Radio Paradise

Recently Active Forum Topics:

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Post to this Topic

fuh2

Location: Mexican beach paradise
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 1:53pm

Supreme Court decision will flood elections with corporate cash

In the widely-publicized Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC, the Justices ruled in a 5-4 decision that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence election outcomes. Public Citizen is calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse this decision and prevent corporate giants from taking over our elections.

Sign our petition calling for a constitutional amendment!

FREE SPEECH FOR PEOPLE AMENDMENT PETITION:

WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations;

WHEREAS, for the past three decades, a divided United States Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade and invalidate democratically-enacted reforms;..........

............

HoneyBearKelly

HoneyBearKelly Avatar

Location: Brooklyn

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 10:48am

romeotuma wrote:

I think people in Congress are going to feel the heat of populist blowback a lot more than they feel corporate money oppressing them... so I hope everybody keeps raising Cain about it and this gives Congress incentive to get on the ball with a new and improved bill on campaign finance reform... yes, I feel very optimistic about it...

don't worry; be happy... things will get much better... {#Angel}

As Jack Balkin wrote in his excellent post which linked to below "This is the genius of partisan entrenchment: The Supreme Court we have today is the ghost of campaign expenditures past."

Also if the so called "Tea Party" and the Pauliacs were true to their stated "convictions" they'd be out there today with pitchforks and torches protesting this egregious ruling. It goes against everything they supposedly stand for.
Are they grass-roots activists or astro-turfed hypocrites?

But like the Wu-tang Clan once said C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me).

(former member)

(former member) Avatar

Location: hotel in Las Vegas
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 10:36am

HoneyBearKelly wrote:

The congress is filled with corporatists whores on both sides of the aisle so I wouldn't hold out much hope for such a bill to pass.
Some of Obama's closest advisors are too.

But I love your optimism. {#Hug}

It is good that the decision in the Supreme Court was so close... that means there is good support there for the concept of finance reform... it is good that so many people are pitching a fit about how the Supreme Court decision is dire doom and gloom— that is free speech expressing the populist opinion that corporate financing of campaigns should be well-regulated... think about it— all of these proclamations of the horrors of corporate financing are political "free" speech that is a match for all the billions of dollars the corporations could pay for commercials claiming otherwise...

I think people in Congress are going to feel the heat of populist blowback a lot more than they feel corporate money oppressing them... so I hope everybody keeps raising Cain about it and this gives Congress incentive to get on the ball with a new and improved bill on campaign finance reform... yes, I feel very optimistic about it...

don't worry; be happy... things will get much better... {#Angel}

HoneyBearKelly

HoneyBearKelly Avatar

Location: Brooklyn

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 10:21am

romeotuma wrote:

again, I am with the ACLU every time no matter what... in the end, what is more important than the Bill of Rights? The McCain-Feingold bill compromised the First Amendment... I am confident a much better bill will pass...

(former member)

(former member) Avatar

Location: hotel in Las Vegas
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 10:06am

HoneyBearKelly wrote:

Are you being ironic? Cause I really can't tell.

Nope... I am absolutely serious... I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and they were against the McCain-Feingold bill because it was so broad that it included blocking free speech of the ACLU... it was bad...

of course, now it looks horrific— very Orwellian— so it will not stay this way... the current condition is not permanent... Congress and Obama now have a golden chance to make a much, much better regulation of political financing... since we have such good leadership in the White House now, I am confident that a new bill will pass that is much, much better than the one struck down by the Supreme Court...

again, I am with the ACLU every time no matter what... in the end, what is more important than the Bill of Rights? The McCain-Feingold bill compromised the First Amendment... I am confident a much better bill will pass...

just check out what the ACLU said about it—

Amicus brief of ACLU...

HoneyBearKelly

HoneyBearKelly Avatar

Location: Brooklyn

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 9:38am

romeotuma wrote:

Nope... think positive, honey... this is an opportunity to fix the fundamentally flawed McCain-Feingold bill... the ACLU supported the case against the bill... just look at their brief about it... that bill will be replaced by something much better... this is a golden opportunity— absolutely wonderful... Obama will lead the charge... everything is going to be fine and dandy...

