Republicans should be nervous about the Citizens United decision

Post by Spartakus
For the record, I am opposed to any direct foreign influence in
American politics, even if it benefits Democrats. At the same time,
if Democrats are smart, they’ll knock Republicans into next Tuesday
over this issue.

Hussein is supposed to be soooo smart, soooo well educated in
Constitutional Law, yet he is so stupid he obviously did not read the
law that plainly states that foreign corporations or companies cannot
contribute to American campaigns. Again, he mouths off without knowing
what he is talking about. But what else is new?

"forget the truck...everybody can buy a truck."...Hussein

Not in your economy Mr. Hussein

Loading Image...

Liberal slogan: "Cool-Aid Cool-Aid, tastes great, Cool-Aid Cool-Aid,
can't wait".

Barack Hussein Obama...mmm mmm mmm
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...mmm mmm mmm

Simple-minded lying dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.

Ray Fischer

2010-01-29 07:21:46 UTC

Post by Spartakus
For the record, I am opposed to any direct foreign influence in
American politics, even if it benefits Democrats. At the same time,
if Democrats are smart, theyll knock Republicans into next Tuesday
over this issue.

Hussein is supposed to be soooo smart, soooo well educated in
Constitutional Law, yet he is so stupid he obviously did not read the

Are you stupid or just some racist bigot?

--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net

Paladin

2010-01-29 07:25:21 UTC

You are willfully ignorant. But what else is new.
Americanized corporations are often a single rung on a
ladder of interwoven corporations, some of which are in
fact foreign-owned.

Post by buzz
"forget the truck...everybody can buy a truck."...Hussein
Not in your economy Mr. Hussein
http://rlv.zcache.com/anti_obama_dont_drink_the_cool_aid_tshirt-p235592236153625507q6yv_400.jpg
Liberal slogan: "Cool-Aid Cool-Aid, tastes great, Cool-Aid Cool-Aid,
can't wait".
Barack Hussein Obama...mmm mmm mmm
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...mmm mmm mmm
Simple-minded lying dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.

How many nyms do you use, "dr" dummy?

Steve

2010-01-29 10:48:38 UTC

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:25:21 -0600, Paladin <"paladin

Post by Paladin

Post by Spartakus
For the record, I am opposed to any direct foreign influence in
American politics, even if it benefits Democrats. At the same time,
if Democrats are smart, theyll knock Republicans into next Tuesday
over this issue.

You are willfully ignorant. But what else is new.
Americanized corporations are often a single rung on a
ladder of interwoven corporations, some of which are in
fact foreign-owned.

How many nyms do you use, "dr" dummy?

Irony anyone?

"paladin is Milt Shook, of course... Shook's
ignorance stands out like a turd in a punchbowl.

"sometimes I lie about my personal life on Usenet:
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/f2f538a583cb79c3

BTW, Milt, how's that big important job at sequel services
working for you? Hahahahaha

http://sequelservices.net/

buzz

2010-01-29 17:07:14 UTC

Post by Paladin

You are willfully ignorant. But what else is new.
Americanized corporations are often a single rung on a ladder of
interwoven corporations, some of which are in fact foreign-owned.

How many nyms do you use, "dr" dummy?

Only one. You wanna prove otherwise? And I certainly don't fall for hoax
IQ reports. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"forget the truck...everybody can buy a truck."...Hussein

Not in your economy Mr. Hussein

http://rlv.zcache.com/anti_obama_dont_drink_the_cool_aid_tshirt-p235592236153625507q6yv_400.jpg

Liberal slogan: "Cool-Aid Cool-Aid, tastes great, Cool-Aid Cool-Aid,
can't wait".

Barack Hussein Obama...mmm mmm mmm
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...mmm mmm mmm

Simple-minded lying dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.

Spartakus

2010-01-29 16:11:22 UTC

Post by buzz
Hussein is supposed to be soooo smart, soooo well educated in
Constitutional Law, yet he is so stupid he obviously did not read the
law that plainly states that foreign corporations or companies cannot
contribute to American campaigns. Again, he mouths off without knowing
what he is talking about. But what else is new?

