McCain-Feingold de-fanged

[Dee]

The scales of democracy have been tipped in favor of the POLITICIAN, by voters whom as Ben Franklin so eloquently phrased as TRADING FREEDOM FOR SECURITY, by voting out of fear for the "lessor of two evils", which is irrational to say the very least.
The scales are out of balance to say the very least, but it is the complacent, apathetic, and running scared voter, that tipped them. They continually vote to RE-EMPOWER the thieves of liberty.


ANYONE WILLING TO TRADE LIBERTY FOR A LITTLE SECURITY, DESERVES NEITHER!

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN,


AN UNDERSTATMENT TO SAY THE LEAST!

[Dee]

Boy that was long. I wonder what it said? Any body read it?

[Casull]

Made it about half way.  Couldn't choke any more down after that.

[nomosendero]

Boy that was long. I wonder what it said? Any body read it?

Nope

[Dee]

Boy that was long. I wonder what it said? Any body read it?

.
Whatsamatter...?  You got a short attention span of 200 words or less, or AAD or something on things that matter... or a problem with veterans speaking up, or a slow reader? I can see casull does, but you....I expect more.  You're the guy always telling us to wake up and pay attention for cryin out loud. Hey, who knows you might learn something in your old age..

geez....TM7

Two to four paragraphs is plenty. Any more than that, and their trying to make sumthin sound better than it actually is. The more someone talks the less they usually have to actually say. I have been guilty of that myself trying to convince someone of somethin I was totally convinced of my self.
Besides! At my age I may not live long enough to finish somethin that long, and I will go to Heaven not know what was actually meant.
Oh, and that remark about me tellin everyone to wake up? I don't think a meteor in their living room would wake them up. I talkin to the ones already awake.
Post like that TM7, are like a long winded preacher at dinner time. By the time he shuts up, and says amen, everything is cold.

[Casull]

You got a short attention span of 200 words or less, or AAD or something on things that matter... or a problem with veterans speaking up, or a slow reader? I can see casull does,

No, I've just got a problem with someone yacking about something they obviously don't understand.  You, of all people, should know that by now.

[nomosendero]

Obama hates this rulling! That should tell you all you need to know about it!
                  Beerbelly                                     

Obama, Hillary & TM7

[nomosendero]

Under the insane/mindcold  act the union leaders ran the elections. The elitest like soros and many others controlled the country for the socialist.  Now, we the people can get together and be a voice.
Instead of asking read the bill.; I mean read it. This was monumental, this ruling.
We the people now scare the liars in DC.
The true test if somethig is good or bad. Watch who is crying. If obama and his ilk, then the ruling was good. If the people, then it is bad.
No harder than that.
Do you honestly think, that unlawful act stopped money from the coffers of the whores in DC.  Only the people my friend,l only the people lost with that. 

Yes, but some weren't complaining about the Unions leaders, Major Networks & papers, but are all worked up about this, Hmmm!!

[nomosendero]

Dee...I tend to agree. But I happen to be a fast reader...maybe a speed reader....took me about -90 seconds to read the article. I didn't want to chop up or extract anything from the author's article since it strongly advised 'impeaching' those neocon 5 judges that foisted this decision on the American citizen contrary to all Constitutional concern.....a very serious charge. Thus I posted the whole article....glib neocons like nomosendero and casull (actually latent NWO supporters) wouldn't be able to stomach such an entire diatribe by the author and that I understand; but better than I can the author spells out the problem with the recent Scotus decision a to z...even if you read just a bit of it. BTW, apparently this is not such a small easy to understand problem since it went to SCOTUS....all citizens should be concerned...so much for Paul Revere,,,heh?
   Anyway, latter we'll see NS, Casull and others complaining about this or that and how the country is all going to pot, and not wasting your vote on 3rd party guys, and expanding the war everywhere, etc. and this important decision handing over our government to elite special interest and foreign interest will be forgotten...until I bring it up.


