It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits. Dear God.

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:12 AM
Ohh and guess what NO ONE is mentioning:

Some of our richest businesses are related to the MILITARY.

How long until we get a full ticket of pro-war... I mean pro-business candidates...

...On the other side we have the union for Jail Workers... who were the main driving force behind 3-Strikes-Your're-Out.

Now, we can just go ahead and make that 1-Strike-You're-Out... goes people in prison make other people richer.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:19 AM
How long until Lockheed-Martin's senator calls for war against China... that's the kind of insanity we'll be eventually looking at. Defense Contractors buying elected office to create new clients and new enemies.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by johnny2127

The supreme court should interpret the law to protect against corruption. This insured corruption. Therefore the supreme court was wrong.

Um that is not how it works. The constitution is the constitution and you do not shade your judgments based on what you want to happen. That is judicial activism, and that is wrong. It is not the place of the courts to change the laws or constitution. If you want to change the constitution, have a constitutional amendment. What you propose is illegal.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:32 AM

Since there are still two threads on this topic (mine being the first) I will post this also here.

Keith lays it out in the most profound way. If there is video you should ever see on ATS its this one.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:40 AM
reply to post by seethelight

Dear the repercussion of the now corrupted ruled supreme court has no boundaries, America has been bought and now will be sold by corporations and is not a darn thing we the people can do about it when our own government is corporate run.

More whores will be bought by corporations with campaign money to rule against the American people for their own benefit.

From local governments to town councils all will be manipulated by corporate power for their own advantage, the rule of the corporation is here to take over officially and by law.

The littler people will be squashed like vermin's just for going against big money and power.

Let those that have no clue of the ramifications of this ruling live in la la land.

In ten years it will be no longer a president, but a Congress and the President will be nothing but an extension of the corporations power, with all the laws already in place to ensure that power to back them off, Presidnets will be products manufactured and primed by corporations with the most money to spend, Occur at the expenses of tax payer because they will never lose their wealth.

What a joke our nation is becoming, We don't have leadership for the people anymore

Wait for the manufactured pandemics, the war profeteers and anybody with money to manufacture anything to sell for their advantage, then wait for laws to support what they promote.

The ramifications are just too incredible to imagine.

I am actually crying for what our nation of laws ruled by interest has become

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:43 AM
reply to post by Excuses

Thanks allexxis, for bringing the video, this just to much for many to digest just with posters like me.

They need voices of common sense to make some realize the ramifications of all this.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:52 AM
Let me put this in a way that Right Wing Religious Conservatives can understand in their own language.

Muslims decide to kill Christians in America.

Step One:
Dubai funnels godly amounts of money to hand picked Senators and Congressmen for 2010 and 2012. These candidates sole purpose is to do their bidding which not only includes policies for their oil but eventually making Christianity illegal and punishable by death.

Step Two:
Here comes the elections and Dubai literally pumps commercials, ad's for these Candidates on everything from tv to Wheaties boxes. We are talking radio, tv, web ad's, twitter ad's every minute of every day, night and day for months.

Step Three:
They win.

Step Four:
They appoint new Supreme Court Justices.

Step Five:
The newly bought Congress decides Christianity is a problem and passes a bill along with the purchased President.

People Sue

Step Six:
Supreme Court upholds the law.

Step Seven:
Dubai buys Fox, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN etc. etc. Congress allows it with flying colors because they are puppets for Dubai.

Step Eight:
Dubai buys all the energy companies, the rest of the media and farms.

Step Nine:

Christians revolt, get tossed into camps and killed for being enemies of the State.

Everyone else does not hear about it, because all the news is good news. There is no internet because net neutrality went bye bye along time ago.

Welcome to Sharia Law.

You all have talked about the Anti Christ this and Fascists\Communist\Socialist\Terrorists taking over this country.

Well they just found their vehicle.

Now do you understand how devastating this decision is.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by AllexxisF1]

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by AllexxisF1

Actually Dubai or the emirates already have investments on majore TV channels.

