Posted on 09/02/2015 9:49:30 PM PDT by This_far
HELENA - Montana’s long-standing dollar-limits on campaign contributions may be in jeopardy, as a federal appeals court Tuesday reaffirmed its earlier ruling that the limits must meet new, stricter standards.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request from the state to rehear the case, sending it back to a federal judge in Helena to use the stricter standard to decide whether Montana’s limits are constitutional.
An attorney opposing the limits said the ruling means the limits likely will be thrown out by the judge as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at kxlh.com ...
And the fire sale of our Republic races onward.
It astounds me that Conservatives generally applaud this. I’m sure the Founding Fathers thought something on the order of .... gee, I sure hope they get that whoever has the most money owns our Republic.
Corporations have no political agenda. their agenda is to own and control. Fox News would go mega-Lib tomorrow if they thought there was money in it.
Unbelievable.
You seem more than intelligent enough to disregard any and all political BS that you receive.
Democrats/liberals/progressives also disregard anything that they are opposed to.
Couldn't this be considered a 'stupid' limit?
I am asking!, not implying nor infering!
My friend, maybe it’s late, maybe I am stupid, but I don’t quite get what you are asking me. ; )
I’m not implying or inferring either ... just befuddled. lol
Perhaps we both are?
However, I got the impression that you are against Citzens United?
(if not, let’s call it a night)
If you are against Citizens, then my reply was intended
... it shouldn’t matter to intelligent, informed voters WHAT they get in the mail, hear on the radio,,, etc
YOUR profile showed to ME that you probably wouldn’t be swayed by silly ads.
I certainly wouldn’t take you for stupid with your resume (which is why I thought it exemplary to post, I hope that wasn’t out of line...)
Smells like a great opportunity to exercise some nullification.
Now that labor unions are dying out and big corporations support the same social agenda as unions that's no longer a good reason.
The reason now seems to be that because corporations are legal persons, they should be able to give whatever they want.
But even though they are legal persons, they are not citizens and they do not vote. Also, lots of corporations have foreign interests, foreign employees, etc. which suggest that the money they spend on elections is not entirely for the sake of America or Americans.
I know that being against unbridled corporate spending on elections is anathema on FR, but all I can say is regardless of the Constitutionality it is no longer in conservatives' favor that large corporations can spend as much as they want on elections.
It may be the right thing to do constitutionally, but it will eventually lead to the further deterioration of our other constitutional rights.
Large corporations by and large don't want citizens to own guns. Large corporations by and large don't want citizens to speak their minds. Large corporations by and large don't want citizens to freely assemble. These all create risks that they can't control and don't want to have to deal with.
Large corporations also don't like States' Rights. They would prefer it if laws affecting corporations were established at the federal level so it will be easier for them to conduct business throughout the US.
Why do you think there is always some Freeper arguing that insurance companies should be able to sell their products in any state and that all states should have similar laws with regard to insurance? They're just shilling for large corporations.
There is no really good solution. Campaign financing limits appear to be unconstitutional and there are always ways for the inventive to get around them.
However, we as conservatives should not delude ourselves into thinking this is a good thing for us. It may be good for a few libertarians and neocons, but not for the traditional conservatives who see most major corporations supporting abortion, gay marriage, limits on gun ownership (e.g. can't bring your gun to work even if it is locked in your trunk in the parking lot and never enters the building), etc.
And yes there are PACs that are primarily funded by thousands of small donors. And yes those PACs should be allowed to collect as much money as they can and distribute it as they please. But there are other PACs that are primarily funded by a few large donors representing the interests of corporations who care nothing about America as a going concern. They think of Her only as a woman to be used, abused, and kicked to the curb when a better option comes along.
Yes, quite possibly neither good nor bad.
However, at least consider it from the perspective of a small corporation.
You’ve made a thoughtful post, to be looked at later.
Aside from above (small corporations), I’d add tonight that at least this ruling keeps the liberals a step further AWAY from their desire to REDUCE freedoms.
And as I said in another post, most voters should be informed enough to disregard the silly mailers/other BS they get/are exposed to.
HA! I love being a ship passing in the night. Now that I’ve had my coffee ...
I am against Citizens United and I also see EXACTLY what you are saying and agree with you.
However, that’s not the point. While many of us can see through the propaganda on both sides, that is a small minority. Furthermore, what CU has done is to encourage (actually ensure) that politicians will promise to the highest bidder whatever that Bidder wants. When you are looking at being backed by billionaires, whether it be Kock or Soros you are only going to care about what they want and their agenda. There is, then, frankly no need to listen to constituents. And the evidence is replete with examples of that. Has it always been that way? Sure. To some extent. But now having a billionaire in your pocket, or more accurately he in yours, is the ONLY way you will ever hold high office. We are now in the day where our politicians MUST go in groups and pay homage to these billionaires if they have any hope of being nominated.
By keeping money secret, this is no more than legalized money laundering. These Super PACs sure smell a lot like drug cartels I used to prosecute. Citizen voices are drowned out. In the end, we may scream and yell but in the end we ALWAYS come back to “I’ll hold my nose and vote for ...”
Citizens United is a disaster. Maybe some Conservatives like it because it was a “Conservative” SCOTUS decision. I dunno. But I see this, more than anything, killing the once great Untied States of America.
I’ve got more but I think there are length limits in posts.
Fun chatting with you. =)
It may not just be the congresscritters that are in the billionaires' pockets.
Wow, THAT is a summation!
Trust that I’m allowed to get back to you on it (and the points you presented?)
Would you consider taking a look at Montana’s political practice office...?
After watching the “confirmation” hearings/legislation sessions (last most recent session), I’d appreciate an experienced outsiders thoughts.
HA!
I QUITE look forward to your response. Take your time. I enjoy a good discussion.
I would love to take a look at it. How might I do so? Either respond here or send me a direct message.
Looking forward to it!!
Thank you, for reply(s) and time to do so...
I appreciate the opportunity for continuing education
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.