Just kidding! Thought big business influence was creating a conflict of interest in elections before? Well think again! Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits - NYTimes.com Bravo Supreme Court, bravo Facebook group anyone? Welcome to Facebook | Facebook Here's a superb quote from the decision: "While a single \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\tBellotti \t\t\t\t footnote purported to leave the question open, 435 U. S., at 788, n. 26, this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy." Riiight.....
Yay corporate personhood! But seriously, this is an awful decision by the conservative supreme court. PAC's are bad enough, but this ruling really shreds whats left of democracy in this country. We have to start a grassroots, non-partisan effort to end corporate personhood once and for all with a constitutional amendment. if you want to vote to amend the constitution, sign here- "We the corporations" | Move to Amend also What did the Supreme Court just do to our democracy? | freespeechforpeople.org
We... Are Soooo..... Screwed..... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkb5CAQC4IM"]YouTube- US ends political campaign spending limits[/ame]
If Chuck U. Schumer thinks it is a bad idea then I must be all for it. “If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The system of checks and balances is rendered null by the Supreme Court. Congress and the SC are all that matter, and congress is bribed (lobbied) constantly, so really all there is is the Supreme Court and the highest bidder.
Allowing people as collective groups to exercise their right to free speech "Shreds Democracy"? How does that make any sense? What you're propising here is forcing people to 'shut up' when they are trying to speak as a collective group. Democracy is hurt when the non-approved persons and groups are allowed to speak freely. Gotcha.
Not true. The Constitution gives full power to regulate the court to the congress. Congress could pass an IDENTICAL act, but include the line "This legislation is not subject to judicial review" and the court would be unable to review the legislation. All that would be required is that the President sign the legislation and it pass a simple majority vote in both houses of congress. Further, Congress alone (without the Presidency) is free to impeach any federal judge at any time. Don't confuse the fact that congress is UNWILLING to use its power for checks and balances with the fact that it has LOST that power.
But if the President vetoes a bill can't the SC overrule that? Or is that what 'not subject to judicial review' means? My point is it appears to be check and balance when it's actually 'watch each others back', or at least that's what it appears to be now.
Quite frankly; I don't need my information filtered out by anyone. The left has always had a problem with free speech rights which is why they are always coming up with things like the fairness doctrine to shut down conservative media. Of course Schummer and the gang are against freedom of political speech. They would prefer to be the only ones speaking before an election. Can you imagine the kind of information you would get if only the media and politicians were allowed to give political opinions?
Well at least we'll know which corporations support the republican party, then we can TP the front lawn of their headquarters.
... and we'll know which corporations support the Democratic party... (GE and shit corporations of that nature)
touché Isn't GE part of the military industrial complex? Republicans love buying a bunch of new toys to play with.
If the President vetoes a bill, provided he does so properly, SCOTUS never gets involved. Both houses of Congress can override a veto, but it requires a 2/3s majority in each house of congress. The framers of the Constitution set it up this way on purpose, that the Congress can run the entire country bypassing both the Executive and Judiciary if it saw fit to. So, yes, with a 2/3s majority in each house the Congress could override a Presidential veto on legislation containing a "not subject to judicial review" clause. The Constitution is clear, essentialy the federal courts can only do what Congress empowers them to do. More on judicial review here: Judicial review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It isnt about republican or democrat dont you get it? Both parties where always being controlled and manipulated by the corporations, along with the tv stations you watch (also corporations), you have always been manipulated however now, no matter who you vote, you will be voting for these corporations.
Well, so do Democrats... & yeah, GE is a major defense contractor. this is a pretty good article, detailing how "how GE puts the government to work for GE" They basically choose a victor each election and ensure they're as pro-GE as possible... this year, they happened to choose a Democrat.
Good old GE; can't live with'm and can't live with out'm. I remember seeing a clip about IBM created the first technology to efficiently track and categorize human beings for the Nazi's. It's not the corporations that are evil, just some of the people who run them.
Have a question for you in regards to "This legislation is not subject to judicial review". It would seem to me as part of the checks and balances of the three branches that the judicial should have the authority to review any piece of legislation to find out the constitionality of that piece of legislation. It doesn't seem right for congress to pass legislation, overstepping the judicial thus the constitionality of the legislation and on to the executive. I'm no law professor, that's just my understanding of checks and balances.
Wait, what? We seem to have read two different articles. I read one that said that the Supreme Court blocked a ban on corporate spending... Now I certainly don't want Big Oil, Big Pharm, etc. providing huge conflicts of interest for politicians, and I'm pretty sure neither do you guys. Why are you in support of this? Does it block political contributions of political groups as well? Like norml for example? That I would have a problem with, but unless I'm incorrect I don't think that's the case...
That was a good article. It just reminds me of how diversified GE's interests are: ..."intersection between GE's interests and the government's actions" is plenty crowded. GE is betting on climate change legislation, high-speed rail funding, electric car subsidies, embryonic stem cell grants, expanded federal health care spending, subsidies for renewable energy, defense contracts and continued financial bailouts." And so much more! Isn't there laws about corporations lobbying our elected officials? All that money a company like GE receives from a big contract, playing both sides, all on the backs of hard working Americans. Whatever funding they get, it better be god damn worth it. Cause it seems when GE's in bed with the government, they'll try and stick it anywhere.