- Thread Starter
- #16
But your not suggesting a third party candidate are you ?
I penciled you in for "has been" ..former Pa. senator (little) Ricky Santorum.
The US Supreme Court
- Thread starter joanne
- Start date
But your not suggesting a third party candidate are you ?
I penciled you in for "has been" ..former Pa. senator (little) Ricky Santorum.
tech2101
Veteran
This is one of the most far-reaching and potentially devastating rulings that this court has handed down in decades. We will now see hand-picked representatives of corporations, strictly beholden to corporations steamrolling into office.
Even more so than now.
Very disturbing.
Even more so than now.
Very disturbing.
Garfield1966
Veteran
Yes free speech is the cornerstone but the rights laid down in the COTUS have always been applied to individuals, not corporations. That precedent has been used by the courts for close to 100 years. The SCOTUS has decided to throw out 100 years of prcident for what? Based on what?
delldude
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- #20
Then again, maybe a guy like TX. Gov. (little) Ricky Perry would be your guy delldude.
According to Newsweek and The Washington Independent, foreign and multinational corporations may be the real winners.
Just imagine, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will be able to to spend money to defeat American political candidates by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing them.
China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S. could also significantly influence American elections.
Just imagine, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will be able to to spend money to defeat American political candidates by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing them.
China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S. could also significantly influence American elections.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
I confess I did not read the ruling but my take is this.
Free Speech to me is an absolute be it individual or corporate.
One thing I haven't heard mentioned is how this ruling could effect corporate contributions negatively. Suppose I was "Congressman Sparrowhawk" and prior to the ruling I got the max allowed from oh say General Motors for example as they have 2 plants in my district. This go around they decide to donate 250K to my re-election campaign.
Do you think my opponent and some media aren't going to start calling me "Congressman GM", perhaps to the point where I give back the money?
Food for thought isn't it?
Devastating not in the least. Politicians will be taking advantage of this just as they do now and have before. The only reason why this landed at the feet of the SCOTUS is because of the Clinton documentary that the dems were freaking out over.
http://www.examiner.com/x-3995-US-Supreme-...ton-documentary
Garfield1966
Veteran
All I am saying is that the the rights in the COTUS have always applied to individuals not entities. This is a reversal of president (over 100 years worth from my understanding) and a clear move by activist judges to allow more money into the already corrupt political system.
The COTUS says that "all men are created equal" not all men and corporations. As far as I am aware, there is no place in the COTUS where it address something other than an individual. Granted that may have been because corporations of to day and yesterday are quite different.
FYI, it was already happening anyways. Again, the only reason why this landed at the feet of the SCOTUS is because of the Clinton documentary that the dems were freaking out over during the elections.
http://www.examiner.com/x-3995-US-Supreme-...ton-documentary
delldude
Veteran
Looks like the Dems in their zeal to muzzle first amendment rights took it where the sun don't shine...... 
Looks also like the documentary was right.
Looks also like the documentary was right.
Namecalling is to stop now. And, no some of you are not as clever at it as you think. Discuss the issues, not other members. Posts have been deleted. Time off can be given with no problem.
Also, those of you who think it is your responsibility to out other members by calling them by names of former members that you think they are, need to remember that outing another member is an automatic 14 day suspension. No further warnings will be given.
Also, those of you who think it is your responsibility to out other members by calling them by names of former members that you think they are, need to remember that outing another member is an automatic 14 day suspension. No further warnings will be given.
southwind
Veteran
We all know the story and the rules of the U.S. The left can say anything, think Harry Reid, and get away with it , while the Right gets condemned for using the same tactics !
Again.........................I'll say, if unions can donate...................why not companies ?
"Nuff Said ! "
Again.........................I'll say, if unions can donate...................why not companies ?
"Nuff Said ! "
Garfield1966
Veteran
We all know the story and the rules of the U.S. The left can say anything, think Harry Reid, and get away with it , while the Right gets condemned for using the same tactics !
Again.........................I'll say, if unions can donate...................why not companies ?
"Nuff Said ! "
My understanding on the decision and the laws which were reversed is that Unions fell under the same restrictions that businesses did and that now those restrictions were lifted for both.
Where are you reading that unions did not have or had different restrictions?
Maybe b/c that isn't true. If laws get changed in a left-leaning way, it's called "activist judges" (read Bush/Cheney talking point #4,276) yet if Haliburton/Exxon are allowed by the judiciary to heavily influence future elections, it's called "all in a day's work". THAT is reality.
Similar threads
