Supreme Court Overturns McCain-Feingold

[Caesar]

The US Supreme Court Thursday struck down a major portion of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws that prevented union and corporate paid issue ads in the final 30 days of election campaigns.The court also ruled that corporations can spend as much as they want to support candidates running for Congress or President.

Read more...

WOW this is a big win for the GOP

[AROCES]

Why don't we just get all laws approved first by the Supreme Court before passing it?

Would save eveyone time and money.

[Startraveler]

WOW this is a big win for the GOP

And a huge loss for the citizenry.

[Caesar]

At least we won't hear about liberals being Swift-boated!

[danielost]

WOW this is a big win for the GOP

no this is a big win for those not already in office.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

This is a great Court ruling for freedom of speech. The left-wing support for this law simply shows the distain they have for our Constitution and our rights to representation.

Over and over the left-wing Progressives in this coutry want to restrict the people's right to freedom of association, freedom of expression and their right to representation.

This is a very good ruling for the American people who want to maintain their Constitutional rights.

Edited January 22, 2010 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[Ryinrea]

In my opinion, this is an absolute catastrophe for democracy. I can't believe that people think this is a win for free speech. I can hardly believe a self describe conservative can find this ruling fair.

This is a very good ruling for the American people who want to maintain their Constitutional rights.

It's has given us less constitutional rights, and give Corporations more rights than it does regular people. How can you not see that it is giving us less of a voice in congress? You think this ruling had anything to do with the people?

Edited January 22, 2010 by Ryinrea

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Here is the end of democracy in America. When will the CEO's take their seat as senator's? :angry2:

It's gives us less constitutional rights, and give Corporations more rights than it does regular people. How can you not see that it is giving us less of a voice in congress?

So because the left-wing hates certain groups they should be allowed to censor them?

We all know that corporations are a boogey man to the left-wing just as religious groups are as well. The left-wing wants to restrict the free speech of both.

Actually the left-wing wants to restict the free speech and representation of even non-religious people whose morals that they disagree with.

Bush should of never signed this law. McCain also should have never sponsered it. The law is anti-freedom.

Edited January 22, 2010 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[Ryinrea]

So because the left-wing hates certain groups they should be allowed to censor them?

We all know that corporations are a boogey man to the left-wing just as religious groups are as well. The left-wing wants to restrict the free speech of both.

Actually the left-wing wants to restict the free speech and representation of even non-religious people whose morals that they disagree with.

Bush should of never signed this law. McCain also should have never sponsered it. The law is anti-freedom.

The reason, the law was made to protect the right of individual citizens, and not big corporations. We need the voice in congress and the not big corporations. Free speech is for people, and Corporations aren't people. The founding fathers, want a government that was for the people, and not business.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

The reason, the law was made to protect the right of individual citizens, and not big corporations. We need the voice in congress and the not big corporations. Free speech is for people, and Corporations aren't people. The founding fathers, want a government that was for the people, and not business.

So then why were certain corporations made exempt for this so-called law to protect the people? Why were the media corporations made exempt from the law. Why was Michael Moore made exempt? Why was a conservative film maker censored?

This law is just to demonize who the left-wing wants to demonize and censor. That is all. The law was anti-freedom of speech 100%.

Conservatives believe in free speech and will have no part of it. Congratulations to the Supreme Court for getting this one right.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

the way it looks to me, this means that corporations can 'buy' a congressman by fully sponsoring their election campaign.

"We put you there, you need to scratch our back now" sort of thing.

Am I wildly off the mark with that?

Okay, I can see that there's a line between "campaign financing" (paying for ads and such) and "donations" but doesn't this deicsion also allow unlimited donations to politicians?

Now... what's the word we use when we're talking about donations to politicians? Bride? Ribe? Something like that...

[Ryinrea]

the way it looks to me, this means that corporations can 'buy' a congressman by fully sponsoring their election campaign.

"We put you there, you need to scratch our back now" sort of thing.

Am I wildly off the mark with that?

Okay, I can see that there's a line between "campaign financing" (paying for ads and such) and "donations" but doesn't this deicsion also allow unlimited donations to politicians?

Now... what's the word we use when we're talking about donations to politicians? Bride? Ribe? Something like that...

It's freaking bribery that is what it is.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

the way it looks to me, this means that corporations can 'buy' a congressman by fully sponsoring their election campaign.

"We put you there, you need to scratch our back now" sort of thing.

Am I wildly off the mark with that?

Okay, I can see that there's a line between "campaign financing" (paying for ads and such) and "donations" but doesn't this deicsion also allow unlimited donations to politicians?

Now... what's the word we use when we're talking about donations to politicians? Bride? Ribe? Something like that...

So it all right to you that even with this law in place their are major special interest groups buying the democrat party right in front of our eyes. Like their deals with Unions. Or how they are in bed with the trial lawyers. How the democrats are in bed with greenie enviromentaist big money groups.

This law was meant to only target certain groups and was a very dicrimnatory law that was uing censorship. It was big-time anti-freedom.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

I heard earlier that Obama, Chuck Shumer and other left-wingers have come out condemning this Supreme Court ruling. I really hope that the left-wing fights to defend this law. It well help expose how anti-freedom they really are.

Maybe Bush and McCain supported this knowing that this day would come. The left-wing is going to lose badly on this issue if they try to defend this law.

[danielost]

The reason, the law was made to protect the right of individual citizens, and not big corporations. We need the voice in congress and the not big corporations. Free speech is for people, and Corporations aren't people. The founding fathers, want a government that was for the people, and not business.

corporations don't vote people into office, citizens do.

