Alito Was Right? Maybe the Supreems DIDN'T sell us out to the corporations.

reply to post by angrysniper


Can I ask pass what? The question is ambiguous

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by angrysniper

 

Can I ask pass what? The question is ambiguous

contribute to funds for attack ads, or even positive ad campaigns.

Originally posted by seattletruth
In my opinion, only you people who now think that this is "not a big deal" have been fooled.

Like I said before, my father is a lawyer who writes law book that is bought all around the world.. He understands the scope of the law.

In his opinion this law truly is horrible. Why?


Although the law does not allow corporations to contribute directly to campaigns, it now allows them to contribute to funds for attack ads, or even positive ad campaigns. Their direct contribution was never the question.

Also, the ruling does not specifically BAR foreign corporations. It simply does not rule against them. You can bet your ass now that the gates have been opened, foreign corporations will invest in these campaign funds, simply because they are not specifically prohibited now.

You people don't seem to understand the concept that one single ruling that is not so bad, or all encompassing, can in effect open the flood gates for other rulings... especially when it comes to the supreme court.

Only the ones who believe this ruling will not have wide sweeping effects are the fools.

You, sir, have an agenda.
You posted this propaganda once before.

I responded with the exact page, as well as the quote from the ruling.
Because the truth does not fit your agenda, you continue to post lies.

Here it is again,
from page 46-47 of the actual decision:

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’spolitical process.

Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”).

Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominantlyby foreign shareholders.

and also from the Boston Herald:

President Barack Obama and other critics say the court’s decision to let corporations spend their money to directly influence elections opened the floodgates to foreign involvement.

That was a step too far. At the moment, foreign corporations may not spend any money in U.S. elections under a provision of federal election law that was untouched by the high court.

The court’s majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically left for another day "whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our nation’s political process.

Link to article

Your father can be the greatest book writing lawyer in the world.
If he has not read the decision, he is just as uninformed as you are.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Detailed Perfection

 

I do not know where or who you got your information from but the info is wrong.

From opensecrets.org

The figures profiled here include money from two sources: These contributors were either the sponsors of a PAC that gave to the politician, or they were listed as an individual donor's employer. Donors who give more than $200 to any federal candidate, PAC or party committee must list their occupation and employer. Based on that information, the donor is given an economic code. These totals are conservative, as not all of the individual contributions have yet been classified by the Center. In cases where two or more people from the same family contributed, the income-earner's occupation/employer is assigned to all non-wage earning family members. If, for instance, Henry Jones lists his employer as First National Bank, his wife Matilda lists "Homemaker" and 12-year old Tammy shows up as "Student," the Center would identify all their contributions as being related to the "First National Bank" since that's the source of the family's income. Although individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, in some cases individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors. A contribution to a candidate may be given an ideological code, rather than an economic code, if the contributor gives to an ideological political action committee AND the candidate has received money from PACs representing that same ideological interest.

Also from the Federal election laws-

(c) Recordkeeping. The treasurer of a political committee shall keep an account of— (1) all contributions received by or on behalf of such political committee; (2) the name and address of any person who makes any contribution in excess of $50, together with the date and amount of such contribution by any person; (3) the identification of any person who makes a contribution or contributions aggregating more than $200 during a calendar year, together with the date and amount of any such contribution; § 432 Federal Election Campaign Laws 14 (4) the identification of any political committee which makes a contribution, together with the date and amount of any such contribution; and (5) the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, the date, amount, and purpose of the disbursement, and the name of the candidate and the office sought by the candidate, if any, for whom the disbursement was made, including a receipt, invoice, or cancelled check for each disbursement in excess of $200.

So the 50 and 200 is correct.

With Obama, he had a total of $178 Million of unnamed donors. These are donors under the $200 donor limit. That is 1/4 of the money Obama raised!

With McCain, even though he was not required to give the donors names for those under the limit, he still did!

Transparency, I think not!
Because I decided either candidate would be a detriment to our country, I decided not to vote. So no partisan attack on my side.

Whomever gave you your information may have been state rules, not national.

As for your statement on the non-contribution of foreigners, how are we to determine the source of contributions if it is not required to release the entire donor list?

The Democratic Party is trying to subvert the TRUE intention of their smear campaign against the Scotus.

This is ALL about disinfo and vilifying business in general. Those damn corporations, they do not deserve to exist, government can do a much better job of running things.

I am all about stopping monopolies and the bankster crooks.

BUT, we cannot allow the moves that they are trying to install. Investigate a little into what they are doing.

Nuff said.

[edit on 2/1/2010 by endisnighe]

You're saying the exact same thing that I just said! But you're trying to make me out as some dumbass on the matter.
"I don't know where you got your information from but you're WRONG!! And to prove it, here is a link that says exactly what you said is right."

C'mon dude.

And as far as my source of information, I DID say that the information was given to me by the Texas Ethics Commission. In fact I have the September 10, 2009 revised edition of the Texas Ethics Commission Candidate Campaign Finance Report right here in front of me. Along with all of the reports that I have to file throught my campaign.

"The Democratic Party is trying to subvert the TRUE intention of their smear campaign against the Scotus."

And I REALLY hope that that was not directed at me.

reply to post by Detailed Perfection


Yes, the part about money was correct, but not the disclosure.

I am still looking for the donor list for Obama's $178 million dollar boondoggle.

I did make a mistake, apology given.

reply to post by endisnighe


Appology accepted. I appologize also if my reply seemed to be 'dickish'. I wasn't trying to be.

I agree with you on the disclosure. Which is why I report and file every single contribution that is made to my campaign. I think that the campaign finance laws need to be changed to make candidates and campaign committees do the exact same thing.

It's far too easy for someone to accept a $1,000,000 campaign contribution and then turn around say that it's an acumulative sum from 20,000 $50 donations.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Nothing in what you posted changed my understanding of the ruling.

America ain't a democracy any more.

If you think the highlighted portion of your post isn't that bad then maybe you never understood what the hubbub was about in the first place.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

Nothing in what you posted changed my understanding of the ruling.

America ain't a democracy any more.

If you think the highlighted portion of your post isn't that bad then maybe you never understood what the hubbub was about in the first place.

It is always good to seethelight, my friend. How are you?

A quick point before I ask you a pertinent question. That point is that America never was a democracy and should not be treated as one now. Apple pies use several of the same ingredients as Banana Cream pies, but that doesn't make Banana Cream pies the same as Apple pies.

Now to my question, what exactly is your understanding of that ruling, and what is all the hubbub about?