Citizen's United is backfiring

[spidey07]

How can I change the existing law? The reason why this law was passed was to bankroll elections and further corrupt an already corrupt election process even more.

I find it especially hilarious that the Right Wing Supreme court that passed this law is getting hammered by it. President Obama predicted this in his State of the Union address and the Rightist activist judges rolled their eyes at him.

Wow. You know nothing about this case. It ruled you cannot prevent free speech. It overturned the law and fec because it was highly unconstitutional.

 

[Ausm]

But at the same time you pit the left against the right. Doesn't that kind detract from your message? You have turned this thread into a righties are crazy thread once again. No one can take you seriously with your beliefs because they always involve this theme. If you really believed what you said in your last post, every other post wouldn't be a right vs. left rant. If you really believe what you posted then you would know this is just as much an issue for Obama and the left as it is for the right. Funny how your OP says otherwise. Hack away though since it is keeping this worthless thread going.

Instead of attacking me, why don't you contribute something substantive for example, explaining how this ruling is helping us. Can you refute the facts? I seriously doubt it.

 

[hal2kilo]

Wow. You know nothing about this case. It ruled you cannot prevent free speech.

As yes, the canard that money=free speech.

 

[irishScott]

Ausm, do you personally know any Republicans? Any at all? They're not all in wife beaters, hiding under your bed, drooling over our AR-15s ready to strike the next time you have a nightmare you know.

 

[irishScott]

Instead of attacking me, why don't you contribute something substantive for example, explaining how this ruling is helping us. Can you refute the facts? I seriously doubt it.

It apparently just helped your chosen party and you're crowing over it. I would think you'd be happy.

 

[xBiffx]

Instead of attacking me, why don't you contribute something substantive for example, explaining how this ruling is helping us. Can you refute the facts? I seriously doubt it.

Wasn't attacking you, just your message. Again, this is a worthless thread based on a ridiculously partisan OP where this isn't at all a left vs. right issue. I can't contribute anything meaningful to that but I'll try anyways.

The ruling, as said before said nothing about individuals and what they can do with their money, just corporations. Why? Because you and I can do anything we want with our money, you don't like it then you'll have to tread a little more on the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment. If you think the government should have the power to say what you can't do with your money as an individual then you are opening Pandora's Box. With that power they just as easily could tell you cannot buy anything not made in the US. While that might sound appealing, its a very scary thought.

 

[Genx87]

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the righties in here are doing their best to refer to allowing more money to purchase more speech rights as "free speech". Doesn't sound very free to me.

You cant buy more speech rights. Buying ad time on TV or radio isnt a right.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Spending unlimited amounts of cash through Stealth Pacs equates to "free speech"? LMAO

I'm sorry, who is the one with the $1 billion campaign war chest? Where do you think much of that money came from -- the Campaign Donation Fairy?

 

[Ausm]

I'm sorry, who is the one with the $1 billion campaign war chest? Where do you think much of that money came from -- the Campaign Donation Fairy?

If you are referring to the POTUS, almost 50% of his campaign contributions were from small donors but yes he gets money from Super PACs too.

 

[Ausm]

Wasn't attacking you, just your message. Again, this is a worthless thread based on a ridiculously partisan OP where this isn't at all a left vs. right issue. I can't contribute anything meaningful to that but I'll try anyways.

The ruling, as said before said nothing about individuals and what they can do with their money, just corporations. Why? Because you and I can do anything we want with our money, you don't like it then you'll have to tread a little more on the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment. If you think the government should have the power to say what you can't do with your money as an individual then you are opening Pandora's Box. With that power they just as easily could tell you cannot buy anything not made in the US. While that might sound appealing, its a very scary thought.

If you think this post is worthless then why do you feel compelled to Troll it?

 

[Ausm]

Ausm, do you personally know any Republicans? Any at all? They're not all in wife beaters, hiding under your bed, drooling over our AR-15s ready to strike the next time you have a nightmare you know.

Fair question! Yes I have some family members who are Republican and many family members who are teachers that are now Ex-Republicans.

 

[blackangst1]

But at the same time you pit the left against the right. Doesn't that kind detract from your message? You have turned this thread into a righties are crazy thread once again. No one can take you seriously with your beliefs because they always involve this theme. If you really believed what you said in your last post, every other post wouldn't be a right vs. left rant. If you really believe what you posted then you would know this is just as much an issue for Obama and the left as it is for the right. Funny how your OP says otherwise. Hack away though since it is keeping this worthless thread going.

Pretty much this.

 

[Ausm]

Pretty much this.

That's how you think when you don't believe Corporations for the most part bankroll Republicans and now with the Citizens United ruling it is going to unfairly tip the scales in terms of cash toward the Republican party.

If I'm wrong please explain how.

 

[nageov3t]

eh.

