Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

reply to post by seethelight


My friend, you are so right is not funny, amid all the sarcasm the jokes and the anger, you are right, our nation has never step as low as it has step today and this our supreme court the one doing this, what I will like to know is who pay the supreme court to do this.

Aggie Man- I am sure that it won't be long before our politicians might as well wear outfits like that.

This is really depressing news indeed. Corporations do not represent or advocate for American interests, they should not be allowed free range to donate as they wish, corrupting our current political system. This to me really seems like a fascist corporate takeover. Corporations do not even provide stable jobs in this economy compared to small businesses, why does the government cater to their interests? Obviously because of the money, which is only going to get worse now.

Frogs- I noticed the other thread later, I was only looking for this news in the breaking news forum, didn't think to look at the political madness forum. I am sorry for the duplicate thread.

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."

Spin? She voted against it!

In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday...

5 to 4. There were 4 dissenters listed, with Sotomayor as one of them. Which means she was one of four who voted against it. At some point, you'll have to let a little reality slip into your world-view.

I already started a thread on this that has reached three pages before this thing was written. Whatever.

This was a strictly Conservative ruling by the court. ALL the liberal Judges dissented this decision.

Not to mention the fact Senator Mitch McConnel was actually their to file his amicus brief for this decision.

So please if you are looking for someone to blame look to Conservatives and their Judges.

reply to post by AllexxisF1


Thanks, I am sure that many here knows including supporters of conservatives that when it comes to corporations in the US they are Republicans priority, just look at how adamant they are to have a public option on the health care bill, because that doesn't go with with mandatory slavery of the health care bill.

Still both parties carter to the ones that pays most of the bills for them.

So please if you are looking for someone to blame look to Conservatives and their Judges.

agree. this was a bush-nominee driven decision

American democracy has become a contradiction in which social equality is no longer defined by the people, but by the elites and special interests.

"Special Interests: Forces of Democracy?"
thefundamentalsus.blogspot.com...

Our government needs to be dismantled, and rebuilt from first principles.

“Dissertations on First Principles of Government” by Thomas Paine.
www.cooperativeindividualism.org...

“Give me liberty, or give me death!”
en.wikisource.org...

F.T.G.
“The Three Branches of Government”



[edit on 21-1-2010 by seasoul]

I would ask the moderators if they could please merge my thread (the original one on this BB) with this one.

reply to post by suicydking


After reading the first post I became rapidly convinced that someone would make a go at making this an Obama thing. I could barely count to three before my fears were confirmed. We cannot possibly hope to resolve any of these problems if we are not at first honest about their causes. Obama is reacting poorly to a lot of problems in my personal opinion but has thus far been the cause of very few if any of our most pressing issues.

Re; the OP, this is disturbing and concerning news. Obama may be able to redeem some of his vices if he really does attempt to establish real opposition for this.

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.

and consider awarding all stars to AllexxisF1 as well

first is first after all

Huge victory for freedom of speech!

Another McCain/some random democrat law CRUSHED!

reply to post by Carseller4


Probably the last vote I will ever cast for a republican. I damn sure won't vote for a democrat either. These idiots just insured that I am one less vote either one of them will have to worry about. Republicans are the last I want to see scream about the first amendment and still have the patriot act. This was about buying campaigns. Congrats to the democrats for standing on the sidelines during this moment while grinning and flipping us the finger. Screw the government. I knew they were bad but now I evenly hate both sides. My vote goes to any independent from now on.

So it is official now, every politcial candidate that runs for office will be chosen by huge corporation's money. Forget the unions they don't have corporation money, that means nothing.

This is a terrible thing. Pretty much the exact opposite of what our country should be doing.

The other 2 branches of our government need to get all over this and not let this happen, but why should they? They will be the ones reaping the benefits.

The American people will no longer chose the candidates. There will be huge campaign speeches of fireworks, lazer shows, elephants, donkeys, and plasma screens. The more extravagant the campagin, the more people who will vote for their favorite show.

I feel sick and so should you.



[edit on 21-1-2010 by tooo many pills]

As much as I'm against this ruling, one of the stipulations is that corporations are still limited on direct campaign contributions. So they can't just openly bribe politicians.

What they can do, however, is spend millions of dollars on commercials, advertisements, speakers, etc. that support certain political candidates. And I'm sure many of those candidates would be more than happy than to work for those companies' best interests since they were so kind to support them in the election. What worries me more is what, if any, restrictions are placed on foreign corporations operating in the US? Are these corporations authorized to support US political candidates? Doesn't that seem wrong?

Either way this is bad news for the common man.

New sweek

[edit on 21-1-2010 by paradigm619]

Wow this totally Sucks!

I can see Monsanto, DuPont, Berkshire, all the big boys licking there chops on this right now.

I have a question:

Lets say for example, that BOA, or some other TARP recipient, takes some TARP money, and throws it at a camapign, is that legal?

One of greatest victories of capitalism!

"Businesses try to influence consumer purchase decisions through marketing and advertisement as well as the creation of new and improved products"

Now let's start the bids, gentleman!

[edit on 21/1/10 by blackcube]

Has anyone seen the movie Idiocracy with Luke Wilson? That is what America is turning into.

Originally posted by tooo many pills
Has anyone seen the movie Idiocracy with Luke Wilson? That is what America is turning into.

My thoughts exactly. Truth is if Mike Judge was to run for president. I would vote for him regardless. He actually has brains and common sense.

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.

Indeed ... It's Official. Corporations Rule.

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.

Today is a bad day.

Please take time to research "corporate person hood" and why it must be revoked!! Google it there is lot's of info. Here is a start...

Corporate Personhood

Corporatism

This is a very dark day in US history and is the final blow to our democratic republic and individual rights. If there was any doubt before... all that is gone now as, sadly, we are officially a Fascist state.


Mussolini Text

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....