Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for 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.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Ivytalk wrote:Long overdue! McCain-Feingold is riddled with Constitutional infirmities. It's about time that part of it went down.

Ivytalk's long-held view: unlimited campaign spending by individuals or businesses to advance policy positions is perfectly fine, provided that there's full and timely disclosure by candidate recipients so the electorate can see who may have "influence."

CID1990 wrote:The next big scandals about this will involve how controversial donors attempt to hide their identities. I'll bet some companies create subsidiaries with different names.

danefan wrote:Just to clarify.....I agree on the unconsitutionality of some of the pieces of McCain-Feingold..........I just don't want to have to watch anymore compaign commercials.

Ivytalk wrote:Long overdue! McCain-Feingold is riddled with Constitutional infirmities. It's about time that part of it went down.

Ivytalk's long-held view: unlimited campaign spending by individuals or businesses to advance policy positions is perfectly fine, provided that there's full and timely disclosure by candidate recipients so the electorate can see who may have "influence."

blueballs wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Long overdue! McCain-Feingold is riddled with Constitutional infirmities. It's about time that part of it went down.

Ivytalk's long-held view: unlimited campaign spending by individuals or businesses to advance policy positions is perfectly fine, provided that there's full and timely disclosure by candidate recipients so the electorate can see who may have "influence."

Yepper, I've always thought McCain/Feingold violated free speech.

danefan wrote:Just to clarify.....I agree on the unconsitutionality of some of the pieces of McCain-Feingold..........I just don't want to have to watch anymore compaign commercials.

youngterrier wrote:You know if we didn't have as much government intervention in the economy their wouldn't be as much corruption in our legislators...there would be no point.

travelinman67 wrote:

youngterrier wrote:You know if we didn't have as much government intervention in the economy their wouldn't be as much corruption in our legislators...there would be no point.

Son, you're gonna fit in here well.


















(...nice job, DJ! )

Pwns wrote:Corporations shouldn't have free speech rights. We'd do better if there was a little more nationalism and a little less corporatism in Washington.

youngterrier wrote:

Pwns wrote:Corporations shouldn't have free speech rights. We'd do better if there was a little more nationalism and a little less corporatism in Washington.

if You want less corporationism in washington take the government out of the economy. capitalism, democracy, free speach, and t he economy are all saved

D1B wrote:

youngterrier wrote: if You want less corporationism in washington take the government out of the economy. capitalism, democracy, free speach, and t he economy are all saved

YT, capitalism is flawed. It is a highly dangerous, greed-based economic system when left unchecked.

I agree if you mean less direct government investment in the economy (spending), but unfortunatley we need the government to protect us from the negative effects of capitalism.

No pure economic system is the best.

youngterrier wrote:

D1B wrote:
YT, capitalism is flawed. It is a highly dangerous, greed-based economic system when left unchecked.

I agree if you mean less direct government investment in the economy (spending), but unfortunatley we need the government to protect us from the negative effects of capitalism.

No pure economic system is the best.

Government involvement has only harmed our economy. In short it has devalued our currency to where our charity is ineffective, slows economic growth through high taxes and regulation, and creates credit out of thin air which ultimately leads to our economic problems. lastly, when we protect ourselves from the negative effects of capitalismessentially all we're doing is socializing losses and privatizing profits. if we left those losses alone the economic drawback would be far less than if we bailed it out (see the depression of 1920-1921)

D1B wrote:

youngterrier wrote: Government involvement has only harmed our economy. In short it has devalued our currency to where our charity is ineffective, slows economic growth through high taxes and regulation, and creates credit out of thin air which ultimately leads to our economic problems. lastly, when we protect ourselves from the negative effects of capitalismessentially all we're doing is socializing losses and privatizing profits. if we left those losses alone the economic drawback would be far less than if we bailed it out (see the depression of 1920-1921)

Yes, gub spending creates a shitload of problems, so does over regulation.

Capitalism, left unchecked leads to monopolies and whole new tyranny far worse than social democracy. Evils are sometime necessary. Capitalism puts a price on everything, and that aint all good.

Regarding losses, fuck 1920, it's a much different world right now and I don't think all those lessons apply.

danefan wrote:SCOTUS handed down a decision this morning which will allow corporations and unions to put more money into political campaigns than they already do now............

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for 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.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01724.html

D1B wrote: YT, capitalism is flawed. It is a highly dangerous, greed-based economic system when left unchecked.

I agree if you mean less direct government investment in the economy (spending), but unfortunatley we need the government to protect us from the negative effects of capitalism.

No pure economic system is the best.