Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits

[GenSeneca]

money is a de facto part of the predicted outcome of any election

I see absolutely no evidence of this being true. Perhaps you are confusing correlation with causation in coming to this conclusion. There are any number of elected official who have won their seat after having been massively outspent by opponents. On the other hand, there are people who run exceptional campaigns (cause), collect massive amounts of money in the process (correlation), and go on to win the election (effect).

Look at Obama vs. McCain. McCain stuck to his self induced campaign limits, Obama (even after promising to do so) held himself to no limits and gathered nearly a billion dollars for his campaign. So Obama with more than ten times as much money should, by your reasoning, have won the election with ten times the votes, instead it was 53% to 46%.

So where is your evidence that Money=Votes?

 

[Revere]

Money is private property.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You didn't answer my question.

Do you support the forced redistribution of wealth for any purpose - Welfare, SS, Health Care, etc.?

A simple yes or no will suffice. Please, try answering without emotional appeals, arguing against strawmen, red herrings and other logical fallacies.

Do you really mean ALL forced redistribution? All taxes, all monopolies, all conscription, all coercion? Or are you (as I noted before) just interested in money.

Ad hominens, my ass, everything you post is about protecting money, you have yet to show any compassion for life or the suffering of others. You try to drag everything into the argument about political systems which ends up being about money.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You insist on employing ad hominems, red herrings, appeals to ridicule and other logical fallacies to avoid answering my questions, that's a shame. I had hoped you would be able to have a civilized discussion but perhaps I was expecting too much.

I don't find anything civilized in your endless drive to protect money at the expense of others.

 

[Revere]

Government has more money than anyone. It can print money.

Despite all its attempts at being compasionate and easing the suffering of others, what does it have to show for it except insolvency?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Government has more money than anyone. It can print money.

Despite all its attempts at being compasionate and easing the suffering of others, what does it have to show for it except insolvency?

The Pentagon spends more money on war than all 50 States spend on EVERYTHING. It isn't caring for people that has brought our country to insolvency. How many trillions were just paid to the richest companies? AIG, Goldman Sachs, et al?

Why wasn't more done, why isn't more being done to rebuild New Orleans? Why is our infrastructure deteriorating? It's not because the money is being spent to make American lives better. Add up how much we've spent on the deadend war in the Middle East.

 

[Revere]

That's a government problem. The current POTUS sold you on $1B in stimulus. One year later has only spent 1/3 of it and has nothing to show for it.

The answer is, government can't spend money to make people's lives better.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

My apologies to ASPCA for my role in derailing this topic.

Now that is as about as sincere a statement as: Nixon stating unequivocally "I am not a crook", or Clinton stating, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"...ya, the B.S. just gets real deep around here...but you do try to sound soooo honorable and above all the common people

Had I known that you had me on IGNORE then I wouldn't have wasted my time participating in your little underwhelmed topic about what political persuasion we really are. I really wondered about that immature jab with the Mussolini remark...now it's all clear and fully understood

 

[Sihouette]

Congress would need to amend the Constitution, excluding certain free speech.~Revere

No, the decision directly impacts and indeed does nullify the 14th Amendment. Freedom of speech does not trump the 14th. No provision no matter the numerical order may trump another.

Amendment #9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

If the corporate supercitizens' [illegal as per the 14th Amendment affirming equality] "rights" infringe on the rights of others, as per Amendment #9, those "rights" are not rights but rather torts.

Wealth in the modern age moreso than ever is about who runs the place. This can be demonstrated with statistics. Allowing those with inordinant wealth control the destiny of the United States is class descrimination. There is real and viable class descrimination going on with the SCOTUS decision and it is, again, in violation of the 14th which assures equality and that others MAY NOT disparage the power of another.

And further, the 14th allows Congress to trump the SCOTUS. It is specifically provided due to good foresight that nine people may not oppress the rights of 300 million.

Like I said, if Freedom of Speech has been perverted to include suppressing the de facto power of citizens to reach full life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a state of full equality to the one doing the free-speaking, then the 14th Amendment must be therefore repealed. Just because McCain and his lawyers were too dumb/ineffectual to read and interpret the last line of th 14th Amendment does not negate its truth and impact. Congress may simply declare to uphold the 14th and deny citizenship "rights' to corporations in the same act given that aggregations of wealthy people intent on the bottom line over respect even of country, may not oppress the rights of singular less-wealthy people or nonprofit groups of people intent on preservation of the Constitution and affecting their destinies via their power to have their voices heard over louder ones to elect representatives that they feel will help them reach their destinies.

