supreme court decision--- I think this is horrible

[Neognosis]

This is a f'ing disaster and, imo, will do more damage to whatever bit of representative democracy we have left.

If the teabaggers don't get riled up in this, I will see that as evidence that they are, like every other political activist, completely full of siht and willing to spout off any rhetoric that gets their agenda pushed regardless of what they claim their principles are.


Corporations now have first amendment rights? Oh for f's sake....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012102654.html

[joebananas]

This is a horrible decision.


Last one out please turn off the lights

[Neognosis]

woh. If cb and jb agree that something is horrible, you can bet your ass it is SUPER horrible.

Senator Joe Smith.. Brought to you by Exxon, General Motors, and Nabisco.

At DuPont, we don't make a lot of the senators you vote for, We make a lot of the senators you vote for better.

[brew]

I know very little about the campaign finance reform that has been discussed for starters. However, why couldn't legislation be implemented that puts into place a per donor / per candidate, or even a max per donor contribution limit that would limit the impact that one particular individual / entity can have? If everyone still wants campaign finance reform so bad, then just change the way the game is played.

[Nooga678]

Why would the tea party people get riled up? Are they not for the constitution and freedom?

I would say the ones that do get riled up are the one without principles. You have to fully support freedom, you can't half ass it. Once you are willing to give back a little based on your opinion you open the door for everyone to take back a little based on their opinion. No one ever claimed there aren't issues with freedom. It seems to me like you are digging a little to much. If you don't like the ruling state why; using the ruling to jump on "teabaggers" seems a stretch for somone always citing arguement fallacies.

On to the issue - What is the difference between a corporation paying a lobbyist who pays a politician, and a corporation paying a politician? I thought corporations already controlled everything? I don't know enough about how things work to understand the difference and all the implications. Fill me in.

[Wakebrad]

Don't agree with this at all. I'm hoping it won't have too much of an impact. Maybe even make the commercials more evident at who's financing them. But moving towards more corporate influence on our elections is not a step in the right direction.

[Neognosis]

[joebananas]

Nooga678,

I guess I was under the illusion that my vote MIGHT have still meant something. It is now official that it doesn't.

[kyle f]

[Okie Boarder]

This is definitely a very bad idea and another step in the wrong direction.

[DRAGON88]

[Neognosis]

Well, is there any chance Obama has a supreme court appointment coming up in the next 3 years? A liberal judge would most likely vote against this, I think.

I am not sure what the conservative ideology says about this.

[Nooga678]

[Neognosis]

[eeven73]

[DRAGON88]

[Nor*Cal]

[pet575]

Let's not pretend that the "limits" previously in place were observed more closely that speed limit signs on the streets. This ruling doesn't change much in the "real world" it just puts it out in the open now.

2 ways to cancel out a Supreme Court decision:

1. Court later overturns the decision when addressing a new case; or
2. Legislative branch of government passes a constitutional law that nullifies the decision.

Neither is easy nor quick to do, so we'll be stuck with this open policy for awhile now.

[Okie Boarder]

[Neognosis]

[J_DOGG]

pet575, 2. Legislative branch of government passes a constitutional law that nullifies the decision.

Right there....and or ...


IMO the Supreme Court is just telling Congress to police this themselves and forcing their hand to establish real guidelines internally.... They are following the law to the letter and telling Congress you can hang yourself and all look like scumbags or your morality can take over and come to an agreement all are willing to play by. or heaven forbid do away with special interest money all together and only deal at personal levels for support.

And by the way be careful cuz "some" of the American public is watching what you do and might VOTE your asses out...

This is their perfect opportunity to show the voting public what they really stand for....

[Nor*Cal]

[joebananas]

[Junkee]

[Neognosis]

Shoot... Guess that wasn't the greatest ad campaign then...

[Nor*Cal]

[Neognosis]

I have some serious thinking to do... while this very well could be constitutional, is everything that is constitutional the best for the country... uh oh.

[eeven73]

[jason_ssr]

This does nothing but level the playing field. Its actually a step in the right direction. It doesnt change the contribution limits, only who can contribute.

Unions and businesses have a symbiotic relationship. However, only one can fund politicians. Thats not fair. Now either can fun politicians. Libs dont like it because equal opportunity for both sides will not allow them to maintain a democrat slant.

[Neognosis]

"libs" don't like it because it gives business more freedom to push their agendas over what is best for the people. Will a congressman vote against a toxic waste dump in his district if he is owned by Exxon?

[Okie Boarder]

Is this also allowing "groups" of people, that aren't necessarily corporations to contribute and have a voice that they weren't able to before?

[Neognosis]

"groups" of people had to play by different rules before, i don't know if the SC decision changes that. The SC decision says, in essence, that a corporation or union can run adds for or agains whatever candidates they want with no limits.

[STPHNSN23]

[Neognosis]

yea... but the problem is, who are you going to vote for when the only candidates that have the money to get their message overwhelmingly heard are the ones who's campaigns are paid for by Walmart and Exxon?

You might never see or hear anything but what the big money wants you to see and hear...

[Nor*Cal]