Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits

[Mare Tranquillity]

no one is abridging the free speech of anyone. your argument is without merit. i understand your view but the Constitution does n ot support it.

a far better tack is to legislate that giving money does not = free speech. thats the insupportable aspect that is the heart of all this.

money perverts politics and should be eliminated. this is anathema to politics as it was invented to promote croneyism and power brokering.

fight the disease not the symptoms.

So you support the Supreme Court decision about no limits on how much money any group can donate? Would you feel the same way if it was proven that much of the money was coming from foreign interests? If your position on politics is correct don't you suppose that Red China is Obie's largest financial supporter and Saudi Arabia is next in line? Would that be acceptable to you?

 

[dogtowner]

So you support the Supreme Court decision about no limits on how much money any group can donate? Would you feel the same way if it was proven that much of the money was coming from foreign interests? If your position on politics is correct don't you suppose that Red China is Obie's largest financial supporter and Saudi Arabia is next in line? Would that be acceptable to you?

this decision does not speak to donations. it speaks to ads.

free speech is free speech even when its inconvenient.

 

[Sihouette]

Soooo then if a chinese corporation wanted to sway our political system by backing candidates it has selected to do its bidding in our country, you'd be OK with the red agenda getting effectively enacted here in the States?

Cuz as it stands now that is exactly what can happen. Or maybe an Iranian company? Or a Russian one? Maybe the N. Koreans would like to get in on the act? Heck, I'll bet old -time-to-divert-Obama-from-attacking-the-GOP-agenda Osama bin laden could find a way to get one of his financial interests to stack Congress by backing "certain" candidates in an election?

Hmmm?

Yes, I see another angle Congress or even the Executive branch via the Commander In Chief could override the decision based on national integrity and security issues. Thanks for that angle Mare!

 

[Revere]

this decision does not speak to donations. it speaks to ads.

free speech is free speech even when its inconvenient.

Or ad odds with the social fashion of the current regime.

 

[dogtowner]

Soooo then if a chinese corporation wanted to sway our political system by backing candidates it has selected to do its bidding in our country, you'd be OK with the red agenda getting effectively enacted here in the States?

Cuz as it stands now that is exactly what can happen. Or maybe an Iranian company? Or a Russian one? Maybe the N. Koreans would like to get in on the act? Heck, I'll bet old -time-to-divert-Obama-from-attacking-the-GOP-agenda Osama bin laden could find a way to get one of his financial interests to stack Congress by backing "certain" candidates in an election?

Hmmm?

Yes, I see another angle Congress or even the Executive branch via the Commander In Chief could override the decision based on national integrity and security issues. Thanks for that angle Mare!

I'd prefer to see an ad from ChiCom Inc talking about how wonderful Obama is than have it secretly funnel money through sham donations of sweatshop workers in New York. You can see who ran the ad and apply the needed amount of salt.

 

[Sihouette]

Um we can have accountability without undue influence.

You pose it as "either we have unlimited promotion of a candidate" or "hidden influence". You can have visible but restrained influence also. Eliminate lobbying and the beast is defeated.

I'd say in these troubled times of terror we should eliminate any possible foreign [so therefore possible terrorist inroad] influence into our government as it is. Bushco did all sorts of fancy legislative and executive manuevers in the name of suppressing and circumventing terror. Constitution [and any interpretors thereof] be damned..

So I'll take it that dogtowner and revere are both in favor of this method of keeping terrorists at bay..

Yep, I'd call the SCOTUS decision an 'orange alert'. The Commander In Chief is asleep at the watch IMHO. If we learned anything in the last decade it is that the one bomb more lethal than a chemical one is a financial undermining. Imagine all the mischeif terrorist could get up to influencing our system in this way?

 

[dogtowner]

Um we can have accountability without undue influence.

You pose it as "either we have unlimited promotion of a candidate" or "hidden influence". You can have visible but restrained influence also. Eliminate lobbying and the beast is defeated.