Ha ha! You completely passed over the part about foreign-owned U.S.
corporations. I even gave you a couple of examples. And anyone can
incorporate in the U.S. Are you just toooo smart and toooo well
educated to bother about trivialities like facts?

buzz

2010-01-30 06:34:43 UTC

Current federal law -- legal eagles can find it at 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3)
-- prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or
other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its
principal place of business in a foreign country" from making "directly
or indirectly" a donation or expenditure "in connection with a Federal,
State, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an
electioneering communication."

Please explain how a corporation or company can be foreign owned and be
a U.S. corporation or company.

If the company/corporation is foreign owned, then it's principal place
of business is in a foreign country and is not a U.S.
company/corporation, thus 2 U.S.C 441(b)(3) applies.

Nice try, but do attempt to keep up.

"forget the truck...everybody can buy a truck."...Hussein

Not in your economy Mr. Hussein

http://rlv.zcache.com/anti_obama_dont_drink_the_cool_aid_tshirt-p235592236153625507q6yv_400.jpg

Liberal slogan: "Cool-Aid Cool-Aid, tastes great, Cool-Aid Cool-Aid,
can't wait".

Barack Hussein Obama...mmm mmm mmm
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...mmm mmm mmm

Simple-minded lying dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.

Paladin

2010-01-30 08:01:21 UTC

Few large corporations are national in scope these days.
For instance, Halliburton moved its offices offshore to
lower their tax bill.

No citizenship test is applied before individuals (and
other corporations) are allowed to buy stock in US
corporations. Are you aware that the official physical
address of a majority of US corporations is a post office
box? Hell, even you can afford a post office box.

And, once again, no citizenship test is required of those
wishing to incorporate in the US.

And again, I ask whether you believe that your knowledge
of law is greater than that of a Supreme Court justice?

"Well, Mr. Olson," Justice Alito asked, "do you think
that media corporations that are owned or principally
owned by foreign shareholders have less First Amendment
rights than other media corporations in the United States?"

Republican lawyer Olson, "I don't think so, Justice
Alito...."

No problem with foreign-owned media corporations
publishing and broadcasting in the United States, perhaps
-- although some critics have wondered from time to time
whether the Washington Times and the Unification Church
were acting as instruments of a foreign power. But if
foreign-owned corporations possess fully the same rights
as citizens to participate in elections under the
majority decision -- as Olson and Alito indicated -- then
we could face a serious problem indeed.

So based on the argument articulated by the Republican
lawyer and the Republican justice, Obama was right and
his critics are either misinformed or dishonest. Other
nonpartisan experts concur, noting that companies like
Citgo, which is owned by the Venezuelan government, are
now free to intervene at will in American elections. No
doubt the Republicans will feel deeply irritated should
Hugo Chavez decide to spend a few million bucks in a
congressional or Senate election to get rid of Republicans.

S***@Yahooooo0.com

2010-01-30 14:29:50 UTC

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:01:21 -0600, Paladin <"paladin

Post by Paladin
So based on the argument articulated by the Republican
lawyer and the Republican justice, Obama was right and
his critics are either misinformed or dishonest. Other
nonpartisan experts concur, noting that companies like
Citgo, which is owned by the Venezuelan government, are
now free to intervene at will in American elections. No
doubt the Republicans will feel deeply irritated should
Hugo Chavez decide to spend a few million bucks in a
congressional or Senate election to get rid of Republicans.

So what exactly stopped Hugo Chavez from doing that last year, Milt?
Do you imagine that Chavez obeys US laws?

Ray Fischer

2010-01-30 08:26:16 UTC

How convenient that they no longer need to make any such contribution.
They can just buy their own air time and run their own ads. And, in
fact, I suspect that that particular statute would no longer hold up
to a court challenge given that the Supreme court rules against such
restrictions on speech.

--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net

bvallely

2010-01-30 08:46:26 UTC

Post by Ray Fischer
How convenient that they no longer need to make any such contribution.
They can just buy their own air time and run their own ads. And, in
fact, I suspect that that particular statute would no longer hold up
to a court challenge given that the Supreme court rules against such
restrictions on speech.

.
Please tell me - why is it acceptable for Japan to buy, rename and
operate a major film studio in America, (Sony Pictures), where they
churn out dozens of films a year, (many with political content); but
it's illegal for a group of Americans to pool their money and
distribute a documentary that they produced?

