Court eases business, union election spending rule

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

netrox

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
4,765
Reaction score
0
Very very bad decision!

"The Supreme Court threw out a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections Thursday, ruling that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. "

washingtonpost.com

The rights of individuals will be seriously threatened by the so called "rights of corporations."
 
netrox said:
Very very bad decision!

"The Supreme Court threw out a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections Thursday, ruling that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. "

washingtonpost.com

The rights of individuals will be seriously threatened by the so called "rights of corporations."
Click to expand...

And big unions too
 
This is absolutely the worst ruling the Supreme Court has made in the last 25 years.

We are all screwed. Thanks a lot, conservatives.
 
Royale said:
And liberals too
Click to expand...

True, everyone has had a hand in this, but I was specifically referring to the conservative justices of the Supreme Court who voted to overturn the old ruling.
 
before I get all hot and angry, I gotta do some digging.
 
Unions exist to protect rights of individuals, corporations don't. Without unions, we'd never have health benefits, minimum wages, strikes without being fired, and so forth.

Unions don't make as much $$$ as corporations do. Money talks most of the time.
 
netrox said:
Unions exist to protect rights of individuals, corporations don't. Without unions, we'd never have health benefits, minimum wages, strikes without being fired, and so forth.

Unions don't make as much $$$ as corporations do. Money talks most of the time.
Click to expand...

Untrue

I will get back with more details. Do not get me wrong cuz I belong to one of Canada's largest unions. ;)
 
Scary as hell! USA is gonna be politically bought by foreign countries!

A very large percentage of U.S. corporations are owned by foreign persons or entities. In 2006, USA Today reported: "Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. Foreign companies also have a sizable presence in running power plants, chemical factories and water treatment facilities in the United States." It was also reported that, "Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying." In 2008, it was reported that foreign ownership of U.S. companies "more than doubled" between 1996 and 2005. To get a fix on the spending power, consider this: "The total receipts of foreign-owned companies were $1.7 trillion in 1996 and just $39 billion in 1971."

The Supreme Court's Citizen United Decision Is Terrifying
 
I think some oil companies, not Exxon are support democrat so is big unions.
 
The President of 2012 is brought to you by _____.

Just insert the name of the corporate entity. :roll:
 
This decision was based on a matter of constitutional law. And a good one.

I like what American Thinker had to say and I agree.

A landmark ruling on a 5-4 vote in the Citizens United case was handed down by the Supreme Court. Corporations and nonprofits may spend general funds on election-related activity. No more need to set up political action committees in order to have a constrained voice. They can pay for their own ads, though they cannot contribute directly to campaigns.
Click to expand...

The political dialogue in America will become more varied and intense, with for-profit and nonprofit corporations able to spend money in order to influence politics. The changes should be far-reaching. This diminishes the power of the left, overall, as corporations now have the ability to speak as loud or louder than unions, who have been unfettered.
Click to expand...

"Today's Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case means that the anti-incumbent furor that has been growing is partly released from the shackles created by ‘incumbent protection' election and campaign finance laws.

"The dirty little secret about all campaign finance laws passed by Congress since 1972 is that they were designed to protect incumbents by stifling competition.

"This ruling is especially important for advocacy causes and organizations, which may now more freely express opinions about incumbents."
Click to expand...
American Thinker Blog: Free Speech Breakthrough from Supreme Court

It's not all about corporations about everybody, including organizations, groups, companies and what not to have their First Amendment and free speech rights.
 
kokonut said:
This decision was based on a matter of constitutional law. And a good one.

I like what American Thinker had to say and I agree.






American Thinker Blog: Free Speech Breakthrough from Supreme Court

It's not all about corporations about everybody, including organizations, groups, companies and what not to have their First Amendment and free speech rights.
Click to expand...



From your link, the last sentence read, "This ruling is especially important for advocacy causes and organizations, which may now more freely express opinions about incumbents."

No wonder you like it. :P
 
Beowulf said:
From your link, the last sentence read, "This ruling is especially important for advocacy causes and organizations, which may now more freely express opinions about incumbents."

No wonder you like it. :P
Click to expand...

It's about freedom of speech. And you want to suppress it?
 
Not really.
Unless during a campaign speech I get overwhelmed by the fireworks, dancing bears and elephants and jumbotron plasma screen, then I want everyone to shut the heck up. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top