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: 12
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 12:28 AM
reply to post by seism

The bigger problem is this right here:

We existed fine before but many of us are young (I imagine) and are now realizing just how corrupt our country actually is. This is just making it easier on the corporations to control campaigns (something that they have been doing rather easily).

posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:55 AM

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by AllexxisF1

Nuts? About wanting TRUE freedom?. Every citizen has the right to put out infomation they wish to and they ALSO have the right not to listen to what they don't want to.

Nuts? No, just tired of the US Gov't telling me everything I/we can do/say/listen to etc.

Nuts? no, I am just smart enough to filter out the BS I don't want and listen to what I choose to.

All you liberals need to realize you don't need Gov't to run your lives. This is another major start to taking our country back and running more like our founding fathers wanted. Not this twisted socialist/liberal realm we reside in.

I bet you think Palin, Joe the Plumber, Scot Brown and others like them are nuts and not smart enough to be in gov't. Well, I am one that thinks they are EXACTLY what we need. "The Little Guy", I have had enough of the "Smart Ones" leading us. Look where they got us.

Ga ahead hate me......
) Have a nice day. "I smell fear"

Damn it's not about libs and conservatives, both of which suck and have collectively screwed us. Corporations shouldn't get any sort of "human rights" since they are just a money grubbing institution, it's made up of people all of which in the us at least can speak freely, or so we think. This might be the feces colliding with the fan blades. I hope you enjoy the # sandwich you/we all will soon be eating feel free to fill up on it anon72 since you're so hungry for it. If corporations really had our best interests at heart goods would be a hell of a lot cheaper and we wouldn't have medicines etc... that can cause side effects worse than what it was supposed to "cure".

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Silverado292]

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Silverado292]

posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:02 PM
Just want to share this:

posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:11 PM

Originally posted by seism
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.

Because things have consistently gotten worse. You may not have read about the Political Era of policing, where police carried out the work of politicians who were openly corrupt. Or we may go back to the Industrial Age, where no one but the elite have rights and it took real leaders to say you don't treat your workers as expendable pieces of trash.

Hell, now the politicians don't need to worry about conflicts of interests, they commit a crime against us, the WHISTLEBLOWER is the one who will be punished for violating THEIR trust. Umm, aren't we the PEOPLE supposed to be in charge, not some assholes who have been in office for 30-40 years? They have more rights than you or I, why the hell should I weep for these bastards?

One can easily follow the money from several known CEOs and businessmen to the politicians involved with the CFR, Bilderbeg and NWO. Now we're supposed to PITY them for god's sakes? What about us, the rest of us are ignored on a daily basis, our rights to speech, press ignored, our rights to own guns, privacy, net neutraility and others...and these #ers get PERSONAL status? WTF is this horse#?

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 05:58 PM

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
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?

I guess so...

I have an opinion, I do not need it defined for me...

The problem is that this ruling was made under the guise of free speech, at the same time this ruling can be a direct affront on the prospects of free speech as we know it,
not to mention that it undermines the very process in which the 1ST Amendment is premised upon. As I consider these last two implication it become apparent to me that this ruling has far greater impact upon the SPIRIT of THE Constitution, effectively upholding the 1st, while providing a simple avenue to subvert the 1st and the whole goddamned thing. It is also clear that MANY of you are clueless, pretending you are clueless or all for the sale of this country to the greatest donor.

THESE treasonous bastards have just turned this country Fascist in one fell swoop,
our politicians have been deaf to the voters demands because of undo influence,
previously this country was FOR SOME "PEOPLE" BY/BUY SOME "PEOPLE", now we have lost, the issue is now agitated beyond any reasonable means of recourse.

They just invited the Chinese, Indians, Russians, Mexicans, Kenyans directly into the
American electoral process. I have to listen to a whole year of "Obama is selling us out to a one world government" and here, with this ruling the sale has been sign sealed and delivered in less than a day. To make it sweet, very sweet the same people who rightfully protested Obamas methods and possible objectives are 100% for the same
results, because it is commensurate with legal OPINIONS by "CONSERVATIVE" justices and to that I must say, BRAVO!!! The irony, AUDACITY, hypocrisy are completely beyond any previous measure...

To the last part,
yes sir, fantastic...

We are going to see a conservative shift this fall, while apparently "conservatives"
applaud this move and conservatives will be the ones who will have to support a challenge to the current STATUS of these entities. So in short there is no recourse
because to protect freedom of speech we must embrace divide and conquer, because we must be free to sell our country out to the highest donor.

Further more Conservatives expect a smaller government, while this ruling ENSURES
that the corporations will use the government as a source for funds, thusly cementing
the infinite expansion of the government indefinitely. Company politicians, the pork,
truck loads of Bacon and you are defending the order because it is in the rule book,
meets all the criteria of a legal decision, COUGH COUGH, IRAQ< COUGH PATRIOT ACT

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by seism
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.

Once again, people are posting out of complete ignorance.

This ruling did not just eliminate McCain-Feingold.


the court also reached even further back to re-examine a 1990 precedent that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates.

Legal experts and political operatives say the cases roll back campaign spending rules to the years before Watergate.

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan had urged the high court not to overturn any limits on corporate campaign money. "For over 100 years Congress has made a judgment that corporations must be subject to special rules when they participate in elections and this court has never questioned that judgment," she had said when the case was argued in a special session last September.

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

Agreed that this issue is not very well understood by some on this site. You have clearly demonstrated this with your post.

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 02:28 AM

Originally posted by Janky Red
I suggest you recognize that many conservatives on this very board are with me, making the same argument as I am because they are not rightwing for the sake of being rightwing. We are Americans and some of you are sounding like CITIZENS OF THE WORLD, NWO PROGRESSIVE CORPORATISTS. Wake up, look past today and your previous affiliations for the time being, BE A REAL PATRIOT even when it does not serve your own political agenda, I have and I am better for it.

Sometimes whoring does not require a buck

Creative in its own right I suppose. I could elude also....Those that do not understand the Constitution all seem to have the opinion of yours and are sounding more and more like people that want to continue to remain ignorant to the principles of the 1st Amendment and is main objective of protecting political speech.

That political speech can be derived from a person or an association of persons.....Now tell me Janky....if a church congregation decided to incorporate as a non-profit are they to be stifled in a unified voice?

What about the small business owner that has been pursuing his/her representative for months that has just they still have the right to petition their government?

Yeah that's what I thought. Exclude those you do not like, include those you do like.....sounds like abridgment of law if I have ever seen it.

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 11:00 AM
Limited campaign funds preserves the First Amendment for all free people, as some can not spend (speak) as much (as loud) as others, especially when it is the individual vs. the corporation speaking (spending) during an election. In other words, how safe is the First Amendment of your's and 95% of the population when only 5% of the population can, by a huge margin, out-spend you in any election. Unlimited campaign funds from multi-billion dollar corporations to the candidates of their choice is quite a leap from Freedom of Speech. When was the last time the McDonald's Corporation voted in an election? Would GM have voted for a Republican or a Democrat?

There is a gross inequality of wealth in this country, and there has been for a long time. This is just another way in which money buys influence, which is power. These are the very roots from which a fascist vine will grow.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11   >>

log in