[BlindMessiah]

Given that America is a theocracy, and not a democracy, I'm surprised our God has allowed this bill to hinder His mighty hand for so long.

Edited January 22, 2010 by BlindMessiah

[Ryinrea]

corporations don't vote people into office, citizens do.

Still their vote will be bought, and paid for. They will be a puppet of the industries not for the people anymore. The ones who will not bought will be driven out of office.

In 1907 the Higher court made a ruling to give the people their voice back.

In 2010 the higher court made a ruling to take away their voice, and give it to the corporations. I disagree, that corporations are not considered people, and there is not what the founding fathers wanted. I am all for the 1st amendment, and their is not a thing the democrats are against in that amendment.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Ryinrea

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So it all right to you that even with this law in place their are major special interest groups buying the democrat party right in front of our eyes. Like their deals with Unions. Or how they are in bed with the trial lawyers. How the democrats are in bed with greenie enviromentaist big money groups.

This law was meant to only target certain groups and was a very dicrimnatory law that was uing censorship. It was big-time anti-freedom.

Frankly, I think it's wrong for ANYONE to finance a political campaign beyond the person campaigning.

You want to do a TV ad? pay for it yourself.

You want newspaper ads? pay for them yourself.

etc etc

The American way looks just too much like a bribers paradise where you can drop half a billion dollars as a bribe on someone with the excuse of "it was a campaign donation".

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Still their vote will be bought, and paid for. They will be a puppet of the industries not for the people anymore. The ones who will not bought will be driven out of office.

In 1907 the Higher court made a ruling to give the people their voice back.

In 2010 the higher court made a ruling to take away their voice, and give it to the corporations. I disagree, that corporations are not considered people, and there is not what the founding fathers wanted. I am all for the 1st amendment, and their is not a thing the democrats are against in that amendment.

Yet democrat groups (not individuals but groups) are all exempt from McCain Feingold law. Even Michael Moore was exempt from it. Unions use their members money to support candidates without the members consent and even harrass members who do not support the political agenda that they want them to. Lobbyists from all kind of special interest groups sponser the left-wing - greenies, gays, trial lawyers, and even ACORN marches their boots on the ground at election time, etc....

Yet the left demand that all religious groups remain behind closed door and wants to censor corporations that they do not like. This is extrmeme fascism by the left-wing. It is completely anti-free speech.

Edited January 22, 2010 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Frankly, I think it's wrong for ANYONE to finance a political campaign beyond the person campaigning.

You want to do a TV ad? pay for it yourself.

You want newspaper ads? pay for them yourself.

etc etc

The American way looks just too much like a bribers paradise where you can drop half a billion dollars as a bribe on someone with the excuse of "it was a campaign donation".

Well this law did nothing like that. This law simply targeted certain groups that the left-wing hates.

[Jack_of_Blades]

Great now the political system is going to be even more controled by the big corps. Bye-Bye America

Now it's money=win huh? I can't take much more of seeing this country fall backwards.

This is a great Court ruling for freedom of speech. The left-wing support for this law simply shows the distain they have for our Constitution and our rights to representation

Simple insanity. Cover your ears and scream until it goes away. Just goes to show there are two sides of politics, the evil corupt b******s who are trying to control the country and which ever side you agree with.

This law simply targeted certain groups that the left-wing hates.

Is that what they fed you to get you on there side?

[Harte]

In my opinion, this is an absolute catastrophe for democracy. I can't believe that people think this is a win for free speech. I can hardly believe a self describe conservative can find this ruling fair.

It's has given us less constitutional rights, and give Corporations more rights than it does regular people. How can you not see that it is giving us less of a voice in congress? You think this ruling had anything to do with the people?

This post is pure hysteria.

In fact, this gives individuals and corporations the same rights.

The ruling is not about corporations (which, under existing laws, are individuals, BTW) it's about ending unconstitutional limits to free speech.

The case itself involved a politically-minded group that wanted to show a politically motivated movie, not about corporate campaign contributions.

Harte

[EllJay]

What a bulls**t ruling.

As other people said before me, this gives corporations who have endless amount of money the right to boost a candidate that ensure, by taking their "bribe" to rule in their favour in lawmaking, once in power.

A damn corruption scheme making.

A governmental fund should be constructed that gave every party a procentual amount of money for their campaign, calculated from percentage of people supporting them in the last election.

This is a step towards a banana republic, a ****in disaster where its a free for all for greedy b******* with a chequebook to serve their agenda.

[eqgumby]

The reason, the law was made to protect the right of individual citizens, and not big corporations. We need the voice in congress and the not big corporations. Free speech is for people, and Corporations aren't people. The founding fathers, want a government that was for the people, and not business.

The founding fathers WERE big-business. Read a REAL history book.

Personally, I'm undecided on thsi issue. I'll watch as you guys duke it out and try to come to a conclusion, but I just have a hard time imagining Shell Oil or someone like them propping up and supporting a candidate with the "good of the people" in mind.

[Siara]

the way it looks to me, this means that corporations can 'buy' a congressman by fully sponsoring their election campaign.

It means there is no limit to how much money a candidate can receive for supporting the well being of a big business over the private citizens. Example: "We'll give you 10 million dollars to vote against the law which limits the amount of chemical X that you dump into the lake. Not enough? Okay, we'll give 20 million."

This is the type of right wing politics that scares me. The distrust of government and heavy, heavy emphasis on freedom above all else I disagree with (I think we have moral obligations to protect the weak, for example) but I understand that intelligent good people can feel that way. This has nothing to do with the individual. It has to do with a gigantic corporate structure being able to monopolize people's access to information.

.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Siara