Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well for starters I don't see anything in the bills to restrict unions from taking members money and backing the union's candidates they chose rather that letting the members use their individual money to back their candidates of choice.
That's right. All orgs and citizens should donate to a general pool of money that sponsors debates and print ads, no more private funding. It only attracts flies. Amazing I've just solved what 200 lawyers in congress argued for months about to enact mccain feingold.
I think it's a fair question. Everyone is concerned that corporate political advertising can buy our votes, but whose vote will bought? It's not mine or yours, so that just leaves everyone else. It's ALWAYS someone else, isn't it?
What makes us think everyone else isn't as aware as we are or as knowledgeable about the issues? Why do we think other people are dumber than us and can be easily conned, when we can't? Is such an attitude toward our fellow citizens grounded in fact, or is it just that we have such a high opinion of ourselves? Or is it because the majorty voted differently than we did last election and that makes them "wrong" and duped?
If we don't trust our fellow citizens with the vote, what difference does all this other stuff make? You know, Jefferson had enormous faith in the American people and believed they'd always do right in the end. Apparently, there are a lot people here today who don't share that sentiment, who distrust their fellow man, and who would use the power of government to restrict access to political information to keep them from voting the "wrong" way.
That's not democracy and, in fact, such an attitude toward other voters is destructive to our Republic.
OMG....where do I start. This has nothing to do with the votes of private citizens or whether one "trusts" them or not. It is all about elected officials doing the PEOPLE's business with the people's interests in mind when in office and not that of their corporate owners.
Your posts reek of your own blind partisanship, so naturally you assume the rest of us are all equally inhibited. You're wrong.
You are correct. I am extremely partisan when it comes to voting out the whole bunch of them. That I will admit to. Do you have a problem with that or do you enjoy the corruption in DC and the fact that Hope and Change really meant more of the same?
That's right. All orgs and citizens should donate to a general pool of money that sponsors debates and print ads, no more private funding. It only attracts flies. Amazing I've just solved what 200 lawyers in congress argued for months about to enact mccain feingold.
I agree in principle. The only way to end corruption in DC is to take the ability of the $$$$ to flow into the pockets of the crooks, whichever party they belong to.
Again 100% the truth as witnessed by Obama's victory aided by the media. How many votes were bought in the last election? I would venture to say more than any previous election.
Almost 69 1/2 MILLION people voted for Barack Obama, nearly 10 million more than voted for John McCain.
Are you suggesting they ALL were duped and swindled by crooked media types, or just the 10 million difference?
Good Lord! That would be the most sucessful propaganda campaign in history!
Sorry, but the fact is that those millions voted for Obama because they felt he was the better candidate, not because they were all dumb enough to fall for the spin. What arrogance to assume that anyone who voted differently from you must have been swindled!
OMG....where do I start. This has nothing to do with the votes of private citizens or whether one "trusts" them or not. It is all about elected officials doing the PEOPLE's business with the people's interests in mind when in office and not that of their corporate owners.
That should be enough said.
And you think crooked politican's weren't selling their votes before M-F was overturned? Do you think corrupt politician's are something new, something that's only come along in the past few years?
The possibility of electing someone who won't do their duty honestly is an inherent risk we take with self-governance. So long as anyone can run for office, which they can, that's going to happen now and again. It's just a fact of life which no law will prevent forever.
The solution to it certainly isn't to restrict the voters access to information.
Almost 69 1/2 MILLION people voted for Barack Obama, nearly 10 million more than voted for John McCain.
Are you suggesting they ALL were duped and swindled by crooked media types, or just the 10 million difference?
Good Lord! That would be the most sucessful propaganda campaign in history!
Sorry, but the fact is that those millions voted for Obama because they felt he was the better candidate, not because they were all dumb enough to fall for the spin. What arrogance to assume that anyone who voted differently from you must have been swindled!
I read it differently. This last presidential election-- just the top two contenders, no primary, no other candidates... $1,113,000,000
That's a very expensive office, don't you think?
I read it differently. This last presidential election-- just the top two contenders, no primary, no other candidates... $1,113,000,000
That's a very expensive office, don't you think?
