Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

reply to post by Blaine91555


The Surpreme Court Justices that ruled this were appointed by George W. Bush Jr.

You are seeing the last president's judgement being carried over.

Wake up!



[edit on 22-1-2010 by ofhumandescent]

reply to post by ofhumandescent


ofhumandescent,

I found this article that I think is relevant
but has more information on specifics.

Not sure how to post and source yet. Hope it's ok.

Newsweek

Stuart Taylor Jr.
The End of Restraint

Alito, Roberts, and judicial modesty.
Published Jan 22, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Feb 1, 2010


The End of Restraint

From the article...

The Supreme Court's five conservatives are properly protective of American citizens' First Amendment rights to spend as much of their money as they wish on political speech, both individually and by funding nonprofit advocacy groups. But this was no justification for the court's blockbuster, precedent-smashing Jan. 21 decision unleashing corporate executives to pour unlimited amounts of stockholders' money—without their consent—into ads supporting or attacking federal candidates. Indeed the 5–4 decision would allow any big company to spend a fortune attacking candidates whom many, or even most, of its stockholders would rather support. And corporations—including multinationals controlled by foreigners—will spend money on elections not to advance the political views of their stockholders, but to seek economic advantage.

Continued

So the court's decision strikes me as a perverse interpretation of the First Amendment, one that will at best increase the already unhealthy political power of big businesses (and big unions, too), and at worst swamp our elections under a new deluge of special-interest cash. More ominously still, Citizens United v. FEC lends credence to liberal claims that all five of the more conservative justices are "judicial activists," the same imprecation that conservatives have for so long—and often justifiably—hurled at liberal justices.

Judicial activists—at least as I define them—are judges who are unduly eager to aggrandize their own power and impose their own policy preferences on the electorate. They invoke farfetched interpretations of the Constitution to sweep aside democratically adopted laws and deeply rooted societal traditions. I'd hoped that Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who came across in their confirmation hearings as believers in judicial modesty, would bring a healthy dose of restraint to a court long populated by activists, and would thereby shun sharp lurches to the ideological right. It appears that I misjudged them.

for more see the link above.

In all fairness he goes on to criticize other Justices.

From the article sourced above.

The court could, and should, have exempted nonprofit ideological groups without disturbing the ban on business corporations and union campaign spending. But all nine justices passed up the opportunity to carve out such a pragmatic, principled decision. The liberals thereby demonstrated that they are all too ready to sacrifice the First Amendment rights of real citizens who want to pool their money for election spending. But the conservatives—all too eager to expand the political power of big business in the guise of protecting First Amendment rights—are in the driver's seat.

For more see link above

He still says the blame for this lies with the Conservatives.


CyberStray

A lot of right wingers (myself especially) woke up yesterday. This is definitely bad news. On the other hand. You people that think Obama the Messiah is going to save you need to roll out of bed yourselves. This guy lied when he said he would use public finance to campaign then he turned around and campaigned on ending lobbyists. The lobbyists in turn are now as strong as ever and you guys believe that yesterday he didn't breathe a sigh of relief along with all the republicans. Welcome to the weekend guys. Everyone is going to sit back and relax. This board is the last you will hear of this ruling. We the people got destroyed yesterday and much of the left on this board is still acting like Obama is going to do something. That isn't the way he works and you know it. Time to go independent if not for anything more than protest. Foxnews msnbc cnn will not cover this ruling anymore. They are as excited as anyone.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by ventian]

Originally posted by ventian
A lot of right wingers (myself especially) woke up yesterday. This is definitely bad news. On the other hand. You people that think Obama the Messiah is going to save you need to roll out of bed yourselves. This guy lied when he said he would use public finance to campaign then he turned around and campaigned on ending lobbyists. The lobbyists in turn are now as strong as ever and you guys believe that yesterday he didn't breathe a sigh of relief along with all the republicans. Welcome to the weekend guys. Everyone is going to sit back and relax. This board is the last you will hear of this ruling. We the people got destroyed yesterday and much of the left on this board is still acting like Obama is going to do something. That isn't the way he works and you know it. Time to go independent if not for anything more than protest. Foxnews msnbc cnn will not cover this ruling anymore. They are as excited as anyone.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by ventian]

Dude,

I'm the last guy you need to tell, the exact thing happened to me.

I was sure Obama was going to destroy my world.
I admit I believed a lot of people instead of checking things for myself. I already posted that.

