FREEDOM IS RESTORED: 1st AMENDMENT WINS!

@dyslexia,

ah yes,
The following limits apply to contributions from individuals to candidates for all Federal offices.

* $2,400 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.
* $30,400 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.
* $10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees
* $5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee

Aggregate Total -- $115,500 per two-year election cycle as follows:

* $45,600 per two-year cycle to candidates
* $69,000 per two-year cycle to all national party committees and PACs

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I also don't see how this doesn't open the door to foreign countries influencing our elections...

Why shouldn't they? What's your problem with foreign persons influencing America's elections? If I wrote a letter to the editor in support of an American candidate, would that be a problem for you? Would you support the enactment of laws that criminalize my behavior?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

but now the terrorists will be able to buy off politicians

oh wait, the house of saud beat them too it

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I always wondered why newspapers themselves (being corporations) received special exemption under McCain/Feingold. They had the potential to sway elections by last minute attacks or endorsements of particular candidates through editorials, opinions, etc.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

Thomas, is there currently a limit on how much an individual can contribute to a political campaign?

Yes, but this case is not about contributions to political campaigns. It's about limits on paying media outlets to publish movies promoting your views.

There is no limit on how much money individuals can spend to publish their views in print, on TV, on the internet, or in whatever medium they please. This case is about a non-profit corporation who sought to pay a cable TV provider for offering an anti-Hillary-Clinton documentary as video on demand. Why should the law limit the corporation's free speech rights based on the speaker's corporate identity? The Supreme Court held that it shouldn't -- and I still don't see what's so unreasonable about it.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Corporate boards knowingly operate on a principle that they control, or have the complete confidence and authority of those who control the majority of the stock in the corporation

... controlling the majority of the dollars that the corporation can spend on electioneering.

Setanta wrote:

and that the majority of the stockholders have no control or authority over them.

... controlling a mere minority of the dollars that the corporation can spend on electioneering. Plus, they can always withdraw their dollars and give it to a corporation whose speech they like better.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
It IS the function of the court to accurately apply the Constitution
NOT to be concerned about how "the common man" ` "FEELS

the Constitution is a product of the common man, it is the legal guidance of the society which is run by the common man. We are a democracy, we rule ourselves. When the supremes lose touch with how the common man feels all of their production becomes useless.

I am with Merry Andrew...you really are insane.

I hope the 2 of u will be happy together.

The Constitution is the social/political contract.
Like Latin, it remains exactly the same
unless amended as per Article 5, regardless of my mental health.

David

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

... controlling a mere minority of the dollars that the corporation can spend on electioneering

the line between corporate electioneering and racketeering as about nil at this point.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

The Constitution is the social/political contract.
Like Latin, it remains exactly the same

Bullshit, unlike Latin the Constitution is open to interpretation. the Constitution is a living document, Latin is dead.

The Supremes have made a damaging interpretation of the Constitution which is not supported by the people , and so they now will be instructed to make a better one.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Certainly. Which does not alter that it is hopelessly naïve to attempt to suggest that stockholders have any real control of the corporate board and the actions which they choose to take.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Yup--you just make this **** up as you go along.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Yup--you just make this **** up as you go along.

Totally meaningless, as the process of arriving at the truth is not material. If you disagree with what the truth is you are free to do so. However, historically you would rather throw mud.

1 Reply

It woud be an act of corruption and of betrayal of fidelity
to the Republic, if the judiciary were to pervert and distort
the Constitution, or any statute, merely to appeal to the emotions
of the common man, the uncommon man or anyone else.

If thay do THAT, then thay r dishonest.

The duty of the court is the same as the duty
of an accountant: play it straight.
Examine the law with meticulous care; then dispassionately apply it to the facts.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

It woud be an act of corruption and of betrayal of fidelity to the Republic, if the judiciary were to pervert and distort the Constitution, or any statute, merely to appeal to the emotions
of the common man, the uncommon man or anyone else
the Constitution

the courts fiduciary duty is to the republic, to reflect the values of the people, and to protect the strength of the republic, which at its core is the principles of democratic rule. The Constitution is the courts guiding document, it is not the the dictates of an Emperor or God. It is not the end all be all of determining judgments.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You aren't stating any "truth." You have said, and i quote you: "The Supremes have made a damaging interpretation of the Constitution which is not supported by the people , and so they now will be instructed to make a better one."

There is absolutely no constitutional provision for nor mechanism by which the Supreme Court can be "instructed." There will be no "instructing" of the Court. As usual, you are just making **** up as you go along. Once again, you attempt to make an emotive appeal, which is not based on any truth at all.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

the courts fiduciary duty is to the republic, to reflect the values of the people, and to protect the strength of the republic, which at its core is the principles of democratic rule.

Once again, nothing in the constitution guarantees democratic rule. I have the constitution in its entirety available in another window, right now. Perhaps you can tell us where in the document democratic rule is guaranteed, and where in the document it states that it is the responsibility of the Court to "reflect the values of the people."

1 Reply

@Setanta,

an amendment to the Constitution is an instruction to the court. This is beyond debate, but of course since I said it you must disagree.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Once again, nothing in the constitution guarantees democratic rule.

Bullshit...the amendment provision makes it a democratic instrument.

2 Replies

One could make that inference, certainly. So, in effect, you are trying to say that you meant the constitution would be amended to overturn this ruling by the Court. Good luck, sucker.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
It IS the function of the court to accurately apply the Constitution
NOT to be concerned about how "the common man" ` "FEELS

the Constitution is a product of the common man,

More idiocy from the terminally clueless sick twisted shorteyed bastard.

The Constitution is the product of aristocrats. "The common man" had no voice at all. When George Washington was elected, only 6% of the population was eligible to vote (mostly rich white protestants.)

2 Replies

FREEDOM IS RESTORED: 1st AMENDMENT WINS!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know