Alito & Obama:

[henktermaat]

I think everyone who is going to weigh in on this already has. How many threads do we need about it?

This. ^^

 

[El Cazador]

To say that the founders could not have envisioned multinaitonal corporations is either being naive or deliberately obtuse. Are you trying to say that there was no such thing as a multinational at that time or that foreign nationals did not own businesses in the US?

QFT. The number of French, English, and Spanish companies alone either subsidized or partially owned by their respective governments, and that operated in the pre-Revolutionary War United States, and the post-war US, is always a surprise to many. Why would it surprise people to think they did not work to further their interests even then? And wealth has always been the language of influence. I would imagine, given today's population compared to the 1780's, that corporations have less influence in ratio to the population's.

I'm with Alito. Barry Hussein was wrong, and was incredibly rude to do that during the Crap on the Nation speech.

 

[Woodsman]

Let's flip this argument around.

Where did Barry's fund raising come from? There were some articles back then that questioned where all of the off-shore contributions were coming from. He raised an astronomical sum of money and no one in the MSM questioned it.

The only reason progressives are upset about the SCOTUS ruling is it leveled the playing field against them. :moon:

 

[printcraft]

Let's flip this argument around.

Where did Barry's fund raising come from? There were some articles back then that questioned where all of the off-shore contributions were coming from. He raised an astronomical sum of money and no one in the MSM questioned it.

The only reason progressives are upset about the SCOTUS ruling is it leveled the playing field against them. :moon:

Here is a list of the domestic..... BTW the foreign monies are still under investigation.
Things like 107 donations from 1 person in 1 day and other such nonsense.

Obamas Contributors - A LOT OF EASY TO RECOGNIZE NAMES EH?

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

 

[Designer99]

And here's McCain's Contributions. The contrast in donations is staggering. Moral of the story, he who has the most money wins the presidency.

Be careful what you wish for.

Merrill Lynch $373,595
Citigroup Inc $322,051
Morgan Stanley $273,452
Goldman Sachs $230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,107
US Government $208,379
AT&T Inc $201,438
Wachovia Corp $195,063
UBS AG $192,493
Credit Suisse Group $183,353
PricewaterhouseCoopers $167,900
US Army $167,820
Bank of America $166,026
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $159,596
Blank Rome LLP $154,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,437
US Dept of Defense $144,105
FedEx Corp $131,974
Bear Stearns $117,498
Lehman Brothers $114,357

Here is a list of the domestic..... BTW the foreign monies are still under investigation.
Things like 107 donations from 1 person in 1 day and other such nonsense.

 

[Joe Williams]

And here's McCain's Contributions. The contrast in donations is staggering. Moral of the story, he who has the most money wins the presidency.

Be careful what you wish for.
snip

Indeed, money does make a difference. And you are vociferously advocating keeping the bulk of the money on one side, while silencing the other. Like you said, the contrast in donations under the old law is staggering.

 

[Designer99]

I'm advocating keeping the money on one side and silencing the other? Care to explain that?

I thought I was advocating taking more money out of the system, not adding to it.

Indeed, money does make a difference. And you are vociferously advocating keeping the bulk of the money on one side, while silencing the other. Like you said, the contrast in donations under the old law is staggering.

 

[Panama]

Money has never, and will never, be kept out of our political process.
It simply can not be done!

Laws only restrict law bidding people, just like fences and locks only keep honest people out.

Neither party has had clean hands in decades!

There are, and always will be, ways around buying influence, power and votes.

All the "Supremes" did was make it legal for all not just the few.

As long as there are rich BASTARDS like the one pictured below, our system will be bought and sold to the highest bidder.
I am just surprised you haven't said "it is George W. Bush's fault".........yet!

 

[printcraft]

And here's McCain's Contributions. The contrast in donations is staggering. Moral of the story, he who has the most money wins the presidency.

Be careful what you wish for.

Merrill Lynch $373,595
Citigroup Inc $322,051
Morgan Stanley $273,452
Goldman Sachs $230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,107
US Government $208,379
AT&T Inc $201,438
Wachovia Corp $195,063
UBS AG $192,493
Credit Suisse Group $183,353
PricewaterhouseCoopers $167,900
US Army $167,820
Bank of America $166,026
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $159,596
Blank Rome LLP $154,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,437
US Dept of Defense $144,105
FedEx Corp $131,974
Bear Stearns $117,498
Lehman Brothers $114,357

Looks like the same people alright ..... but about 1/4 the amount than went to the messiah.

