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.
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.
Please....Obama's comment is beside the point. Let us stipulate that both Dems and Reps are tainted. Everybody knows that. That's what we're trying to do something about!
Please tell me why a corporation should have ANY influence in a political campaign - EVER! The people that run them have the same personal vote that everyone else does - and that is ALL they should have. They should NOT be free to funnel their vast corporate resources toward their agenda, whatever that may be. That isn't free speech and you know it - it is influence peddling and corruption.
Please....Obama's comment is beside the point. Let us stipulate that both Dems and Reps are tainted. Everybody knows that. That's what we're trying to do something about!
Please tell me why a corporation should have ANY influence in a political campaign - EVER! The people that run them have the same personal vote that everyone else does - and that is ALL they should have. They should NOT be free to funnel their vast corporate resources toward their agenda, whatever that may be. That isn't free speech and you know it - it is influence peddling and corruption.
So...you've always held this belief.....even in 2007/2008 when obama's campaign coffers overflowed with corporate donations?
So...you've always held this belief.....even in 2007/2008 when obama's campaign coffers overflowed with corporate donations?
Yes, I've long held this belief....but the course of politics in recent years has brought this issue to the forefront and greatly strengthened my resolve. And this court decision makes it a prime topic of the day.
Obama is wailing about this ruling, but let us remember this;
Quote:
It’s worth pointing out that Barack Obama had an opportunity to limit that influence in the 2008 election simply by remaining in the public matching fund program that every major Presidential candidate had used since Watergate.
In fact, Obama himself pledged to do just that in 2007 and again in early 2008, but changed his mind in June when he discovered that he could raise a lot more money than his opponent — by currying favor with Wall Street and the unions, as well as ethanol companies and a host of corporate-sponsored, lobbyist-run PACs.
Obama benefited from those evil corporate dollars - he raised approx $750 Million.
Oh, but it is perfectly alright for the unions to contribute whatever they like (always to the democrats) and its perfectly alright for newspapers to influence elections by their advocacy for a particular candidate or by sending out hit piece after hit piece about the candidate they oppose (think NYT in 2008).
SCOTUS just ruled that the laws should apply to everyone.
Obama is wailing about this ruling, but let us remember this;
Obama benefited from those evil corporate dollars - he raised approx $750 Million.
Oh, but it is perfectly alright for the unions to contribute whatever they like (always to the democrats) and its perfectly alright for newspapers to influence elections by their advocacy for a particular candidate or by sending out hit piece after hit piece about the candidate they oppose (think NYT in 2008).
SCOTUS just ruled that the laws should apply to everyone.
And Bush raised record amount in 2004, but this is NOT about past elections, it's about the future ones.
Obama is wailing about this ruling, but let us remember this;
Obama benefited from those evil corporate dollars - he raised approx $750 Million.
Oh, but it is perfectly alright for the unions to contribute whatever they like (always to the democrats) and its perfectly alright for newspapers to influence elections by their advocacy for a particular candidate or by sending out hit piece after hit piece about the candidate they oppose (think NYT in 2008).
SCOTUS just ruled that the laws should apply to everyone.
We are on the same page. We all want to end this practice. We can speak out by signing the online petition (link in post #284). I assume you have already signed it Sanrene.
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.
