It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 7
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Kucinich is the man.

Maybe this # will finally help his views gain some traction.

Oh wait, no it won't.




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllexxisF1

Hell they can literally buy CNN and make it the Sarah Palin 2012 channel.



Interesting statement. You know what corporations have been exempt, via a loophole, from Tilman (sp?) and McCain/Feingold?

Media corps. The very same corps that have unfairly influenced elections for decades. They can spout bias, suppress news stories, or spin to favor whatever politician they want, unfettered. And everybody knows the media overwhelmingly supports liberals. The media eviscerated Bush, and deified Obama (that's deified, not defied, mind you).

The media has dictated political free-speech by not allowing all candidates an opportunity to participate in debates.

Media bias is protected under the first amendment. So don't start screaming we've sold out to corps. Exxon will have to buy ad time, and if you read the ruling, they can't coordinate their ads with the political party or its candidate. The media can, and gets PAID to do it by sponsors, who in turn get paid by US when we buy their products.

Yes, we've lost clarity on the intent of the first amendment, or the constitution as a whole, as it applies to the people. But if we're going to cry foul at this ruling, then you have to silence the media networks as well as the private/public corps and unions if you want fairness.

-Mordeen



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


I hear you. But I've been stumping for my party the old fashioned way. Door to door. Face to face with my neighbors. There are people out there who won't register to vote for fear they will have to to jury duty. No lie.I can't blame the corporations. There just engaging in business, and the business of America is... The citizenry have let it get to this state. And it's up to us to fix. But the job is akin to beating ones head against a wall.


Thank you for your words. As far as jury duty is concerned, it is very easy to get out of jury duty. You simply send in the form and say that it would be a financial hardship to serve. I did that many times and nothing ever happened. Nobody will come looking for you. You should get a jury response form to take with you, then if people give that excuse, just show them how to respond to the form.

But remember, this "stumping for your party" is not what is needed. First off, the whole party system is not good at all, not when there are only two realistic parties. Instead, everyone should be stumping for America as a whole, and for particular men and women who will make the needed changes. It's not enough to get people to vote. The real problems come from what it put forth as ballot issues to vote on, and also the things that are suggested in the legislatures. That is why you need to get people INSIDE of the government by amassing your own highly organized effort. Only through that means can you turn the tide.

Educate people on:

1) How the MSM is bought and paid for, and that they should only get political news from websites and radio stations that you designate as "TRUTH SAFE." Then identify those sources and make new sources of truthful information.

2) To take over any city you must get some kind of foothold so the people on the inside can make an easier way for the rest. Identify the key states and districts that will make the easiest way for this kind of breach. Then, find some excellent candidates and run them.

3) To get the word out easily, you need to get people to learn an Interent URL... then they will go there to find out more. For example, get a slogan like "ONLY WE CAN SAVE AMERICA... www.saveusa.com" or "www.getinvolved.com" or several other domain names. These should be sites that will TEACH Americans to think like Americans, and MOST IMPORTANTLY give them direct ways to get involved.

4) Instead of just asking people to give money, you need to ask them to bring their talents to bear for this most important cause. If you have marches, display COMMON SIGNS that all point people to the website. If you have rallies, speak to the issues of state sovereignty and direct people to the website. Let people see SOLIDARITY for that alone is capable of being victorious.

The Ron Paul campaign was a great example of what could be done. The problem there was Ron Paul didn't train up generals. Think like the elite my friends, think like the elite. The elite develop other leaders who are capable of furthering the cause. That is why you don't start by trying to get someone elected President. That whole mentality just shows how far America has come from the ideas of being a Republic. Politicians keep trumpeting "Democracy" all as a brain-washing mantra, leading you away from the freedom-safety that comes from a Republic.

So, instead of all you telling me why this can't be done, why don't one of you (just one out of 300 million) say "I will put together a plan that we can take to Ron Paul, asking him to be part of a Freedom Team of operatives and training Academy. We will strategize on specific ways to educate the population. The people have forgotten what a Republic is and how to function in one. I will put this plan before the people here at ATS for their input, ideas, and review."

The two-pronged approach would be to educate the masses by highly creative and affordable means, and to recruit/educate those Americans who will serve their nation by running for strategic offices so they can actually make the changes necessary.

The biggest hurdle to all of this will be to get a consensus by the right group of American citizens. Finding the right people and uniting under a commonly agreed upon plan... that should be the order of the day, with no time to spare.

History awaits you...but not for long...



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mordeen

Originally posted by AllexxisF1

Hell they can literally buy CNN and make it the Sarah Palin 2012 channel.



Yes, we've lost clarity on the intent of the first amendment, or the constitution as a whole, as it applies to the people. But if we're going to cry foul at this ruling, then you have to silence the media networks as well as the private/public corps and unions if you want fairness.

-Mordeen


with this ruling, the media will only be for politicians who the corporations want in washington...why would a MEDIA CORPORATION want to broadcast anyone else???????



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Who wants to lay odds the Democrats blame this ruling for their huge defeat in the next election?


Seriously? There are no "Democrats" or "Republicans." That idea is just beating a dead horse. I cannot believe that there are still people convinced that this is an issue of "the left vs. the right."

If it was not completely obvious before, then I suppose the corporations will have no trouble selling your opinions to you now.

The only difference now is that we will know that politicians are being bought off by lobbyists. The illusion of "democracy" is quickly collapsing.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
Hooray for the Supreme Court. They stayed the course of it's responsibilities. It upheld the US Constitution.