Are you being ironic? Cause I really can't tell.

In the meantime here are 5 views regarding this ruling from legal type people.

Glennzilla 1.

Glennzilla 2.

Jeffrey Toobin.

Dahlia Lithwick.

Jack Balkin. Balkinization is a must read.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 7:46am
These are your new masters. If there was any question before Thursday, you can remove all doubt now.

(former member)

(former member) Avatar

Location: hotel in Las Vegas
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 7:26am

hippiechick wrote:

We're really screwed, aren't we?

HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 7:12am
hippiechick wrote: We're really screwed, aren't we?

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 7:07am
jagdriver wrote: Soylent Green, anyone? (Can you say "Mon-san-to"?) We're really screwed, aren't we?

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 5:32am
I imagine that China will become even more interested in obtaining controlling interest in American corporations.

helenofjoy

helenofjoy Avatar

Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Gender: Female

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 5:04am
Anyone in Canada interested in sponsoring a 62 year old Jill Of All Trades?

HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 23, 2010 - 4:09am
True ! We already have the Kick-boxing,,I dare say Boxing and all the other degenerates of these so called sports !

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 22, 2010 - 4:59pm
Won't be long now ...

musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 22, 2010 - 1:22pm

Mark_E_DeSnow wrote:

musik_knut wrote:

that Sec. Treasury Geithner, in the real world, would be imprisoned for blatant tax evasion, is helping formulate fiscal policy, has nothing to do with his total lack of personal integrity and more to do with his lack of solid credentials...he was President of The NY Fed and must have turned numerous blind eyes while the financial structures were cracking all around him...the housing bubble which burst while Democrats had oversight, the runaway spending by Mr. Bush and his fellow Republicans, all that and then some, leads us to where we are...and now Mr. Obama's policies are only compounding problems...

For once I agree with you. Mr. Geithner was on the PBS Evening News Hour last night where he gave his usual masterful 'performance'. Not only is this guy a tax cheat, he is also a consummate politician! During the interview he made it appear as though he is an expert in economic matters - while never once answering a single question! Astounding. He evades more than taxes, that's for sure.

Or maybe his problem is pathological, ie. he is psychologically INCAPABLE of giving an honest answer to a question.

In either case, Obama needs to dump him. Why he continues to support this liability is beyond me.

President Obama cannot make wholesale changes to his team. If he did, it just might shock the market more than the proposals being pushed by President Obama.

jagdriver

jagdriver Avatar

Location: Now in Lobster Land
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 22, 2010 - 12:38pm
Soylent Green, anyone? (Can you say "Mon-san-to"?)

Southern_Boy

Southern_Boy Avatar

Location: On my way to the beach
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 22, 2010 - 12:38pm
ScottFromWyoming wrote: There's something I've been meaning to tell you... Bad choice - when that gets worse than it already is...

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 22, 2010 - 12:37pm
Southern_Boy wrote: Infusions of $ into businesses is great, but at what price? To have Exxon, IBM, etc. control the lawmakers? When that starts, it is sure to follow that small business will be ever more regulated. Not sure the price is worth it in the long run. Short term gains. There's something I've been meaning to tell you...

Southern_Boy

Southern_Boy Avatar

Location: On my way to the beach
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 22, 2010 - 12:35pm

ScottFromWyoming wrote:

It shouldn't be. We're all smart enough to not be fooled by a lot of TV ads, right?

Well maybe.

As someone who stands to benefit from a massive surge in advertising spending, I welcome this as a stay of execution for the printed newspaper. And the TV ad budgets will all require huge amounts of manpower to produce. When a corporation spends 100 million dollars to elect the next president, that's 100 million injected directly into the lives of small and large newspaper and TV stations' employees. Better there than on some corporate retreat yacht. Seriously.

Infusions of $ into businesses is great, but at what price? To have Exxon, IBM, etc. control the lawmakers? When that starts, it is sure to follow that small business will be ever more regulated. Not sure the price is worth it in the long run. Short term gains.

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male

Posted: Jan 22, 2010 - 12:30pm

Southern_Boy wrote:

This is scary!

It shouldn't be. We're all smart enough to not be fooled by a lot of TV ads, right?

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next