But the big problem is what it does to the foreign owned corporations. The US Presidency is for sale to foreigners, so are all elected officials. That is crazy.

Dude, I have been watching the news on all the networks, and the internet since this thing happened.

I have been a Conservative and Right Wing Patriot since I was aware of politics. I'm young and I was active, I went to Tea Parties, I questioned Obama's BC and supported Sarah Palin, and Ron Paul.

Then I wake up, and the Conservative judges, my judges sold out totally.

On FOX they are having a party, the republicans are saying it's the best ruling for freedom, and the libertarians are having a party too.

The only people saying this is a disaster is the liberals and the democrats.

I feel like my former allies are telling me "who you gonna believe me, or your lying eyes and ears?"

I'm sure democrats suck, all politicians suck, but they are the ones trying to say they are going to try to stop this, and it's a disaster. One already has a bill, the Alan Grayson guy from Fla.

What are we supposed to do? Make believe our guys had it right?

Dude, I may be young but I know a stab in the back when I feel one.

I thought Ziggy Strange was a radical socialist, so far some of the stuff he's saying is coming true.

Anyway, hope you understand.

Cyberstray

reply to post by CyberStray


Our guys had it wrong. I also understand enough from my own deductive reasoning that there are some good guys up there. The good guys are a minority by far and aren't limited to one party. If the dems overturn this then good. I have been fair to the things they do right anyways. But their parties principals are definitely not for me. I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I always have been but swallowed my pride and voted for Republicans who are usually socially conservative and fiscally irresponsible. Mind you I am only old enough to have voted in three elections and 1 primary. No more will I swallow my pride. I have studied what the libertarians are about for 3 years now and am finally gonna vote 3rd party. As I said the dems and reps are wrong and neither one will be able to overturn this without amending the constitution (God forbid with those idiots and their vague writing). I was stabbed in the back yesterday and I will tell everyone I know (most of them are ideologically with me) to vote libertarian or hell any third party. "We won't get fooled again" by The Who perfectly sums up my thought process right now. I hope more conservatives will join me in voting third party from now on. As I said even if Grayson tries he won't get it past the hard left arm (Pelosi) of the party anyways.

Originally posted by dragonseeker

I'm not trying to win, but, even though I'm not trying, I've beaten you with a simple fact: Barack Obama will not save us. He never intended to. Hope and change was a slogan, nothing more. I voted for him. I'm a black man. I believed him, I felt proud when he won. He lied. He's DOWN with this. He's on their side. If he weren't, bushco would've been doing the perp walk months ago. fed reserve would be shut down; 9/11 re-investigation would be in full effect. no..so..much. He knows what's up, and he did not move against these people. Very much "The dog that did not bark". Guys...it's time. You know what I mean.

Dragonseeker I agree with you. Prior to being elected Obama stated he was open to re-investigating 911. Now we hear that sites questioning official government propaganda will be investigated. I fought for Obama after I saw Kucinich could not win. Now I am ashamed. He is the same corporate controlled fool as Bush. We only have a change of mask. He has went back on everything he said he would do. The only way to change this politically is a constitutional amendment stating corporations, and companies are not persons. Require each corporation to incorporate in every state they do business in. I really do not see this happening. If Obama started pushing this in every speech instead of healthcare he may recover politically. He looks like a one term-er.

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

Bill - Dragonseeker I agree with you. Prior to being elected Obama stated he was open to re-investigating 911. Now we hear that sites questioning official government propaganda will be investigated.

Z - This is a hoax in that what Sunstein wrote, is not related to his duties. His job is not to create policy. Look it up, the threads here are sensationalizing .

Bll - I fought for Obama after I saw Kucinich could not win. Now I am ashamed. He is the same corporate controlled fool as Bush. We only have a change of mask. He has went back on everything he said he would do.

Z - Obama has not deviated from his platform, he said he was going to put emphasis on Afghanistan, he said he was not a Liberal, he isn't, he's trying to pass Healh Care but nobody is letting him, he's going after the banks, everyne says it's to play a shell game, he neutered North Korea, nobody noticed, he is fixing the economy, nobody notices, he has the best foreign relations since I don't knw when. He's been President during the toughest year for a President ever, but everyone acts like hes on the 8th year of a failed administration. Give the President what you owe him.