Something that many doesn't even realized,
most of the income of for-profit media outlets does not come from the audiences, but rather from commercial advertisers who are interested in selling products to that audience. This gives corporate sponsors influence over what people see and read and all in favor of information that does not criticize the sponsors’ products or discuss any corporate wrongdoing.

Who owns the major U.S. media outlets?

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:35 AM
I suggest everyone that's upset about this change their facebook status/tweet/socially blare a simple message:

"1/21 - Never Forget"

Let's see if we can take this message viral.

This is 9/11 for America's democracy...

If you're really pissed do it now!

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:46 AM

Originally posted by tetrahedron
"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.

A couple of things you are missing...


Does [free speech protection] apply to foreign nationals? Does it apply to the government of China or Russia or Iran in this country? Does it apply to corporations? Those are all different players who are not individuals, not voters, not citizens.

- Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission

In response to yourself and others general argument that corporations qualify under freedom of speech, Ginsburg sums it up in one sentence.

A corporation, however, "is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded.

* Corporations are (in the best of circumstances) responsible to their shareholders to make profits...regardless of public interest.

...Profits first....Public good second. This is the nature of capitalism and has it's place in an economic/darwinistic philosophy, as long as there are checks and balances to protect the public.

* Individual citizens are by nature concerned with the health, happiness, freedoms and welfare of themselves and the people of this nation.

The good of the people above the profits of a given corporation.

If this ruling is left to stand unopposed it will represent the fall of Democracy as our founding father envisioned it.

It is the luanching pad for corporations running our country without restraint.

...and even more frightening, some of those corporations are run or financed or have serious interests in other countries.

The Oil Companies backing candidates that are willing to invade and occupy countries that they would like control of.

The Pharmaceutical Industry backing candidates that would lessen regulations and safety research on thier products.

Laws being passed to limit or eliminate corporate liability for cars that explode, drugs that kill etc.

Etc. Etc.

The USA, Inc. citizens needed, just consumers.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:53 AM
reply to post by maybereal11

Keep up the good work, my friend, maybe maybe this whole thing will sink in the heads of those that think is a good idea.

Let wait when force vaccinations, force medicines with force health care and forced about everything that is profit making becomes laws.

The sky is the limit with a bought out and buy out congress and president along with a supreme court.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:29 AM

Originally posted by tetrahedron
Nonsense. A corporation is nothing more than a group of individuals.

A corporation is a legal fiction. Giving it free speech rights under the constitution is radical activism.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by tetrahedron

Agree with you. People keep barking to have the power only by vote (for free), when they acctualy live in a capitalist sociedy, when the politicians need money to reach the voters (TV time is expensive). One says he can't compete with the multi millionaires ???
Union makes the power.
There are two ways : one - people united making donations
two - people barking and crying on a war ! ! !

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:10 PM
Mods please consolidate the four threads on this topic into one please.

This is nuts I started the first one and now there are over four, each of which several pages of its own.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by AllexxisF1


I understand your desire to have the discussion consolidated into one thread, however, as a rule, that is not a practice in which we engage.

There are several circumstances and situations which justify the existence of what are essentially duplicate threads, especially if the members are approaching the discussion from within the context of the different forums where such duplicates can reside. Also, members authoring comments on multiple threads may not appreciate having their content altered from that perspective.

I suggest you make this comment on the Board Business Forum to explore the reasoning more fully... but it has been covered before...

- I apologize for the digression....

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by maybereal11


Thank you. I've been posting this all over the threads on this ruling and not enough people are getting it.

This puts our nations's sovereignty in jeopardy...and our entire political process.

I'm still fuming about this....I just can't believe it happened.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:40 PM

Originally posted by amance
The corporations already owned our government institutions through all the PAC money and such. This won't really change anything for the worse. I'd rather know where the money is coming from (directly from corporation to politician) than have to trace it through the myriad of holding companies, PACs, and lobbying firms.

This is bad news but it already was bad. It's like setting fire to a previously burned down house.

