Were fucking owned

evince

evince

Truthmatters
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&hp


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run 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.
 
Yeah - I couldn't believe that ruling. That's just what the gov't needs; more corporate influence.

"Money is speech"....
 
evince said:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&hp


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run 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.
Click to expand...



You didn't seem to mind your Demwit Party being bought and paid for buy the UNIONS for the last 20 years while limiting the freedom of business...
how come?:pke:
 
They will cloud ANY issue with massive airwave assaults until the mass of voters dont know what is up or down.

Were screwed.
 
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case.

Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained ''the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.''
 
We seriously need a campaign finance reform amendment to the constitution. I'm sure later supreme courts will reverse this atrocious ruling, which is on the level of Plessy vs. Fergusson, but we can't afford to wait until then.
 
evince said:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&hp


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run 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.
Click to expand...

Yet another thing lost under your King Obama
 
What is with the connie cons & their sniping about unions?

This applies to all spending, dummies. Do you agree with the ruling or not?
 
evince said:
WOW you really think the unions can even come close to the spending the corps are going to do?

Pull your head out of your arse
Click to expand...

LMAO....

Yes... they can... and they do... or are you completely blind to what has transpired over the past year?

GM bailout.... stockholders completely destroyed (which should be the case in bankruptcy) EXCEPT for the union pension plans... THEY get stock in the new company.

How many visits to the WH for the SEIU leader?

TAX on Cadillac plans... UNLESS you work for a union.

yeah... those unions won't have ANY influence at all.
 
This decision flows from the bullshit notion that corporations are "persons" and are therefore entitled to all constitutional protections afforded to persons. Corporations aren't people. They are legal constructs of the state and as such should be subject to whatever regulations the state wants to impose on them.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO....

Yes... they can... and they do... or are you completely blind to what has transpired over the past year?

GM bailout.... stockholders completely destroyed (which should be the case in bankruptcy) EXCEPT for the union pension plans... THEY get stock in the new company.

How many visits to the WH for the SEIU leader?

TAX on Cadillac plans... UNLESS you work for a union.

yeah... those unions won't have ANY influence at all.
Click to expand...

Obama agreed to remove the tax on Cadillac plans, but since any new renegotiations are dead on that bill it's not going to happen.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO....

Yes... they can... and they do... or are you completely blind to what has transpired over the past year?

GM bailout.... stockholders completely destroyed (which should be the case in bankruptcy) EXCEPT for the union pension plans... THEY get stock in the new company.

How many visits to the WH for the SEIU leader?

TAX on Cadillac plans... UNLESS you work for a union.

yeah... those unions won't have ANY influence at all.
Click to expand...


That's a nice strawman you set up there. Congrats on knocking it down.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO....

Yes... they can... and they do... or are you completely blind to what has transpired over the past year?

GM bailout.... stockholders completely destroyed (which should be the case in bankruptcy) EXCEPT for the union pension plans... THEY get stock in the new company.

How many visits to the WH for the SEIU leader?

TAX on Cadillac plans... UNLESS you work for a union.

yeah... those unions won't have ANY influence at all.
Click to expand...

So, you agree with the ruling?
 
Onceler said:
What is with the connie cons & their sniping about unions?

This applies to all spending, dummies. Do you agree with the ruling or not?
Click to expand...

Take a look at this thread... look at all the libs mentioning the corps... oh those evil corps blah blah blah blah....

Just balancing it out. Especially given the enormous influence the unions are showing right now.

That said... no... money is not free speech. Individuals are limited on what they can contribute. So too should PACs, Corps and unions.

We need to publicly finance the elections. There are plenty of ways for the candidates to get their message out to the people they mean to represent. They don't need to be bombarding us with one negative attack ad after another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top