..TM7

Before you calling me a neocon & me calling you an Obamanite again, you may want to go back & see where I think this is a wonderful thing, it aint there. I did say that it won't hurt me & that is because those who spew everything I don't like, Major TV media, Newspapers NPR, etc., have allready been secured that right & they can and do hurt me every day or at least try.
Those who are hard against it have not had a real problem with these privileges afforded the Lib Elites, but now are worried about these SAME possibilities being afforded to other groups, some of which may
have a Conservative bend. And all sides will abuse it,sadly

Now, if you want to deny this right for ALL of them (groups)& be a little more honest about it, hey that might be at least a viable topic for a new thread & at least something to discuss.

But as Dee correctly stated to another earlier, "THE TOPIC dufuss IS THE McCain Feingold Act" & also stated "McCain is the traiter that came up with it"

And what I have been talked about all along is I am not too worried about it being defanged.

AND therefore, I believe we were better off before McCain-Feingold Nothing hard about that.

[moorepower]

Does anyone realize that most of the corporations are small s-corps? Does anyone know that the Unions could, and do, put out lies and b.s. up to and including the day of the election and other than Fox and a half dozen talk radio shows 95% or the media that is left wing, will report is as true, "remember Dan Rather" , and if the conservatives can do nothing to refute the claim. Putred rich individuals such as George Sorros can form PAC's that put out crap that the leftist media would run with, and no adds could be put out to refute the claims. What is truly sad, is that if we really had a free and informative press, most of these problems would be eliminated. And one final question, why does anyone think that it's OK for either side to put out a story, without the other side being able to respond. FYI, I am a Teamster and I own a non union S-Corp.

[alsaqr]

I just speed read the article that Gordon Duff wrote.  Much of what he says is true.  It is also true that Duff does not use one word when five will do.

[wareagleguy]

TM7

You are correct.  Glad to see someone on here understands what was done to us.  The problem is most here hate Obama so much that ANYTHING he doesn't like must be good.  This time Obama is correct and more research should be done from some posters on this topic.

[Casull]

Maybe tm7, and a few of the other guys falling all over themselves to limit political speech might try actually reading some the decision.  Here's a bit for your perusal:

Under the rationale of these precedents,political speech does not lose First Amendment protection“simply because its source is a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion)(“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determiningwhether speech is protected. Corporations and otherassociations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bel-lotti, 435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected theargument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the FirstAmendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” Id., at 776; see id., at 780, n. 16. Cf. id., at 828 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
At least since the latter part of the 19th century, thelaws of some States and of the United States imposed a ban on corporate direct contributions to candidates. See
B. Smith, Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform 23 (2001). Yet not until 1947 did Congress firstprohibit independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions in §304 of the Labor Management Relations Act 1947, 61 Stat. 159 (codified at 2 U. S. C. §251 (1946 ed., Supp. I)). In passing this Act Congress overrode theveto of President Truman, who warned that the expendi-ture ban was a “dangerous intrusion on free speech.” Message from the President of the United States, H. R. Doc. No. 334, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1947).

And, unlike Gordon Duff, I didn't see any mention of this decision creating any rights superior in corporations over citizens, or placing corporations

above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives

.  But then again, I'm not practiced in the art of sensationalizing to the point of absurdity.

[Casull]

I just speed read the article that Gordon Duff wrote.  Much of what he says is true.

Actually, very little of what he wrote can be called "true", since it is almost wholly subjective, opinion or simple fear mongering.  True in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

[Questor]

I haven't seen anything in this thread about how corporations actually influence politics: They do it through lobbying. It's cheap, it's targeted, it gets excellent results, it's applicable to whomever is in office, it applies to politicians and bureaucrats, and it's out of the public eye.

That isn't going to change.

The thread also does not mention the long list of corporate governance laws, restrictions on funding US elections by foreign influences, etc. None of these existing laws was changed or even addressed in this particular case.

What the case did do that did change things is that it erased the distinction between media companies and other corporations. That's why it's a good ruling.

[Casull]

Casull...where in the Constitution does it say corporations are on par with individual citizens?

Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question, tm?  Because if not, it's nonsensical.  Unless, of course, you do not understand that corporations are simply legal entities OWNED by INDIVIDUALS.

Moreover should corporations trump individual citizens by outspending or bundling monetary political contributions.?

See above.

[wareagleguy]

So I guess the one (or group) with the most money gets the most speech?  It appears that we have turned into a pay to play consitutional state.

[moorepower]

So you are saying it's OK for the left wing unions and the Marxist George Sorros to give all the money they desire to the Dems and its and its OK for the left wing media to hype anti Republican ALL the time, with the Right not being able to give any response, becaus other than Fox and 4-5 radio talk shows all people here is left wing and most libs NEVER listen to talk radio or Fox, so they NEVER here a response to the charges. All I want is a level playing field. I don't want a dime of my union dues going to the Dems war chest, but guess what, alot of it does, along with most of my coworkers theat do not want there $$$ going to Dems. Also the decision does not allow foreign $$$ to come in, another out and out lie by Obama, unless he figures out how to get in millions of dollars donated from China like the Clintons for giving up some more national defense secrets.

[wareagleguy]

Don't listen to the BS.  Just because I hear it on talk radio does not make it true.  This was a sell out for us all!@!!

[Casull]

Casull...it is nonsensical to put 'entities' owned by individuals on par with individual citizens..the Constitution does not go there and serves to pervent just that for a reason; unfair agrandizement of influence which is the undoing of all free and liberty loving peoples and is the germplasm of fascism...where does it say 'we the people and entities'....?

Ok, tm, tell me just where in the Constitution does it say this?

If you want a level playing field you ain't getting it with this treasonous ruling.

Please explain how this ruling is treasonous.  Or, are you just throwing out all the fear mongering words that you can think of?

[powderman]

Boy that was long. I wonder what it said? Any body read it?

Nope

NOPE. POWDERMAN. 

[moorepower]

The former bill crated a situation where a supporters of a person running for office could not refute allegations against them in the final 30 days before the election. Since all but one form of TV media is left wing, guess who got all the bad press and guess who got a pass. Osama out and out LIED at the state of the union address about this bill. If you are going to take the money away from buisness, you better take it away from all labor unions as well, and you better let the people running respond to allegations. Why are the Lefties opposed to printing the names of who donates and the amount they donate, such as Chinese generals and Budest monks who have taken a vow of poverty that gave the millions to the Clintons?

[Casull]

I posted an article earlier that explains all of this and regarding your redundant questions.  I know you said it was pretty long for you,,,but take a stab at it anyway....maybe break up into 2 or 3 sessions.

That article explained NOTHING.  BTW, I did read it (sophomoric as it was).  Now, since you are the dolt that seems to think up these asinine questions about "where does the Constitution say this or that", tell me just where the Constitution says that it's purpose is to prevent "entities" from being put on a par with individual citizens.  Maybe the same place where it says that corporations can't run television ads 60 days prior to an election?  Maybe where it says that a SCOTUS ruling that an unconstitutional law censoring political speech is treasonous?  Please, enlighten me.   

[jimster]

It seems to me picking and choosing who gets to "influence" the politics is already flawed, just by picking and choosing.  No matter which way you go, sounds like a problem.  "attempt at a equitable political sysytem."  That about sums it up right there...maybe they should stop attempting things, they just screw things up more than they already were.  

The news media is a corporation,  msnbc is owned by corporatons...heck they all are.  So how can they have this freedom of speech, and no other corporatons can?  

Did anyone ever realize that McCain-Feingold was pretty darn unfair and biased to begin with?  Attempt?  Ya...a poor one.
Maybe the high courts in the end figured if some corporations had access, they all should...or they ALL should not...and anything in between was not right.

Who knows...but it's nice to know the corporaton I work for has as much say as MSNBC. (GE. incorporated)

[Casull]

Spot on jimster.  Apparently, tm7 just cannot understand that.

