Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[uscitizen]

What a crock of alarmist liberoidal chicken-little whining nonsense.

Wait and see.

I was correct on bush, the WMD's, Iraq war lasting a long time, Bush spending, the recession, Obama being a fizzle, etc...

You cannot have been "correct" on President Bush since your views about his Presidency are still vapid and erroneous.

You may have been right about the WMDs, but if so, you had special clairvoyance since almost all the Dem leadership, privvy to the same information as former President Clinton and President Bush came to the same conclusion as President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

YOu were wrong about the Iraq war lasting a long time. It plainly did not. The AFTERMATH was long and is still ongoing. But the enemy was dispatched in the actual war itself with alacrity.

Being "right" about President Bush's spending is meaningless. Dem Congress and all. The man SHOULD have used a veto pen, but he wasn't exactly a symbol of conservatism.

You were "right" about "the" recession? i nwhat way. Did you sagely predict taht recessions are painful and really suck. Bravo.

Lots of people "called" the fact that President Obama would be a fizzle. Taht took no special foresight.

NONE of your litany of allegedly "right" prognostications changes a thing here. You are still a sniveling alarmist over a SCOTUS decision that did nothing more than properly determine that freedom of speech means what it says.

Yawn....

 

[Liability]

Man oh man are you one huge disappointing walking cliche of leftist talking pointless propaganda bits or what?

If I misread what you wrote, perhaps the problem is that you don't write too clearly.

The leftist "agenda" is not to curtail corporate influence on government. It is to curtail corporations. You guys are just re-tooled anti-capitalists. Zzzz. God. You left-over reds are a boring group.

YOU are the ones who want to replace our current government. YOU are the ones who REJECT Constitutional limitations ON the power of government.

You can't even put lipstick on THAT pig. Your agenda is transparent and it sucks. Your agenda is Statist and inconsistent with liberty and with the guidelines of a Constitutional Republic.

You're insane. If anything, leftists are interested in increasing the size of the existing, democratically elected government.

This is REPLACING THE GOVERNMENT ALTOGETHER WITH PAWNS OF THE CORPORATIONS.

Do you honestly not see the difference? Seriously?

I can't even believe that anyone interested in protecting individual freedoms, which is what you people are supposed to represent, is not against this decision!

No. You're drooling mad and woefully ignorant, though.

Leftists are statists and they want the nanny state government to "do" more and more for the "people." Damn the costs (figuratively and literally). We don't HAVE and didn't design this country TO have a "democratic" government. It is a republic. It is a Constitutional Republic. It put in place checks and balances to THWART the tyranny of a majority, in fact.

Thwarting the will of a majority is NOT the same thing as "democratic." And whether YOU can glean it or not, that's a GOOD thing.

Overruling an act that deprived corporations of free speech is not even remotely akin to your delusionally expressed concern that the government is being supplanted by corporations. Adhering to our founding charter in this regard is, in EVERY WAY, a good and proper thing that PREVENTS the dangerous and ill-advised undermining of our liberties by you lefties.

I am not at all surpised (just mildly disappointed) that so many of you strident but irrational liberoidals are so overtly hostile to free speech. That's the required mind-set to oppose the PROPER ruling by the SCOTUS majority.

 

[Liability]

Wait and see.

I was correct on bush, the WMD's, Iraq war lasting a long time, Bush spending, the recession, Obama being a fizzle, etc...

You cannot have been "correct" on President Bush since your views about his Presidency are still vapid and erroneous.

You may have been right about the WMDs, but if so, you had special clairvoyance since almost all the Dem leadership, privvy to the same information as former President Clinton and President Bush came to the same conclusion as President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

YOu were wrong about the Iraq war lasting a long time. It plainly did not. The AFTERMATH was long and is still ongoing. But the enemy was dispatched in the actual war itself with alacrity.

Being "right" about President Bush's spending is meaningless. Dem Congress and all. The man SHOULD have used a veto pen, but he wasn't exactly a symbol of conservatism.

You were "right" about "the" recession? i nwhat way. Did you sagely predict taht recessions are painful and really suck. Bravo.

Lots of people "called" the fact that President Obama would be a fizzle. Taht took no special foresight.