I'd say in these troubled times of terror we should eliminate any possible foreign [so therefore possible terrorist inroad] influence into our government as it is. Bushco did all sorts of fancy legislative and executive manuevers in the name of suppressing and circumventing terror. Constitution [and any interpretors thereof] be damned..

So I'll take it that dogtowner and revere are both in favor of this method of keeping terrorists at bay..

Yep, I'd call the SCOTUS decision an 'orange alert'. The Commander In Chief is asleep at the watch IMHO. If we learned anything in the last decade it is that the one bomb more lethal than a chemical one is a financial undermining. Imagine all the mischeif terrorist could get up to influencing our system in this way?

tv ads don't explode.

 

[Sihouette]

Oh we're playing "let's play dumb".

Too late for that. You know for a fact that any and all measures to keep terrorists from accessing our citizens, most particularly our govenance must be enhanced in time of war.

"TV ads" are a part of our electoral process. Our electoral process is part of our governance. Our govenance must not be accessed by potential terrorist interests.

In time of war our Commander In Chief may take any action necessary to protect the citizens under his watch. Checkmate.

 

[dogtowner]

Oh we're playing "let's play dumb".

Too late for that. You know for a fact that any and all measures to keep terrorists from accessing our citizens, most particularly our govenance must be enhanced in time of war.

"TV ads" are a part of our electoral process. Our electoral process is part of our governance. Our govenance must not be accessed by potential terrorist interests.

In time of war our Commander In Chief may take any action necessary to protect the citizens under his watch. Checkmate.

I'm looking for the smilie face because you can't possibly be serious with that.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

this decision does not speak to donations. it speaks to ads.

free speech is free speech even when its inconvenient.

Someone has to pay for the ads. You skipped over the intent of my question. Do you think it's alright for Red China and Saudi Arabia to pay for ads to influence our elections?

 

[Sihouette]

I know how you feel dogtowner. I kept looking for the smiley faces when I read how Bushco. got his majority buddies in Congress to pass legislation allowing him to wiretap citzens in spite of the 4th Amendment. But alas, those smiley faces never came.

Here's a comment from http://www.law.umn.edu/uploads/wE/aa/wEaa1g7XB6j0QyoOhoFpYw/Presidential_Powers_exchange_Paulsen_Kitrosser_Carpenter.pdf

""(Art. I, Sec. 8., cl. 18.) This leaves
to Congress the judgment about what legal authority is
needed to make effective the president’s own powers,
including the commander in chief power. If gathering
intelligence about the enemy is an incident of the president’s
commander in chief power over the military, then
limiting the use of that power within the United States is
an incident of Congress’s Article I authority to legislate its
execution."

And you must know that Bin Laden just released another video tape threatening to get to us any way he can. So we are at nearly red alert with plugging any and all holes to which he can do this. The president as Commander-In-Chief may be empowered by Congress to order the FCC to close off any transmissions that may harbor proxy terrorist influence; and anyone in violation of that order can face federal charges. They don't even have to prove it is there [in accordance with the precident Bushco set] they only have to have reasonable suspicion it may exist. SCOTUS greased the fastrack for Bin Laden to get right to the heart of our very govenment. He could, literally, via proxies, allies and nearly unlimited oil money from the Middle East become encamped right within our legislative body.

[Why do I feel like the past-tense might be just as applicable in that last sentence?]

 

[Revere]

No, that would be the Patriot Act, which was not struck down by the Supreme Court

 

[Revere]

Someone has to pay for the ads. You skipped over the intent of my question. Do you think it's alright for Red China and Saudi Arabia to pay for ads to influence our elections?

If you knew they were paying for them, would it influence you?

 

[Sihouette]

Not if it was done by proxies. Who would know? How tight is the accountability and visibility going to be on each and every stockholder?

 

[GenSeneca]

Do you think it's alright for Red China and Saudi Arabia to pay for ads to influence our elections?

Why would you have a problem with foreign countries paying for ads to get Democrats elected?