'|
|
My Buddy and Me
   
Location: Iowa | RidenFly - 1/25/2010 8:58 AM That's too much special interest for my taste. I don't care if Obama did it, doesn't mean we need to jump off the bridge too. I would think it's against the constitution also but I would need SheepDog to chime in and correct me if im wrong here.
Well Fly, I'm not Sheepdog but I'm going to chip in my two pennies.
As long corportations w/in this country remain in the posession of individuals in the private sector, they may choose to do whatever they wish to do w/ their money and back whomever they so desire. They either built the company, inherited the company, or bought it. So if they so choose to back a presidential candidate, senator, representative, or even the local dog catcher, that is their right to what they wish w/ their own money.
The McCain/Feingold Law did nothing to address Unions being able to donate as an entity and look at who some to the biggest backers of the last election was. The Unions dumped a massive pile of money into the election of '08. They did so w/ their best interests in mind and backed a candidate who would best represent them in office. The private business sector donating to campaigns is no different. Unless you are a democrat, then the advantage is taken away, because of how businesses tend to align themselves.
If I build a company into a mutli-million dollar outfit, it is my hard work that got it there, it is my money, I should be able to back whomever is going to protect my rights to continue to do business w/out fear of more regulation, government control, oversight, or even a possible takeover like we have just witnessed this year, w/ more possible proposals of doing the same.
Nothing in our constitution prohibits businesses from standing up and voicing through their checkbooks who they would like to see sitting in the Oval Office. It is a freedom of expression and bussinesses way of having a say as to how and what laws are passed that govern them. Same as it would us as a private citizen.
We can take a very close look at who on the Supreme Court voted the way they did and scratch our heads over it. Why did the conservative portion of it vote it down and why did the progressive section of the bench vote it as Constitutional? Why is the Democrat party in such an uproar over it?
Because it once again leveled the playing field. Unions were some of the biggest campaign contributers and businesses and Corporations walked a fine line. Historically speaking, businesses will align themselves w/ a candidate that is not blatantly speaking of a re-distribution of wealth by taxing them more than they already are. They are protected by the Bill of Rights to protect their self-interests.
This was a good ruling.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 1039
Location: Not Where I Want to Be! | RidenFly - 1/25/2010 9:54 AM Sheepdog - 1/26/2010 7:47 AM The supreme court just deemed it Constitutional as part of the 1st Amendment. Makes sense to me being that corporations are nothing more than groups of people. I see no problem with corporations being able to support a candidate....not like they don't now behind closed doors through loop hole donations amounting to millions. Seems like corporate suicide for a corporation to outwardly choose sides and it will backfire against both backward and broken conjoined twin parties.
Right. That was my also in the back of my mind. Why would any company stick thier necks out for a candidate if in fact that person turns out to pull a bonehead move like Edwards did? It's stupid.
But I don't agree that corporations are just big groups of people. Most of us don't have billions to donate to a candidate of our choosing. It seperates the have's and the have nots when all should have an equal voice.
If corporations aren't groups of people -- then what are they? A corporation is inanimate -- it wouldn't exist without people. Furthermore, there are more small corporations in this country then giant ones. Most people serious about running a busniness of any sort, incorporate -- or at least they used to before the advent of the LLC.
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1792
Location: winter | RidenFly - 1/25/2010 9:54 AM Sheepdog - 1/26/2010 7:47 AM The supreme court just deemed it Constitutional as part of the 1st Amendment. Makes sense to me being that corporations are nothing more than groups of people. I see no problem with corporations being able to support a candidate....not like they don't now behind closed doors through loop hole donations amounting to millions. Seems like corporate suicide for a corporation to outwardly choose sides and it will backfire against both backward and broken conjoined twin parties.
Right. That was my also in the back of my mind. Why would any company stick thier necks out for a candidate if in fact that person turns out to pull a bonehead move like Edwards did? It's stupid.