NONE of your litany of allegedly "right" prognostications changes a thing here. You are still a sniveling alarmist over a SCOTUS decision that did nothing more than properly determine that freedom of speech means what it says.

Yawn....

That adequately summarizes your entire stay here at USMB.

 

[Vast LWC]

i don't recall you complaining about obama's over half billion dollar campaign war chest

for those against this, are you also against candidates amassing over 600 million dollars in campaign funds?

Which was donated entirely by individuals.

And John McCain was certainly up in arms about it at the time, wasn't he?

I am appalled to see any of you defending this decision.

We may as well just all stop posting right now, or stop working as activists, or stop donating to campaigns.

This decision will allow multi-billion dollar corporations to flood the airways and internet with whatever they want you to think.

Say goodbye to your little "Tea Party" movement. The second any of them says anything that the corporations don't like, they'll go the way of the DoDo.

Of course, you all already have your own corporate sponsor to begin with, so maybe you'll survive in some form or another.

 

[Vast LWC]

No. You're drooling mad and woefully ignorant, though.

Leftists are statists and they want the nanny state government to "do" more and more for the "people." Damn the costs (figuratively and literally). We don't HAVE and didn't design this country TO have a "democratic" government. It is a republic. It is a Constitutional Republic. It put in place checks and balances to THWART the tyranny of a majority, in fact.

Thwarting the will of a majority is NOT the same thing as "democratic." And whether YOU can glean it or not, that's a GOOD thing.

Overruling an act that deprived corporations of free speech is not even remotely akin to your delusionally expressed concern that the government is being supplanted by corporations. Adhering to our founding charter in this regard is, in EVERY WAY, a good and proper thing that PREVENTS the dangerous and ill-advised undermining of our liberties by you lefties.

I am not at all surpised (just mildly disappointed) that so many of you strident but irrational liberoidals are so overtly hostile to free speech. That's the required mind-set to oppose the PROPER ruling by the SCOTUS majority.

What a load of unmitigated crap.

You're a sick corporate apologist. Whatever, it doesn't matter anymore. Unless someone does something very soon to reverse this decision, none of us will have any say in government anymore, unless we happen to be on a corporate board.

 

[del]

No. You're drooling mad and woefully ignorant, though.

Leftists are statists and they want the nanny state government to "do" more and more for the "people." Damn the costs (figuratively and literally). We don't HAVE and didn't design this country TO have a "democratic" government. It is a republic. It is a Constitutional Republic. It put in place checks and balances to THWART the tyranny of a majority, in fact.

Thwarting the will of a majority is NOT the same thing as "democratic." And whether YOU can glean it or not, that's a GOOD thing.

Overruling an act that deprived corporations of free speech is not even remotely akin to your delusionally expressed concern that the government is being supplanted by corporations. Adhering to our founding charter in this regard is, in EVERY WAY, a good and proper thing that PREVENTS the dangerous and ill-advised undermining of our liberties by you lefties.

I am not at all surpised (just mildly disappointed) that so many of you strident but irrational liberoidals are so overtly hostile to free speech. That's the required mind-set to oppose the PROPER ruling by the SCOTUS majority.

What a load of unmitigated crap.

You're a sick corporate apologist. Whatever, it doesn't matter anymore. Unless someone does something very soon to reverse this decision, none of us will have any say in government anymore, unless we happen to be on a corporate board.

or a union or a 527.

yup, it's the end of the world all right.

 

[Oddball]

So, corporate entities are now on equal footing with 527's and unions now.

What's the big deal?

That's not even a comparison. Those are groups of individuals who are then responsible for the actions they take.

527's and Unions are not afforded separate individual rights. Their members can be held criminally accountable for their actions.

What in hell are you smoking?

 

[Liability]

No. You're drooling mad and woefully ignorant, though.

Leftists are statists and they want the nanny state government to "do" more and more for the "people." Damn the costs (figuratively and literally). We don't HAVE and didn't design this country TO have a "democratic" government. It is a republic. It is a Constitutional Republic. It put in place checks and balances to THWART the tyranny of a majority, in fact.

Thwarting the will of a majority is NOT the same thing as "democratic." And whether YOU can glean it or not, that's a GOOD thing.

