Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[Annie]

People can disagree. There are people who agree with the results of Roe, who also think it makes bad law.

The decision now is the law of the land. The decision was more a political one than a judicially principled one.

It is a rallying cry of the dupes of the GOP that judicial activism is bad for America. If this wasn't judicial activism nothing is or ever was.

The GOP started seeding the courts for this day way back since Ronald Reagan was President.

So your saying the GOP and Ronald Reagan seeded the courts to overturn McCain Fiengold which the GOP signed into law 22 years later? Are you serious?

I'm not being facetious here, but do you mean 'seeded' or 'ceded'? You are the one with a law degree.

 

[Intense]

I won't argue with you on Santa Clara.

The 14th is another matter altogether - but that's probably a different thread.

It was a spilt decision. 5/4. Santa Clara was used by one side. Stay stuck on Santa Clara and you end up pullin' your prick. What Santa Clara says about Corporations being viewed as having the same rights as persons, in some instances, has always open to debate and always will be.

The key there is in "some" instances. And in "some" instances it's a necessity.

But they were never seen as full citizens or as enjoying the protection for political speech, only for corporate speech.

I thought the Decision was a good one. The sad part for me was the 5/4 split. How could it be fair that Corporations that have favor with the Powers that be have license to Speak, yet those that do not have favor are silenced? The Law is arbitrary, and abusive to Free Speech. It is not about the messenger, it is about the message. We forget that to our detriment.

Companies slandered and attacked by ruthless politicians, no longer have to keep silent. Actions have consequences, that is the natural order. Book Banning, this clearly was an obstruction of Liberty.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I see no "But's", "Exemption's", "Privilege", here at all. There is No Distinction more obvious than the limit of Federal Power and Authority.

 

[Avatar4321]

People can disagree. There are people who agree with the results of Roe, who also think it makes bad law.

The decision now is the law of the land. The decision was more a political one than a judicially principled one.

It is a rallying cry of the dupes of the GOP that judicial activism is bad for America. If this wasn't judicial activism nothing is or ever was.

The GOP started seeding the courts for this day way back since Ronald Reagan was President.

So your saying the GOP and Ronald Reagan seeded the courts to overturn McCain Fiengold which the GOP signed into law 22 years later? Are you serious?

I'm not being facetious here, but do you mean 'seeded' or 'ceded'? You are the one with a law degree.

I mean seeded. Using it in the same context as Dante.

 

[goldcatt]

So the 1st Amendment doesn't count if you're not a media racketeer?

Interesting.

Freedom of the press IS the First Amendment, Dude. It's a different jurisprudence, but it's most definitely First Amendment.

So is freedom of speech.

How do you fight a newspaper or other media corporation, should they work to put you out of business?

Same way you fight a corporation that exercises its Constitutional right to bribe your Congressman, I guess.

 

[Intense]

So the 1st Amendment doesn't count if you're not a media racketeer?

Interesting.

Freedom of the press IS the First Amendment, Dude. It's a different jurisprudence, but it's most definitely First Amendment.

So is freedom of speech.

How do you fight a newspaper or other media corporation, should they work to put you out of business?

You Fight Them with the Truth.

 

[Oddball]

People can disagree. There are people who agree with the results of Roe, who also think it makes bad law.

The decision now is the law of the land. The decision was more a political one than a judicially principled one.

It is a rallying cry of the dupes of the GOP that judicial activism is bad for America. If this wasn't judicial activism nothing is or ever was.

The GOP started seeding the courts for this day way back since Ronald Reagan was President.

So your saying the GOP and Ronald Reagan seeded the courts to overturn McCain Fiengold which the GOP signed into law 22 years later? Are you serious?

I'm not being facetious here, but do you mean 'seeded' or 'ceded'? You are the one with a law degree.

He meant seeded, as in "planted" justices to rule on a law that was to be written more than 20 years in the future.

And he's right, Ruprecht the monkey boy has so much steam coming out his ears that he cannot even keep his feet on the floor long enough to bang out a post that makes sense.

 

[Avatar4321]

Freedom of the press IS the First Amendment, Dude. It's a different jurisprudence, but it's most definitely First Amendment.

So is freedom of speech.

How do you fight a newspaper or other media corporation, should they work to put you out of business?

Same way you fight a corporation that exercises its Constitutional right to bribe your Congressman, I guess.

I was unaware how this caselaw allows bribery. Spending money to speak for your own interests is hardly bribery.

 

[Vast LWC]

Ooh here's a good point...

When combined with the prior SCOTUS ruling on corporate eminent domain a few years back...

Corporations can literally appoint people to steal your property, and then have them hand it over to them!