Why is it OK for Carlos Slim Helú (a Tiajuana billionare) to buy much
of the New York Times, but it's illegal for a Pennsylvania coal
company to buy an ad to defend their repuation against attacks by the
President?

And, no kidding, why is it a good idea, as the Obama administration
insists, to ban any book with any political content two months before
a national election?

Paladin

2010-01-30 10:53:14 UTC

Whatever are you referring to? What political content? A
reflexion of the realities of life for the average
American, that's political content in your opinion?

Why wouldn't that pack of rightard billionaires publicly
declare their financial support of the propaganda film?
If they had, the film could have been broadcast on the
day of the election.

Post by bvallely
Why is it OK for Carlos Slim Helú (a Tiajuana billionare) to buy much
of the New York Times, but it's illegal for a Pennsylvania coal
company to buy an ad to defend their repuation against attacks by the
President?

They do that quite well, have always defended themselves.
They buy politicians, and in turn the politicians (Bush
in this instance) appoint former coal company CEOs to
head a Federal agency responsible for ensuring mining
safety.

Again I remind you that the NYT publishes right wing
columnists also.

Post by bvallely
And, no kidding, why is it a good idea, as the Obama administration
insists, to ban any book with any political content two months before
a national election?

Careful, there, valley, your strawman is green with envy,
and green straw often catches fire from its own heat.

Spartakus

2010-01-30 16:28:17 UTC

Post by buzz
Hussein is supposed to be soooo smart, soooo well educated in
Constitutional Law, yet he is so stupid he obviously did not read the
law that plainly states that foreign corporations or companies cannot
contribute to American campaigns. Again, he mouths off without
knowing what he is talking about. But what else is new?

Ha ha! I love it when illiterate wingnuts cite facts that completely
saw off the tree limbs on which they are sitting. What part of "a
partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other
combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its
principal place of business in a foreign country" didn't you
understand?

Post by buzz
Please explain how a corporation or company can be foreign owned
and be a U.S. corporation or company.

I'll use an example: Citgo Petroleum is incorporated under the laws of
Texas and the United States. Its principal place of business is
Houston, Texas. It is owned by Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., and yet
it is a U.S. corporation The law you cited talks about where and under
whose laws an organization is incorporated, not who owns it.

Post by buzz
If the company/corporation is foreign owned, then it's principal
place of business is in a foreign country and is not a U.S.
company/corporation, thus 2 U.S.C 441(b)(3) applies.

That is not true, as I have just shown.

Post by buzz
Nice try, but do attempt to keep up.

Tee hee!

classicliberal2

2010-01-31 06:08:37 UTC

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:28:17 -0800 (PST), Spartakus

Post by buzz
Please explain how a corporation or company can be foreign
owned and be a U.S. corporation or company.

I'll use an example: Citgo Petroleum is incorporated under
the laws of Texas and the United States. Its principal place
of business is Houston, Texas. It is owned by Petroleos de
Venezuela, S.A., and yet it is a U.S. corporation The law
you cited talks about where and under whose laws an
organization is incorporated, not who owns it.

And to the extent that existing law prevents foreign-owned
U.S. corporations from involving themselves in U.S. politics,
those laws have just been stricken down by this ruling, the
logic on which it rests being that a 1st Amendment right to
free speech is vested in a corporate "person," and that the
government can't make distinctions against such "persons"
on these matters.

---
Left Hook! The Blog
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/

Christopher Helms

2010-02-04 00:26:44 UTC

> For the record, I am opposed to any direct foreign influence in

Post by Spartakus
American politics, even if it benefits Democrats. At the same time,
if Democrats are smart, they’ll knock Republicans into next Tuesday
over this issue.

Oh, really?

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/02/center-for-responsive-politics-9.html

"Domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations also have a history of
spending both hard and soft money on U.S. elections. During the 1996
election, the Center for Responsive Politics identified 128 U.S.
subsidiaries of 93 foreign-owned companies – from 16 countries – that
contributed soft money and/or PAC contributions to federal candidates.
In total, these companies contributed more than $12.5 million, with
just over $8 million coming from soft money sources.