Overruling an act that deprived corporations of free speech is not even remotely akin to your delusionally expressed concern that the government is being supplanted by corporations. Adhering to our founding charter in this regard is, in EVERY WAY, a good and proper thing that PREVENTS the dangerous and ill-advised undermining of our liberties by you lefties.

I am not at all surpised (just mildly disappointed) that so many of you strident but irrational liberoidals are so overtly hostile to free speech. That's the required mind-set to oppose the PROPER ruling by the SCOTUS majority.

What a load of unmitigated crap.

You're a sick corporate apologist. Whatever, it doesn't matter anymore. Unless someone does something very soon to reverse this decision, none of us will have any say in government anymore, unless we happen to be on a corporate board.

Really persuasive argument. Oh, sorry. I forgot to add your style to that: "Really persuasive argument, you doody head "

You are trully quite lame at this.

I am not a corporate apologist. Unlike you, however, I am not hostile to corporations.

The balance of your rambling post is silly. Just silly.

Oh the horror. "They" are now allowed to "speak!"

Another leftist "outwage."

 

[uscitizen]

Corporations are put in jail for breaking the law?
All the benefits and not all of the responsibilities?

Does the death penalty apply to corporations?

 

[Chris]

The Opus Dei conservatives on the Supreme Court do it again...

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has given big business, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, a major turnaround that threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

A 5-4 conservative majority crafted a narrow overhaul of federal campaign spending Thursday that could have an immediate effect on this year's congressional midterm elections. The justices eased long-standing restrictions on "independent spending" by corporations and unions in political campaigns.

"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

The opinion radically alters the election calculus, offering greater spending flexibility for a broader range of for-profit and nonprofit groups seeking a voice in the crowded national political debate.

Hours after the ruling, President Obama responded, saying the court has given "the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington -- while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates."

Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending - CNN.com

 

[Vast LWC]

And there was no "Thwarting the will of the Majority" done at any point in any case.

The Democrats were elected by majorities. Part of their platform was to reform health care, specifically to provide a public option as part of that reform.

In a representative republic, people vote representatives into office, and those representatives then perform the actions that they were voted in to do.

So, since 75% of the population supported health care reform, as described by the Democrats, in November of 2008, WHEN THEY WERE VOTED IN, then that is what the representatives were put in place to do. They are representing the will of the majority.

Just because at some point down the road the corporate-sponsored media was able to sway public opinion, or to make it seem like they had swayed public opinion, doesn't change the responsibility of the people who were voted into office. That's what the next election is for.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Our elections will now be filled with TV ads , billboards, radio station adds that fight for the corporations and limit the options of regular Americans.

Money = speech now and the corps have HUGE piles of money and me and you dont have enough to make our voices heard.

We are soon to be a corporate owned country.

We already are!

 

[Vast LWC]

No. You're drooling mad and woefully ignorant, though.

Leftists are statists and they want the nanny state government to "do" more and more for the "people." Damn the costs (figuratively and literally). We don't HAVE and didn't design this country TO have a "democratic" government. It is a republic. It is a Constitutional Republic. It put in place checks and balances to THWART the tyranny of a majority, in fact.

Thwarting the will of a majority is NOT the same thing as "democratic." And whether YOU can glean it or not, that's a GOOD thing.

Overruling an act that deprived corporations of free speech is not even remotely akin to your delusionally expressed concern that the government is being supplanted by corporations. Adhering to our founding charter in this regard is, in EVERY WAY, a good and proper thing that PREVENTS the dangerous and ill-advised undermining of our liberties by you lefties.

I am not at all surpised (just mildly disappointed) that so many of you strident but irrational liberoidals are so overtly hostile to free speech. That's the required mind-set to oppose the PROPER ruling by the SCOTUS majority.

What a load of unmitigated crap.

You're a sick corporate apologist. Whatever, it doesn't matter anymore. Unless someone does something very soon to reverse this decision, none of us will have any say in government anymore, unless we happen to be on a corporate board.

Really persuasive argument. Oh, sorry. I forgot to add your style to that: "Really persuasive argument, you doody head "

You are trully quite lame at this.

