Supreme Court ruling on money and free speech
POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 22:50
VIEWED: 10274
PAGE 12 of 20
River; love: Yes, I know. But this ruling is breathtakingly pro-fascist, and I think will quite rightly separate out the true conservatives from the proto-fascists, whether they're Repubs or Dems. (They exist in both parties.) Anyone who is SILENT on this has got to go!
Support THESE with your donations
Quote:— Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
"Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns."
Quote:— Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla.
"The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can buy elections. If that happens, democracy in America is over. We cannot put the law up for sale and award government to the highest bidder."
Quote:Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
"I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions."
___
Boot THESE GUYS guy out of office!
Quote:Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
"With today's monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day."
Quote:— House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.
"I think the Supreme Court decisions today are a big win for the First Amendment and a step in the right direction."
MORE HERE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_ca
mpaign_finance_reaction
I'm waiting to see which groups take leadership on this issue, and what they intend to do. As soon as I know, I'll post links.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I mean, shit, man... how much more screwed can we get??? Isn't it enough that Wall Street bled us dry and the so-called health insurance reform was about to do it some more?
Gorram it!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Those 5 Justices have just sold out our country.
In this case, I go for Presidential/Executive Emergency Order to negate it. Or at least big Congressional oversight on ORIGIN & CONTENT, with punative restrictions and rules from FCC on public airwaves. Hmm...public airways, now forever polluted against the overwhelming wishes of their audiences...maybe national boycotts against any media that goes along for the money. Or the always available Army tank to blow up the Court building. Need a new building guys? You Supreme Retards can now hold court in the basement lavatory of the Southern Poverty Law Center or something similar.
Yeah, and Mr. Boehner, potentially our next Speaker of the House in November. Hey pal, you EVER fucking stop to think before you shoot your claptrap off? Huh? EVER? Another pathetic disgusting example of ideological insanity. No American can/should want this. I will vote out anyone I am able to who utters a word of support.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Those 5 Justices have just sold out our country.
In this case, I go for Presidential/Executive Emergency Order to negate it. Or at least big Congressional oversight on ORIGIN & CONTENT, with punative restrictions and rules from FCC on public airwaves. Hmm...public airways, now forever polluted against the overwhelming wishes of their audiences...maybe national boycotts against any media that goes along for the money. Or the always available Army tank to blow up the Court building. Need a new building guys? You Supreme Retards can now hold court in the basement lavatory of the Southern Poverty Law Center or something similar.
Yeah, and Mr. Boehner, potentially our next Speaker of the House in November. Hey pal, you EVER fucking stop to think before you shoot your claptrap off? Huh? EVER? Another pathetic disgusting example of ideological insanity. No American can/should want this. I will vote out anyone I am able to who utters a word of support.
I don't think you've got a case on the negation order part of it. As has been said, the Supreme Court isn't final because they're infallible; they're infallible because they're final. There's no "appeal" to a Supreme Court ruling; there's only the prospect of a Constitutional Amendment. And given this ruling and this political climate, do you REALLY think you can amend the Constitution to keep Big Money, Inc. out of the process?
Barring an amendment, we have laws. We can get Congress to work together (Good luck on that! I can already name you 41 "no" votes in the Senate. Wanna guess which ones?) to pass new laws restricting corporations' ability to poison the well, which will help for a little while, until the Supreme Court once again rules them unconstitutional. But at the moment, that's the only solution I see, and it's a mere patch.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I do understand the Constitution and how our Government works. Fine, do nothing now. But I'd be watching all future ads for candidates and causes real close. Like FBI close. Like CIA close, like True Lies (the Last Line) close, because there are serious national security and economic issues here. In a crisis of potential treason and national threat, there are avenues to resolution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
We can get Congress to work together (Good luck on that! I can already name you 41 "no" votes in the Senate. Wanna guess which ones?) to pass new laws restricting corporations' ability to poison the well, which will help for a little while, until the Supreme Court once again rules them unconstitutional. But at the moment, that's the only solution I see, and it's a mere patch.