Of course, you are completely wrong. But I think it's interesting the only ways you can think up for a corporation to abuse government is through unconstitutional means liberals forced on the people to begin with. You are creating the problems. The solution is simple. Eliminate the bad liberal decisions and legislation. Then you have nothing to worry about.

Of course, I personally was never a proponent of the eminent domain SCOTUS decision.

Once again you just lump all liberals together in one big bunch. Personally I thought that giving the government the ability to take over land and give it to corporations based on some idea that it would "increase tax revenue" was a giant load of shit.

But now, thanks to this decision, you can be damn sure that the eminent domain decision will NEVER be overturned by any future legislation or decision.

 

[goldcatt]

So is freedom of speech.

How do you fight a newspaper or other media corporation, should they work to put you out of business?

Same way you fight a corporation that exercises its Constitutional right to bribe your Congressman, I guess.

I was unaware how this caselaw allows bribery. Spending money to speak for your own interests is hardly bribery.

Giving unlimited amounts of money to elected officals and candidates for office in order to influence them to favor your agenda is not bribery? Who knew?

 

[Oddball]

Giving unlimited amounts of money to elected officals and candidates for office in order to influence them to favor your agenda is not bribery? Who knew?

If there's a quid pro quo, that's bribery (i.e. Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu).

The answer here is full disclosure, or "you can tell the man who boozes by the friends he chooses".

 

[The T]

Giving unlimited amounts of money to elected officals and candidates for office in order to influence them to favor your agenda is not bribery? Who knew?

If there's a quid pro quo, that's bribery (i.e. Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu).

The answer here is full disclosure, or "you can tell the man who boozes by the friends he chooses".

Ad to your list Dingy Harry Reid.

 

[The T]

Giving unlimited amounts of money to elected officals and candidates for office in order to influence them to favor your agenda is not bribery? Who knew?

If there's a quid pro quo, that's bribery (i.e. Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu).

The answer here is full disclosure, or "you can tell the man who boozes by the friends he chooses".

Add to your list Dingy Harry Reid.

 

[goldcatt]

Giving unlimited amounts of money to elected officals and candidates for office in order to influence them to favor your agenda is not bribery? Who knew?

If there's a quid pro quo, that's bribery (i.e. Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu).

The answer here is full disclosure, or "you can tell the man who boozes by the friends he chooses".

Good luck with all that. Bundlers and strawmen are here to stay.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, and so is corporate political giving.

Speaking of which, what about corporations like NBC (i.e. General Electric) using their bullhorn to pimp for crap like gullible warming and dopey windmills?

 

[goldcatt]

Yeah, and so is corporate political giving.

Speaking of which, what about corporations like NBC (i.e. General Electric) using their bullhorn to pimp for crap like gullible warming and dopey windmills?

Don't get me on my soapbox about the dangers of combining corporate interests and the press. I don't care who does it, when media is chasing its own agenda political or otherwise nobody's watching the henhouse.
But reasonable limits on corporate political contributions allow the actual citizens to at least compete. And wee keep throwing around "corporate", but remember the ruling today also affects nonprofits, unions....I don't know about churches because fo the intersection of the Establishment Clause, but otherwise basically all legally created fictional entities.

 

[Oddball]

Right...But when goofball whackjobs like Jeffrey Immelt are using their corporate wealth to promote gubmint action for them and against folx like Exxon-Mobil, what's the latter's recourse?

 

[goldcatt]

Now? Buy their own media corporation I suppose, or purchase a few politicians to push restrictions on ownership. How far we've come from what the freedoms were actually intended to protect, eh?

 

[Intense]

Yeah, and so is corporate political giving.

Speaking of which, what about corporations like NBC (i.e. General Electric) using their bullhorn to pimp for crap like gullible warming and dopey windmills?

Light Bulbs, so many over priced toys that they coincidentally manufacture. LOL. I wonder why all of a sudden they are running away from NBC? Like they have not caused enough damage. Why now?

 

[Wry Catcher]

We've all seen how money has influenced elections and the vote of members of Congress; and we all understand that television and radio, newspapers and magazines are all influenced by their advertisers. The ability for one voice to dominate debate is not healthy in a democratic republic.
Those of you who cheer the demise of Air America, and todays Supreme Injustice, ought to think of the unintended consequences of such events - or wonder if the consequences really are unintended.

 

[Chris]

So is freedom of speech.

How do you fight a newspaper or other media corporation, should they work to put you out of business?

Same way you fight a corporation that exercises its Constitutional right to bribe your Congressman, I guess.

I was unaware how this caselaw allows bribery. Spending money to speak for your own interests is hardly bribery.

Actually it is bribery.... of the worst kind.

I really think this may be the end of our democracy.

We are beginning to remind me of France before the Revolution.