But I don't agree that corporations are just big groups of people. Most of us don't have billions to donate to a candidate of our choosing. It seperates the have's and the have nots when all should have an equal voice.
we do have an equal voice to the extent that we can vote.....actually buying votes is still illegal....but paid for advertising promoting a candidate doesn't mean you'll vote for them.....i'm glad to see this happen though to the affect that there will be significant opposition to union voices...... | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1300
Location: Arizona | RQH - 1/26/2010 8:00 AM RidenFly - 1/25/2010 8:58 AM That's too much special interest for my taste. I don't care if Obama did it, doesn't mean we need to jump off the bridge too. I would think it's against the constitution also but I would need SheepDog to chime in and correct me if im wrong here.
Well Fly, I'm not Sheepdog but I'm going to chip in my two pennies.
As long corportations w/in this country remain in the posession of individuals in the private sector, they may choose to do whatever they wish to do w/ their money and back whomever they so desire. They either built the company, inherited the company, or bought it. So if they so choose to back a presidential candidate, senator, representative, or even the local dog catcher, that is their right to what they wish w/ their own money.
The McCain/Feingold Law did nothing to address Unions being able to donate as an entity and look at who some to the biggest backers of the last election was. The Unions dumped a massive pile of money into the election of '08. They did so w/ their best interests in mind and backed a candidate who would best represent them in office. The private business sector donating to campaigns is no different. Unless you are a democrat, then the advantage is taken away, because of how businesses tend to align themselves.
If I build a company into a mutli-million dollar outfit, it is my hard work that got it there, it is my money, I should be able to back whomever is going to protect my rights to continue to do business w/out fear of more regulation, government control, oversight, or even a possible takeover like we have just witnessed this year, w/ more possible proposals of doing the same.
Nothing in our constitution prohibits businesses from standing up and voicing through their checkbooks who they would like to see sitting in the Oval Office. It is a freedom of expression and bussinesses way of having a say as to how and what laws are passed that govern them. Same as it would us as a private citizen.
We can take a very close look at who on the Supreme Court voted the way they did and scratch our heads over it. Why did the conservative portion of it vote it down and why did the progressive section of the bench vote it as Constitutional? Why is the Democrat party in such an uproar over it?
Because it once again leveled the playing field. Unions were some of the biggest campaign contributers and businesses and Corporations walked a fine line. Historically speaking, businesses will align themselves w/ a candidate that is not blatantly speaking of a re-distribution of wealth by taxing them more than they already are. They are protected by the Bill of Rights to protect their self-interests.
This was a good ruling.
Okay... this is what I love... your post has me rethinking the whole darn deal. But what about corporations that are voting for the possibilility of profit? Say, what if Exxon Oil knew that one particualar candidate could be bought off in such a way to give Exxon some type of upper hand in the market? Would that be fair? Just fishing. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: Free Republic of Texas (for now) | RidenFly - 1/25/2010 11:11 AM RQH - 1/26/2010 8:00 AM RidenFly - 1/25/2010 8:58 AM That's too much special interest for my taste. I don't care if Obama did it, doesn't mean we need to jump off the bridge too. I would think it's against the constitution also but I would need SheepDog to chime in and correct me if im wrong here.
Well Fly, I'm not Sheepdog but I'm going to chip in my two pennies.
As long corportations w/in this country remain in the posession of individuals in the private sector, they may choose to do whatever they wish to do w/ their money and back whomever they so desire. They either built the company, inherited the company, or bought it. So if they so choose to back a presidential candidate, senator, representative, or even the local dog catcher, that is their right to what they wish w/ their own money.
The McCain/Feingold Law did nothing to address Unions being able to donate as an entity and look at who some to the biggest backers of the last election was. The Unions dumped a massive pile of money into the election of '08. They did so w/ their best interests in mind and backed a candidate who would best represent them in office. The private business sector donating to campaigns is no different. Unless you are a democrat, then the advantage is taken away, because of how businesses tend to align themselves.
If I build a company into a mutli-million dollar outfit, it is my hard work that got it there, it is my money, I should be able to back whomever is going to protect my rights to continue to do business w/out fear of more regulation, government control, oversight, or even a possible takeover like we have just witnessed this year, w/ more possible proposals of doing the same.
Nothing in our constitution prohibits businesses from standing up and voicing through their checkbooks who they would like to see sitting in the Oval Office. It is a freedom of expression and bussinesses way of having a say as to how and what laws are passed that govern them. Same as it would us as a private citizen.