I guarantee you that not all Republicans like this ruling. Bring some legislation if possible, and it will pass easily.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I posted this elsewhere, Congress is working on this.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1285/show
Although doesn't look like much has been done on it since 2007. And now it probably would be ruled immediately unconstitutional if it were ever passed, UNLESS it became an amendment.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Thanks SignyM. Another thing is foreign corporations, isn't it? I work for a large international corporation. It is one of the top 10 employers of Americans in America, but it's a French company headquartered in Paris, France. We have operations in 78 countries. So how's that gonna work out for us little 'ole Americans? We have a headquarters in America too, so Paris can simply fund and direct all their wishes through the American Division. France now can buy our elections, and any other country can do the same. Perfect!
That's huge, though I don't suppose it would stop it from going forward, just need some slick language to side step those MAJOR DETAILS. McConnell and Boehner need to be tarred and feathered. McCain's condemnation is pretty weak for someone who fought for campaign finance reform imho.
Russ Feingold is my new Hero, not just for this but for his stance on Health Care.
Fwiw Obama came out pretty early and strong against this.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, {quote] A corporation, BY LAW, MUST look after the fiduciary interests of its investors, and ONLY look after those interests. It is not a stereotype, as you so ignorantly think. It is LAW.
Whether law or not, how corporations treat their employees is not determined by that fact. Otherwise, why would Microsoft treat its employees so well, and WalMart treat its so poorly?
Lucasfilms is headquartered here, George actually lived nearby for years. Now that he’s built Skywalker Ranch, his employees live like kings and queens. He has sports facilities on site, they get excellent health care benefits, freebie movie passes, and so many other things they’re too long to list. I know, I worked for their insurance company and desktop published some of their stuff. So how does that affect the bottom line? Geezer cited other good examples, too. I’ll be interested to hear your retort, Rue, since you seem to have such a good one?
Thanks forQuote:
That’s been my experience/observation too, I just wasn’t sure.
Furthermore, in co-ops, at least the ones I've belonged to - EVERYONE VOTES. On everything.Quote:
Woops, Buddhism again.. . .
What determined how people interacted was WHAT THEY TOLD THEMSELVES THEY SHOULD DO.
Frem, what you said, and thanx for further validation of what I thought about co-ops:Quote:
And by the bye, thanx for the recognition of young “progressives’” effects on social progress.
The MONDRAGON Co-operatives operate in accordance with a business model based on People and the Sovereignty of Labour, which has made it possible to develop highly participative companies rooted in solidarity, with a strong social dimension but without neglecting business excellence. The Co-operatives are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person one vote
Byte, I’m not sure aboutQuote:
I think there can be things that are part of “human nature” which not all people follow. . . I think it’s too narrow a definition to say human nature has to define everyone. There are, in my opinion, some things that are inherent in all people, but that doesn’t mean all people ACT or THINK according to those things. Not sure I’m phrasing this right, hopefully you get what I’m trying to say. I definitely don’t think people are all good or bad; but “human nature” is much more complex than good and bad. And I don’t think you can say it’s entirely societies which mold the nature of humans. And I believe the concept of human nature has been around a lot longer than you suggest; there are things in Shakespear’s work, and in Austin’s, to indicate otherwise.
I don't think anyone can define just what "human nature" supposedly is, because it implies it's the way humans ALWAYS act think and behave.
RiverQuote:
is the whole point of the uproar over the Supreme Court’s decision. Corporations, etc., have far more resources, to the point where regular humans can’t begin to compete. It sickens me that this has happened. Everything else you said, too.
By allowing Corporations to spend millions or as much money as they want to support or attack candidates, incumbents, and issues, aren't MY rights then being denied? I cannot afford to buy "free speech" like corporations, so isn't that economic discrimination against me? My rights get usurped purely based on ability to pay.
I wasn’t surprised to see the Republicans hail the Supreme Court decision, because, as a general rule, they are in favor of corporations and the rich, both of whom will benefit. Bear in mind that it was Citizens United, a conservative group, who brought the case. I’m tickled to see McCain step up and return to his true “maverick” status by recognizing the truth and speaking it. As for Grayson, nutty tho’ he may be, I love his guts. He had, by the way, already put forth six bills to pre-empt the Supreme Court Decision:Quote:
--The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act would impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to politi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
