in small groups (i.e. "corporations") for the purpose of political speech.

This view is backed up by what McCain-Feigngold ACTUALLY DID. A court ruled that an anti-Hillary documentart could not be released b/c it constituted political speech by a corporation. This is precisley analagous to a court saying Alex Jones cannot release one of his movies 100 days before an election because his operation constitutes a corporation.

McCain-Feigngold was corrupt garbage and it is a great thing that it is dead. This was a consructionalist ruling, pure and simple.

(Note that Obama and Schumer, incumbents and uber big government pols, are incensed at this decision. That should tell you all you need to know).

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Now now Janky you are right. I shouldn't think for myself and follow the mindless dribble and allow my knee to jerk and start spouting off a rant.

On one hand most here, including me have the feeling that this is a wrong step because of the amount of monies that will be poured into campaigns from corporations.

What a few have said here, and have been basically shouted down for it, is that the SCOTUS did its job. It applied the Constitution to a current law, mainly parts of the CFR. It found that there were statutes in the CFR that violated the Constitution. The reason that certain aspects violated the Constitution is because of related laws, i.e., laws pertaining to corporations were violated.

You all scream and moan on here but why doesn't anyone get a group of citizens together and start bringing up a constitutionality case against laws pertaining to corporations, specifically ones that allow a corporation to act as a separate entity and gain some limited constitutional protections?

EDIT: Just because the ruling didn't go the way you wanted, doesn't mean the ruling was wrong. Constitutionally wise, it was the correct ruling.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]

Well, thats a pretty detailed analysis in such a short period of time, fast thinker, referred all those laws with the constitution and built a fort in less then an hour.

Well I think these guys are insane, I also think you should think somemore and try to commune with common sense. Re read A brave new world + 1984, combine the concepts and join the partay. This is disgraceful and an affront on the voters dwindling
potency and frankly I don't give a rats ass if these men think this is constitutional.

Call me what you will, but I believe we just jumped firmly into the square
of corprofascism rendering the spirit of the constitution inept. This circumvents, rather covertly, the intended process of elections and REPRESENTATION.

Talk about Tea Parties...

tetrahedron,


I didn't like McCain-Feingold either but how does opening up the floodgates to the foreign corporations not be just as bad or even worse? You seem pre-occupied with gloating and not seeing you're jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Publicly funded elections. Put a cap on the funding and the ad-time . Hold debates for candidates with a certain percentage of the vote and be done with it. That to me would the conservative thing to do and we just went in the opposite direction.

Originally posted by tetrahedron

Mussolini's Italy.
This is awesome.

Never mind the back door to Mussolini's Italy, your keen to walk right thru the front one.

Yup, awesome for anyone who wants to buy their own politician

But really the Mussolini line

Like pissing over your own shoulder (mighty stream), down yer own back and telling yourself its only piss...

classic

Fight the Socialisms




[edit on 22-1-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by AllexxisF1


Welcome to Microsoft Government!!

It's just like the previous government, but less reliable and gives less control to the people.

“I didn't like McCain-Feingold either but how does opening up the floodgates to the foreign corporations not be just as bad or even worse? You seem pre-occupied with gloating and not seeing you're jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Publicly funded elections. Put a cap on the funding and the ad-time . Hold debates for candidates with a certain percentage of the vote and be done with it. That to me would the conservative thing to do and we just went in the opposite direction.”

The floodgates are already opened to foreign entities, cf. 2008 elections. Actually, both your points are refuted by the 2008 prez election. Both Mac and Obama announced they would take public financing, except Obama realized he could raise a lot more money otherwise (0.5 Billion compared to Mac’s $90 million in public funds). Its sort of an open secret at this point that Obama took foreign funds in 2008 (the people in Italy who said on camera that they were being solicited by the Obama campaign and donated money, the lack of credit card verification on his website, etc); not to mention the fact that any clever foreign entity could launder the money anyway (again see Obama 2008).

Think it through: I’m a small business owner who thinks candidate x’s policies will hurt my business. I hire a film guy to help me make a short film saying why candidate y’s policies are better for small business. Under McCain-Feigngold I can’t do that depending on the arbitrary whim of a judge. Under strict public financing, speech by private citizens is restricted (abridging the 1st amendment). Why should any government entity tell me what I can and can’t say re: politics?

At this point unions can rip a percentage of an employee’s wages and use it towards politics ad infinitum (think SEIU). Quasi government entities like ACORN can get money from the government and use it towards political activism. Companies like general electric can own a news network (NBC) that puts the entire economic might of $170 billion market cap behind a political message. The point is corporations already have massive influence on politics (lobbying, lawyers, news networks, newspapers) and always will given the intelligence and the money. Why limit the political speech of, say, a small medical lab with a market cap of $100 million (whose existence may be threatened by Socialized medicine) when giants have their tentacles in everything already?

Gone are the days of free elections. Just buy your way into office. Words can not describe my disgust.

Ronald McDonald is now President Of The United States Of America.

Not far off considering the last couple of Presidents have been Clowns.

The ignorance on this site is incredible. Its apparent that very few of you (if any) actually understand how this decision levels the playing field re money in politics.

Originally posted by Damian-007
Ronald McDonald is now President Of The United States Of America.

Not far off considering the last couple of Presidents have been Clowns.

Hell yes, paint um up like a NASCAR

Originally posted by tetrahedron
The ignorance on this site is incredible. Its apparent that very few of you (if any) actually understand how this decision levels the playing field re money in politics.

You don't seem to understand that a lot us want all the influence peddling out, completely.

Instead you want to flood our blessed morons with more cash and more "special" consideration.

WE PAY THIER SALARIES, does this part of the equation bypass your thinking?

Then where does this go from here tetra?

I'd forgotten about the Obama campaign chicanery (I can barely keep up with the scandals these days) but that doesn't alleviate my main concern:

I'm supposed to believe these corporations that are going to back any politician from either of these two parties will lead us away from the tyranny that is developing right before our very eyes? hah...ya, right.


Your point about individuals being kept down by McCain-Fiengold is a good one, but how does overturning that ill intent end up with all corporations worldwide in eventual open bidding on our politicians and how does that help things in the big picture?

Will it really be as easy as seeing a candidates funding records and voters making their decisions partly on which corporations are funding whom?

I'm skeptical of the chances such transparency would manifest for one and secondly, even if it did, Im gonna get told by the neo-cons they're corporatism is better than the other guys. rrrrrrright. We're doomed.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by The Omega Concern]

Time for a Simpsons quote:


Doris: Eternal darkness. Well, that's just great.

Apu: Listen, someone's got to get that Mr. Burns. Where is that gun-
toting lowlife when you need one?


---