No love for Olberman? I'm so shocked!
How about The Colbert Report? This piece was done before the ruling but very funny nonetheless.
http://vodpod.com/watch/2198494-colbert ... m-ka-ching
For the next logical step in this brilliant ruling:
http://murrayhillincforcongress.com/
ANd for anyone interested in the real history of corporate charters:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_a ... ns_us.html
Our founding fathers, the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be so proud of how far we've come.
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.ht ... st=1373519
A message board is a very limiting forum for debate and it's obvious that once entrenched in a position it's not easily given up on either side. Only time will tell what the real effect of this ruling will have on the lives of Americans citizens, until then Peace.
The Pub
McCain-Feingold OUT!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-
blackwidow - Posts: 628
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:17 pm
- Location: riding a horse so high your complaints just sound like ant farts to me.
President Obama's claim that SCOTUS "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities" is patently false and any student who had him as an instructor for Constitutional Law should probably not advertise that fact to potential clients.
SCOTUS held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." But why let the language of the actual law get in the way? After all, nothing is ever his fault and like every other elected official, he probably never actually read any legislation he voted for as a Senator.
SCOTUS held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." But why let the language of the actual law get in the way? After all, nothing is ever his fault and like every other elected official, he probably never actually read any legislation he voted for as a Senator.
-
SoCalASABlue - Posts: 394
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:02 pm
The dissenting opinion from the 4 judges (appointed by the democrats), is around 89 pages long. Here is the last paragraph.
“In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on
the need to limit corporate campaign spending should
outweigh the wooden application of judge-made-rules. The
majority.’s rejection of this principle .“elevate[s] corporations
to a level of deference which has not been seen at
least since the days when substantive due process was
regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought
to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests..”
Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 817, n. 13 (White, J., dissenting). At
bottom, the Court.’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common
sense of the American people, who have recognized a
need to prevent corporations from undermining selfgovernment
since the founding, and who have fought
against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate
electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a
strange time to repudiate that common sense. While
American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority
of this Court would have thought its flaws included a
dearth of corporate money in politics.
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.”
I think common sense should be used for crossing-the-street. Not as a thesis statement of the Supreme Court Justices.
“In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on
the need to limit corporate campaign spending should
outweigh the wooden application of judge-made-rules. The
majority.’s rejection of this principle .“elevate[s] corporations
to a level of deference which has not been seen at
least since the days when substantive due process was
regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought
to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests..”
Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 817, n. 13 (White, J., dissenting). At
bottom, the Court.’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common
sense of the American people, who have recognized a
need to prevent corporations from undermining selfgovernment
since the founding, and who have fought
against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate
electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a
strange time to repudiate that common sense. While
American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority
of this Court would have thought its flaws included a
dearth of corporate money in politics.
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.”
I think common sense should be used for crossing-the-street. Not as a thesis statement of the Supreme Court Justices.
“I have been loving you too long to stop now.” Otis Redding
-
nohesitation - Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:46 pm
Is this the same common sense that has allowed unions to spend whatever they wanted on specific candiates, even though union members have openly disagreed with the candidate being supported by the union tsars?
"In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made-rules." A woman's right to have a taxpayer-funded abortion is a judge-made-rule. Every survey I've ever seen on the subject of taxpayer-funded abortion has always shown a consensus of Americans do NOT support it. OK to change that one by going along WITH the consensus?
Of course not - because our elected representatives (both parties, not just one) no longer believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - especially the few that line their pockets with gifts, junkets, etc.
The funny and sad thing about this is that nothing will change - corporations and unions will continue to break campaign finance laws with impunity.
"In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made-rules." A woman's right to have a taxpayer-funded abortion is a judge-made-rule. Every survey I've ever seen on the subject of taxpayer-funded abortion has always shown a consensus of Americans do NOT support it. OK to change that one by going along WITH the consensus?
Of course not - because our elected representatives (both parties, not just one) no longer believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - especially the few that line their pockets with gifts, junkets, etc.
The funny and sad thing about this is that nothing will change - corporations and unions will continue to break campaign finance laws with impunity.
-
SoCalASABlue - Posts: 394
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:02 pm
blackwidow wrote:No love for Olberman? I'm so shocked!
A message board is a very limiting forum for debate and it's obvious that once entrenched in a position it's not easily given up on either side. Only time will tell what the real effect of this ruling will have on the lives of Americans citizens, until then Peace.
Olbermann is an obnoxious, pretentious, patronizing, sophistic hack. Truth be told, I did love Olbermann...when he was on Sportscenter. He should have stayed there.
She-devil: You found me beautiful once.
Ash: Honey, you got REAL ugly.
Yes, views tend to be entrenched, at least in the moment. But you never know what seed of insight, once planted, will take root and begin to change a person's views about things. I think we can all point to a few "ah hah!" moments, when we learned something that forever changed the way we evaluated the world. And even where an insight isn't earth-shattering, it might just temper another's opinion a little bit.
I think the Obama face-plant over the past year has proven one thing; Americans are still a skeptical lot, and not that easy to sell snake oil to. So yeah, I think most people recognize the dangers involved here. But big money is already neck-deep in our political process, and it's going to stay there, one way or another. Best to bring it above board and let all the voices in. Let the marketplace sort them out.
There is no charge for awesomeness
...or attractiveness.
...or attractiveness.
-
Skarp - Premium Member
- Posts: 3141
- Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:10 pm
nohesitation wrote:I think common sense should be used for crossing-the-street. Not as a thesis statement of the Supreme Court Justices.
Brilliantly said!
There is no charge for awesomeness
...or attractiveness.
...or attractiveness.
-
Skarp - Premium Member
- Posts: 3141
- Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:10 pm
Skarp wrote:
Yeah, and most of these moments deal with sex........some with money, but most with sex!
I think we can all point to a few "ah hah!" moments, when we learned something that forever changed the way we evaluated the world.
Yeah, and most of these moments deal with sex........some with money, but most with sex!
- carolinafan
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:11 am
Main Menu
User Menu
Login