We can take a very close look at who on the Supreme Court voted the way they did and scratch our heads over it. Why did the conservative portion of it vote it down and why did the progressive section of the bench vote it as Constitutional? Why is the Democrat party in such an uproar over it?
Because it once again leveled the playing field. Unions were some of the biggest campaign contributers and businesses and Corporations walked a fine line. Historically speaking, businesses will align themselves w/ a candidate that is not blatantly speaking of a re-distribution of wealth by taxing them more than they already are. They are protected by the Bill of Rights to protect their self-interests.
This was a good ruling.
Okay... this is what I love... your post has me rethinking the whole darn deal. But what about corporations that are voting for the possibilility of profit? Say, what if Exxon Oil knew that one particualar candidate could be bought off in such a way to give Exxon some type of upper hand in the market? Would that be fair? Just fishing.
I am not RQH or Sheep Dog, but I would to take a crack at replying to this...............
Fly, in essence you have answered your question, due to your reasoning about Exxon buying off a candidate...........just look at union support of BO and his "side deal" on the exclusion of organized labor from the healthcare nightmare, via your reasoning did the union just not buy off a candidate to support their furtherance of their agenda? | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1792
Location: winter | this already occurs regardless once they're in, regardless of who wins the race....this is why lobbying groups were formed....so that liked minded individuals could have more political influence.... | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 1039
Location: Not Where I Want to Be! | zebra - 1/25/2010 11:36 AM this already occurs regardless once they're in, regardless of who wins the race....this is why lobbying groups were formed....so that liked minded individuals could have more political influence....
felt a need to highlight that part - | |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | RidenFly - 1/25/2010 11:11 AM RQH - 1/26/2010 8:00 AM RidenFly - 1/25/2010 8:58 AM
Okay... this is what I love... your post has me rethinking the whole darn deal. But what about corporations that are voting for the possibilility of profit? Say, what if Exxon Oil knew that one particualar candidate could be bought off in such a way to give Exxon some type of upper hand in the market? Would that be fair? Just fishing.
What about corporations voting for profit? Why wouldn't they? I would be in a heartbeat. If I'm the owner, CEO, president, or whatever, of a large corporation and there are two candidates in the running for president. Candidate A is stumping to redistribute the wealth by taxing the company I've built from the ground up, poured countless amounts of my time into it, worried about it's success or failure, just to have them take my hard earned money and give it to the poor that have done nothing to deserve my money. But yet Candidate B is proposing tax breaks for those companies willing to expand and create new jobs, that would not only increase my bottom line, but allow me to put people to work for years. I'll vote for profit and the liberty of running my business the way I choose every single time. And I should have the right to back that candidate who is going to protect rights of personal property and freedom of expression and the rest outlined in the Bill of Rights.
As for your hypothetical question, that's illegal. Yes it probably happens more times than not. BUT, contributing to a campaign w/ their own money knowing that they might be considered for a government contract in ANWR, that's just using their heads and getting a foot in the door. The question shouldn't be 'Is it fair?', it should be 'Is it ethical?' And there are laws already dictating those dealings.
I really dislike it when somebody starts to mention fair. What is, what isn't, the haves and the have nots, it is class warfare at it's finest. Our nation was not set up on the principles of being fair. This republic was built on the principles of law, outlined by the Constitution, w/ a Bill Rights attached to ensure that those very laws would not impede our personal rights to live our lives and achieve the things in our lives that we deem important. How you do it w/in those guidelines is up to you. Socialism and communism is about being fair (in theory). This Republic is about you finding your own personal limits w/in the guidelines of the law and seeing how far you can run w/ them.
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1792
Location: winter | dme0324 - 1/25/2010 11:52 AM zebra - 1/25/2010 11:36 AM this already occurs regardless once they're in, regardless of who wins the race....this is why lobbying groups were formed....so that liked minded individuals could have more political influence....
felt a need to highlight that part -
because i can't type today obviously.... | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 1039
Location: Not Where I Want to Be! | zebra - 1/25/2010 12:05 PM dme0324 - 1/25/2010 11:52 AM zebra - 1/25/2010 11:36 AM this already occurs regardless once they're in, regardless of who wins the race....this is why lobbying groups were formed....so that liked minded individuals could have more political influence....
