MASSIVE Democrat Dark Money Scheme Uncovered, Possibly The Largest Dark Money Scheme For The Left

[Syriusly]

the democrats rot runs deep,,,

Or as the Supreme Court calls it- people exercising their first amendment rights......

I personally think Dark Money is crap.

But since the Supreme Court has said its okay- and since both sides are doing it-......

 

[ABikerSailor]

We should repeal Citizens United so that sort of thing wouldn't be perfectly legal any more. The idiots who wanted that passed wanted dark money freely available.

You cant just repeal Supreme Court rulings.

If Congress were to repeal the law, the SC would be powerless to stop them. Congress votes on the legislation and passes it, making it law. If there is any question as to the Constitutionality of the law that was passed, then and only then does the SC enter into the discussion. They have zero say in whether or not the law is passed or repealed, they can only rule if it is allowed by the Constitution or not.

 

[progressive hunter]

the democrats rot runs deep,,,

Or as the Supreme Court calls it- people exercising their first amendment rights......

I personally think Dark Money is crap.

But since the Supreme Court has said its okay- and since both sides are doing it-......

no indication so far the repubes are anywhere near this level,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

We should repeal Citizens United so that sort of thing wouldn't be perfectly legal any more. The idiots who wanted that passed wanted dark money freely available.

No, the people who wanted the Citizen's United case wanted to keep the left from turning American business into a cash-generating cow for the government without allowing them to defend themselves.

However, you are correct in that this kind of thing happens when the right of free assembly is permitted to flourish.

The dark money referenced in this OP would not have been legal before Citizens United. It is legal after Citizens United was passed.

That is because, before the ruling, businesses were being used as pawns to finance government schemes. After, they were permitted to fight back using the only voice they had.

Bullshit.

 

[pknopp]

We should repeal Citizens United so that sort of thing wouldn't be perfectly legal any more. The idiots who wanted that passed wanted dark money freely available.

You cant just repeal Supreme Court rulings.

If Congress were to repeal the law, the SC would be powerless to stop them. Congress votes on the legislation and passes it, making it law. If there is any question as to the Constitutionality of the law that was passed, then and only then does the SC enter into the discussion. They have zero say in whether or not the law is passed or repealed, they can only rule if it is allowed by the Constitution or not.

It's not a law. It's a Supreme Court ruling. There is nothing to repeal.

 

[iceberg]

We should repeal Citizens United so that sort of thing wouldn't be perfectly legal any more. The idiots who wanted that passed wanted dark money freely available.

No, the people who wanted the Citizen's United case wanted to keep the left from turning American business into a cash-generating cow for the government without allowing them to defend themselves.

However, you are correct in that this kind of thing happens when the right of free assembly is permitted to flourish.

One of the largest participants in that lawsuit was the NRA.

the one thing about the NRA is they are a civil rights group,,,,

those I dont have a big problem with,,,

That's the way it always is. People want to ban those they disagree with but allow those they agree with to participate. That is never going to work.

if they are guilty of something take em down.

 

[pknopp]

We should repeal Citizens United so that sort of thing wouldn't be perfectly legal any more. The idiots who wanted that passed wanted dark money freely available.

No, the people who wanted the Citizen's United case wanted to keep the left from turning American business into a cash-generating cow for the government without allowing them to defend themselves.

However, you are correct in that this kind of thing happens when the right of free assembly is permitted to flourish.

One of the largest participants in that lawsuit was the NRA.

the one thing about the NRA is they are a civil rights group,,,,

those I dont have a big problem with,,,

That's the way it always is. People want to ban those they disagree with but allow those they agree with to participate. That is never going to work.

if they are guilty of something take em down.

Take someone down for spending money in the manner they want?

 

[iceberg]

No, the people who wanted the Citizen's United case wanted to keep the left from turning American business into a cash-generating cow for the government without allowing them to defend themselves.

However, you are correct in that this kind of thing happens when the right of free assembly is permitted to flourish.

One of the largest participants in that lawsuit was the NRA.

the one thing about the NRA is they are a civil rights group,,,,

those I dont have a big problem with,,,

That's the way it always is. People want to ban those they disagree with but allow those they agree with to participate. That is never going to work.

if they are guilty of something take em down.

Take someone down for spending money in the manner they want?

sorry. I not feeling well today and mixed conversations.

 

[ABikerSailor]

We should repeal Citizens United so that sort of thing wouldn't be perfectly legal any more. The idiots who wanted that passed wanted dark money freely available.

You cant just repeal Supreme Court rulings.

If Congress were to repeal the law, the SC would be powerless to stop them. Congress votes on the legislation and passes it, making it law. If there is any question as to the Constitutionality of the law that was passed, then and only then does the SC enter into the discussion. They have zero say in whether or not the law is passed or repealed, they can only rule if it is allowed by the Constitution or not.

It's not a law. It's a Supreme Court ruling. There is nothing to repeal.

You really ought to do some research. It was the SC's ruling on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The act prevented corporations and unions from making electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary, and 60 days of a general election. The SC ruled that they could do that because if they stopped it, that could be seen as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The law was passed, it was challenged, and the SC ruled on the constitutionality of the law. If the law wasn't there, and the constitutionality wasn't challenged, the SC wouldn't have entered into it.


Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia

The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. This violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time.

In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity, as well as a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that had restricted corporate spending on electioneering communications. The ruling effectively freed labor unions and corporations to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued that Court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government."

 

[pknopp]

We should repeal Citizens United so that sort of thing wouldn't be perfectly legal any more. The idiots who wanted that passed wanted dark money freely available.

You cant just repeal Supreme Court rulings.

If Congress were to repeal the law, the SC would be powerless to stop them. Congress votes on the legislation and passes it, making it law. If there is any question as to the Constitutionality of the law that was passed, then and only then does the SC enter into the discussion. They have zero say in whether or not the law is passed or repealed, they can only rule if it is allowed by the Constitution or not.

It's not a law. It's a Supreme Court ruling. There is nothing to repeal.

You really ought to do some research. It was the SC's ruling on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The act prevented corporations and unions from making electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary, and 60 days of a general election. The SC ruled that they could do that because if they stopped it, that could be seen as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The law was passed, it was challenged, and the SC ruled on the constitutionality of the law. If the law wasn't there, and the constitutionality wasn't challenged, the SC wouldn't have entered into it.


Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia

The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. This violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time.

In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity, as well as a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that had restricted corporate spending on electioneering communications. The ruling effectively freed labor unions and corporations to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued that Court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government."

Which means it's free speech and legal. Without a law banning it there is nothing to stop it and a law can't ban it as the S.C. has already ruled that would be a restriction on free speech.