During the entire 12 years in which soft money was disclosed to the
Federal Election Commission, CRP conservatively estimates that at
least $30 million came from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned
corporations. In the 2008 election cycle, PAC donations from U.S.
subsidiaries of foreign companies rose to nearly $17 million."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Center for Responsive Politics Submits Statement on Campaign Finance
to U.S. Senate Committee
Published by Communications on February 2, 2010 12:57 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0)
Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive
Politics, today submitted the following statement to the U.S. Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration regarding the Supreme Court's
recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to
allow unlimited independent corporate and union expenditures in
elections:

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for allowing the
Center for Responsive Politics to submit this written testimony to the
U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration regarding Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission and its impact on campaign
finance.

My name is Sheila Krumholz. I am executive director of the Center for
Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization
based here in Washington that monitors and analyzes campaign
contributions in federal elections, as well as other forms of money
and elite influence in U.S. politics. The Center is best known for our
award-winning Web site, OpenSecrets.org, where we make freely
available our analysis of publicly disclosed information about the
role of money in politics.

Founded in 1983 by two former senators, a Republican and a Democrat,
the Center’s reason for existence is simple: to inform citizens about
who is paying for federal elections and who is in the position to
exercise influence over the elected officials who represent the public
in our nation’s capital. We can do this because the financing of
federal campaigns is open to public scrutiny.

In late January, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that citizens should
be able to see whether "elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-
called moneyed interests." As part of an 8-1 ruling in Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission, the majority of justices declared that
"transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and
give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

But in Citizens United, the Court additionally struck down limitations
on the political expenditures of for-profit and nonprofit
corporations, and in doing so, raised new questions about potential
influence-buying. The Court’s 5-4 decision to overturn these
restrictions has brought us to an unprecedented situation:
Corporations are now free to spend unlimited sums on independent
expenditures, even in the closing weeks of elections.

No one knows exactly how this will play out. However, over the course
of our 26-year history of monitoring the confluence of money and
politics, we have seen time and time again that corporations and
unions have the appetite to use their financial largess to wield
control over politics and elections. It stands to reason that some, if
not many, organizations will take advantage of this new loophole.

Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was signed into law,
many organizations contributed hundreds of millions of dollars
directly to political parties via soft money donations. Between 1991
and 2002, organizations – not individuals – accounted for
approximately two thirds of all soft money donations, and they gave
more than $1 billion in soft money contributions.

Domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations also have a history of
spending both hard and soft money on U.S. elections. During the 1996
election, the Center for Responsive Politics identified 128 U.S.
subsidiaries of 93 foreign-owned companies – from 16 countries – that
contributed soft money and/or PAC contributions to federal candidates.
In total, these companies contributed more than $12.5 million, with
just over $8 million coming from soft money sources.

During the entire 12 years in which soft money was disclosed to the
Federal Election Commission, CRP conservatively estimates that at
least $30 million came from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned
corporations. In the 2008 election cycle, PAC donations from U.S.
subsidiaries of foreign companies rose to nearly $17 million.

After BCRA’s enactment, corporations, trade associations and unions
have continued to pour money into campaign war chests via political
action committees. During the 2008 election cycle alone, PACs
contributed some $465 million to federal candidates and party
committees -- with business PACs outspending labor PACs about four-to-
one. Additionally, independent expenditures by all PACs skyrocketed
during the 2008 cycle; the $135 million spent on such advertisements
represents an increase of 100 percent above 2004 spending levels.

In the wake of Citizens United, unions, trade associations and both
for-profit and nonprofit corporations may pour even more money into
independent expenditures. In addition, many are concerned that the
rules prohibiting foreign national corporations from using their
domestic subsidiaries to influence U.S. elections are not adequate now
that corporations may make independent expenditures. Much of this
corporate spending could potentially come in the eleventh hour of a
campaign when the target may not be capable of an effective response,
for want of time, funds or both.

Certainly, risk-adverse corporations may not wish to have their
fingerprints on new, negative advertisements and may not opt to take
advantage of this new loophole. And these corporations will continue
to have the ability to use existing under-the-radar methods to sponsor
issue advocacy through 501(c) organizations and other committees.

