It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ventian
Originally posted by SecretGoldfish
ummmmm . . . from the link:
In a written statement, President Obama said the high court had "given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics." He called it a "major victory" for Wall Street, health insurance companies and other interests which would diminish the influence of Americans who give small donations. Obama pledged to "work immediately" with Congress to develop a "forceful response."
"The public interest requires nothing less," Obama said.
That is just spin. Easy to say that after you appoint the judges that pass this. If it isn't overturned in two weeks then it is under the rug. I am sure he will end this just like he ended lobbyists. He is a liar and I am now convinced the most elite president we have ever had. Can't wait til I hear this quote from him as he is from Hawaii. "Let them eat spam."
In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday...
Originally posted by AllexxisF1
I would ask the moderators if they could please merge my thread (the original one on this BB) with this one.
Originally posted by tooo many pills
Has anyone seen the movie Idiocracy with Luke Wilson? That is what America is turning into.
Originally posted by tooo many pills
So it is official now, every politcial candidate that runs for office will be chosen by huge corporation's money.
People have been wondering for years who runs our country. People or wealthy corporations? Today the Supreme Court settled the debate.
Today's decision, Citizens United v. FEC, comes down decisively on the corporate side. It gives advertisers more power than voters, and tilts the balance of power even farther towards wealthy and corporate interests. The newly composed conservative court upset decades of precedent and settled expectations. As Justice Stevens says in dissent:
Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907. We have unanimously concluded that this "reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process," FEC v. NRWC (1982), and have accepted the "legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation." (Citations compressed).
Today's decision turns paper corporations into actual people, and gives advertisers more constitutional protection than voters.
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....
...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....