Now, there will/can be more transparentcy of the money going to these politicians-instead of hiding it by using PAC's and groups ran by George Soros and other left wing nuts.


Oh ya, the Founding fathers intended this nation to be run by multi nationals


Koolaide IV drip bag might apply to you friend, I don't have words to match the idiocy of your comments.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Janky, they are kind of correct.

To me the total bastardization of the Constitution does fill me with dread.

I actually have decided to go way back to what I was researching when I started here, the Declaration of Sovereignty.

Screw it, they have taken enough of my freedoms and rights. Time to step out of their control and declare Freeman walking the land. An Amish man is putting together some info for me and I am waiting on his mail to put together a couple more things.

Once I have all my paperwork done and sent I will post it all here. I am going to send it all out on April 15th. Kind of cosmic retribution so to speak.

Hopefully this year everyone will wake up. It is possible.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I don't usually post on the political stuff because I don't know the difference from the left or right, libertarians or conservatives but I do know what is good and what is bad and to me this seems bad because:
The independent candidates will have no chance of being seen or heard on the media.
The money that the corporations "donate" will have to be paid in favors if the candidate wins.
The candidate will be pressured to fulfill the demands that the "donating" corporations have.
The "donating" countries will be the priority of the elected candidate and not the USA.

Nothing good will come out of this and I feel as if we just lost the little control that was left. This is not for the people by the people, this is for the corporations by the corporations.
This does not help freedom of speech, like someone posted a few pages back, this will give freedom of speech to whom ever has the most money and mute the ones who don't have money.
How can this be any good?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


The problem is that the proposed fix that got nixed was the wrong approach. In so many ways. Campaign finance CAN be fixed...but you have to follow the rules. You know, the constitution. That troublesome document.

My suggestions? One, change the legal status of corporations to better reflect what they are. Two, eliminate campaign funding. All of it.

How?

That would take a thread all it's own....but it can be done. And then, if every candidate has the same pool and has to run on their platform and policy, and not on who has all the cash, the people can make their choice of who they feel represents them the best.

(Yes, I do have a model for this, so I know it's doable.)

Of course, this spirit of this failed legislation could be implemented, too, simply by making a campaign finance law AMENDMENT. Again, following the rules.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I'm arriving really late to this part. i've only read a few pages and being very tired I might be redundant so i apologize in advance.

Haven't corporations been giving money illegally for years? Isn't this just in essence legitimatizing something that has been going on for years? I'm not saying it's right. I'm just a little puzzled at all the outrage. This has been going on for ages right?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
the next time you think your voting for "Obama" or "Mccain"... it will REALLY be Ronald Mcdonald in Disguise



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Why doesn't this thread have 1000 flags?

Does anyone realize how much this compromises are Democracy? It seems to me that when people think of corporations...they think of American Corporations.

This ruling does NOT exclude INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS. Some of them used to be American but they sent all of our jobs OVERSEAS. Many of these corporations are from CHINA and everywhere else.

They were just given a license to STEAL ELECTIONS!!!!!!!!!!

For the love of god.....don't let this happen to your country. Corruption will be in full force. Forget ever having a legitimate candidate. The only candidates you will get to choose from on television will be fool on corporate buy-ins.

Middle America, the middle class, the poor....YOU HAVE ALL LOST TODAY. YOU have lost your freedom of speech because of this ruling.

Our entire Democracy built to serve the people is now built to serve corporate interests...many of which aren't even in this country!

We just opened our doors to communists, facists, corporatists....you name it.

By supposedly supporting the first amendment...our entire DEMOCRACY has been compromised.

Wake up people!



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Spiffy, absolute spiffy. After years of fighting to get the Arrogant British aristocracy out, America now created a NEW aristocracy, with the same goals, the same disrespect for "the common man" and the same propensity towards slavery and unbridled greed...

Say, anyone remember what the revolution was all about???

I guess one gets what one deserves.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Shoot!
Double post. Sorry

[edit on 1/21/2010 by diakrite]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
Hooray for the Supreme Court. They stayed the course of it's responsibilities. It upheld the US Constitution.

Now, there will/can be more transparentcy of the money going to these politicians-instead of hiding it by using PAC's and groups ran by George Soros and other left wing nuts.

About time this happened.

I find it VERY interesting that Justice Kennedy wrote the winning decision.


HOLY COW. You are totally retarded. This country is DOOMED with boneheads like you running around.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


Institutionalized bribery.

Can't say much more than that.

One question in regards to separation of Church and state. Can the church donate freely as well? This will be interesting.

Good luck America.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Well kind of, what has happened was someone created a movie that was not allowed to be released.

It had to do with Hillary Clinton.

Because it was produced by someone not affiliated with a party or actual candidate, it was quashed because corporations were not allowed to be proactive in the First amendment right of free speech.

This is where things become muddled. Now, a corporation can spend as much money as they want to endorse or propagate their views without any oversight.

They are not allowed to donate money to a campaign, but they are allowed to promote their own agenda.

Make sense?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


You have to take your daughter off your avatar.

That is unfair.
Anyone disagreeing with you will look at that cute baby and say, damn, I cannot argue with that.

Anyway, what you said here on this comment is absolutely correct.

I wonder, will this infringe on my ability to create a video to promulgate my viewpoints.

The thing with these declarations you never know the unintended consequences.

[edit on 1/21/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Horrible. Now the odds of being elected will henge only on what companies will be able to get from the candidates. Of course not much will change for the main two party candidates, but even more than before the third party candidates will not stand an ice cube's chance in hell.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join