State Supreme Court rules against Citizens United...

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i agree mike. it is almost like the voters are not making the results, but the money is.

when you put it that way, I guess not much has changed

i will rephrase that to say "those who have the most money who are donating the most money are deciding the electoral outcomes".

again, not sure what has changed

this has certainly shone a brighter light on all of it. And I think we will see campaign reform in the coming future

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

again, not sure what has changed

this has certainly shone a brighter light on all of it. And I think we will see campaign reform in the coming future

i do wish we would see campaign reform, but i am not going to hold my breath. one side may benefit from the massive corporate donations so they are not going to support reform and in the next election cycle the other side can potentially benefit so they are going oppose it.

maybe 20 years ago when congress had members in it who were actually willing to compromise on some things we could have gotten bipartisan support. but in this day and age of compromise being a bad thing, nothing will change with regard to campaign finance laws. even the supreme court is sharply divided over it.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

again, not sure what has changed

this has certainly shone a brighter light on all of it. And I think we will see campaign reform in the coming future

i do wish we would see campaign reform, but i am not going to hold my breath. one side may benefit from the massive corporate donations so they are not going to support reform and in the next election cycle the other side can potentially benefit so they are going oppose it.

maybe 20 years ago when congress had members in it who were actually willing to compromise on some things we could have gotten bipartisan support. but in this day and age of compromise being a bad thing, nothing will change with regard to campaign finance laws. even the supreme court is sharply divided over it.

I am surprised they don't come out and say how this new system is an economic stimulus.

WaveCameCrashin

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

WaveCameCrashin wrote:

Sure is funny how Obama trashed and lied about the supreme court during his State of the Union Address, in regards to the citizens united case and now he's taking full advantage of using PAC'S. He's a damn hippocrite and liar at that.. So Gimmie how come your not saying anything about Bill fuctard Mahr giving a Million$ to Obama's PAC ? I guess that's ok as long as it helps Obama ?


My guess is people like Gimmie and the rest who are so upset about this don't even know that all citizens united wanted to do was put out a movie about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election.. This is nothing more than an attack on political Free speech.. Simple as that..

How is what obama said a lie? Why were roberts and alito the only ones who seemed taken aback by what he said? Could it be because obama called them on it?

he is only taking advantage of pacs because they are now legal. if your opponent is going to use them you would be a moron not to use all the tools at your disposal as well. i do not need to bring up bill fucktard maher because then i would have to condemn everyone who has contributed to a super pac, and frankly who has time for that? we can go back and forth all week naming individuals who gave big money to pacs, but what is the point in that when there is no solution to the problem other than making big donations illegal again? throughout your time here under various screen names you should know me well enough by now that i am not going to excuse obama or maher for this. money should be out of politics. elections should be publicly funded. the fact is, conservatives are not going to call bullshit on citizens united until they get shellacked a few election cycles in a row. then they will realize that the money and the special interests are the problem. that is what happened to the dems in 2010.

I think every one of us should be able to agree that corporations are not individual people, and the money that they contribute is not speech.

is it still free speech to release a movie that is full of lies in order to change perceptions and influence an election?

This is how he lied
.

Stranger still were the unwarranted attacks against the Supreme Court that followed. Most visibly, the president used his State of the Union address to accuse the court of having "reversed a century of law" and "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections." That statement was astonishing because none of it was true: The oldest decision reversed by Citizens United was 20 years old, not 100, and foreign corporations are prohibited from participating in elections, just as they were before. As for "special interests," many had been spending at an equally furious rate, apparently unnoticed by the president, well before this ruling

And you are wrong about corporations not being individual people.. My parents own a small business. Therefor its a corporation.. Should they not be able to contribute what they choose and whom ? And furthermore the 2010 election outcome had nothing to do with this as in the outcome of the elections. Americans, Clear thinking ones I might add are awake and see through the bullshit that both parties are responsible for. Thats why we are voting for candidates that actually believe in limited constituional gov. Even though its going to take decades to unravel the damage both parties are responsible for.

catefrances

WaveCameCrashin wrote:

And you are wrong about corporations not being individual people.. My parents own a small business. Therefor its a corporation.. Should they not be able to contribute what they choose and whom ? And furthermore the 2010 election outcome had nothing to do with this as in the outcome of the elections. Americans, Clear thinking ones I might add are awake and see through the bullshit that both parties are responsible for. Thats why we are voting for candidates that actually believe in limited constituional gov. Even though its going to take decades to unravel the damage both parties are responsible for.

corporations are made up of individual people.. it doesnt mean they are individual people. they exist as their own entity.

gimmesometruth27

WaveCameCrashin wrote:

And you are wrong about corporations not being individual people.. My parents own a small business. Therefor its a corporation.. Should they not be able to contribute what they choose and whom ? And furthermore the 2010 election outcome had nothing to do with this as in the outcome of the elections. Americans, Clear thinking ones I might add are awake and see through the bullshit that both parties are responsible for. Thats why we are voting for candidates that actually believe in limited constituional gov. Even though its going to take decades to unravel the damage both parties are responsible for.

when is the last time a corporation went to jail or was prosecuted for any wrongdoing? the penalties against human beings and corporations are different. coorporations are fined and they pay money in damages. human persons go to jail. in some cases they pay a fine, but most times they end up on probation, which corporations don't, mind you, or they go to jail. if the penalties are not applied and the same the same punnishment doled out, ie. prison, how can one say that human beings and corporations are the same?

and yes, corporations should have the same limits that they can contribute as individual human beings do.

what is fair, 100 people donating $500 each to a candidate or a small corporate board of directors donating $5 million in the name of their company? it is unbelievably unfair. money is not speech, and the entity paying that money is not a person. why is that such a difficult thing to grasp?

VivaPalestina

True story about Citizens United, a good friend somehow got on their calling and mailing list, so they will call and ask for money and their sub groups will call and ask for money. And they will send racist tinged mail, with self addressed stamped envelopes asking for money. Not knowing much about citizens united, said friend got into conversation with the republican solicitor, who goes on to tell him, to paraphrase: we have to prevent Obama from being relected, do you know that he is a Muslim? He has a secret room/place in the White House where he goes and makes his daily prayers. Then asked for a donation, from friend, who is a Muslim.

cincybearcat

VivaPalestina wrote:

True story about Citizens United, a good friend somehow got on their calling and mailing list, so they will call and ask for money and their sub groups will call and ask for money. And they will send racist tinged mail, with self addressed stamped envelopes asking for money. Not knowing much about citizens united, said friend got into conversation with the republican solicitor, who goes on to tell him, to paraphrase: we have to prevent Obama from being relected, do you know that he is a Muslim? He has a secret room/place in the White House where he goes and makes his daily prayers. Then asked for a donation, from friend, who is a Muslim.

Wait?!?!?!?! What?!?!?!?!?! You are friends with a Muslim?!?!?!?!?!

catefrances

VivaPalestina wrote:

True story about Citizens United, a good friend somehow got on their calling and mailing list, so they will call and ask for money and their sub groups will call and ask for money. And they will send racist tinged mail, with self addressed stamped envelopes asking for money. Not knowing much about citizens united, said friend got into conversation with the republican solicitor, who goes on to tell him, to paraphrase: we have to prevent Obama from being relected, do you know that he is a Muslim? He has a secret room/place in the White House where he goes and makes his daily prayers. Then asked for a donation, from friend, who is a Muslim.

clearly were dealing with higher life forms here. :roll:

catefrances

cincybearcat wrote:

VivaPalestina wrote:

True story about Citizens United, a good friend somehow got on their calling and mailing list, so they will call and ask for money and their sub groups will call and ask for money. And they will send racist tinged mail, with self addressed stamped envelopes asking for money. Not knowing much about citizens united, said friend got into conversation with the republican solicitor, who goes on to tell him, to paraphrase: we have to prevent Obama from being relected, do you know that he is a Muslim? He has a secret room/place in the White House where he goes and makes his daily prayers. Then asked for a donation, from friend, who is a Muslim.