How much more are we going to take?

that's the way I took it. It's like getting mad over someone kicking a dead horse-horse was already dead. I don't know how much worse it could get. People should have been outraged a long time ago. I just stopped voting. it's clear it does no damn good in a rigged system. I don't want to hear about that republican from Massachusetts either. I don't buy into dramatic politics for the masses.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:50 PM

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by maybereal11


Thank you. I've been posting this all over the threads on this ruling and not enough people are getting it.

This puts our nations's sovereignty in jeopardy...and our entire political process.

I'm still fuming about this....I just can't believe it happened.

Yes...I am having a hard time even thinking about this. One part furious, one part depressed.

It's a real punch to the gut of democracy. It's not exagerating to say that the ruling fundementally changed American Politics.

This just doesn't overturn McCain-Fiengold...this overturns over a century's worth of law.

It's not just has local implications as well all across the country.

Some local Mayor opposes a Walmart in his small town or takes a local refinery to task for polluting the stream that runs through town....anything at all....that company can and will throw unlimited funds at having him tossed out of office and replaced with their man.

In 5 years your local mayor and govenor will be owned by a corporation.

The GOP and Dem parties will not nominate candidates...Corporations will. They will tell the political parties which candidates they will or will not pay for.

Oppose thier will and they will crucify you....ungodly, unrestricted attack ads night and day, "documentaries", stealth rumor (pr) campaigns...the money will absolutely bury and crush any politician who does not get on board.

Senators might have some money in thier pocket compared to average americans...but they cannot compete with a Mobil Oil or Monsanto in a campaign race...their 6 or 10 million dollar personal campaign "war chest" is about what it costs Monsanto to stock the executive bathrooms with toilet paper for a week.

how long will an independant senator or congressman last?

They will be owned or be gone.

The high court threw out a century-long ban on corporate spending to support candidates for office in a 5-4 ruling that reverses decades of high court decisions upholding the prohibition. By implication, the decision also invalidates similar restrictions on unions, as well as state bans.


Both advocates and critics of campaign finance reform agree that the decision is an earthquake in the law.

Indeed, Thursday's Supreme Court decision will restructure the way election campaigns are run at all levels of government. Trevor Potter, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and general counsel for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, notes that corporate spending bans in 24 states and countless localities will be obliterated almost overnight.

"Suddenly," he says, "the prospect of a corporation that's unhappy with a zoning decision — or the action of a local mayor — being able to go in and spend enough money to defeat them in the next election, or elect a new town council — all with corporate funds — is going to be a big shock."

Judicial elections in every state will now see more corporate and union spending too, and, in Congress, the floodgates are now fully open.

Other critics of the decision are even more blunt. Fred Wertheimer, who has helped craft every piece of campaign reform legislation since Watergate, calls the decision "the most radical and destructive campaign finance decision in Supreme Court history."

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by Janky Red

Back to not reading posts that don't fit your knee jerk reactionary ways Janky?

Just because I posted something quickly doesn't mean that it was all I had to say.

Still people here are complaining without even truly knowing what the ruling was for and about. This board is no different from the hated Fox News. Spout out half-truths and sensational comments and presto.....

Show me where it is activism when the Supreme Court looks at a current law or set of laws on the books and applies the Constitution to said law(s). That is there job and that is what they did. They are not there to change laws nor interpret the law.

Know what happens when the Supreme Court interprets the law? Kelo v. City of New London. I sure hope the same that are here screaming the end of America were doing the same on that one. Because that was blatenly against the Constitution.

If everyone here is so damned upset because corporations have the ability to contribute to the political process via the 1st Amendment, then why don't you all challenge the laws that pertain to corporations rather than this ruling?

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:56 PM
Once again, the United States existed 224 years before this law was "imposed" and I fail to see how an 8 year old law that is definitely unconstitutional being revoked is going to "destroy" all of our liberties.

How did we exist for 224 years without McCain-Feingold?

It seems that this is a bandwagon issue that isn't very well understood by the population of this site.

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in