Conervatives in the Supreme Court just Loosened Rules on Corporate Campagn Contibutions... (Representatives, legal)
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.
People are bashing various things, and one of them is that money is equated to free speech in the first place.
Money doesn't equate to free speech and the Court never said it does.
What the Court ruled was that the FCC does not, and should not, have the power to regulate who can or cannot be heard, which the challenged law gave them the power to do.
We may not like the fact that corporations can become involved in the election process, or like what they have to say, but the courts long ago ruled that corporations are "people" in a Constitutional sense and, hence, have the same rights as anyone else.
Frankly, I agree with them. If the Congress wants to pass a law denying corporations the same rights as citizens (one which will pass Constitutional muster) or if the courts want to revisit that issue, fine. But, until they do, MY liberties are only as secure as theirs, so I'll offer my support to the Court for ruling correctly.
In any case, what people fear is the amount of money corporations can bring to bear in favor of their candidates. However, elections simply cannot be bought, no matter how many dollars are spent, because when the individual voter enters that polling booth, nobody is in there with them. No corporate lawyers, no government functionaries, no lobbyist's, no influence peddlers...NOBODY. The voter is free to vote his/her conscience and that's exactly what they do.
Yes, a flood of campaign ads can influence people's votes, but to assume they can be conned and swindled into voting for the "wrong" candidate, presupposes that the average Joe is dumber than we are. If WE can see what's going on, what makes anyone think everyone else can't too?
See, in the end, our democratic process only works when we TRUST our fellow citizens to be as dilgent with their vote as we are and to ACCEPT their decisions on election day, whether we agree with it or not.
Trying to find some way to limit the voters exposure to ideas we don't agree with is counter-productive, un-Constitutional and downright un-American.
I can't help but notice that in this thread, the usual leftists' slavering desire to hurt and destroy the people they whine are somehow "oppressing" them, is far more important to them than protecting the freedoms described in the Constitution.
Apparently the 1st amendment is only important to them when it protects rights THEY want to use. When it protects all American's rights, they are eager to ignore it or throw it out.
And these people think they are the ones who should be running our country?
Another brick in the wall of liberal government control of speech, has been eliminated. Or most of it, anyway.
One of the longest-lasting legacies of any President, is the judicial appointments he has made. Under George W. Bush, the balance of the court has swung somewhat, with the two appointments he made to the Supremes voting to restore freedom of speech, against the efforts of Obama's only appointee and her cohorts to keep restricting it.
Yes, this also means that unions can pay for more ads than they used to. We'll never have a perfect society until we have perfect people (which would mean, no more unions among other things). But the more freedom we have, the more society will tend to the good side overall... even with bumps in the road like unions trying to vote themselves more money and power thru campaign ads. C'est la vie.
But this is an overall step toward restoring the freedom so many leftists tried to deny. Recall that the latest attempt at so-called Campaign Finance "Reforrm" (aka McCain-Feingold law) came as a result of Democrats massively violating the laws that existed at the time, soliciting and receiving money from foreign sources, using supposedly "soft" money for ads directly boosting their candidate (Bill Clinton), and doing it so much that even Republicans started doing it in the last few weeks of the 1996 campaign. Congress's response to this massive lawbreaking, was to make more laws rather than massively punishing the people who broke the laws already on the books... which would have been humorous if it weren't so sad.
Now some of those misplaced laws have been rolled back.
Thank you, George W. Bush. You did some things wrong (including signing Campaign Finance Reform in the first place) and some things right. Your judicial appointments, especially to the Supreme Court, were one of the things you did right. And this striking down of unconstitutional laws restricting freedom of political speech, is a direct result.
by Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – 32 mins ago
Jan. 21, 2010
WASHINGTON – By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
I'm curious as to why you only mention leftist's crying when the Court stands up for Constitutional princples and not the so-called conservatives?
As I recall, we heard much the same kind of panicked outrage from the right when the Court ruled against the Bush administration on issues related to GITMO.
I can't help but notice that in this thread, the usual leftists' slavering desire to hurt and destroy the people they whine are somehow "oppressing" them, is far more important to them than protecting the freedoms described in the Constitution.
Apparently the 1st amendment is only important to them when it protects rights THEY want to use. When it protects all American's rights, they are eager to ignore it or throw it out.
And these people think they are the ones who should be running our country?
BTW, where are all the leftists who used to lambast the rest of us with, "The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is!"?
I haven't heard much from them since, oh, the DC v. Heller case (affirming that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to own and carry a gun) a few years back. And now they seem to be REALLY quiet.
In any case, what people fear is the amount of money corporations can bring to bear in favor of their candidates. However, elections simply cannot be bought, no matter how many dollars are spent, because when the individual voter enters that polling booth, nobody is in there with them. No corporate lawyers, no government functionaries, no lobbyist's, no influence peddlers...NOBODY. The voter is free to vote his/her conscience and that's exactly what they do.
Wow, have you been under a rock for at least the last half century?
The teapot dome scandal is a case of an election and candidate being bought and sold by corporations and that was almost a century ago, we've only gotten looser with the level of corporate collusion. This has been going on since forever. Your view of how much power the voting population has is cute, but pretty unrealistic. Corporations just buy both sides with financing and threaten to cut them off if they dont comply.
People whine that politicians are corrupt and how corporations are running everything, this would be the primary reason for it.
I would suggest you give a good read of something like Manufacturing Consent.
Quote:
See, in the end, our democratic process only works when we TRUST our fellow citizens to be as dilgent with their vote as we are and to ACCEPT their decisions on election day, whether we agree with it or not.
Propoganda is to a democracy like a hammer is to a Dictatorship. You can't be very diligent with your vote if information is clouded.
Quote:
I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
-Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by FinkieMcGee; 01-21-2010 at 12:34 PM..
When I first heard of this, my initial thoughts were,
"Wow!! I guess that's why Obama wanted Sotomayor...so they can open the floodgates of cash from unions to help the democrat's agenda."
Then I read that it was a conservative majority that allowed it, and I thought,
"Dammit!! So much for republicans seperating themselves from corporate interests".
Then my conspiracy-theory-thinking brain kicked in....
I see this as a way for the "Machine" to squelch any 'te-party' candidates, or 'average Joes' from challenging the political elite.
The carreer politicians now have unlimited cash flow, with no disclosure requirements
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.
Conspiracy Theory ahead.....
