Your thoughts on this Supreme decision?

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by Rjm6254, Jan 21, 2010.

  1. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,107
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    But Jag the law would not let them directly challenge or call out a candidate!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is exactly what free speech is all about!!!!!!!!! Spin away!!!!!!!! You are wrong and even most of the legally trained liberal pundits are admitting it. Watched a couple more today on MSNBC and CNN both pointing out that no 100 year law was changed, nor does it open the door to foreign money anymore than what currently is done today.

    You should be worried, because now Joe Candidate cannot spout a non truth against a business or even an industry and walk away without being directly challenged. It will bring some truth back to the arena! Which is exactly how it should be!!!!!

    You are the one full of it! Just like you where on ethanol being viable! How is that going! Just as you where on how the people are reacting to Nobama and Dems policy choices!!!!!!!!!

    You just as well come out of the closet Jag and admit you are a DNC hack!!!!!!! CF must have recruited you when he knew he was getting the boot!!!!!!!
     
  2. Lowtide

    Lowtide Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,623
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Obviously you have forgotten Chinagate.
     
  3. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    No I haven't... thats the point.. now its easier and there are legal channels to do it as long as its through a US company...

    AND its why i say this is going to benefit the democrats way more than the republican party...

    Ron will be changing his tune in 2-4 years... just like he has on the bank bailouts, fiscal responsibility, and government intrusion...
     
  4. Rjm6254

    Rjm6254 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,140
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Undisclosed
    At first I thought the decision was a political activist court driven decision .As long as there is full disclosure of the money source i'm fine with it .
    To be honest I think it will benefit Democrat party more in the long run when the economy turns to a green based economy .The corporations will always find a way to funnel monies to there benefactors and Dems will be at the trough with there hand out as much as Republicans.
     
  5. tank2440

    tank2440 Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    121
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Do you mean like when the Indonesians & Chinese were funneling campaign money to Clinton & Algore? It was illegal then but the Clinton justice department didn't persue it.
     
  6. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    Yep... now it makes it just that much easier...

    What Almodux and Ron forget was that it was the campaign contribution fiascos of Clinton that LED to John Mccain sponsoring campaign finance reform ...and it was passed with Republican support and signed by the Republican President.

    What tripped up the Chinese before was the difficulty of funneling money into legal avenues..

    One of the avenues they tried was to funnel money throught US corporations..

    A few of those corporations went to the FBI to tell them that Huang has asked them to funnel campaign contributions through their company...
    Who knows that number of corps that funneled money?

    The law that Mccain and the republican party passed to help correct that problem made corporations accountable for their donations so that money must go through a corp PAC so that donors are identified.

    Thats the law that Ron and Almodux are happy that the Supreme court just removed!
     
  7. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    Total BULL...you are the one spinning away...

    First... If a congressman made allegations regarding a company...

    Not only can the company bring a lawsuit against the congressman..
    They can also use their PR department to make ADS THAT DIRECTLY REFUTE THE CLAIMS BY THE CONGRESSMAN... that was PERFECTLY LEGAL UNDER THE LAW...

    thats why during the accusations of oil companies, medical companies, pharmacy...we all have seen ads of
    Pharmacy companies producing lifesaving drugs and giving them away to poor children
    Oil companies talking about the ways that they are looking into alternative energy
    etc etc...



    NOW in the case that they want to produce a political ad against that congressman... or FOR another congressman... or they want to give money directly to that ad... all they had to do was use the money from their PAC...

    Now you just keep making yourself look stupid Ron.. The LAW that had your panties in a wad.. the law requiring corporate accountability was a law SPONSORED by JOHN MCAIN, Passed with Republican support, and signed into law by GEORGE W BUSH...

    It was a law put into effect after the campaign contribution fiascos of the Clinton adminstration ...

    :doh:doh
     
  8. ALMODUX

    ALMODUX Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    16,957
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Alabama
    :l Facts are like an ocean for Jag to cross, paddling a log. Twist away. :clap Let's take this slowly: FOREIGN $ WAS ALREADY ILLEGAL. MCCAIN/BUSH WERE BOTH PROGRESSIVES IN MANY AREAS. WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE THE INTENT OF MCCAIN/FEINGOLD TO BE, IT FAILED MISERABLY DUE TO BEING DROWNED WITH LIBERAL 'MUST HAVES' BEFORE PASSAGE. THESE ADD-ONS ARE NOW BEING EXPOSED/REMOVED.

    Bask in your liberal, anti-American, elitism. Don't run from it.:nutz
     
  9. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,107
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    Again Jag, you make a point of a law change that was not changed, has not been affected nor would have made any difference in regards to the legality of what the Chinese tried to do with the Clinton's.

    What the law did was make it legal for a corp to spend directly from its general fund on a campaign ad vs routing the money through a PAC ! The money comes from the same place!!!!

    But as I said before, now that company can directly challenge the next day, the same day, etc... a claim or statement a politician makes during a campaign and it removed the closed window for which they can also do so.

    MN for example right now is drafting rules from the existing laws regarding disclosure on an ad. Since Corp where not allowed prior because of the law. They are now putting in place the same disclosure requirements on who paid for the ad.

    For example now General Foods for example could have run a pro Nobama ad or an anti Nobama ad. It can come from the general fund of the company and will be disclosed that it came from General Foods. Before they would give the money to a PAC which in turn puts forward the message with the name of the PAC that ran the ad. Not until later when disclosure of contributions are published and reported would anyone know where the money came from.

    You are on the wrong side of this just as you where with ethanol, and HC!

    I do like the new tactic though from the left on this. Seems they now are claiming that it will benefit the Dem's more. Thus an attempt to inspire desire from the right to change the law again. Funny stuff, since I do not care one way or the other who it benefits as long as the Constitution was followed in arriving at the ruling.

    I have read both briefs, and Stevens is clearly looking at this from a social side vs a Constitutional side.

    It is going to be interesting as well down the road as many State Leg are in session or about to begin. Not sure if my number is correct, but it sounds like 39 states will be considering legislation that will prevent a HC mandate from the Gov being put upon the people to buy Health Ins be it from a private company or a Gov Run Program. So if any mandate is passed regarding this at the Fed level it is going to have to be settled in court which will mean the SC eventually. How do you think a Constitutional Court is going to come down on that?

    See, Jag, unlike you, I look at this from what the law said and did, while you look at the intent but miss the fact that intent is not law, nor does intent hold up to the Constitution.

    I hearken back to when the SC stripped powers from the COE on wetlands and waterways. The intent of the CWA was to protect wetlands, however the only defense the US GOV had in defending the COE powers was interstate commerce and failed. Intent was clear but the law was not nor did Congress in the law they pass provide for the intent.

    Same thing is going on here. The intent was to keep non US dollars out of the election, but in the process of trying to do so they took away rights they had no right to take away which where protected under the Constitution. You should be happy they got it right. Now if a new law is crafted to enhance the current anti US dollar in elections then it will have to meet Constitutional merit. What is so bad with that?
     
  10. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    You're simply basking in your ignorance:doh...
     

Share This Page