Yes. It's not only expensive, it's outrageous, but until the system is reformed, that's what it takes to become President of the United States and that kind of money ain't comin' from mine and your pockets, is it?
Reforming how we elect candidates, though, is a whole 'nuther issue from this one and opens a pandora's box of possible unintended consequences. The current method has served us well for over 200 years and I, for one, would be very cautious about tinkering with it. Just because someone I don't like gets into office isn't a good enough reason to fix what isn't yet broken.
And, if you think it is broken, look back a couple of hundred years at previous elections and you'll see what we have now is rather tame and unexciting in comparison.
You know, the law is sort of like algebra; the answer isn't nearly so important as arriving at it by the proper procedure and Court followed proper procedure in this case
No they didn't, they reached way beyond the question that was before them. As I posted elsewhere. . .
The fact of the matter is that there were two cases of established law in Austin and McConnell. Under direct questioning by the Court, Appellants, Citizens United, indicated that they were not seeking to have the court overrule either Austin or McConnell. They were asking a much "narrower" question. And you don't even have to read very far into the decision (it starts on page 2) to find where Roberts plainly states that he didn't think it was possible to rule based solely on the narrow question before them, claiming that doing so would somehow have a "chilling effect" on First Amendment rights of corporations, who heretofore didn't enjoy any such rights (nevermind the "chilling effect" on individual citizens' rights should Big Business be allowed unfettered ability to buy elections). . .
1. Because the question whether §441b applies to Hillary cannot be resolved on other, narrower grounds without chilling political speech, this Court must consider the continuing effect of the speech suppression upheld in Austin. Pp. 5–20.
(a) Citizen United’s narrower arguments—that Hillary is not an “electioneering communication” covered by §441b because it is not “publicly distributed” under 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2); that §441b may not be applied to Hillary under Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (WRTL), which found §441b unconstitutional as applied to speech that was not “express advocacy or its functional equivalent,” id., at 481 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.), determining that a communication “is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if [it] is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate,” id., at 469–470; that §441b should be invalidated as applied to movies shown through video-on-demand because this delivery system has a lower risk of distorting the political process than do television ads; and that there should be an exception to §441b’s ban for nonprofit corporate political speech funded overwhelming by individuals—are not sustainable under a fair reading of the statute. Pp. 5–12.
"Citizen United’s narrower arguments. . . are not sustainable under a fair reading of the statute."
In other words, had the court decided on only what they were being asked to decide on, Citizens United loses. Their argument is not sustainable under a fair reading of the statute. Well gosh and golly, what's an activist court to do in such a case? Here's what they do. . .
(b) Thus, this case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment’s meaning and purpose. Citizens United did not waive this challenge to Austin when it stipulated to dismissing the facial challenge below, since (1) even if such a challenge could be waived, this Court may reconsider Austin and §441b’s facial validity here because the District Court “passed upon” the issue, Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U. S. 374, 379; (2) throughout the litigation, Citizens United has asserted a claim that the FEC has violated its right to free speech; and (3) the parties cannot enter into a stipulation that prevents the Court from considering remedies necessary to resolve a claim that has been preserved. Because Citizen United’s narrower arguments are not sustainable, this Court must, in an exercise of its judicial responsibility, consider §441b’s facial validity.
In other words, it doesn't matter that the Appellant wasn't asking for a ruling on Austin, or even that it waived the "facial challenge" (whether a corporation was a person), because the Court can just do as they please and consider it anyway if they feel like making their own new law up even if it's not before them. What is the result of them doing that, you ask?
2. Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, §441b’s restrictions on such expenditures are invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary. Given this conclusion, the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA §203’s extension of §441b’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled. Pp. 20–51.
Voilà! As simple as that. A three word sentence. "Austin is overruled," and over 100 years of established law just became nothing more than toilet paper to wipe the ass of the American citizenry.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts promised that body that it was "[his] job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat." He literally threw a wild pitch on this one -- and not only hit the batter with it, but it has ricocheted off of everyone in the stands, as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Abe Lincoln had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.
OMG....where do I start. This has nothing to do with the votes of private citizens or whether one "trusts" them or not. It is all about elected officials doing the PEOPLE's business with the people's interests in mind when in office and not that of their corporate owners.