felt a need to highlight that part -
because i can't type today obviously....
well, apparently I can't read either -- because I didn't even catch that. LOL -- It's the individuals part I was trying to stress -- not the liked minded.
eta: given my typos, bad grammer & misspelled words -- I'm the last one in the world to throw those kinda stones! I can't even proof read my 4th grader's papers without typing them and using spell check! | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 559
Location: Washington | dme0324 - 1/25/2010 10:08 AM zebra - 1/25/2010 12:05 PM dme0324 - 1/25/2010 11:52 AM zebra - 1/25/2010 11:36 AM this already occurs regardless once they're in, regardless of who wins the race....this is why lobbying groups were formed....so that liked minded individuals could have more political influence....
felt a need to highlight that part -
because i can't type today obviously....
well, apparently I can't read either -- because I didn't even catch that. LOL -- It's the individuals part I was trying to stress -- not the liked minded.
 | |
| | |
My Buddy and Me
Location: Iowa | Bandit94 - 1/25/2010 12:10 PM dme0324 - 1/25/2010 10:08 AM zebra - 1/25/2010 12:05 PM dme0324 - 1/25/2010 11:52 AM zebra - 1/25/2010 11:36 AM this already occurs regardless once they're in, regardless of who wins the race....this is why lobbying groups were formed....so that liked minded individuals could have more political influence....
felt a need to highlight that part -
because i can't type today obviously....
well, apparently I can't read either -- because I didn't even catch that. LOL -- It's the individuals part I was trying to stress -- not the liked minded.
 I had to read it three times to even figure out what was wrong.
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1792
Location: winter | not the clown!!!!!!aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1300
Location: Arizona | zebra - 1/26/2010 10:55 AM not the clown!!!!!!aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I know!!!!!! That stupid, evil clown.... ick. | |
| | |
Location: centrally located umungst the "nuts" | I dont know how many of you have holdings in pensions, 401(k), 403(b), 529.....
Do I own a part of corporations? You bet I do and if you participate in those above and many other investment options, SO DO YOU. This in part is why the banks and investment houses were "to big to fail". (and the polititions have many friends who worked there)
I get tired of the retoric regarding corporation and their profits. Companies are in business to make a profit. No, I wasnt real happy when deisel was $4 plus a gallon and no I certainly do not have enough in mutual funds to get my money back on $4 fuel. None the less, aside from a few examples, fuel was sold based on the world demand. Exon Mobil, when everyone wanted to ****H about them making $9 billion worked on a 9% profit margin. They made $9 billion but they had to spend $100 billion to do it. Are you going to sell all of your horses for no more than a 9% margin. If so call me!
So, too make a long story short, (it's too late) if you invest in mutual funds or stocks (nuts) the ceo of that company is looking out for the best interest of that company. (me & you) Not to mention that historicaly corporation have donated more money to Dem's than anyone else. | |
| | |
Never miss a good chance to shut up.
Posts: 189
|
Personally I'd like to ban all political commercials from television. But how would you do that? In reality, corporations have been contributing enormous amounts of money toward getting their candidates elected long before this court ruling last week.
Unfortunately, if you were a corporation without direct ties to the media, you couldn't play this game.
Do a Google search on the following companies and see if you think they've had any "skin in the game" of getting into politics using their money.
AT&T, Sony, Comcast, Walt Disney, GE, Viacomm, Universal, Time Warner to name a few. Sadly, few "conservative" companies were included in this huge bias machine. These companies own ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, HBO and CNBC! Not to mention all the movies we watch, magazines we read and most of the newpapers. Have I missed anything?
We're lucky there's a single conservative mind left in America.
THAT'S why Obama and his liberal cronies are crying in their soup from this recent Supreme Court ruling.
Just my take.
| |
| | |
Location: centrally located umungst the "nuts" | DaveM,
You are right on. Jeffery Imealt? (GE) would have to knock Michele on the floor to get any futher into bed with BO. Tons of money to be made in green energy. | |
| | |
Never miss a good chance to shut up.
Posts: 189
| paracadista - 1/25/2010 6:19 PM DaveM, You are right on. Jeffery Imealt? (GE) would have to knock Michele on the floor to get any futher into bed with BO. Tons of money to be made in green energy.
