Supreme Court Rolls back finance rules

[exactaplayer]

The conservative majority in the Supreme Court gave approval for unlimited Corporate campaign spending.
And the move to Fascism continues.

[GaryG]

Originally Posted by exactaplayer

And the move to Fascism continues.

Last time I looked there was a socialist in the WH.

[exactaplayer]

Originally Posted by GaryG

Last time I looked there was a socialist in the WH.

Could you give us one example of any socialist program put forth by the dude in the WH ?
As far as I am concerned we may as well have left Bush in there. The health care bill out of the Senate was written by the health care lobbyists. Come on Gary pay attention to what is going on in this country.
BUT !! What about the topic of this thread ? More power to the corporations.

[ArlJim78]

Does anyone recall when did George Bush tried to cram down on us a healthcare bill written by the insurance industry?
anyone, anyone?

Of course we'd have been better off leaving Bush in office. It looks like you're finally catching on.

[exactaplayer]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Does anyone recall when did George Bush tried to cram down on us a healthcare bill written by the insurance industry?
anyone, anyone?

Of course we'd have been better off leaving Bush in office. It looks like you're finally catching on.

I did not say better off, I said it would not have made any difference. Bush and company jammed the prescription bill down on us. The phamas are tickled pink. And laughing their asses off every time they count their profits.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by exactaplayer

I did not say better off, I said it would not have made any difference. Bush and company jammed the prescription bill down on us. The phamas are tickled pink. And laughing their asses off every time they count their profits.

If you are a Libertarian, then you are not better off under Obama. It's worse, much much worse.

[ArlJim78]

by the way, why would a libertarian such as yourself, disagree with this supreme court ruling? Do you feel its the role of government to dictate what corporations do with their money?

freedom of speech and freedom from government censorship and control of the private sector I believe are hallmarks of the Libertarian identity.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Of course this is Libertarianism! Everybody incorporate now!!

[exactaplayer]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

by the way, why would a libertarian such as yourself, disagree with this supreme court ruling? Do you feel its the role of government to dictate what corporations do with their money?

freedom of speech and freedom from government censorship and control of the private sector I believe are hallmarks of the Libertarian identity.

My original note was concern that the corporations that already have control of our government now have the freedom to spend any amount they want on advertising for political reasons.
And based on the number of faux believers in this country, this action does note bode well for the American public.
ps
I am not a libertarian, that was the only option available in Mass. not in control of the corporate powers.
second ps
It is neat how you have skirted around all the points i have brought up in this thread.

[delayjf]

I did not say better off, I said it would not have made any difference. Bush and company jammed the prescription bill down on us. The phamas are tickled pink. And laughing their asses off every time they count their profits.
__________________
Don't blame me, I voted for Al Gore

Gore's presciption plan was much more robust than Bush's. One way or another a presription plan was going to be inacted.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by exactaplayer

My original note was concern that the corporations that already have control of our government now have the freedom to spend any amount they want on advertising for political reasons.
And based on the number of faux believers in this country, this action does note bode well for the American public.
ps
I am not a libertarian, that was the only option available in Mass. not in control of the corporate powers.
second ps
It is neat how you have skirted around all the points i have brought up in this thread.

Congress is the target, not corporations. Corporations should have the right to spend any amount at any time on political advertising. what is the problem with that? you have not made clear what your point is. you say it doesn't bode well for the country, WHY? what happens when we have more points of view, more access for people to get their messages out?

I haven't skirted anything, you simply have not made any kind of clear argument. For example what is meant by "faux believers"?

[bigmack]

SEIU bought Obama for $60Mil. What's new?

[Black Ruby]

Originally Posted by bigmack

SEIU bought Obama for $60Mil. What's new?

Here's what's new with this ruling, the ability of foreign interests to wield even more power and influence in America. From Greg Palast.com:

"Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns, but a foreign government can, veiled behind a corporate treasury, dump money into ballot battles.

Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-people, as opposed to corporate-people, may only give $2,300 to a presidential campaign. But hedge fund billionaires, for example, who typically operate through dozens of corporate vessels, may now give unlimited sums through each of these "unnatural" creatures.

And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best democracy money can buy.

In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama's health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!

The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, "Who are these guys?"
We'll never know.

Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is the new venom that the Court has injected into the system by its expansive decision in Citizens United."

[BenDiesel26]

Let's be honest. The law didn't stop Soros from getting money to Obama in the last election to help get an overall total of 750+ million dollars. Changing the law isn't going to do much. It was already a given that the next Republican candidate will not be stupid enough to agree to public financing.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by Black Ruby

Here's what's new with this ruling, the ability of foreign interests to wield even more power and influence in America. From Greg Palast.com:

"Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns

$3.38Mil to Obama from foreign countries. What's new?



http://newsmax.com/Politics/OSEIU