I am not a corporate apologist. Unlike you, however, I am not hostile to corporations.

The balance of your rambling post is silly. Just silly.

Oh the horror. "They" are now allowed to "speak!"

Another leftist "outwage."

Tit for tat.

Your argument was weak and full of rambling insulting talking points. The response was exactly what was demanded by the situation.

 

[Oddball]

Corporations are put in jail for breaking the law?
All the benefits and not all of the responsibilities?

Does the death penalty apply to corporations?

Do any of those apply to unions or 527s?....NEWWWWP!

I like my red herring filleted and blackened.

 

[del]

Corporations are put in jail for breaking the law?
All the benefits and not all of the responsibilities?

Does the death penalty apply to corporations?

 

[Liability]

Corporations are put in jail for breaking the law?
All the benefits and not all of the responsibilities?

Wtf are you babbling about?

How do you imagine a corporation COULD be incarcerated?

No. For deliberate (and proved) violations of the criminal law, the corporations can get fined and possibly disbanded. Their officers can face convictions and incarceration.

Shareholders are, of course, the beneficiaries of their limited liability. (Otherwise who the fuck would ever invest in capitalist enterprises?) But shareholders CAN lose the entirety of whatever capital they invested IN the corporation if the sanctions cause the corporation to go out of business.

For all your rather incoherent criticisms, you don't come across all that clearly on rational alternatives.

What would you propose as an alternative to the current corporations'-system, which would serve to both permit the formation of companies (in order to foster capitalist ventures) and yet also serve the needs of those who would make such investments?

 

[Vast LWC]

And just to be clear.

You, Liability, feel that Corporations should be allowed to blanket the airwaves with propaganda, and drown out all other individual voices in every election.

I just want you to go on record as stating that that is your feeling.

 

[Liability]

What a load of unmitigated crap.

You're a sick corporate apologist. Whatever, it doesn't matter anymore. Unless someone does something very soon to reverse this decision, none of us will have any say in government anymore, unless we happen to be on a corporate board.

Really persuasive argument. Oh, sorry. I forgot to add your style to that: "Really persuasive argument, you doody head "

You are trully quite lame at this.

I am not a corporate apologist. Unlike you, however, I am not hostile to corporations.

The balance of your rambling post is silly. Just silly.

Oh the horror. "They" are now allowed to "speak!"

Another leftist "outwage."

Tit for tat.

Your argument was weak and full of rambling insulting talking points. The response was exactly what was demanded by the situation.

But of course, your critique is dishonest.

You offered nothing at all except lame ad hominem and unsupported lame ad hominem at that.

Do try to get back on point someday.

If corporations can speak fully and freely, are the American people really at risk of having their opinions CRAFTED by corporations? Is that really how little faith you have in "the people?"

 

[Liability]

And just to be clear.

You, Liability, feel that Corporations should be allowed to blanket the airwaves with propaganda, and drown out all other individual voices in every election.

I just want you to go on record as stating that that is your feeling.

You cannot go on the record to state MY feeling.

Your post serves quite well to underscore why.

I speak for me (and when I speak for me, I say what I feel).

You don't speak for me because when you make the effort, you fuck it up.

Corporations should indeed have the right to express their POV. I endorse freedom of speech. The First Amendment means what it says.

 

[Yurt]

i don't recall you complaining about obama's over half billion dollar campaign war chest

for those against this, are you also against candidates amassing over 600 million dollars in campaign funds?

Which was donated entirely by individuals.

And John McCain was certainly up in arms about it at the time, wasn't he?

I am appalled to see any of you defending this decision.

We may as well just all stop posting right now, or stop working as activists, or stop donating to campaigns.

This decision will allow multi-billion dollar corporations to flood the airways and internet with whatever they want you to think.

Say goodbye to your little "Tea Party" movement. The second any of them says anything that the corporations don't like, they'll go the way of the DoDo.

Of course, you all already have your own corporate sponsor to begin with, so maybe you'll survive in some form or another.

let me get this right...you support a candidate having a campaign war chest of 600 million dollars (which was oodles more than mccain), but you don't support unions and corps spending money on tv ads.....

that makes no sense