Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-28-2010, 09:46 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,271 posts, read 37,040,759 times
Reputation: 16386

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mirriam View Post
Um, but it IS true. Foreign companies with a subsidiary in the US can contribute money for ad campaigns under this law. If it's not true, they need to be sure that's in the text of the law.

The whole law stinks and I am completely against it. I won't vote for any more corporate-owned candidates, Dem or Rep.
All the Supreme Court did was to agree with the plaintiff that the McCain-Finegold bill was unconstitutional. Nothing less, nothing more.

Before the McCain-Finegold bill, politicians were prohibited from accepting donations from foreign companies or foreigners. This law is still the same today, since it has nothing to do with the McCain-Finegold rules. The Supreme Court restored the First Amendment.

Also, there is such a thing as "separation of powers" between the three branches of Government, something that Obama does not seem to know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-28-2010, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Over There
5,094 posts, read 5,431,784 times
Reputation: 1208
I think Alitos response was totally justified considering Obama not only attempted to embarrass them but got the insult he was using wrong! Obama owns them a very public apology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2010, 09:52 PM
 
Location: Over There
5,094 posts, read 5,431,784 times
Reputation: 1208
This is what the law says. The bold part is the key phrase. So NO subsidiaries can NOT contribute. The companies PRIMARY/ PRINCIPAL business MUST be here in the US.

Quote:
Current federal law -- legal eagles can find it at 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) -- prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making "directly or indirectly" a donation or expenditure "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2010, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,271 posts, read 37,040,759 times
Reputation: 16386
As most of us know, the NYT isn't necessarily a "conservative" news rag, but even this NYT person agrees with Alito:
Justice Alito’s Reaction - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2010, 10:13 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,893 posts, read 18,409,927 times
Reputation: 6465
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyanger View Post
But Obama chose his time and place well? It's all starting to make sense now.
He sure knows exactly what he is doing doesn't he. Picks his timing oh so good. I don't care what anyone thinks, it was uncalled for what he did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2010, 10:19 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,893 posts, read 18,409,927 times
Reputation: 6465
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtAJC View Post
Why in the world would I want Obama to resign?? The longer his term moves on the more Americans wake up and see him for what he is...a charlatan, a "community organizer" who has very little political experience, and NO business experience.....

Thank you for truly undertanding what is going on here, too bad some will never understand. Earlier a member told me that i was nuts, that everything that is going on right now, is because of Bush. I just get so tired of the freaking excuse, it gets boring, and so stale. The member said all that is going on is because of Bush's failed 8 years. I don't see it that way, do you! I am in no way saying Bush was not without his faults, but this is not about Bush anymore, this is Obama's Watch, why can't some understand this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2010, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,182,754 times
Reputation: 6552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archan View Post
The members of the Supreme Court are there to represent the third branch of government. They are not supposed to be pro or con. Like you said impartial.
But what if what Obama said was untrue? Should they remain silent partners? That is hardly impartial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2010, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,611,102 times
Reputation: 18503
Quote:
Originally Posted by jksevers View Post
"Obama took issue with a ruling that overturned two of the court's precedents and upended decades of restrictions on corporations being able to use their profits to finance campaigns for and against candidates." (taken from The Washington Post)
Kudos to Alito for his shaking his head and saying "Not true" as Obama stood there chastising the Supreme Court last night. We need more Alitos who will be clear on their stand in disagreement rather than the bobble heads who agree with Obama REGARDLESS of what comes out of his mouth.
Well, if there were any question in anyone's mind as to whether Alito's plan was just to be another tool of the Republican Party, he clearly removed those doubts last night.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2010, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Over There
5,094 posts, read 5,431,784 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
So if you're one of the people criticizing Obama here, doesn't the fact that Obama was clearly right and Alito clearly wrong on this particular issue--whether foreign corporations could use this ruling to spend their money to influence American elections--trouble you at all?

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Mr. Olson, do you think that media corporations that are owned or principally owned by foreign shareholders have less First Amendment rights than other media corporations in the United States?

MR. OLSON: I don't think so, Justice Alito, and certainly there is no record to suggest that there is any kind of problem based upon that. And I come back to the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." Now, what this Court has repeatedly said is that there may be laws inhibiting speech if there is a compelling governmental interest and a narrowly tailored remedy. But there is no justification for this.

NO he is NOT right! The business MUST have been incorporated here in the US and have their primary business headquarters in the US. HE WAS WRONG!!!

Current Federal Law clearly shows that if the company has their primary business in a foreign country then they can not contribute:

Quote:
2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) -- prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making "directly or indirectly" a donation or expenditure "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2010, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,809 posts, read 26,403,608 times
Reputation: 25705
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
All the Supreme Court did was to agree with the plaintiff that the McCain-Finegold bill was unconstitutional. Nothing less, nothing more.

Before the McCain-Finegold bill, politicians were prohibited from accepting donations from foreign companies or foreigners. This law is still the same today, since it has nothing to do with the McCain-Finegold rules. The Supreme Court restored the First Amendment.

Also, there is such a thing as "separation of powers" between the three branches of Government, something that Obama does not seem to know.
The main thing that came out of this was Obama's arrogance and ignorance of the law...or perhaps willingness to distort the truth.

From what I have read (please correct me if I am wrong), the case did not deal with who could contribute to individual politicians or political campaigns. It only allows companies/groups to buy and run ads, and to run them within the 60 days before an election, which was banned by M/F. Face it, some corporations have already been exempted from this, specifically media corporations. I'd much rather hear for example about the impact of climate change legislation from a knowledgable person at an energy company or auto company than some editor at the NYT. As long as the source of funding for the ads is included I don't see it as an issue. It also allows an environmental group, the NRA or the ACLU to advertise for or against candidates that impact their ogranizations. Again, not a bad thing, it helps dilute the one sided opinions of the MSM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:06 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top