Why the discrepancy?
Who said I wanted McLame?

 

[antsi]

the one the Supreme Court answered - but you have yet to answer, is, "Where in the Constitution does it allow Congress to regulate political speech?" If you can't answer that, all the other questions are moot.

Bingo. Nailed it.

People don't seem to get this. They always criticize Supreme Court decisions which they believe will be bad policy. SCOTUS is not about setting government policy. It is their job to strike down laws which are unconstitutional.

Criticizing a SCOTUS decision because you think it is bad policy only shows misunderstanding of how our government is supposed to work.

 

[jsgolfman]

Even the good judge agrees:

Justice Alito Was Right by Andrew P. Napolitano

 

[BloodEclipse]

Alito for the win.

 

[rambone]

"US GOVERNMENT" appears as a contributor for both Obama and McCain. Why do tax dollars go towards campaigning, and why did Obama get twice as much?

 

[dross]

"US GOVERNMENT" appears as a contributor for both Obama and McCain. Why do tax dollars go towards campaigning, and why did Obama get twice as much?

I suspect that's government workers, but I'd be interested in that answer myself.

 

[Designer99]

Once again, this article is saying that foreign nationals and foreign corporations are not allowed to contribute. Correct. It says nothing about foreign shareholders of American owned companies.

Wolves are banned but are wolves in sheep's clothing? Doesn't say.

Even the good judge agrees:

Justice Alito Was Right by Andrew P. Napolitano

 

[BloodEclipse]

Once again, this article is saying that foreign nationals and foreign corporations are not allowed to contribute. Correct. It says nothing about foreign shareholders of American owned companies.

Wolves are banned but are wolves in sheep's clothing? Doesn't say.

Umm a foreign shareholder = a foreign national.

 

[dross]

Once again, this article is saying that foreign nationals and foreign corporations are not allowed to contribute. Correct. It says nothing about foreign shareholders of American owned companies.

Wolves are banned but are wolves in sheep's clothing? Doesn't say.

Dude. If I were in your physical presence right now, I'd give you a wedgie. Seriously.

Can we agree on this?: How about we let all Americans (including the ones who band together in organizations) spend their money how they like, to support candidates they agree with? Let's do that part first.

There. Now that's done.

Now let's figure out how to keep foreign money out of our elections, which was occurring before, during, and after the the period of time when we've been blatantly trampling the rights of free speech for Americans.

 

[Designer99]

LOL. We can most definitely agree on that. Never had an issue with that. I'll pass on the wedgie though.


Just sayin:
"During arguments for Citizens United, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens asked whether foreign interests would be able to funnel money into American elections through their U.S. subsidiaries if the court struck down 441b. One of the attorneys for Citizens United replied, “I would not rule that out.”


That's what needs addressed.

Dude. If I were in your physical presence right now, I'd give you a wedgie. Seriously.

Can we agree on this?: How about we let all Americans (including the ones who band together in organizations) spend their money how they like, to support candidates they agree with? Let's do that part first.

There. Now that's done.

Now let's figure out how to keep foreign money out of our elections, which was occurring before, during, and after the the period of time when we've been blatantly trampling the rights of free speech for Americans.

 

[Designer99]

Umm. No.

A foreign national cannot outright donate to a campaign, but they can through a U.S. subsidiary because the Corporation is defined as one entity with rights.

It's a grey area that needs to be defined.

Umm a foreign shareholder = a foreign national.

 

[jsgolfman]

Ok, let's try this one more time, shall we?

Contributions go directly to a candidate, independent political expenditures are things like political advertisements by third parties without coordination with the candidate. The court decision found that the ban on expenditures was unconstitutional, it's didn't touch on the contributions at all.
However, 2 U.S.C. 441e bans all foreign nationals from directly or indirectly contributing to a federal candidate or a political party. It also bans all foreign nationals from making any independent political expenditures. This ban was NOT overturned by the decision. US Citizens and those lawfully having permanent residence in the US are exempt.
The FEC interprets it thusly, only US domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations can establish PAC's and only if those donations are derived solely from funds generated by the US operations of said corp AND all decision concerning those funds are made by US citizens or legal permanent residents.

Is it clear now?