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 Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by seethelight

Do you have the feeling like I do that the best days of America are behind us. I think we're seeing the slow fall of America like the Roman Empire from the 200s-400s.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:06 PM
Russ Feingold says:

It is important to note that the decision does not affect McCain-Feingold’s soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the political parties from corrupting the political process. But this decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’ Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government. The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by downisreallyup

Thanks for taking up the fight for America!

The solutions you offer are quite feasible.

You may want to carbon copy your work in this thread over to :

"Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits. Dear God."

I’d love to see my corrupt tyrannical government simply burn, but your ideas make much more sense in terms of curing this government's systemic illness.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by seasoul]

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by BigDaveJr

It's hard to say, but I know I have a better life here and now... and that my kids will have better healthcare and education in Europe.

I can't predict the future, but the average American seems to be heading in a more selfish direction, at least now...and until that changes America will continue to decline.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by downisreallyup

Sadly, these ideas are even harder to implement now, then ever. Esp #2.

McCandidate will simply outspend anyone who opposes the status quo...

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:20 PM
can anybody please merge the two topics?
thanks that would be awesome.

also, it would be awesome if people tried to refrain from double posts on the same topic.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by seethelight

I beg to differ. Americans are not becoming more selfish. Most of us have very little left to give. So when we rise up against Government mandates like Health Insurance that we as individuals literally can't afford to pay, it doesn't mean we don't care, it means we can't care.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by mrbarber
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof by a Corporation or Labor Union ; or abridging the freedom of speech of the Corporation or Labor Union, or of the media department of the Corporation or Labor Union ; or the right of the Corporation or Labor Union peaceably to assemble, and to lobby the Government for a redress of grievances.

Corporations are groups of people. If the people as individuals have the right to donate as much as they want, then they should be able to donate as much as they want as part of a group as well.

Yes, this ruling will increase the level of fascism in America but only if individuals continue to vote for fascism. The voters get what they vote for. I strongly believe that in America the people get exactly who they vote for.

Look at the last presidential election for example. Who were the top three donors to Ron Paul? Individuals from the US Army, then individuals from the US Navy, and finally individuals from the US Air Force personnel. Yeah, it could have been an epic tale of the lone guy who would never sell out against the corporate monster Obama. But again, America did not want that. They voted for the fat cat bankers who were giving the big bucks to Obama.

Democracy is working very well in America. The problem is that what the people are advocating when they go to the polls is fascism. Voting for anybody with an (R) or (D) next to their name means (95% of the time) your vote is for fascism because despite that they do get donations from big corporations and lobbyists, indicating they have sold out into fascism, people continue to vote for them regardless.

If America is ever to come back it will have to be done starting at the personal level of actually paying attention to whats going on (something most ATS members already do). The supreme court will selectively enforce the constitution to the benefit of the fascists because they are elected by fascists. Voting only works when the people actually spend more than 30 seconds of time figuring out who to vote for... so there is your problem. You've got a democracy but the people chose to delegate their authority to Wal-Mart and McDonald's by pretending they have no power and a self-defeatist attitude when they get to the polls.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by mrbarber

You'd be wrong of course.

People have a long history of voting against their own interests.

Protesting against taxes (look at Cali) and healthcare because you don't want to pay to help other people is anti-society at it's most basic.

People don't storm townhall meetings in Europe over socialised education or healthcare.

In fact in Ireland people protested against ending child benefits (money to people with kids under 18...not means tested) because it would potentially hurt kids.

Imagine the rich and the working class choosing taxes, choosing them, so that poor people wouldn't be #ed.

That's what Europe is like.

Not America.

I grew up in America, lived there until almost 30. Glad my kids will grow up here where a University education costs less than 3K a year... and that's for one of the best Unis in Europe.

Can you imagine that in America?

Free children's childcare.

Unbelievably cheap adult childcare.

All paid for through taxes and no one whinges. At least very very few do, because it benefits us ALL.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:50 PM
reply to post by seethelight

Long waiting lists for the Socialised Medicine,however.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by BigDaveJr

Total lie.

If it's an emergency there's no wait. No longer than in the US.

I have been through both systems, I can tell you those stories are crazy exceptions and only used by corporate candidate and media outlets to scare you.

We had a kid in the UK. Total Cost = 0

We had a kid in Ireland that had to have surgery after he was born (he's totally fine thanks) cost of birth and surgery = 0

We don't pay a CENT unless we use care and even then it's dirt cheap... don't have a job? It's completely free.