Furthermore, some corporations may simply opt to sponsor positive
messages – explicitly encouraging fund-raising for specific candidates
and committees. Such expenditures could become another vehicle for
those who seek to gain access to the halls of Congress. What better
way to move legislation than to demonstrate bundling prowess and rake
in millions with a laudatory spot?

With new paths and potentially greater sums of money set to enter into
the political bloodstream, transparency is now more essential than
ever. Yet disclosure rules, as they currently exist, are not enough.
Too often the picture gets muddied because of vague, incomplete and
even non-existent reporting requirements. We want to see more timely,
more complete and more effective reporting and disclosure.

First and foremost, the Federal Election Commission’s rulemaking
regarding donor disclosure requirements for independent expenditures
is entirely insufficient. Under current statute(Section 434(c)(2)(C)),
non-profit groups can raise money directly from corporations, unions
and whatever other domestic sources and, as long as those
contributions or dues were not made for the express purpose of making
independent expenditures, they do not need to disclose those donors.
The Supreme Court justices that affirmed the crucial role played by
disclosure clearly did not examine the exact language of the FEC’s
rulemaking in this area.

This provision has been read narrowly, resulting in relatively few
people being reported to the Federal Election Commission as giving for
the purpose of making independent expenditures. Congress should
examine this issue and address it, ensuring the disclosure of all
donors whose donations fund any portion of any independent
expenditure. Strengthening disclosure requirements in order to close
this loophole is urgently needed.

Contrary to the opinion of some people, the state of other aspects of
campaign finance disclosure leaves much to be desired. For instance,
Senate committees still file campaign reports on paper.

In 2010, why must we still wait weeks and months after an election –
long after we have been able to retrieve data for all other filers –
to search, sort and download donations and expenses for Senate
committees? Especially in an age when senators are using Twitter while
attending closed-door meetings, electronic filing of campaign reports
should be mandatory. Senators should quickly adopt S. 482 –
cosponsored by some of you here – to bring the Senate’s disclosure
methods into the 21st century.

Additionally, we can’t leave it up to the campaigns to voluntarily
disclose the names of their major fund-raisers. The public needs to be
able to gauge for itself whether the people elevated to political
appointments got there based on the merits or by virtue of their
prowess as elite “bundlers.” In 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama proposed
a bill that would require the disclosure of all bundlers who raise
more than $50,000.

The bill never made it past committee. This legislation should be
revived – and passed.

Lastly, we've seen little improvement in expenditure transparency over
the years. Currently, donors who want to know how their money was
spent can't really tell, and watchdog groups fear that the vague and
generic terms can mask conflicts of interest or cover up inordinate
and inappropriate spending.

The FEC should develop a list of acceptable descriptions so that one
campaign's "flowers" are not another's "fund-raising expenses."
Specific details must be required. And, again, senators and Senate
candidates should make their expenditure records available
electronically, so that the public can hold politicians accountable
for any abuses.

Citizens need reliable information to participate effectively in a
democracy, and democracy needs that citizen engagement to function as
it should. It's a delicate balancing act, with the free flow of
information to the public at its core.

The loophole created by this decision could turn into yet another
means for unlimited dollars to flow into a system weighted in favor of
monied interests over ordinary citizens. While we cannot predict with
certainty how newly unfettered groups will respond, we can affirm that
the existing disclosure requirements are wholly inadequate to deliver
the transparency that citizens both need and deserve.

Christopher Helms

2010-01-29 09:31:31 UTC

Post by Spartakus
President of the United States Barack Obama: "With all due deference
to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a
century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special
interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit
in our elections."
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito: "That's just not true."
Has anyone besides me noticed how Republicans, including Alito, are
all fidgety regarding the Citizens United decision? President Obama
is clearly correct and his naysayers can only claim otherwise by
stretching the "logic" behind the decision to the breaking point.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/reformers_court_dec...
What's more, it may be faintly dawning on Republicans that the Supreme
Court has opened a Pandora's Box that will really hurt them in
particular, not to mention American politics in general.
I'm talking about foreign money in elections. The Citizens United
makes them look really, really bad. More importantly, however, what's
to stop, say, Belgian brewing company InBev from pouring money into
elections through its subsidiary, the U.S. corporation Anheuser-
Busch? Even scarier (for Republicans), what if one of their most
hated bogeymen, Hugo Chavez, was to use U.S. corporation Citgo
Petroleum (owned by the government of Venezuela) to influence American
politics? Now there's a guy who could make American liberals look
like Barry Goldwater!
Seriously though, Republican politicians are widely perceived as
arrogant, exceptionalist, bellicose and crazy. What foreign
corporations, or foreigners with American holdings, would support a
political party that is so inimical to their interests?
For the record, I am opposed to any direct foreign influence in
American politics, even if it benefits Democrats. At the same time,
if Democrats are smart, they’ll knock Republicans into next Tuesday
over this issue.

