Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by Rjm6254, Jan 21, 2010.
We've been 'basking' in your's for months.
It's a little late for attempted projection.
Wait... if its from the "same place", then it would not be a "ban on free speech now would it?
But its not from the same place...in a PAC, the money is coming from people that want their money being used for a certain political purpose..
Money from the general fund can and is usually coming from people that are more interesting in making money rather than their money being used for political purposes that they don't even agree with.
They could have before...
First.. General foods shareholders can STILL give to a PAC that would then be disclosed... no change their..
The only difference is that before you COULD discover who gave to the advertisement...
NOW, foreign interests that have sway in american companies can use general funds to influence campaigns and all we will know is that ":General Foods" put out the ad...
We won't know that General Foods was influenced by the 30% stock owned by Chinese businessman.
No.. the supreme court stepped outside its Constitutional authority by changing the case to accomodate their personal views..NOT stare decisis, not the Constitution and not the law.
No you didn't,,,,, and you would know that the law DIDN'T violate the Constitution...
Now Jag, the Court deemed it Unconstitutional, so it violated the Constitution!!!!!! I am sure you are smart enough to grasp that are you not?
However, down the road maybe another set of Justices will see it differently!!!! That is a possibility and is within the realm of our Constitution as well.
See you cannot have it both ways, since you are adamant that the SCOTUS affirmed abortion making it Constitutional, you have to admit that the SCOTUS striking down this law makes it Unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!
So what is it?
A Corp has the right to a political position, just as the UAW does or the United Teachers Union, who spend due's in a manner that may be contrary to a members views. A Corp has an equal right to protect its position just as the UAW does.
It is really that frigging simple Jag!!!!!!!!!! In spending the money for a political ad promoting or attacking a candidate, or bill, they are acting in the best interest of the stockholders, just as you would claim a UAW is doing.
But all that aside, you are now grasping for what ifs for an argument, when if you read the
Here is a pretty good answer on this from Justice Thomas!!!!!
So, jaeger is a closet racist?