Posted by krw on February 2, 2010, 6:25 pm
>>>If you have a point, make it, but dont just spout crap.
>>
>> Read the decision, is my point. You clearly have been listening to
>> Obama, not reality.
>This is the decision of the Court.
>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
>It is a bit broad, in a place or two, about expenditures of political
>action committees. It IS couched in terms of free speech and
>communication, and frees organized to spend in these areas - in
>other words to get the candidate of advantage by the juridical
>"person" elected.
>I still say it is a way for big money interests to buy a candidate.
So you admit to being a liar?
Posted by Rod Speed on February 2, 2010, 2:15 pm
Bill wrote:
>> They cannot donate to campaigns at all. They may state their opinions, but
not give one thin dime to a candidate.
> But they can spend millions on TV commercials is my understanding.
Correct.
> Same thing the candidate would do with the money.
Nope, its much less likely to be properly coordinated with them doing their own
commercials.
> And if you can trash an opponent, true or not, this can influence an election
as people get their information from TV
> these days.
But arent necessarily stupid enough to believe
everything they see in an election TV commercial.
> I recall that Nixon won an early election (not for President) by trashing his
opponent with untruths... (Detailed in
> one of the biographies on Nixon - A book - Not on TV.)
Yes, those who wrote the consitution did not allow for that.
If you dont like that, amend the constitution again.
ALL the supremes said was that the CURRENT constitutional amendment
prevents the govt from controlling how corps advertise on TV.
Posted by Canuck57 on February 1, 2010, 8:54 pm
On 01/02/2010 6:07 PM, krw wrote:
>>
>>>> The current Court simply REAFFIRMED that ruling, thus the law banning
>>>> their
>>>> "RIGHT to political speech," was not Constitutional.
>>>
>>> I'd like to suggest that policical campaign contributions be taxable,
>>> by all taxes applicable to the region or any part of it voting for
>>> that office. This would include individual income tax, corporate
>>> income tax, sales tax (for national elections, the sales tax of all
>>> 50 states), inheritance tax, property tax, all those odd taxes you
>>> see on your phone bill, the SEC tax on stock trading, Social Security
>>> taxes, Obama's health care tax if and when it becomes effective,
>>> gasoline tax, etc.
>>
>> The latest ruling that opens the gate for company "donations" to
>> political campaigns is just a way for industry (or other wealthy
>> interest groups) to BUY congress.
> Bullshit. You really should learn something before spouting such
> nonsense.
>> Now, surely enough, congress has pimped itself for years, but
>> this brings pimpdon to a holy acceptable status.
> Ditto.
You have to look at it this way.
$5000 to each of 400 representatives is only $2 million. Since
government can taint the process to one companies favor or another, well
- cheap buy.
Say I was evil ultra-mega super rich and had $10 billion in one of the
failing banks. I would gladly pay $2 million to assure my $10 billion
was safe. Now say you have "connections" or some control to 25
corporations, and it is tax deductable. 26 * 5k * 400 is a lot of bribe
moneys. Right under the radar too.
You know the $10 billion is safe. I am sure Obama has his reasons he
cares not to discuss to us why some banks got help and others did not.
Posted by Mike Hunter on February 1, 2010, 8:22 pm
Is that YOU Obama?
> >The current Court simply REAFFIRMED that ruling, thus the law banning
> >their
>>"RIGHT to political speech," was not Constitutional.
> I'd like to suggest that policical campaign contributions be taxable,
> by all taxes applicable to the region or any part of it voting for
> that office. This would include individual income tax, corporate
> income tax, sales tax (for national elections, the sales tax of all
> 50 states), inheritance tax, property tax, all those odd taxes you
> see on your phone bill, the SEC tax on stock trading, Social Security
> taxes, Obama's health care tax if and when it becomes effective,
> gasoline tax, etc.
>
XML site map
>>
>> Read the decision, is my point. You clearly have been listening to
>> Obama, not reality.
>This is the decision of the Court.
>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
>It is a bit broad, in a place or two, about expenditures of political
>action committees. It IS couched in terms of free speech and
>communication, and frees organized to spend in these areas - in
>other words to get the candidate of advantage by the juridical
>"person" elected.
>I still say it is a way for big money interests to buy a candidate.