Posted by Mike Hunter on February 1, 2010, 12:02 pm
You need to do a bit more research! The Supreme Court had ruled, if I
recall correctly, way back in 1922 that "corporations are "People," who can
be sued in the courts.
The current Court simply REAFFIRMED that ruling, thus the law banning their
"RIGHT to political speech," was not Constitutional.
If you study election law you will discover only an "individual" can seek
elective office.
> Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal
> Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal
> campaigns, Murray Hill Incorporated, a diversifying corporation in the
> Washington, D.C. area, has filed to run for U.S. Congress in the
> Republican primary in Maryland's 8th Congressional District....
>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-klein/supreme-court-ruling-spur_b_437871.html
>
Posted by Mike Hunter on February 1, 2010, 12:04 pm
Was he referring to the government Unions, the ones who REALLY own the
government? LOL
Posted by Mrs Irish Mike on February 1, 2010, 2:51 pm
> You need to do a bit more research! The Supreme Court had ruled, if I
> recall correctly, way back in 1922 that "corporations are "People," who can
> be sued in the courts.
Link or lie? I say urban legend.
Posted by Mike Hunter on February 1, 2010, 6:42 pm
You are wrong, do some homework before you chose to comment, search the
historical record, WBMA.
One can READ the Courts opinion on the net, that sites the "corporations are
People," in the majority ruling. It is also mentioned in the minority
opinion.
One thing is for sure, BO nor the New York Times Editors, apparently did NOT
read the opinion that came down from the court or he and they would not have
made that goofy assertion that FOREIGN corporations can now spend money in
US elections.
The law forbidding foreigners from participating in US elections is still in
effect. That fact is listed in the majority opinion, as well.
I just made a quick search found this, from the Law Review, in less than two
minutes:
"President Barack Obama and other critics say the court's decision to let
corporations spend their money to directly influence elections opened the
floodgates to foreign involvement. In last week's address to Congress and
the nation, Obama asserted that the court had allowed special interests,
"including foreign corporations, to spend without limit on our elections."
That was a step too far, foreign corporations may NOT spend any money in
U.S. elections under a provision of federal election law that was UNTOUCHED
by the high court.
> You need to do a bit more research! The Supreme Court had ruled, if I
> recall correctly, way back in 1922 that "corporations are People," who can
> be sued in the courts.
Link or lie? I say urban legend.
Posted by krw on February 1, 2010, 6:48 pm
wrote:
>You are wrong, do some homework before you chose to comment, search the
>historical record, WBMA.
>One can READ the Courts opinion on the net, that sites the "corporations are
>People," in the majority ruling. It is also mentioned in the minority
>opinion.
>One thing is for sure, BO nor the New York Times Editors, apparently did NOT
>read the opinion that came down from the court or he and they would not have
>made that goofy assertion that FOREIGN corporations can now spend money in
>US elections.
It's even sillier than that. US corporations still cannot directly
support politicians. They can express an opinion, even if they aren't
a "news organization". Free speech for others than the media, fancy
that.
<snip>
XML site map
> Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal
> campaigns, Murray Hill Incorporated, a diversifying corporation in the
> Washington, D.C. area, has filed to run for U.S. Congress in the
> Republican primary in Maryland's 8th Congressional District....
>