LOL. Nice visual. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 2515
Location: Minnesota | I think Imelt's days as CEO are numbered. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 1039
Location: Not Where I Want to Be! | DaveM - 1/25/2010 6:13 PM
Personally I'd like to ban all political commercials from television. But how would you do that? In reality, corporations have been contributing enormous amounts of money toward getting their candidates elected long before this court ruling last week.
Unfortunately, if you were a corporation without direct ties to the media, you couldn't play this game.
Do a Google search on the following companies and see if you think they've had any "skin in the game" of getting into politics using their money.
AT&T, Sony, Comcast, Walt Disney, GE, Viacomm, Universal, Time Warner to name a few. Sadly, few "conservative" companies were included in this huge bias machine. These companies own ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, HBO and CNBC! Not to mention all the movies we watch, magazines we read and most of the newpapers. Have I missed anything?
We're lucky there's a single conservative mind left in America.
THAT'S why Obama and his liberal cronies are crying in their soup from this recent Supreme Court ruling.
Just my take.
Gate's & Microsoft via his foundation have
Eddie Bauer (at least that used to be the case)
I've always found it almost comical, if it weren't so sad, that the republican party is considered the party of the rich, corporate fat cats. | |
| | |
Regular
Posts: 53
Location: Madill Ok | Supreme Court is business as usual 12:01 AM ET 1/26/10 | Marketwatch
BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- Everyone seems to agree that last week's landmark Supreme Court decision on money and politics is, in the cliché of our times, a "game-changer." But what does it actually mean? Here are five contrarian points.
How much has actually changed?
Our national politics are already bought and paid for like a flat-screen TV. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the nonpartisan Washington, D.C.-based think-tank that tracks money in politics, politicians spent a remarkable $5.4 billion, in total, running for federal office in 2007-2008. That includes everything from the $730 million spent by Barack Obama down to the $55,000 spent by Carol Miller, an independent, in a congressional race in New Mexico.
That $5.4 billion total jumped 30% from 2004 and a stunning 76% from 2000. You can bet it will rocket still further for the 2012 presidential election, especially in the wake of this election decision.
Maybe this won't change the nature of politics so much as the price.
'A major victory'
President Barack Obama called the decision "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests." Who's he kidding? Out of these groups he went three-for-four last election.
Among Wall Street banks and other securities and investment firms, the president raised $14.8 million in campaign contributions, while John McCain only got $8.7 million. (The data come from the Center for Responsive Politics, based on an analysis of campaign filings. Money donated comes from individuals working for companies and from Political Action Committees).
From HMOs and health-services companies, the president outraised McCain $1.4 million to $428,000. Among major industries, big oil and gas were among the few that broke for McCain, by $2.4 million to $900,000. As for "powerful interests": How you define them usually depends on where you stand. But the Center for Responsive Politics tracks the top all-time donors from 1989 to 2008 on a "Heavy Hitters" list. Ten of the top twelve have favored the Democrats -- most of them are unions, led by the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees -- and the other two are balanced between the two. The top Heavy Hitter to favor the Republicans notably over the past twenty years, the American Medical Association, comes in at 15.
Honoring the Constitution
Meanwhile right-wingers are hailing the decision on "constitutional grounds." Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader in the Senate, cheered it for "restoring the First Amendment rights of [corporations and unions] by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day."
What nonsense. The Republicans care about the Constitution about as much as I care about the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Right-wingers are gambling that this decision will help them catch up on fundraising. They may be right, because corporate boards tend to favor Republicans with their money, even, in many cases, where the actual staff give to the Democrats. But in fund-raising, no ideology succeeds like success.
If the CRP data show anything, it's that donors favor the party in power. The Democrats led through 1994, when they lost Congress. The Republicans led for about a decade. Since 2006, when the Democrats have outnumbered the GOP in both houses, they've had a big lead. Money follows incumbents.
Corporate political identity
If you are a chief executive of a major corporation and you think this is suddenly open season on political campaigning, stop and take a deep breath.
Do you want your customers to think of your company as Republican, or Democrat? Have you thought this through?
Right now some companies have clear leanings, either through their official political action committees, the donations of staff, or both (if you are a customer worried about where your dollars may end up that may be a difference without a distinction).