Newt dropped 5 million slandering Romney; expect 10 million dollars to be dropped imminently in commercials highlighting people who's jobs were saved by Bain or whose retirements were made possible thanks to their investment.

 

[blackangst1]

That's how you think when you don't believe Corporations for the most part bankroll Republicans and now with the Citizens United ruling it is going to unfairly tip the scales in terms of cash toward the Republican party.

If I'm wrong please explain how.

lol Damn man you're blind.

/sarcasm on
You're right. Obama doesnt get much cash from corporations.

Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined

Obama 2012 Campaign Receives More Wall Street Donations Than All GOP Candidates Combined

So, when you say " it is going to unfairly tip the scales in terms of cash toward the Republican party.", when exactly is that going to happen? lol

/sarcasm off.

Yeah. Youre wrong.

 

[Patranus]

I think it is funny that "progressives" are all for using extorted union dues for campaigning but when it comes to those evil corporations.....

 

[Ausm]

lol Damn man you're blind.

/sarcasm on
You're right. Obama doesnt get much cash from corporations.

Obama 2012 Campaign Receives More Wall Street Donations Than All GOP Candidates Combined

So, when you say " it is going to unfairly tip the scales in terms of cash toward the Republican party.", when exactly is that going to happen? lol

/sarcasm off.

Yeah. Youre wrong.

Where have a I ever disputed in this thread that the POTUS doesn't recieve cash from large donors? You seem to think Dems will get just as much money from this law as Repubs will, do you have any evidence of this?

 

[blackangst1]

Where have a I ever disputed in this thread that the POTUS doesn't recieve cash from large donors?

Specifically, no where. Never claimed you did. What Im claiming is your comment " it is going to unfairly tip the scales in terms of cash toward the Republican party." is laughable. And your comment "That's how you think when you don't believe Corporations for the most part bankroll Republicans" is just as laughable. Did you post that with a straight face? Its is the Democrats, specifically Obama, that is profiting here. Not the GOP.

 

[Ausm]

Specifically, no where. Never claimed you did. What Im claiming is your comment " it is going to unfairly tip the scales in terms of cash toward the Republican party." is laughable. And your comment "That's how you think when you don't believe Corporations for the most part bankroll Republicans" is just as laughable. Did you post that with a straight face? Its is the Democrats, specifically Obama, that is profiting here. Not the GOP.

Let's compare the numbers after the Presidential Election of 2012 like I mentioned earlier above almost 50% of President Obama's contributions are from small donors and I doubt Romney will even be remotely close to that.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I like how people try to pretend that Citizens United is all that made corporations deeply involved in politics. It's been this way for a couple decades now, and overturning the super PACs wouldn't fix it. There needs to be a way to change the incentives of politicians, make it more valuable for them to look out for individuals than corporate sponsors. Lessig has some ideas worth considering, but a lot needs to be put into finding a way to make them practical.

 

[Mursilis]

Make no mistake the net effect is disastrous for democracy, with the money determining who has a chance to win - just as Obama is raising a billion dollars from interests.

It's nice this exception is happening, but it doesn't help with the problem of the elections being owned by the money and the people losing power.

If the people choose to be idiots, that's going to happen.

 

[blackangst1]

Let's compare the numbers after the Presidential Election of 2012.

Thats your argument now? FFS quit ranting then about how Wall Street and corporations benefit the GOP. Because until now, in the most recent elections, thats flat out wrong.

 

[Ausm]

Thats your argument now? FFS quit ranting then about how Wall Street and corporations benefit the GOP. Because until now, in the most recent elections, thats flat out wrong.

That was what I was talking about from post 1....

 

[cubby1223]

I love it! The Right Wing Supreme court opened the flood gates on undisclosed cash in elections and here it is in action against potential GOP presidential candidates. The Newtster's Super Pac is spending 5 million to smear Romney....a liberals dream come true. The Newster is giving President Obama some free ammunition here. 😛

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/12/political-wisdom-the-year-of-the-super-pac/

karma's a bitch!

😀

You dumbass.

(and yes I hope I get another warning from the moderators for saying that)

Your entire argument rests on your opinion that the Citizens United decision was made deliberately and purposefully to prop up the Republican Party against the Democratic Party.

So, again, you are such a dumbass partisan waste of a life.

(Ban Please? Put me out of this P&N hell-hole?)

 

[Ausm]

You dumbass.

(and yes I hope I get another warning from the moderators for saying that)

Your entire argument rests on your opinion that the Citizens United decision was made deliberately and purposefully to prop up the Republican Party against the Democratic Party.

So, again, you are such a dumbass partisan waste of a life.

(Ban Please? Put me out of this P&N hell-hole?)

Where is your evidence that it wasn't?

Read this:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/21/133083209/a-year-later-citizens-united-reshapes-politics

Daaayyyuuum the Right Wing hate is strooong in here today.

I welcome your hate.

😉