STOP... in the name of free speech!
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 ...
We are starting to show some green shoots of freedom again.
Absolute elation! I haven't felt this good since Kerry lost in 2004. Actually since Desert Storm in 1991.
The enthusiasm gap was palpable. There were far more yard signs and sign holders for Brown than Choakley. Actually, the only Choakley sign holders I saw were at my polling place on election night, they were still outnumbered by Brownies. For two weeks prior there were Brownies standing in all the busy street corners and many, many more Brown lawn signs than Croakley. I only saw two Croakley lawn signs, one not far from my home. I had an impulse to run it over. It didn't last long, so maybe someone else had the same impulse and didn't resist.
After dinner on election night I was doing some shovel work on the heavy wet snow from about 7:30 to 8:20. When I came in the house my wife and daughter were sitting glumly watching NCIS with election results streaming across the bottom of the screen. At 8:20 with 1% of percents reporting, Croakley was leading. My wife was depressed and was certain she had managed to steal the election. I told her the early results probably weren't representative and persuaded her to put on something we had TiVoed earlier. Around 9:00 we dared to look again and Brown had a nice lead about 5% with 50% of precincts reporting. She was still worried and I told her to get back to TiVo. (I could not stand to peek at FR either.) A little before 10:00 we switched back to WBZ (CBS Boston) and they had called it for Brown with 75% of precincts reporting. My wife was still worried that somehow the other 25% would change the results. I told her to chill. By that all that remained was for Marsha to concede and for Scott to try to arrange a date for his daughter.
Given the disparity in enthusiasm, appeal of the candidates and competence of the campaigns, I was disappointed in the margin. We had a perfect storm: a completely robotic zombie from the Democrats, public anxiety and resentment over health care "reform" and hugely enthusiastic supporters. I really thought it would go 2:1 for Brown. I'm satisfied with the result but I'm not sure it can translate into more Republican victories. For one thing, Scott Brown is a preternaturally good candidate and another reason is that the Democrats are backing away from health care "reform" like Superman from kryptonite. Scott Brown may have saved Obama's presidency.
It really is sad to see the fealty the union leaders have garnered over the decades. A good portion of the rank and file remind me of the Jaffa in Stargate - they bow to what they believe is a god. It took years to convince them they were following a false god. In the case of the unions the rank and file have been led to believe that the union leaders hold the power of their wages and benefits. So, they are too afraid to speak out against them.
.
Yep, that is why the only effective control would be campaign limits, by or on behalf of a candidate.
Considering how much of the Obama strength in the election (even against his Democrat rivals) was publicity (poster campaign, international travel and concert events), having a record level of campaign contributions had to be a boost.
The media said how wrong it was until it wasn’t wrong.
The rules only matter when they lose and even then only some of the rules matter.
STOP... in the name of free speech!
Recall that Farenheit 9/11 was NOT a campaign contribution even though it was a Bush smear that ended with the slogan “DO SOMETHING!” and Michael Moore made it adamantly clear at public appearances that “something” in 2004 was “unseat the president”.
Yet the Hillary Clinton film was challenged in the courts as a campaign ad.
And ads for F911 could be televised but not so the Hillary film.
The so called bailout was about redistributing the nation’s wealth (looting the treasury as is common in socialist regimes) to political supporters, at corporate and community orgnizing levels.
You obviously haven't been paying attention. The Democrats are in the protection racket. "Nice little coal mine you got there. Shame if something was to happen to it. Ya get my drift?" Bingo, a huge corporate donation to Congressman Mugsy.
One problem with big government and overregulation is that the regulated have a compelling interest to see to it that regulations help them and hurt competitors. Ofter industries will collude with government to protect the "incumbent" corporations by raising barriers to outside competition, i.e., raise "entry costs".
When a big corporation hears the government threatening regulation, they whisper, "Please, doun throw me in dat dare briar batch, Brer Congressman."
I think freedom is always better than constraint when it comes to government rules.
Well, it sure hadn’t slowed down SEIU spending so giving corporations back equal footing works for me.
NYT has been an indispensable cog in the corrupt machinery of corporate fascism since it was purchased explicitly for that purpose sometime around the beginning of the last century.
Just in time for Big Insurance and Big Pharma to spend hundreds of millions for ObamaCare....
oh wait..
they already did that, didn’t they?
More like...Scott Brown may have Saved America!
“After the government took over the corporations! ;-)”
WINNER !
Sounds similar to what happend in our house, and all across the country. I was worried (like you wife) that they would pull a “Franken”!
I certainly hope you are right, that this sends a message to Obama, but with the sleazy advisers he has surrounded himself with, I don’t think he will receive the message you sent until they are done spinning it. Who know what that message will look like by then.
If he is such a “smart” guy, he certainly isn’t acting like it. I think having Axelrod and Rahm is like having a devil on your shoulder ALL the time!
Anyway, we here in Ohio are so proud of you all. You have given us some hope and change! Thank you.
No net change for the Slimes. Being media, their political speech was unrestricted before the ruling.
That's one of the reasons the libtard media favored CFR — it didn't apply to them!
Come on, put on your thinking caps. The corporations who contribute to the scum that they shill for will reward them with advertising revenue.
Oysh, people!
Bears repeating. No conservative should be upset at the removal of this outrageously unconstitutional law even if (and I am not convinced of this) the Democrats may be temporarily advantaged by it.
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.