Posted on 01/21/2010 7:15:59 AM PST by steve-b
The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Why? Their ads aren't particularly persuasive except as viewed by their already-convinced members. The better fix is to let union members withhold that fraction of dues that goes to political activism. But let the unions spend their profits however they see fit.
I’d rather the good be allowed to speak at the cost of the bad speaking too, rather than silencing the good to quiet the bad (who will speak anyway).
Another 5-4 vote.
Freedom is secured by only one vote.
How’s that “Sotomayor” working out for us?
I agree with you. Let everybody buy the megaphone they want to yell into. I just hope the American people don’t simply fall for the loudest one, because it won’t be ours.
Since Sotomayor was appointed by an illegitimate office holder, she is an illegitimate Supreme Court Justice.
I’m looking forward to hearing McCain speaking about this ruling.
I won’t hold my breath.
Comrade Juan McNuts rejected yet again!
Corporations do not vote.
What a week!
I have never seen anything like it. Every medium, radio, TV and internet, non stop all the time. During a commerical break it was not uncommon to have four consequitive advertisements, sometimes more than one from the same candidate. A Scott Brown ad would flow seamlessly into a Marcia Choakley ad into a 527 ad into a Marcia Choakley ad. I think in the aggregate there were definitely more Croakley ads.
I’d rather lose because our megaphone was not louder than another’s, than lose because we were silenced.
I don't know if I would call their funds profits, but I'll leave that for another day. Rather than untying one contribution arm to allow the corporations back in, I would have rather seen all campaign funding restricted to private individuals only.
What about the provisions about resticting advertising in a certain window around an election? That was the most egregious part of the bill.
If what I’m reading is accurate, this could the power of the lefty funded groups will be countered.
THE RAT SCUM AND SOROS ORGS JUST LOST A HUGE, HUGE ADVANTAGE.
I think it comes under federal election laws.
It could give some more teeth to the parties particularly the GOP since in essence they are corporations.
Hell there wasn’t even a problem with BO spending hundreds of millions of illegal FOREIGN contributions last election cycle.
McCain was a chump. America got p’nked.
The issue here was advocacy ads, and it's difficult to untie strictly "individual" efforts from group efforts. The only issue I have with unions speaking with one voice is that some members disagree with the political and public policy positions of the unions they are forced to join. Not so with "Citizens United" or the NRA, etc. Individuals are free to join or drop, without risking their employment.
WOW! Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Fascism is the 1st thought that comes to mind.
Great thread. Thanks to all posters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.