A CHANCE

Bill - The only way to change this politically is a constitutional amendment stating corporations, and companies are not persons. Require each corporation to incorporate in every state they do business in. I really do not see this happening. If Obama started pushing this in every speech instead of healthcare he may recover politically. He looks like a one term-er

.Z - No Bill, the only way is through legislation, the corporations before the decision, were less than a person, they were regulated. Do the research you will see, it's an instrument that takes on some of the characteristics of an entity. It has never been made equal to a human. It was essentially a more reasonable practice in other countries, like S.A. Societe Anonime, and others. This is an anonimous group of owners that have no responsibility for the businesses they run, and control.

Now the Corporations are Super Citizens, more than human. The ideas you propose about each state, are impossible unless you nationalize all corporations. That would be Tyranny, or the first step in actual Socialism, We don't want or need this.

Obama just took on the Banks, everyone if screaming oh no, the banks are going to pass it on to us. But watch what happens. This fight will reveal exactly who is for wall street, and who is for Main street. Mark my words.

I know how you feel, but I see a different thing than you do.

I know I'm not Nostradamus, just saying, I have a diffeent view, or vision.

You are not the person I want to expose, you I just wish to stimulate, but I don't expect to. You have to see it for yourself.

Peace

Ziggy Strange


[edit on 23-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

Originally posted by Keyhole
What really needs to be done is to abolish the "Corporate Personhood", which gives corporations the same rights as actual people to influence (read lobby) our lawmakers, ... not to just decide how much money they can use to influence our countries lawmakers!

I agree completely...BUT, if we can't get that done then let's just treat them like people if that's what they want.

CORPORATIONS SHOULD NOW BE SUBJECT TO IMPRISONMENT AND TO THE DEATH PENALTY.

But corporations can't be imprisoned you say. Nope; but what does prison do to a person? It takes away their freedom of mobility and stipulates their every action for a given time period. Let's do the same for corporations. No more selling or purchasing anything for a certain time...that seems fair to me.

But corporations can't be put to death you say. Nope; but what does the death penalty do to a person? It stops the heart and stops them breathing. So let's take away the life blood of the corporations...their money. Seize all assets and distribute them to the victims of their crimes.

I'll admit I haven't given this enough thought, so my reasoning may be a little flawed...it's late and I'm tired. So feel free to help me out on this one folks and correct me if I'm wrong. But the way I see it, if corporations want the benefits that come with personhood then they deserve to deal with the detriments as well. Let's give them what they want and more.

P.S. I own a corporation and it is NOT a person....I OWN IT!

reply to post by winston37


Heartfelt post but when you have a corporation lets say Wal Mart and they employ lets say 50k people and you give it the death penalty then it only hurts the employees. The CEO on the other hand will get a slap on the wrist all while looking forward to the next day of checking out his swiss bank account. As for punishments, who knows what you can do to a corporation. You could raise taxes but that will be felt by the people. You could regulate it but that didn't work to well with Madoff. I am just throwing some things out there. Hope you get some good sleep.

Originally posted by ziggystrange

Bill - The only way to change this politically is a constitutional amendment stating corporations, and companies are not persons. Require each corporation to incorporate in every state they do business in. I really do not see this happening. If Obama started pushing this in every speech instead of healthcare he may recover politically. He looks like a one term-er

.Z - No Bill, the only way is through legislation, the corporations before the decision, were less than a person, they were regulated. Do the research you will see, it's an instrument that takes on some of the characteristics of an entity. It has never been made equal to a human. It was essentially a more reasonable practice in other countries, like S.A. Societe Anonime, and others. This is an anonimous group of owners that have no responsibility for the businesses they run, and control.

Now the Corporations are Super Citizens, more than human. The ideas you propose about each state, are impossible unless you nationalize all corporations. That would be Tyranny, or the first step in actual Socialism, We don't want or need this.

Obama just took on the Banks, everyone if screaming oh no, the banks are going to pass it on to us. But watch what happens. This fight will reveal exactly who is for wall street, and who is for Main street. Mark my words.

I know how you feel, but I see a different thing than you do.

I know I'm not Nostradamus, just saying, I have a diffeent view, or vision.

You are not the person I want to expose, you I just wish to stimulate, but I don't expect to. You have to see it for yourself.

