Supreme Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

They do. It's called voting.



So let's make a bad situation even worse?

Free speech my ass. This ruling is an abomination and a fucking disaster for this country.

I think some of you people have completely lost your minds. Do you really believe that any entity should have a bigger say in Government than you do, simply because they have more money than you do?

Everyone favor of this ruling, please PM me your address, and I'll send you a free "I'm A Moron, Please Ass Rape Me" t-shirt.

Any hope we may have had, of turning around the corrupt and bullshit way our government is run, has died, and you're all yelling hooray for free speech.

Fucking unbelievable.

JC

Corporations don't and never will have a bigger say in Government than we do. We can vote, corporations cannot.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

Corporations don't and never will have a bigger say in Government than we do. We can vote, corporations cannot.

What country do you live in?

JC

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

What country do you live in?

JC

I'm pretty sure it is the same one you do.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

I'm pretty sure it is the same one you do.

Well then I'm confused.

If a corporation can give unlimited amounts of money to a Senator or Representative, you know damn well that Congressman is going to vote for whatever legislation benefits that corporation.

I think we can agree that this is no secret, right?

So yes, corporations can vote just fine, they just don't go into a booth to do it.

Our politicians are in a perpetual state of campaigning. They have one goal, and one goal only, get re-elected. Anyone of them would sell his mother to a pimp, to keep that cushy office job.

But you know what? Fuck it. Let's dissolve Congress all together. We can just let the CEO's of the Fortune 500 make all the laws from now on. Minimum wage? Gone. Child labor laws. Fuck 'em. Don't like mercury in your water? Tough shit, you ain't rich.

That's the direction we're headed in.

I'm amazed anyone could even remotely think this is a good idea.

JC

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Well then I'm confused.

If a corporation can give unlimited amounts of money to a Senator or Representative, you know damn well that Congressman is going to vote for whatever legislation benefits that corporation.

I think we can agree that this is no secret, right?

So yes, corporations can vote just fine, they just don't go into a booth to do it.

Our politicians are in a perpetual state of campaigning. They have one goal, and one goal only, get re-elected. Anyone of them would sell his mother to a pimp, to keep that cushy office job.

But you know what? Fuck it. Let's dissolve Congress all together. We can just let the CEO's of the Fortune 500 make all the laws from now on. Minimum wage? Gone. Child labor laws. Fuck 'em. Don't like mercury in your water? Tough shit, you ain't rich.

That's the direction we're headed in.

I'm amazed anyone could even remotely think this is a good idea.

JC

What was struck down was a provision that banned election communications that mentioned a specific candidate 30 days before a primary/caucus or 60 days before a general election that were paid for by corporations. Before those time periods corporations could do whatever they wanted. All that this has done is removed the advertising restrictions during those time periods. The portion of McCain/Feingold that was struck down did somewhere between little and nothing to stop what you are describing.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

What was struck down was a provision that banned election communications that mentioned a specific candidate 30 days before a primary/caucus or 60 days before a general election that were paid for by corporations.

If you run a network that shows the Superbowl, when do you advertise, July? No, you advertise when it will do the most good. Political advertising six months before an election is not very effective.

Originally Posted by goof2

Before those time periods corporations could do whatever they wanted. All that this has done is removed the advertising restrictions during those time periods. The portion of McCain/Feingold that was struck down did somewhere between little and nothing to stop what you are describing.

That's exactly why it's a step in the wrong direction.

The whole thing is bullshit. Some "not for profit" organization makes ads or a "documentary" promoting or demonizing one candidate or another, using funds from corporations with a special interest in what the candidate may do. How much more shady can you get?

It's not like the candidates don't know where the money comes from.

JC

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

If you run a network that shows the Superbowl, when do you advertise, July? No, you advertise when it will do the most good. Political advertising six months before an election is not very effective.



That's exactly why it's a step in the wrong direction.

The whole thing is bullshit. Some "not for profit" organization makes ads or a "documentary" promoting or demonizing one candidate or another, using funds from corporations with a special interest in what the candidate may do. How much more shady can you get?

It's not like the candidates don't know where the money comes from.

JC

Bullshit or not the Supreme Court believed the law was an unconstitutional restriction of speech and ruled accordingly. Based on the majority belief that law was unconstitutional they could not rule any other way. You can agree or disagree with their ruling (I disagree with some of them), but it is the law of the land.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

it is the law of the land.

For now...

This is truly one of the most fundamentally fucked up rulings they've ever made. We can only hope one those idiots drops dead sooner, rather than later.

JC

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

For now...

This is truly one of the most fundamentally fucked up rulings they've ever made. We can only hope one those idiots drops dead sooner, rather than later.

JC

I don't think it holds a candle to the stupidity of Korematsu v. United States, but that is just my opinion.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

I don't think it holds a candle to the stupidity of Korematsu v. United States, but that is just my opinion.

Hard to argue with that.

JC