Explaining the Supreme Court on Campaign Finance

AP correspondent Jim Kuhnhenn explains the significance of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that could change how presidential and congressional campaigns are funded, possibly opening the floodgates of money. (Jan. 21)

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• supreme_court_campaign_finance

[johnluke1169]

This decision is an act of treason. Chief Justice John Roberts must be impeached and so must some of the Justices who supported the majority of Citizens United against the Federal Elections Commission. These members of the Supreme Court need to be held accountable through impeachment.

[bpvogel]

History will judge this decision as a very bad one - just like the Gore v. Bush decision. We were already well on our way to becoming corporatocracy. This ruling just might have put the nail in the coffin of our democracy. Most of our founding fathers would not be happy with this supreme court decision.

[thechangeling613]

Ladies and Gentleman, the next time you cast a vote in a federal election, it will be valued less than the carrot shit in your baby's diaper. 5 of the hooded jesters of the United States Supreme Joke are committing TREASON, by aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of war. Getting in bed with multi-visa, multinational corporations and their criminal conglomerates is government by TREASON.

solutionrevolutionsolutionrevo­lution

[carlrammlane]

You are not jobless due to the free market, because the market isn't free but rigged.

Free trade is the killer. It stems from the British Empire and the corporations that ruled Britian, like the government in America is ruled today, until Anti-Monopoly Laws were past. British Free Trade ruined everything it touched, like our Free Trade which isn't free or fair for Americans, but Hell they don't care or care to know.

[qigong1001]

@netster007z Forget Clinton for now. Lets focus on this ruling.This ruling has nothing to with protecting corporations from any punishment. This gives unlimited controls to top corporations who WRITE the regulations. Thanks to the free market, Im not jobless. But the free market also works to destroy itself. The biggest corps control and WRITE the laws. This ruling only strengthens that power. They put the people in power and bail themselves out whenever. This ruling hurts the free market.

[netster007z]

@qigong1001 You're right, big corporations do control the government to gain subsidies and favorable regulations. That is why we need a free market with few regulations and zero subsidies.

All businesses, big and small, are entitled to the same constitutional rights, so if big businesses lose their free speech so does yours.

The punish corporations line is not a straw man. Here's Hillary Clinton on confiscating business profits.

youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu1­0

[qigong1001]

This was about electioneering 30 days prior to an election. Within those 30 days, any individual could have said anything they like. Now, an elite corp (not just any corp). can spend UNLIMITED funds to do this. You can't. Your free speech has effectively been drowned out.

[qigong1001]

@netster007z There is a difference between the usual consumerism the average corporation (like mine) is involved in and the top tier which control not only the money supply thru trade, but the government, as well as what you see on "public" airways. If you really believe the strawman about about "punishing" corporations business activities, you have been misled. Another fallacy is that corporate leaders or INDIVIDUAL members never had free speech or were not allowed to contribute. .

[netster007z]

@qigong1001 I love the phrasing as if corporations are some nefarious other entity with distinctly different interests than common people. Most Americans are producers and consumers. We provide labor to a business which we join voluntarily because we find it suits our interests best. Hence, most working Americans are part of a corporation. This knee jerk tendency to try to 'punish' corporations simply adds costs to production, which are passed on through reduced pay and higher prices.

[netster007z]

@montenegrin2010 Yes some public American colleges do have speech codes which limit speech, then maintain limited 'free speech zones' where students can speak freely. The difference here is that if you do not wish to abide by a school's limiting rules, you can attend a different school. The difference is you can't fire your government.

For the record I oppose all speech codes and believe schools should remove them. Check out thefire.org, an organization which defends academic free thought.