Peace

Ziggy Strange


[edit on 23-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

Ziggy I don't want to go off topic too much about Obama, but he has been a big disappointment to me. You state that legislation is the answer. The constitution states that " congress shall make no law". The Supreme Court has now taken that ability away once they ruled that bribery is free speech. Any law they now pass would be unconstitutional. You will see that now US corporations have to incorporate in the state of their choosing. They usually shop for the best deal and lowest taxes. It is not tyranny or socialism to require them to do this in every state they do business in. If they did not like a certain state's rules they would not have to do business there. Sounds like capitalism to me. I can understand people not agreeing to my second part of an amendment, but the first part declaring them non persons is our only political solution.

reply to post by BillfromCovina


I'm a principal in 6 that do business in all the states, and overseas.
I need 300 corporations to make your idea happen. I'm not the exception to the rule. Your plan would put me and all my employees out of business.

But the real problem is the foreign investors. You try and think it though comletely. They will be calling the shots period.

Not to mention this would literally take a hudred years to untangle in the economy. I know it. I have posted my work experience in this specifically on ATS.

I worked in Economic Development for 5 years. Did Market research, wrote the analysis for an award winning marketing campaign intended to stimulate commerce in a depressed State economy. I wrote a tax abatement systrem, and implemented it for a that State.

I also designed and wrote software that Investment Banks use to track global flow of assets, attribution, account review and reconciliation, departmental budgets, and integrated IB accounting systems, and the GF mandated national ingredient DB. I'm not sitting here making up problems, I understand them deeply. I have hands on experience.

Things have to be done in certain ways when the thing you are changing is a science, like global economics. What sounds like a simple solution to you, is actually a problem of epic proportions.

You have it wrong in my opinion, but I don't want to fight with you. Let's see what time brings and we will know who was right.

Ziggy Strange

reply to post by ziggystrange


We have almost found the answer. As you see these global companies are becoming the problem. The search for cheap labor and calling it free enterprise has caused huge problems. Incorporating in every state you do business in should not cause a company to go bankrupt. I understand opposition to this part, and it is asking for alot. I do believe that corporations must be viewed by the law as property and not persons. This is the part that is the most important.

Now 12 pages into this thread and not a soul has even bothered to quote the actual ruling itself. It appears that very few who have posted in this thread, if any have even attempted to read the ruling. God forbid that the SCOTUS actually rendered opinions in the same manner as posters have in this thread, simply reacting from the gut rather than taking the time to study the law involved and the case law, and historical context. Enough all ready!

The Case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Comission and here are some excerpts from that ruling:

"Thus, this case can not be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendments meaning and purpose. Citizens United did not waive this challenge to Austin when it stipulated to dismissing the facial challenge below, since (1) even if such a challenge could be waived, this Court may reconsider Austin and Section 441b's facial validity here because the District Court "passed upon" the issue, Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U.S. 374, 379; (2) throughout the litigation, Citizens United has asserted a claim that the FEC has violated its right to free speech; and (3) the parties can not enter into a stipulation that prevents a claim that has been preserved. Because Citizens United's narrower arugments are not sustainable, this Court must, in an exercise of its judicial responsibility, consider Section 441b's facial validity. Any other course would prolong the substantial, nationwide chilling effect caused by Section 441b's corporate expenditure ban"

Not only has SCOTUS in this particular passage addressed the complete and plenary authority of the 1st Amendment and its undeniable restraint upon Congress, but the Court has further addressed a common practice of administrative agencies that attempt to get suing parties to waive certain rights of redress. The Court dismissed these sort of dubious waivers as non-binding when what is being waived is an unalienable right. This was a great win for freedom and for the rights of the individual as well as groups including those groups or persons who have incorporated.

This ruling is about freedom of speech not about empowering corporations. It should be noted that the above quote makes mention of Citizens United's own "narrower" arguments not begin sustainable. That's because Citizens United argued that they were not subject to 441b's provision or that this provision was not applicable, and based their argument upon Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., which had found Section 441b unconstitutional as applied to speech that was not "express advocacy or its functional equivalent", and Citizens United argued that the documentary they made, particularly those videos showed upon demand, had a lower risk of distorting the political process. The SCOTUS, however, respectfully disagreed and upon a "fair reading of the statute and section 441b held that Citizens United's narrow argument was not sustainable.

