fish82 wrote: Back on semi-topic....it would appear that the public agrees with the decision.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx

The majority of Americans are idiots then.

Before the election Americans all complained about the role of lobbyists in politics. This just made lobbying irrelevant as corporations will just outright buy candidates now.

eersandbeers wrote:

fish82 wrote: Back on semi-topic....it would appear that the public agrees with the decision.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx

The majority of Americans are idiots then.

Before the election Americans all complained about the role of lobbyists in politics. This just made lobbying irrelevant as corporations will just outright buy candidates now.

Why? Go back and read my post #47 in this thread. I know you have great respect for the constitution. How could you be against this decision? If we allow corporations to be treated differently under the constitution, without a constitutional amendment clearly defining the Federal government's limitations, liberty would be in great danger. I hope that this shows a majority of Americans are respecters of the constitition.

Back on semi-topic....it would appear that the public agrees with the decision.

Those polls are over 3 months old, I would be interested to see what the numbers look like now that it has happened and people have started to grasp the fallout.

I was particularly interested in the memo sent out by Attorney Ben Ginsberg, who argued for Bush in Bush v. Gore.

While happy about the decision in principle, his memo voiced concern that political parties are going to be rendered obsolete as certain corporations can provide the funding and infrastructure efforts the parties themselves do with considerably less hassle and more resources.

Where this will be most apparent is going to be on the state and local government level, where it will cost very little to basically buy off those governments by filling them with your people or threatening those in power that you will do so.

The final and best part about this is that foreign owned corporations can start pumping money into our elections by just setting up a U.S corp to funnel the money through, not to mention many U.S multi-nationals have major international portions of ownership.

In Stevens descent, I would the following portion telling when discussing how the founding fathers might have felt about a Supreme Court decision that opened up an avenue for foreigners to play a large roll in our election process.

“If taken seriously, our colleagues’ assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government’s ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by ‘Tokyo Rose’ during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders,” Stevens wrote. “More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

In an apparent dig at the originalists in the majority, Stevens said throwing U.S. political campaigns open to foreigners would have upset the Founding Fathers. “The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers, whose ‘obsession with foreign influence derived from a fear that foreign powers and individuals had no basic investment in the well-being of the country,’” Stevens wrote, quoting a law review article from Fordham professor Zephyr Teachout.

Stevens also suggested some of his colleagues were refusing to address the green light the opinion could give to political activity by huge global enterprises. “The majority never uses a multinational business corporation in its hypotheticals,” the justice wrote.

It does appear though that some in Congress are trying to come up with plans on how to negate the ruling. The one I have read in some spots that would put a damper on this sort of advertising expenditures would require CEO's of companies who do these expenditures to name themselves as CEO and their company at the end of the ad just like politicians have to. The other route is requiring that any corporation wishing to engage in political expenditures like this would have to seek majority shareholder approval before doing so.

Solutions like those would not end up being thrown back out as unconstitutional because they do nothing to damper the free speech, but the publicizing of the companies and getting shareholder approval would certainly make some companies think twice before diving head in when disclosure would otherwise be minimal.

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

fish82 wrote: Back on semi-topic....it would appear that the public agrees with the decision.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx

The majority of Americans are idiots then.

Before the election Americans all complained about the role of lobbyists in politics. This just made lobbying irrelevant as corporations will just outright buy candidates now.

Why? Go back and read my post #47 in this thread. I know you have great respect for the constitution. How could you be against this decision? If we allow corporations to be treated differently under the constitution, without a constitutional amendment clearly defining the Federal government's limitations, liberty would be in great danger. I hope that this shows a majority of Americans are respecters of the constitition.

I'm not against the ability of corporations to buy ads. I'm against the ability of corporations to provide limitless campaign contributions to candidates turning our elections into the highest bidder wins.

I don't see a Constitutional basis for unlimited campaign contributions ever. 1990 and 2003 Supreme Court case affirmed this opinion. For some reason, this one did not.

IggyPride00 wrote: It does appear though that some in Congress are trying to come up with plans on how to negate the ruling. The one I have read in some spots that would put a damper on this sort of advertising expenditures would require CEO's of companies who do these expenditures to name themselves as CEO and their company at the end of the ad just like politicians have to. The other route is requiring that any corporation wishing to engage in political expenditures like this would have to seek majority shareholder approval before doing so.

Solutions like those would not end up being thrown back out as unconstitutional because they do nothing to damper the free speech, but the publicizing of the companies and getting shareholder approval would certainly make some companies think twice before diving head in when disclosure would otherwise be minimal.

These ideas are sound. I agree, without knowing the details they would appear to pass constitutional muster.

Inequites in campaign fund raising is simply a major issue to begin with. When politicians spend a year or more raising funds and campaigning, they are NOT doing their elected job. And the bigger issue there is, given the impact of the war chest, we generally end-up electing to person with the richest friends or simply whom the richest like the best.

I do see some merit in corporations having some influence. Sure, their "self-interest" to the detriment of society at large is frequently documented, but I think more often it's just a case of competing interests and the corporation acting like any person or company to protect its interest with no detrimental effects. Also the case that there is often no alterior motive, it's just the rich CEO/Chairman using his company to circumvent personal donation limitations to support the candidate they like.

I think in the near future the internet can level the playing field. It will essentially become very cheap to deliver messages and ads this way. Of course, the war chests will exploit that by creating ads that generate buzz and people want to watch. But it will help to prevent buying votes of the ignorant masses by effectively brainwashing them with a constant barage of ads everywhere. Once the internet and cable have become seamlessly integrated it will be as simple as changing the channel and clicking on your zipcode to learn about your candidates.