Wait?!?!?!?! What?!?!?!?!?! You are friends with a Muslim?!?!?!?!?!

i know.. its simply outrageous isnt it??? theyre the enemy dont you know?.

fife

Ok will admit i have been reading this thread for a while and i have just 2 questions.

would you pay into a fund where around election time that money is split to the 2 parties even if you don't support the other party?

do you believe that even if corporations were not allowed to give money to parties that this issue would be resolved?

mikepegg44

fife wrote:

Ok will admit i have been reading this thread for a while and i have just 2 questions.

would you pay into a fund where around election time that money is split to the 2 parties even if you don't support the other party?

do you believe that even if corporations were not allowed to give money to parties that this issue would be resolved?

corporate campaign contributions will never truly go away...but making it so they are basically unlimited is pretty crazy.

For all the people who think "corporations are people too"

you have to remember that the corporation is made up of many individuals. Those individuals are free to support anyone they choose. Corporate interests in many cases (jp morgan for instance) have basically unlimited funds at their disposal. Meaning that the company has an endless well of money to throw at what the Board alone thinks is good politically. it is different from an individual and should be treated as such.

fife

mikepegg44 wrote:

fife wrote:

Ok will admit i have been reading this thread for a while and i have just 2 questions.

would you pay into a fund where around election time that money is split to the 2 parties even if you don't support the other party?

do you believe that even if corporations were not allowed to give money to parties that this issue would be resolved?

corporate campaign contributions will never truly go away...but making it so they are basically unlimited is pretty crazy.

For all the people who think "corporations are people too"

you have to remember that the corporation is made up of many individuals. Those individuals are free to support anyone they choose. Corporate interests in many cases (jp morgan for instance) have basically unlimited funds at their disposal. Meaning that the company has an endless well of money to throw at what the Board alone thinks is good politically. it is different from an individual and should be treated as such.

Sorry another questions.

At what point do you decide that maybe you have to get away from campaign contributions should not be allowed no matter what. why not have a budget line that says that both parties will get the same money to run a campaign. t

mikepegg44

fife wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

fife wrote:

Ok will admit i have been reading this thread for a while and i have just 2 questions.

would you pay into a fund where around election time that money is split to the 2 parties even if you don't support the other party?

do you believe that even if corporations were not allowed to give money to parties that this issue would be resolved?

corporate campaign contributions will never truly go away...but making it so they are basically unlimited is pretty crazy.

For all the people who think "corporations are people too"

you have to remember that the corporation is made up of many individuals. Those individuals are free to support anyone they choose. Corporate interests in many cases (jp morgan for instance) have basically unlimited funds at their disposal. Meaning that the company has an endless well of money to throw at what the Board alone thinks is good politically. it is different from an individual and should be treated as such.

Sorry another questions.

At what point do you decide that maybe you have to get away from campaign contributions should not be allowed no matter what. why not have a budget line that says that both parties will get the same money to run a campaign. t

I am all for publicly funded campaigns...you will get no argument from me...but individuals should be able to participate in the political process shouldn't they? maybe time and energy can count? I don't know, there is a way to avoid a political season meaning literally BILLIONS being spent, I just don't know the best way to allow expression of individual political beliefs but keeping monetary influence to a minimum...

fife

mikepegg44 wrote:

fife wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

corporate campaign contributions will never truly go away...but making it so they are basically unlimited is pretty crazy.

For all the people who think "corporations are people too"

you have to remember that the corporation is made up of many individuals. Those individuals are free to support anyone they choose. Corporate interests in many cases (jp morgan for instance) have basically unlimited funds at their disposal. Meaning that the company has an endless well of money to throw at what the Board alone thinks is good politically. it is different from an individual and should be treated as such.

Sorry another questions.

At what point do you decide that maybe you have to get away from campaign contributions should not be allowed no matter what. why not have a budget line that says that both parties will get the same money to run a campaign. t

I am all for publicly funded campaigns...you will get no argument from me...but individuals should be able to participate in the political process shouldn't they? maybe time and energy can count? I don't know, there is a way to avoid a political season meaning literally BILLIONS being spent, I just don't know the best way to allow expression of individual political beliefs but keeping monetary influence to a minimum...

Yes people should participant in the political process but there are more ways to participate. I volunteer for the elections canada during voting times. I used to volunteer for a political party but soon left as I was not comfortable with their direction.

Newch91

US Supreme Court struck down Montana's ban on corporate money in elections. Sad.