This is why the Court looked at the law itself and held it up to the Constitution and found that it lacked validity when faced with the 1st Amendment. The ruling further held:"This conclusion is further supported by the following: (1) the uncertainty by the governments litigating position; (2) substantial time would be required to clarify 441b's application to the points raised by the Governments position in order to avoid any chilling effect caused by an improper interpretation; and (3) because speech itself is of primary improtance to the integrity of the election process, any speech arguably within the reach of rules created for regulating political speech is chilled. The regulatory scheme at issue may not be a prior restraint in the strict sense. However, given its complexity and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker wishing to avoid criminal liability threats and heavy costs against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak. The restrictions thus function as the equivalent of prior restraint, giving the FEC power analogous to the type of government practices that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit. The ongoing chill on speech makes it necessary to invoke the earlier precedents that a statute that chills speech can and must be invalidated where its facial invalidity has been demonstrated."

Here the Court is clearly explaining their reasoning and how the statute is repugnant to the Constitution because it demands that people, even if those people be within a corporate entity, petition the government for permission to speak when the government has no authority to grant such permission since it is a right to speak and not subject to any governmental regulatory schemes. The Court has held above all else the right to speak freely and that this right was acknowledged to exist for corporations was in no way a granting of rights, it was a repudiation of Congress' blatant disregard for the express prohibitions placed upon them.

SCOTUS continues:

"Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corprate independent expenditures. Hence, 441b's restrictions on such expenditures are invalid and can not be applied to Hillary. Given this conclusion, the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA 203's extension of 441b's restrictions on independent corporations is also overrruled."

The importance of this quote lies in the Case law that came before it that was itself based upon the complexity of the statutes themselves. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce is cited and it is a prior SCOTUS ruling that, as Justice Kennedy stated in his delivered opinion; "was a significant departure from Ancient First Amendment principles", and Austin had overturned other SCOTUS rulings including First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti. Since McConnell v. Federal Election Commission was in part based upon the Austin ruling then the what was held in McConnell necessarily becomes invalidated along with what was held in Austin. As the ruling explained:

"(a) Although the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," 441b's prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwhithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy---it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people---political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest."...This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content."

Correctly the Court has pointed out that the 1st Amendment has not made any distinction on who or what has the right to free speech, that Amendment has, quite simply, prohibited Congress from abridging speech. Consistently, the Citizens United Court has held in favor of freedom of speech, and yet this entire thread has been an emotional reaction to such advocacy of free speech, ironically relying upon each posters freedom to speech, insisting that others freedom of speech should be denied. Go figure.

It is recommended that everyone actually read the ruling before passing judgment on the soundness of this ruling. Of course, ignorance is bliss, or in this thread blissfully outraged.

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

We have almost found the answer. As you see these global companies are becoming the problem. The search for cheap labor and calling it free enterprise has caused huge problems. Incorporating in every state you do business in should not cause a company to go bankrupt. I understand opposition to this part, and it is asking for alot. I do believe that corporations must be viewed by the law as property and not persons. This is the part that is the most important.

Apples and oranges, 300 incorporations or whatever you would call it would cost my "small businesses" about 3 million, and then i would have to add 5 times as many accountants, and pay 300 new taxes. Forget person in this case is irrelevant, you are talking insanity.

Think about these things. When the solution to a bad economy kills the entire Economy, the solution is no solution.

This decision kills elections by the people, is that free speech?

With all due respect, I don't think you understand the complexity, and utter impossibility of what you propose.

Ziggy Strange

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I read it.

It's also important to read the dissent.

Ziggy Strange

reply to post by ziggystrange


I've read the dissent, and I don't have all day, or all wee hours of the morning, to spend quoting the entirety of the text of this ruling. What I have quoted shows a Court that has shown great deference to the 1st Amendment, recognized the very nature of that Amendment, holding it is rooted in strong mistrust of the government, and challenged the supremacy of administrative agencies and their own proclivity to interpret law in favor of suppression and in blatant disregard for natural rights.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

I've read the dissent, and I don't have all day, or all wee hours of the morning, to spend quoting the entirety of the text of this ruling. What I have quoted shows a Court that has shown great deference to the 1st Amendment, recognized the very nature of that Amendment, holding it is rooted in strong mistrust of the government, and challenged the supremacy of administrative agencies and their own proclivity to interpret law in favor of suppression and in blatant disregard for natural rights.

Dude,

Why is it when people make a suggestion people here go ballistic.
I thought the guy meant for me and the others to read it.

