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.
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."
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."
Concur, IT! Your view is the only view that is both Constitutionally sound and consistent with freedom and liberty. FULL DISCLOSURE is key.
Proud Prince of Purple Pomposity YT is not a communist. He's just a ...young pup.
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.
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.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
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.
They already have those subs set up - now they just rent their corporate jets from them. Next year those subs will be in the business of leasing corporate jets (to only one party) and paying for campaign advertisements.
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."
Yepper, I've always thought McCain/Feingold violated free speech.
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.
It did. Even my liberal con-law professor in law school admitted as much.
Appalachian State Mountaineers:
National Champions: 2005, 2006, and 2007 Southern Conference Champions: 1986, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WE'RE GONNA SHOUT IT! NOTHING'S HOTTER THAN A-S-U!
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.
and the SEIU and NRA ones will be the worst.
I think it should be overturned, but I dread the November when all of these organizations will be flooding the commercial circuit.
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.
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! )
"That is how government works - we tell you what you can do today."
- EPA Kommissar Gina McCarthy
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! )
He keeps on this tach and he's gonna get his ass handed to hisseff on a regular basis, like you do.
"Sarah Palin absolutely blew AWAY the audience tonight. If there was any doubt as to whether she was savvy enough, tough enough or smart enough to carry the mantle of Vice President, she put those fears to rest tonight. She took on Barack Obama DIRECTLY on every issue and exposed... She did it with warmth and humor, and came across as the every-person....it's becoming mroe and more clear that she was a genius pick for McCain."
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
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
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.
"Sarah Palin absolutely blew AWAY the audience tonight. If there was any doubt as to whether she was savvy enough, tough enough or smart enough to carry the mantle of Vice President, she put those fears to rest tonight. She took on Barack Obama DIRECTLY on every issue and exposed... She did it with warmth and humor, and came across as the every-person....it's becoming mroe and more clear that she was a genius pick for McCain."
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.
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:
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)
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.
"Sarah Palin absolutely blew AWAY the audience tonight. If there was any doubt as to whether she was savvy enough, tough enough or smart enough to carry the mantle of Vice President, she put those fears to rest tonight. She took on Barack Obama DIRECTLY on every issue and exposed... She did it with warmth and humor, and came across as the every-person....it's becoming mroe and more clear that she was a genius pick for McCain."
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.
That actually seemed like a coherent, intelligent response!!!
Good for you!
"That is how government works - we tell you what you can do today."
- EPA Kommissar Gina McCarthy
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.
Actually, Unions have had virtually unfettered and unregulated free-will to spend it's dues paying members' money on campaigning for the union's choice of Donk candidates. If anything, this levels the playing field by allowing corporations to spend much like the unions do now. That is the reason why Liberals are wetting their diapers over this ruling. They know they can't win on an even playing field.
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.
The next question is....who is going to protect us from the government?
McCain-Feingold is riddled with Constitutional infirmities. It's about time that part of it went down.
FULL DISCLOSURE is key. 
)