Everybody should be nervous about it. This is going to create a new
generation of Congresscritters whose sole loyalty will be to the
corporate interests that are bankrolling them. The Republicans were
little more than corporate sockpuppets anyway, but even they were not
100% reliable sockpuppets. There were and are still a few moderate R's
here and there and some of them actually briefly hesitated on things
like voting for TARP and opposing healthcare reform. That is about to
change. In a few years at most, Congress will be little more than a
joint venture between Exxon Mobil, Goldman Sachs and a handful of
others who will decide who gets backing and who doesn't. The citizens
won't matter, the issues won't matter, those D's and R's next to
peoples names won't matter (they almost don't already) and opposing
what's happening won't matter because Corporate America is going to
dig a financial and legal moat around Congress to make sure no one
ever tries to muscle in on its turf ever again. Sure it will kill
liberalism, at least in Congress, but conservatism won't be far
behind. Big Business will still need a "Government big enough to take
everything you've got," because they're going to want everything
you've got (and then some) and soon they're going to have the means to
get it. The banks, the oil companies, the defense contractors and
others all want to keep sponging a living off the taxpayers forever
and now they can, without having to make any of those pesky loans,
produce anything, answer to anyone or obey laws written by people who
sometimes didn't have their bottom line in mind. The Bush
administration and their incessant giveaways and pandering to
corporations and rich people will look like The Ebeneezer Scrooge
administration in a few years, once the Department of Henhouses
building is fully staffed with wolves.

bvallely

2010-01-30 08:55:34 UTC

Everybody should be nervous about it.>

.
No, only people who hate free speech.
.
No kidding, why do you support banning any book with has as little of
a single sentence of political content two months before an election?

Why are some corporations allowed free speech, and others not?

Paladin

2010-01-30 10:54:28 UTC

Everybody should be nervous about it.>

.
No, only people who hate free speech.
.
No kidding, why do you support banning any book with has as little of
a single sentence of political content two months before an election?
Why are some corporations allowed free speech, and others not?

Your argument was blown out of the water days ago. Give
it up, you're digging your hole deeper with every post.

S***@Yahooooo0.com

2010-01-30 13:50:33 UTC

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 04:54:28 -0600, Paladin <"paladin

Post by Paladin

Everybody should be nervous about it.>

.
No, only people who hate free speech.
.
No kidding, why do you support banning any book with has as little of
a single sentence of political content two months before an election?
Why are some corporations allowed free speech, and others not?

Your argument was blown out of the water days ago. Give
it up, you're digging your hole deeper with every post.

Typical Shook... claiming he already won the argument... never
worked for him..

classicliberal2

2010-01-31 06:22:18 UTC

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:31:31 -0800 (PST), Christopher Helms

Post by Christopher Helms
Everybody should be nervous about it. This is going to
create a new generation of Congresscritters whose sole
loyalty will be to the corporate interests that are
bankrolling them... In a few years at most, Congress will
be little more than a joint venture between Exxon Mobil,
Goldman Sachs and a handful of others who will decide
who gets backing and who doesn't. The citizens won't
matter, the issues won't matter, those D's and R's next to
peoples names won't matter (they almost don't already)
and opposing what's happening won't matter because
Corporate America is going to dig a financial and legal
moat around Congress to make sure no one ever tries
to muscle in on its turf ever again.

To give some idea of the scale of it, the 2008 campaign,
including all congressional races and that year's endless
presidental contest, primaries, generals, and all, cost just
a hair over $5 billion (the presidential portion a little more
than $2 billion). That's all expenditures by parties,
candidates, other orgs--the whole ball of wax.

