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.
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates."
0bama: "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.
This quote comes from a man who decided to forgo public campaign financing. Candidate 0bama opted out of the public campaign system once he figured out that he could raise more bundled campaign cash then McCain, and then obama went on to raise more money then any presidential candidate in history.
Unless I have been reading the wrong news articles, this ruling only allows for campaign advertisements not campaign contributions.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are.
Seems a majority agree that donations are a form of free speech.
No, I said anyone with half a brain can see the problems. If you don't see them, then you have LESS than half. I am independent, and as you can see most conservatives don't like this ruling either.
What we need is a well written law, or an amendment to the US Constitution, that does not infringe on freedom of speech.
What we had was an unconstitutional law where politicians were deciding which groups or associations of Americans should be allowed freedom of political speech and which ones could not.
Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart told the court that the government could ban a book if it endorsed one of the candidates.
Roberts: "It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, 'And so vote for X,' the government could ban that?"
The law was a bad law, and deserved to be struck down, we need good laws not just any law.
We cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations. We need a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
We cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations. We need a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
I just have to ask; When did you finally notice?
Do you dismiss the amount of evil corporate money that flooded into the campaign last year?
We cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations. We need a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Useless endeavor, if you think you can petition the courts to reverse a decision.
If the law was a bad law, and violated Constitutional rights, it needs to be struck down, regardless of the consequences that may result. The court can only look to whether the law is constitutional or not, that is all there is too it.
Do you dismiss the amount of evil corporate money that flooded into the campaign last year?
Until it hits the MSM and appears on their favorite URL then it's nothing but tin foil and conspiracy.
NOW it's a problem. Obama is fighting against the very thing he practiced ?
He wants lobbyists out...does he plan to fire his advisors ? What about that Monsanto guy in the FDA..does he go ?
He talks the talk but that's where it ends folks. His actions do not reflect his words.
This decision is not as major as some may think because it's been going on for years under the radar, in back rooms, by third party associations.
Useless endeavor, if you think you can petition the courts to reverse a decision.
If the law was a bad law, and violated Constitutional rights, it needs to be struck down, regardless of the consequences that may result. The court can only look to whether the law is constitutional or not, that is all there is too it.
It is called free speech! Practice your right. Online petition at post #284.
Everyone find the online petition to speak out against this ruling of the Supreme Court on post #284.
Where was this petition and advocacy for corporate money in politics 2008?
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.