The UK system is even better.... completely free and top notch.

If you live in the UK (I lived there for 3 years) people love the NHS... only people trying to sell a right-wing agenda spred those lies.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:55 PM
Well... too bad people who support Ron Paul aren't rich in general.

Maybe Peter Schiff can back Paul =D

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:57 PM
Ron Paul is a red herring.

Will never be elected and has so many kooky views if he did get elected the backlash would make Obama's look mild.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by paradigm619

Thanks for adding some analysis to the discussion. Many corporations have moved off shore for tax reasons anyway, so they can't pour cash into the American political process anymore if what you say about the ruling is true.

Anyways, George Soros has dumped considerable amounts of cash into the socialist takeover of America, so maybe a little balance is due.

Given the standing environmental groups have in court, this seems to balance things against that too.

I was listening to one of my pod casts where the founding fathers had had enough of the goofy decisions made by appointed federal judges, so they simply stopped paying them or fired them. The remaining judges got the point that they should not overrule congress all the time.

A free speech issue, as onerous as some of you think that is, overrides any law passed by congress. If unions can buy politicians and exemption from proposed health care taxes, then corporations have the same rights as unions do now.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:10 PM
reply to post by Canis Lupus

This was the correct decision. Without this only corporations owning mass media outlets would have a voice. Free speech is not only for individuals it is also for groups of individuals and the perceived or actual wealth of an individual or group is not a determining factor as to whether they are entitled to freedom of speech. It costs money to run ads in any form or media. How do you as an individual get your opinion out there if not paying for the venue? Who is going to listen to you on a street corner soap box? The president? Your senator? Not likely. If you as an individual can not afford to run an ad you can assemble with like-minded individuals and pool your resources. We also have freedom of thought but as you've likely read here on ATS, Cass Sunstein is out to eliminate that for you. For the time being you have the ability, most of you, whether you use it or not to make your own determinations despite opinions or advertisements posed by individuals and groups. That is the basis for most threads on ATS. You and I calling BS on something we were fed in the media. Are you that frightened by having to continue using your brain? Nothing worth having is easy.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by Hemisphere

You've been fooled into thinking that corporations have some god given right to representation in the political process.

That's certainly not in the constitution.

This kind of comment is why downisreallyup's plan is never gonna work.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:29 PM
I don't think some of you understand. The Supreme Court just ruled that a Corporation or a Union is equal to a citizen and has the same rights. This is dangerous in many ways. That's why both Parties are upset over this. It was perhaps the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court. It's is giving citizenship rights to an entity that is not human or even alive.

The question is, is Obama's outrage real or fake? He says he is upset, but he has spent the last year showering Unions and Corporations with money to buy their loyalty.

There is more too this. Does this now mean when a Union or a Company are on trial, they have the same rights as an individual? From that decision the answer is yes. Get ready for the Unions and Corporations to start suing customers right and left. I would not be criticizing them on this board any more. They were just handed the power of a citizen with unlimited resources.

Next time your tempted to disparage Walmart on the Internet, think twice and make sure you can prove every word you say.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:43 PM
i doubt any of you want my opinion.

when you as a person are employed in america that is when you are a citizen.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:48 PM

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Hemisphere

You've been fooled into thinking that corporations have some god given right to representation in the political process.

That's certainly not in the constitution.

This kind of comment is why downisreallyup's plan is never gonna work.

You're entitled to your opinion see. Right now we have a "one party" government despite the pretense. The only voices you will hear are those who own Fox, NBC etc... Those same voices own the "one party". Corporations are made up of people. The same as media corporations, Acorn, ACLU, AFL-CIO, religious groups and on and on. This ruling puts every group back in play not just a select few that own or are owned by the media. Do you like hearing only from Soros, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? I don't. There are better ways to control corporate interference and influence. Shutting up and shutting out unconnected corporations is not the way despite how long it has been going on.

By the way, not everything is in the constitution. There are 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, you knew that. Those particular rights have been underscored but they are not exclusive. Just my opinion and for the time being it happens to be constitutional.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:54 PM
You know guys, gotta look at the bright side. Think of it this way,

1 corporation spends mucho money campaigning for 1 candidate, another corporation for another candidate, and pretty soon they'll start putting bounties on eachothers heads.

All I see is dead politicians.


"The only good politician, is a dead politician." - George W. Blush

[edit on 21-1-2010 by BiGGz]

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in