So for example contributions from retailers Home Depot Inc. (HD) and Best Buy Co. (BBY) have heavily favored Republicans in recent years, while those from Rite-Aid Corp. (RAD), Gap Inc. (GPS) and Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) have leaned towards the Democrats.
But we live in an increasingly bitter, caustic and partisan age. As the money flows become more explicit, companies that get too publicly engaged risk alienating more people than they win over.
Who wants to be the Halliburton Co. (HAL) of home goods or hamburgers?
Back in 2004, some Republicans stopped buying H.J. Heinz Co.'s (HNZ) ketchup because of the link with presidential hopeful John Kerry's wife, Theresa Heinz Kerry. Some young Republicans even launched "W." ketchup as a rival. Maybe we ain't seen nothin' yet.
And the winner is... surely Big Media.
The only outcome from this ruling that you can predict with any certainty is that the flow of money into politics is surely going to increase. It's increasing anyway. If it just adds 10% to the money spent in 2008 that's another $540 million flowing through the system. A lot of that is going to go on advertising, for the simple reason that it has to go somewhere. I find it astonishing that anyone buys something as a result of commercials, because most commercials are completely useless, but apparently people do.
So this ruling should be huge for media outlets. A lot of the extra dollars will presumably end up online, a windfall for the likes of Google Inc. (GOOG), Yahoo Inc. (YHOO) and others. But they won't be alone. Maybe we should all be purchasing billboards in big swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Brett Arends is the author of "Storm Proof Your Money," on managing your finances in this era of turmoil.
| |
| | |
Common Sense and then some
Location: So. California | Coming late to the party as is the case these days... 
I think the decision is a BAD decision.
I haven't read anyone addressing the fact that now, foreign corporations will be able to donate to American candidates by the boat loads! There are 1,000's of foreign owned corporations that can dump billions of $ into American politics/campaigns in expectation of getting a payback...
We've just opened the proverbial Pandora's Box - heck, we just sent them all an open invitation to control our government. And, yes, I believe that there were already a boat load of funds were been channeled into our politics by foreign corporations/governments, now, they don't have to hide it any more!!! A very, very BAD decision IMHO.
IMO - Corporations are NOT a republic or group of people. They are "usually" a dictatorship - the guy at the top has the final say. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1792
Location: winter | firstly, it has to be a corporation with it's main office in the US......secondly, this already takes place in round about ways anyway....i tend to agree with the ruling and also think it won't make much difference in our elections.....
i'm actually hoping this drives congress to enact more meaningful campaign reform althoug i flip flop as to how to do that.....i think immediate transparency of both campaign contributions by anyone donating as well as detailed information about anyone or any group involved in political advertising would be a good thing....i think corporation will have to tread lightly regardless as consumers may change their spending habits depending on what positions or candidates they support | |
| | |
Common Sense and then some
Location: So. California | Zebra - I haven't read all 183 pages, but I fail to see how foreign companies/Governments will be prevented from sending millions or billions of dollars into the political coffers. I REALIZE that they millions get funneled "around" the current system, but at least they had to be "creative" to do it. Now, they just write the dang check - easy as can be.
It's a BAD decision and one we will live to regret within a few short years. We haven't seen anything yet!!! | |
| | |
Location: centrally located umungst the "nuts" | Anniemae - 2/2/2010 7:02 PM
Zebra - I haven't read all 183 pages, but I fail to see how foreign companies/Governments will be prevented from sending millions or billions of dollars into the political coffers. I REALIZE that they millions get funneled "around" the current system, but at least they had to be "creative" to do it. Now, they just write the dang check - easy as can be.
It's a BAD decision and one we will live to regret within a few short years. We haven't seen anything yet!!!
There is a separate federal code that restricts foriegn donations to poiltical campains and this decission did not adress that code..Didnt uphold it, didnt reverse it, didnt deal with it . That part of the election law is no different than before this ruling. This ruling also didnt address the millions of dollars in contributions that were made via overseas credit card transactions in the 2008 election cycle. | |
| |
Jump to page : 1 2 3
Now viewing page 2 [25 messages per page] | |
|
I don't know how I feel about the ruling......