They may just lump it all in. The Supreme Court may then only I-N-T-E-R-P-R-E-T that act in the due course of its responsibilities to do so. Because of the last line of the 14th Amendment, it is Congress, not the SCOTUS who may decide the legality of the rights of corporations if their "rights" actively suppress the rights of others. All they have to do is vote and publicly declare this and SCOTUS can go bite hiney.

 

[top gun]

That's a government problem. The current POTUS sold you on $1B in stimulus. One year later has only spent 1/3 of it and has nothing to show for it.

The answer is, government can't spend money to make people's lives better.

You say we have nothing to show for it.

Many financial experts say the Bush Recession (greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression) would have slid into the Bush Depression had President Obama just sat on his hands and pulled a Herbert Hoover all over again.

Not worth the risk!

 

[Revere]

Free speech is not perverted. You either have it or you deny it.

 

[Revere]

You say we have nothing to show for it.

Many financial experts say the Bush Recession (greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression) would have slid into the Bush Depression had President Obama just sat on his hands and pulled a Herbert Hoover all over again.

Only Paul Krugman says that.

So we're to thank Barack Obama because things are lousy, though they could be worse?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

This debate is moot. The Supreme Court acted outside its powers in Thursday's decision. Congress may simply repeal the decision with a majority vote and declaration as such.

INDEED, they certainly managed to side step several issues and just went about it in a rather seemly manner:

Clipped from this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247/ns/politics-supreme_court/
Stevens complained that those justices overreached by throwing out earlier Supreme Court decisions that had not been at issue when this case first came to the court.
"Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law," Stevens said.

 

[top gun]

No, the decision directly impacts and indeed does nullify the 14th Amendment. Freedom of speech does not trump the 14th. No provision no matter the numerical order may trump another.

Amendment #9:


If the corporate supercitizens' [illegal as per the 14th Amendment affirming equality] "rights" infringe on the rights of others, as per Amendment #9, those "rights" are not rights but rather torts.

Wealth in the modern age moreso than ever is about who runs the place. This can be demonstrated with statistics. Allowing those with inordinant wealth control the destiny of the United States is class descrimination. There is real and viable class descrimination going on with the SCOTUS decision and it is, again, in violation of the 14th which assures equality and that others MAY NOT disparage the power of another.

And further, the 14th allows Congress to trump the SCOTUS. It is specifically provided due to good foresight that nine people may not oppress the rights of 300 million.

Like I said, if Freedom of Speech has been perverted to include suppressing the de facto power of citizens to reach full life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a state of full equality to the one doing the free-speaking, then the 14th Amendment must be therefore repealed. Just because McCain and his lawyers were too dumb/ineffectual to read and interpret the last line of th 14th Amendment does not negate its truth and impact. Congress may simply declare to uphold the 14th and deny citizenship "rights' to corporations in the same act given that aggregations of wealthy people intent on the bottom line over respect even of country, may not oppress the rights of singular less-wealthy people or nonprofit groups of people intent on preservation of the Constitution and affecting their destinies via their power to have their voices heard over louder ones to elect representatives that they feel will help them reach their destinies.

They may just lump it all in. The Supreme Court may then only I-N-T-E-R-P-R-E-T that act in the due course of its responsibilities to do so.

Excellent posts Siho.

It is an absolutely horrible & misguided ruling. In a time when there is already way to much Big Money influencing leaders this ruling just put the regular individual voter that much more behind the 8 ball. If anyone can believe it's possible we'll now have an even bigger flood of erroneous negative TV ads.

People should be able to see this for what it really is. It is a full frontal attack by a now Conservative led court to stop what happened in the Obama campaign which was millions & millions of regular people raising a candidate a lot of money $20, $50 or $100 at a time. Now a big oil company or bank lobby can wipe out millions of single donations in a single check. And with union jobs decreasing over the years as great and hard working as they are they aren't an equal counterbalance to big corporate interests at all.

When all else fails one can always make anything a free speech issue no matter how heinous. But for 100 years the high court was not swayed by the false premise that a corporation is "a person" entitled to unlimited free speech rights... which of course it is not.

This is a very bad day for everyone that's not a lobbyist and a horrible court decision that shows how important it is that Progressives be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Since the Conservative leanings of the current court now see corporations as "a person" and not a business entity we should move quickly to remove their current corporate shield and have the corporate leadership be PERSONALLY liable. If a corporation is now "a person" then when there is a lawsuit the leaders of the corporation should be PERSONALLY LIABLE and no longer be allowed to hide behind the corporation.

Free speech issue? All that glitters is not gold my friends. To quote a wise man...

When fascism comes to America it will be wearing a flag carrying a gun and holding the bible”.

 

[Revere]

Money is private property, which is as Constitutionally protected as free speech.