Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
If Labor Unions get to donate large amounts of money,I think it's only fair to let companies and Corporations do that also!

bingo

Stop and think for a minute - labor unions were previously restricted from donating unlimited amounts of money to ads or candidates by the same rules that restricted corporations. Now BOTH will be able to use their influence to skew and distort American politics.

Now ask yourself who has more money and influence - the unions, which for all intents and purposes are a dying breed, or multi-national corporations? The Fortune 100 companies alone earn BILLIONS each quarter and if they dedicate even just 1% of that amount to buying off elected officials to favor them they'll crush all opposition. The two might go toe to toe for a while, but the unions haven't a snowballs chance in hades of lasting, and as the corps extend their dominion over politics they'll be all but wiped out, including the American workforce, and sort of regulation, any sort of environmental policy, or protection for American consumers. We'll be locked into a never ending cycle of mega-$$ corporations bilking the American populace to suit their own greed and avarice.

United Defense Industries, Hallibuton, Exxon-Mobil, All the sleazy Enrons and WorldComs still out there and especially the Wall Street Mega Bankers (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, et al) will bleed every last dollar from our economy and render our populace into indentured servitude.

reply to post by ziggystrange


Ziggy, your self righteous indignation and emotionalism has truly eroded any sense of rational thought you may have ever had. You deign to quote the entirety of a post I made and then have the audacity to pretend you are refuting it simply by claiming a different post of mine contradicts the longer one. However, you make no rational argument as to why one post of mine contradicts the other, you simply just claim it is so and expect people to buy that.

You constantly refer to Alexander Hamilton insisting I should read his thoughts on the matter ignoring the obvious fact that I have read works of Hamilton's including his contributions as Publius in The Federalist Papers, but you make no rational argument as to what Hamilton has said on the matter, simply name dropping expecting people to believe you've read the works of Hamilton.

You attempt to frame the longer post I made as diatribe when in fact all it was was a response to your diatribe. Your effort to frame my response as diatribe reveals your own lawless nature and an agenda that would minimize rights and turn them into government granted privileges.

Law is law Ziggy, and there is no room for interpretations. One can take a liberal view of gravity if they so choose but this will not allow them to leap off of a building and fly without the proper apparatus that works within the law of gravity.

When one murders another there is no room for interpretation of what is meant by murder, the only question is whether the accused did the deed or not. Would you call this a baseless claim?

You ask if I am infallible and I respond by stating I have never made any such assertion. I make my arguments and I stand by them. Are you suggesting that truth has no real meaning? Would you suggest that the truth is merely what you make of it and one persons truth is another persons lie? Certainly what is true for you is true, but does that make it truth?

It's simple really

Public financing of all elections...there done.

Revoke corporate personhood. Demand full disclosure from multinational corporations.

People who want to believe that money couldn't possibly influence elections, candidates, and issues are disingenuous or ignorant.

Public financing of elections will level the playing field and maybe, just maybe will get people to focus on issues and platforms rather than the pathetic character assassination and lies prominent in today's negative campaign model.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

Law is law Ziggy, and there is no room for interpretations. One can take a liberal view of gravity if they so choose but this will not allow them to leap off of a building and fly without the proper apparatus that works within the law of gravity....


...You ask if I am infallible and I respond by stating I have never made any such assertion. I make my arguments and I stand by them. Are you suggesting that truth has no real meaning? Would you suggest that the truth is merely what you make of it and one persons truth is another persons lie? Certainly what is true for you is true, but does that make it truth?

When the court reigns supreme, the judges issue 'opinions' which are entirely, completely and wholly based on interpretations of the Constitution and case law. Hence, legislation from the bench otherwise known as judicial activism, or decisions motivated by political objectives.

Originally posted by elfie

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

Law is law Ziggy, and there is no room for interpretations. One can take a liberal view of gravity if they so choose but this will not allow them to leap off of a building and fly without the proper apparatus that works within the law of gravity....


...You ask if I am infallible and I respond by stating I have never made any such assertion. I make my arguments and I stand by them. Are you suggesting that truth has no real meaning? Would you suggest that the truth is merely what you make of it and one persons truth is another persons lie? Certainly what is true for you is true, but does that make it truth?

