RNC pushing case to SCOTUS allowing corporations to give money directly to politicians

Corporations loving Republican National Committee pushing for yet again more money buying elections...

Since SCOTUS ruled in favor of Citizen United, you betcha they gonna rule in favor of this BS.

Rep ublican National Committee Files Brief Seeking To Allow Corporate Funding Of Campaigns

One of the few remaining limits on corporations’ power to buy and sell American elections is that corporations are not allowed to give money directly to federal candidates. Citizens United frees them to spend billions of dollars running ads or otherwise trying to change the result of an election to suit their interests, but corporations cutting checks directly to candidates or to political committees such as the Republican National Committee is one of the few things the Supreme Court’s conservatives have not yet imposed upon the country.

If the RNC gets its way, however, that will soon change. In a brief filed yesterday in the Fourth Circuit, the RNC argues that the federal ban on corporate donations is unconstitutional in large part because it applies across the board to all corporations

This attempt to make mom and pop stores — as opposed to Halliburton — the face of the RNC’s argument is clever, but it does not change the implications of their argument. If a court accepted the RNC’s argument, it would have to strike down the entire federal ban on corporate donations — leaving Exxon and Halliburton free to give money to any candidate they’d like.

Disgusting.

as long as the candidates have to wear the corporate logo on their suits, like nascar drivers, at least we'll know who owns them.

which would be an improvement, since they are all bought and paid for now, but it's hard to tell who is on what team

reply to post by Vitchilo


Anyone who still believes the USA is anything more than a corporatocracy is doing one thing only and that is fooling themselves. Well, I take that back, they are doing two things, the second is being a corporate buying the American government enabler.

Voting? Nah, won't do a darn bit of good until the day comes when we have money OUT of politics and corporation person-hood is removed with their hands tied behind their proverbial person-hood backs.

Harm None
Peace

In other countries politicians have to turn over all of their buisness to an handler and elsewhere it is legal to bribe them. At least the Italians have the decency to put on a show for the public.

It seems that it's time for a revolution. Not only does the government not respond to the will of the people or obey the Constitution, but they are literally puppets through which the agenda of these corporations, bankers, and wealthy people is played out.

Unfortunately I didn't learn much in school about history, but I was just watching an Infowars interview with Stewart Rhodes of oathkeepers.org. He described the Revolution of 1800, when just a short while after the country was established, politicians who didn't abide by the Constitution had practically hijacked our government. They were passing unconstitutional legislation, similar to things that we're seeing today such as the indefinite detention of the NDAA or the Patriot Act.

Rather than going to the federal government and begging that they get rid of it and telling them that it was unconstitutional, they went to the state legislature, and told them that since the legislation was unconstitutional, it was null and void. Then after that was made clear, they formed a political party that basically took back the government, and Jefferson got elected as president.

Rhodes called Ron Paul a modern day Thomas Jefferson, and if you think about things happening in that time versus today, that's a completely appropriate and accurate comparison. That's what needs to happen, a new political party needs to be established that gets rid of all of these people who piss on the Constitution and don't listen to the will of the people. A revolution if you will. A Ron Paul revolution

I have to be careful here. Please think about this before you hit the igniter on the flame thrower.

I understand that people don't like the idea of businesses being able to influence elections. I'm not saying that's good or bad, that's not my point.

What I'm wondering is how can the Court prevent every business in the country from writing a check to the candidate they want to support? Ok, they can do it by declaring it unconstitutional, but why is it unconstitutional? I f I own a business, I'm responsible for the losses and the profits are mine. Why can't I donate them?

If the business is owned by five people and they agree to take X number of dollars out of the profits and send it to Ron Paul, or whoever, why is that unconstitutional?

Hey, at least it will be out in the open now. What more could we ask for? Man o man. Even the political big wigs are tired of exploiting loopholes. Let's just alter everything in their favor so it's SOP.

Honestly though, this really doesn't change anything. It's merely a formality of method.

Republicans are for free speech.

Glad to see them going to the Supreme Court to try to protect this basic right.

Originally posted by Carseller4
Republicans are for free speech.

Glad to see them going to the Supreme Court to try to protect this basic right.

You must be kidding? So you think Corporations are people and money is free speech?