So I see. Apparently you liberally interpret the Constitution....especially the concept of perserving individual citizen rights in a scenario of undue influence. That makes you progressive.... I don't see where the Constitution says anything, directly or inferred, about elevating entities or corps to individual citizen status. Its just a G.D. piece of paper so throw it out if you want to. The SCOTUS decision goes in the wrong direction of money (influence) infusion into an attempt at a equitable political sysytem.  Whether you get it or not doesn't matter.

No, tm7, obviously you DO NOT SEE.  I do not liberally interpret the Constitution, you do.  You see all sorts of Constitutional prohibitions, where there are none.  And you fail to see Constitutional protections, where they exist (like the 1st Amendment freedom of speech).   

[jimster]

“When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”  — Justice Kennedy     The fact McCain-Feingold cencored some but not others...there could have been a problem here.  It appears as if it was the picking and choosing that did it in.  That could be censorship in itself.
 


Not an easy one to rule on, but the constitution never is...and not always does a ruling mean "fair" to all, or make everyone happy, or even solve the root problem that already exists.  The high court is not there to fix our messed up system with a ruling that may go against the very meaning of the constitution to begin with, or cause another constitutional problem with a popular ruling. In case you have not heard...the constitution is not real popular these days.

You want to fix something...amend it....there is a provision for amendments, it's just a lot harder to do things the right way, so eveyone runs to the high court in the hopes of interpretations that make the constitution weaker.  This of course is only my opinion and means nothing.  The opinons of the high court are all that matters, too bad they keep keep getting bothered with things like this instead of just getting to the root of the main problem, which is money buys our elected officials.  Instead people want to keep that in place and pick which money buys which public office.  That's where McCain-Feingold came from...an attempt to choose who's money for a selected purpose.  McCain should be ahsamed to even have attempted this....Feingold, I can understand.

[jimster]

I think the very first thing that I read here is "Congress shall make no law"....seems they did with McCain-Feingold, that was a law.  They broke the constitution by even making any law at all it seems. ?? 

Funny...if our congress would just follow the first five words ..."Congress shall make no law"...we probably would have a lot less trouble. Everything seems to be a fix for previous unconstitutional laws...and that can go on forever it seems.
 

[Casull]

let's see......."....the right of the people...."  Nope, don't see any reference to 'entities or corps' trumping rights of the people or acting as surrogates for the people.

Hmmm, let's see . . .

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

Yep, typical trick there tm7.  Take something out of context to make the point you want to foist off on someone else.  Try reading jimster's points, and you just might get it.   

[wareagleguy]

Let me understand this...
You guys are saying corporations have rights?  Is this what I am hearing?

[Dixie Dude]

Corporations are owned by stockholders (you and I, if you have a 401(k) plan.  So they are owned by a big block of people.  Small investors use someone like Vanguard, or some type investment company.  These companies (and so do you) want the stock to grow, the company you invested in to grow, so you can make money for your retirement or if you are a day trader, to make a living.  Therefore they should support a person who will do what is in the best interest of their investors.  Some companies are mostly owned by a person or family like Ford or Microsoft, but they still have small investors.  Foreign companies are forbidden by law of getting involved in American politics.  American owned are not now.  A PAC like the Christian Coalition or the NRA can now go back to lobbying and supporting certain cantidates for office like they used to.  McCain-Fiengold hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats, because of the NRA and the Christian Coalition.  Dem's do have Acorn, Womens Lib, Gay Rights, who support them.  Big Corporations are pretty well split on the two parties.  New money like software companies, "green companies", etc. support Democrats.  Republicans are supported by "old money" like oil companies, coal companies, nuclear power companies, etc.  Corporations are only as good or bad as the people running them, just like people themselves.  They can give benefits and good wages to their employees or they can cut costs, corners, and move overseas for cheaper labor, just have their headquarters here.  I look at it by basing what was happening in 1960 to today.  We had big corporations in 1960, 50% of the people went to church back then.  So, morals were higher, we prospered, companies as well as people.  Today, a lot of people are very liberal, have no morals, and it shows in the corporation management too.  It all goes back to people themselves.  See the movie, It's a wonderful life.