When the court reigns supreme, the judges issue 'opinions' which are entirely, completely and wholly based on interpretations of the Constitution and case law. Hence, legislation from the bench otherwise known as judicial activism, or decisions motivated by political objectives.

Court does not reign supreme and it is a falsehood to suggest it does. This most recent ruling is not the end and final matter on the circumstance and Congress' hands have not been tied by this ruling. Nor have their hands been tied by the Constitution but they are expressly forbidden from performing certain acts. One such act is abridging the freedom of speech. Are you suggesting that this is merely an interpretation open to debate?

It was a play on words, e.g. regarding the Supreme Court, when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by elfie
It was a play on words, e.g. regarding the Supreme Court, when it comes to the Supreme Court.

I got the play on words but questioned the "reign" as valid. The Supreme Court is named so because no lower court may controvert a ruling made by SCOTUS, even though lower courts have been known to do so. It is important that all these angry people in regards to this ruling understand that Congress has several options in response to this ruling. It is also important, I believe, to question this proclivity to dismiss the law as merely a matter of interpretation. If it is law it is law and if it is open to interpretation then it is less than law and more theory.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by elfie
It was a play on words, e.g. regarding the Supreme Court, when it comes to the Supreme Court.

I got the play on words but questioned the "reign" as valid. The Supreme Court is named so because no lower court may controvert a ruling made by SCOTUS, even though lower courts have been known to do so. It is important that all these angry people in regards to this ruling understand that Congress has several options in response to this ruling. It is also important, I believe, to question this proclivity to dismiss the law as merely a matter of interpretation. If it is law it is law and if it is open to interpretation then it is less than law and more theory.

I agree with you that Congress will respond to the ruling. The likelihood that the laws will be enacted as a result of the decision before the next election cycle are iffy at best.

The greatest transparency that we have been afforded in recent times is the clearly political motivation for the most recent decision under the guise of freedom of speech. You're going to have to deal with the anger and mockery.

reply to post by elfie


Which leads me back to my direct question to you, since you insist on framing the ruling as being in the "guise" of freedom of speech, do you believe that Congress actually does have the right to abridge freedom of speech? Is it merely and interpretation to say that they are expressly forbidden from doing so?

reply to post by Leo Strauss


Thanks for that, it only takes a look at how politics has been run lately to see who is running the nation, only a blind person can not even see how corrupted our government run by interest money is and how unfair to the tax payer and voters to the nation.

reply to post by whaaa


If the government attempts to put controls back on how much money Companies-Corporations can give,I want the very same controls put on Labor Unions.

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
reply to post by whaaa

 

If the government attempts to put controls back on how much money Companies-Corporations can give,I want the very same controls put on Labor Unions.

And churches, religious orginizitions, and PACs

I'd like to remind members that the best recourse we can take regarding this un-American, suspicious and possibly treasonist Supreme Court decision is to notifiy our representatives of our displeasure.

Write your Senators/Congressmen as I have.

Senate
www.senate.gov...

House
www.house.gov...

reply to post by kingkool

I feel ya, But you are beating a dead horse. If anything the Tillman Act of 1907 was a violation of the 1st amendment. Which was recently overturned by the so called "treasonous" SCOTUS. If anything is to be done about it it will require a restructure of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically the 14th amendment put in motion July, 9, 1868 to destroy our country. Corporations do have rights under this stealthy amendment. It gave them 'person hood' and you 'corporation hood'.

Don't believe me see my thread here.....www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 26-1-2010 by timewalker]

reply to post by kingkool


Here's a couple even more useful links.

So let's just do what we gotta do people.

Impeach the Supreme Court

Corporation are NOT the People

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist
It sounds as if the gettysburg address should read government of General Electric, for General Electric, and by General Electric after all...funny how the people have now disappeared into any major corporation...shame on the supreme court for selling the people out! (can substitute any major corporation for people) He who has the biggest fishpole gets the biggest fish!

reply to post by jdub297


I remember when Jerry Lewis the comedian turned himself into a corporation for special tax benefits. Yes, individuals can declare themselves corporations for tax purposes. I just read The Gemstone File which seems to declare that most of America's politicians, including both Democrat and Republican, were all controlled by Aristotle Onassis. So does this mean that the supreme court has also been controlled by special financial interests and are simply the puppets for the great master pupeteer, the corporation?