I read all of it yesterday. I disagree with you, but I also don't have the time to argue about it all day.

Have a nice life Dude, and relax.

You seem really angry.

Cyberstray

Originally posted by CyberStray

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

I've read the dissent, and I don't have all day, or all wee hours of the morning, to spend quoting the entirety of the text of this ruling. What I have quoted shows a Court that has shown great deference to the 1st Amendment, recognized the very nature of that Amendment, holding it is rooted in strong mistrust of the government, and challenged the supremacy of administrative agencies and their own proclivity to interpret law in favor of suppression and in blatant disregard for natural rights.

Dude,

Why is it when people make a suggestion people here go ballistic.
I thought the guy meant for me and the others to read it.

I read all of it yesterday. I disagree with you, but I also don't have the time to argue about it all day.

Have a nice life Dude, and relax.

You seem really angry.

Cyberstray

You can't be serious. Have you even read some of the posts in this thread? What part of my text that you just quoted comes off as emotional? Even the remark of not having time to quote the entirety of the ruling is tempered and simply stating that what was held in this ruling was that 1st Amendment has supremacy over any laws that would seek to suppress speech. Why would you attempt to frame that as angry?

You claim to disagree but fail to speak to any part of the ruling you claim you read to point to that disagreement and instead engage in ad hominem attacks on the person who did take the time to actually quote the ruling. Wow!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by CyberStray

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

I've read the dissent, and I don't have all day, or all wee hours of the morning, to spend quoting the entirety of the text of this ruling. What I have quoted shows a Court that has shown great deference to the 1st Amendment, recognized the very nature of that Amendment, holding it is rooted in strong mistrust of the government, and challenged the supremacy of administrative agencies and their own proclivity to interpret law in favor of suppression and in blatant disregard for natural rights.

Dude,

Why is it when people make a suggestion people here go ballistic.
I thought the guy meant for me and the others to read it.

I read all of it yesterday. I disagree with you, but I also don't have the time to argue about it all day.

Have a nice life Dude, and relax.

You seem really angry.

Cyberstray

You can't be serious. Have you even read some of the posts in this thread? What part of my text that you just quoted comes off as emotional? Even the remark of not having time to quote the entirety of the ruling is tempered and simply stating that what was held in this ruling was that 1st Amendment has supremacy over any laws that would seek to suppress speech. Why would you attempt to frame that as angry?

You claim to disagree but fail to speak to any part of the ruling you claim you read to point to that disagreement and instead engage in ad hominem attacks on the person who did take the time to actually quote the ruling. Wow!

I read this thread, and three other variations, you are the one that's dragging behind, coming in on page 12 with your bottom line.

I disagree with foreign interest picking my elected officials.
I also happen to have been a Conservative activist until I read this decision.

I also don't think it's realistic for you to come here with the Freedom of speech argument. The problem is the consequences of the ruling.

Like my former friends you have a one dimensional point of view. Did you even read the different issues this impacts, and creates. Did you read the other threads? Did you post?

You sound like an angry pseudo intellectual.

You
Now 12 pages into this thread and not a soul has even bothered to quote the actual ruling itself. It appears that very few who have posted in this thread, if any have even attempted to read the ruling. God forbid that the SCOTUS actually rendered opinions in the same manner as posters have in this thread, simply reacting from the gut rather than taking the time to study the law involved and the case law, and historical context. Enough all ready!
end

I rest my case.

Good luck Dude

Cyberstray

[edit on 23-1-2010 by CyberStray]

[edit on 23-1-2010 by CyberStray]

reply to post by CyberStray


The assertion that foreign corporations will be picking government officials is just another fallacious argument, unless you are admitting by your own post that you can not make your own decisions and will automatically fall prey to any money spent on political campaigns by corporations. If you are afraid of being so swayed by the political campaigns of corporations then don't pay attention to them, that is, after all, your right.

As to me dragging behind, I have been well aware of this thread and others in regard to this issue, but now is the first chance I've had to post, as I have responsibilities in the real world that take up a good portion of my time. If you read the entire thread then you know full well there have been many posts that have showed quite a bit of emotion and expressed quite a bit of outrage. Conversely, I took the time to quote the ruling itself and to speak directly to what was held in that ruling.

You are responsible for your own actions and insisting that you need a nanny state that protects you from the speech of others does not bode well for your own ability to handle consequences.



[edit on 23-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]