By comparison, Wall Street's biggest firms, in that same
year, paid $33.2 billion in executive bonuses alone. By
forgoing merely a fraction of only that and nothing else,
a few Wall Street firms could, alone, outspend everything
everyone spent in those contests. And they're only a
small portion of corporate America.

---
Left Hook! The Blog
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/

bvallely

2010-01-29 10:38:30 UTC

.
The very idea that political speech in an open democracy can be
"corrupting" rests on fundamentally illiberal assumptions about
individuals' capacity for reasoned deliberation and self-government.
The First Amendment was designed to allow all speakers to put their
messages out into the public debate, be they rich or poor, vicious or
virtuous. The underlying principle is that over the long run, a
society of free individuals is best equipped to evaluate the merits of
political arguments for themselves, and that a distrustful government
cannot ban speech out of the worry that its citizens will be unduly
swayed by it.

Rich individuals and talented polemicists have always been permitted
to put out quantities and qualities of speech that may exert a
disproportionate influence on society, but political opponents and
voters have always been trusted to evaluate these speakers' arguments
for themselves, respond with counter-arguments, and ultimately make up
their own minds about the truth of any matter of controversy.

About the intrusion of foreign corporationts - nonsense. 2 U.S.C.
section 441e, bans contributions and expenditures from foreign
nationals. That law was untouched by by the Supreme Court's recent
decision.
.

Post by Spartakus
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito: "That's just not true."

.
No, he mouthed the phrase "that's just not true" silently. He also
shook his head. Considering that the President of the United States
just defamed him and the Supreme Court to his face, Justice Alito's
reaction was the height of civility.
.

Post by Spartakus
Has anyone besides me noticed how Republicans, including Alito, are
all fidgety regarding the Citizens United decision? >

.
Nope. National Review, The Wall Street Jouranl, Rush Limbaugh and
other Repubicans have expressed strong support for the decision.
.
.> President Obama is clearly correct....>
.
I have five Supreme Court judges who say otherwise. As a side note,
considering that Obama plans to trash all legal precedence to pass
ObamaCare with only 50 votes, is it really a good idea to insult the
Supreme Court, an honorable branch of government whose approval he
needs for ObamaCare to survive? Just askin'.
.

Post by Spartakus
and his naysayers can only claim otherwise by
stretching the "logic" behind the decision to the breaking point.

Post by Spartakus
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/reformers_court_dec...

.
OK, your source is an something called "muckraker", and it lists a
bunch of "experts" I've never heard of. What's more, even your source
admits that foreign corporations involvement in elections is still
illegal, but fear the recent ruling` may make future bans on free
speech more difficult.
.
Besides, what is it with the left and their terror of free speech? At
what point did the left decide that speech about the elections that
determine the government's composition is not a constitutional right
but a mere privilege that exists at the sufferance of government?

Post by Spartakus
What's more, it may be faintly dawning on Republicans that the Supreme
Court has opened a Pandora's Box that will really hurt them in
particular, not to mention American politics in general.

.
No, it's not. Republicans aren't afraid of free speech.

Post by Spartakus
I'm talking about foreign money in elections.

.
What's interesting is what you're NOT talking about. And that is
Obama's insistence that Americans be forced to ban all books with ANY
political message for two months before an election. The example the
Obama council used was that a 500 page book with contained a "single
sentence" of political though would be banned.
.

Post by Spartakus
The Citizens United makes them look really, really bad.>

.
Until people find out about the book baning part. Then it makes the
Republicans look really, really good.
.

Post by Spartakus
More importantly, however, what's
to stop, say, Belgian brewing company InBev from pouring money into
elections through its subsidiary, the U.S. corporation Anheuser-
Busch? Even scarier (for Republicans), what if one of their most
hated bogeymen, Hugo Chavez, was to use U.S. corporation Citgo
Petroleum (owned by the government of Venezuela) to influence American
politics? Now there's a guy who could make American liberals look
like Barry Goldwater!

.
And that, children, is why we heavily regulate free speech and ban
books three months out of the year. To keep bad people from speaking.

Fuck you.
.

Post by Spartakus
Seriously though, Republican politicians are widely perceived as
arrogant, exceptionalist, bellicose and crazy.

.
Seriously, though, not we're not.

In case you don't remember, you guys lost a Senate Seat two weeks ago
that was OWNED by the Kennedys. Three weeks before the election,
Martha Croakly was thirty points ahead in the polls. She lost by six
points. She dropped dropped 36 points in three weeks. That's 12
points a week - nearly two points a day. You also lost big in New
Jersey and Virginia. Joe Biden's son dropped out of the race for his
father's seat. Six Dems have "retired" rather than face re-election.
New York State, Califnoria's Senate seat, even Obama's old seat - all
in play.

Gallup has the percentage of people who wants Congress to drop the
entire ObamaCare bill at 69%. In the Generic Congressional Poll,
Republicans enjoy a 9 point lead over the Democrats. In 1994, they
made do with a mere 2 point lead.

If you want to see a politician who's perceived as arrogant,
exceptionalist, bellicose and crazy, I suggest you check the occupant
of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
.

Post by Spartakus
What foreign corporations, or foreigners with American holdings, would support a
political party that is so inimical to their interests?

.
Probably none. Corporations are mostly interested in making money,
and it's bad business to alienate half their customers.
.

.
OK, start knocking - why is it that you believe banning books two
months before an election is a good idea?

Paladin

2010-01-29 12:23:20 UTC

Free speech for humans--individual humans, specifically
humans who have been granted American citizenship. BTW,
corporations, dogs, cats, and goldfish are unable to
speak. Parrots can, however, as long as their republican
handlers give them a script.

Post by bvallely
Rich individuals and talented polemicists have always been permitted
to put out quantities and qualities of speech that may exert a
disproportionate influence on society, but political opponents and
voters have always been trusted to evaluate these speakers' arguments
for themselves, respond with counter-arguments, and ultimately make up
their own minds about the truth of any matter of controversy.

Individuals. Corporations exist only on paper. Why
can't you understand the difference?

Post by bvallely
About the intrusion of foreign corporationts - nonsense. 2 U.S.C.
section 441e, bans contributions and expenditures from foreign
nationals. That law was untouched by by the Supreme Court's recent
decision.

Foreign nationals...individuals...humans. Corporations
are not humans. Even corporations based in the US are
multinational; therefore, your argument is nonsense.

Seriously, what would stop China or Venezuela from buying
a major stake in an American corporation, and force the
corporation's Board to back the foreign nation's choice
of candidates? That statute you mentioned sure as won't.
True, Chavez, etc wouldn't be allowed to pull a lever
in America, but now they sure as hell can spend spend
spend tens of billions to convince soft-headed PeeBaggers
to support their hand picked choices.

Post by Spartakus
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito: "That's just not true."

Silently my ass. He spoke out loud.

Post by Spartakus
Has anyone besides me noticed how Republicans, including Alito, are
all fidgety regarding the Citizens United decision? >

.
Nope. National Review, The Wall Street Jouranl, Rush Limbaugh and
other Repubicans have expressed strong support for the decision.

Of course they do. NR and WSJ are mouthpieces for the
neo-CON agenda. Limbaught is the leading idiot in the
republican party.

Post by bvallely
.
.> President Obama is clearly correct....>
.
I have five Supreme Court judges who say otherwise. As a side note,
considering that Obama plans to trash all legal precedence to pass
ObamaCare with only 50 votes, is it really a good idea to insult the
Supreme Court, an honorable branch of government whose approval he
needs for ObamaCare to survive? Just askin'.

All legal precedent? are you serious???

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/reconciling_with_reconciliatio.html

Congress has employed reconciliation many times to make
major policy shifts. These include sweeping welfare
reform enacted in 1996, massive tax cuts in 2001 and
2003, and creation or expansion of several health
coverage programs. Using reconciliation to help enact
health reform would be consistent with past congressional
practice, as Thomas Mann and Molly Reynolds of the
Brookings Institution and Norman Ornstein of the American
Enterprise Institute have explained.

The sharp break with past practice took place in 2001,
when Congress used reconciliation to enact a large tax
cut that greatly increased federal deficits and debt.
Prior to 2001, every major reconciliation bill enacted
into law reduced the deficit. In 2003 Congress used
reconciliation to pass another round of
deficit-increasing tax cuts.

Psst! Your ignorance is showing.