And while we're on the subject, maybe it would be a good litmus test for these politicians to have to work with a fixed budget. Imagine that! You blew thru your allowance in just the first 6 weeks? Well, maybe you aren't cut out for running a larger organization.

I am beginning to think Jefferson was a bleeding heart liberal when I read some of the things he said about banks and corporations.

It is amazing the foresight he had in the early 1800's to see what would happen when the banks and corporations would try and take hold of this country. He even expressed a distrust for the judiciary due to their being unaccountable to voters, yet determining the laws of the land.

Kind of scary when you think that in the last year the banks used the government to fleece the American tax payer out of hundreds of billions of dollars, and then the courts overruled almost 100 years of its own precedents to hand big business a decision that will grant it power to influence the political system in ways never seen before.

Read some of these and tell me he didn't see this coming!

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a
trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous
to our liberties than standing armies. and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity... is but swindling futurity on a large scale.Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson

If the American people ever allow private banks to
control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Thomas Jefferson

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers...And this is the tendency of all human governments.A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery...And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt.
Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
Thomas Jefferson

Scary when you look at that how on the money he was, and yet we make the same mistakes and achieve the same predicted outcomes.

Good points Jefferson makes. But concerning his beliefs on the power to regulate and control his fears noted above, you must put them in context with the following quotes form Jefferson.

Tell me he did not see this coming.

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"the true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best . . . (for) when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as . . . oppressive as the government from which we separated."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson

RESOLVED: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers:
That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1799

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, February 15, 1791

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788

"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

"I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 16:146

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia Q. XIII, 1782. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors ME 2:163

"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 17:445

"Every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact (casus non faederis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits. Without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors ME 17:387

"The only greater [evil] than separation... [is] living under a government of discretion."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Gordon, 1826. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 10:358

"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 2:178

I am beginning to think Jefferson was a cold hearted radical right wing conservative nutbag.

='fan_from_texas' pid='168271' dateline='1264266596']


You have no basis by which to claim that wikipedia's claim is "dead nuts accurate." You had never heard of piercing the corporate veil until yesterday,

You need to go back and read the thread, pal. It is you with your holier than thou attitude not me. I didn't choose the derogatory terms "out of my element" or "what a fool you are making yourself out to be" And where in the fuck do you get off telling me that I was unaware of what the term CORPORATE VEIL was up until yesterday? That's the last straw...and I've had it with your reaches and lies on this subject. Had it. My original argument was that years ago, corporate slimeballs stripped their company of their assets, and were not found legally binding. That IS CORPORATE VEIL. I was the one that presented it....not you. Take your pompous attitude elsewhere. Just because you are a lawyer it doesn't give you the right to treat other posters like shit.

I am done with this discussion, You fail to acknowledge that what I laid claim to was true, and your internet pride apparently to too broad that you can't even man up and apologize when proven wrong.

I'm disappointed in you FFT. But I have listened to your personal attacks long enough....and.... for the last time.

Welcome to my ignore list.

If anyone who owns you gets put on your list, don't forget me. I've done it a number of times. Not that it's all that difficult.

Can you add me to your list too?

Great! Glad to know I've made the ignore list!

Me too, please.

I see people on here complaining that these companies should not be able to have "free speech" and give money to political campaigns, but it is okay for news corporations to give their opinions instead of being bias to either party, or for unions to use their money and power to help candidates(see past presidential election). I see that the Democrats are the ones that really don't like this decision and I believe it is because now they believe the corporations will give all that money to the Republicans which counters the unions with the Dems. It makes me laugh, you can only have Free Speech if you are on the liberal side of all issues.

Footwedge wrote:

='fan_from_texas' pid='168271' dateline='1264266596']


You have no basis by which to claim that wikipedia's claim is "dead nuts accurate." You had never heard of piercing the corporate veil until yesterday,

You need to go back and read the thread, pal. It is you with your holier than thou attitude not me. I didn't choose the derogatory terms "out of my element" or "what a fool you are making yourself out to be" And where in the fuck do you get off telling me that I was unaware of what the term CORPORATE VEIL was up until yesterday? That's the last straw...and I've had it with your reaches and lies on this subject. Had it. My original argument was that years ago, corporate slimeballs stripped their company of their assets, and were not found legally binding. That IS CORPORATE VEIL. I was the one that presented it....not you. Take your pompous attitude elsewhere. Just because you are a lawyer it doesn't give you the right to treat other posters like shit.

I am done with this discussion, You fail to acknowledge that what I laid claim to was true, and your internet pride apparently to too broad that you can't even man up and apologize when proven wrong.

I'm disappointed in you FFT. But I have listened to your personal attacks long enough....and.... for the last time.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Foot,

Please add me to you list as well. In addition, here is some interesting reading I recieved in an e-mail recently. Don't know the originator, but found it interesting.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"
Although found nowhere in the national archives or known writings of Benjamin Franklin, it is widely accepted that he once said “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

According to the most recent data from the Congressional Budget Office, the bottom 50% of all income earners pay just 3.4% of the taxes collected! Conversely, the top 20% of income earners pay a whopping 85% of the taxes collected. In other words, 80% of income earners contribute a miserable 15% of the taxes collected! When you consider that this lower income bracket is totally dominated by politicians that overwhelmingly favor wealth redistribution, Americans are now able to “vote themselves money.” One is left to wonder if we have already begun to “herald the end of the republic.”

Let’s not forget plank number two in Karl Marx’s ten planks toward communism in his Communist Manifesto, which is “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Years ago, I came across a great analogy to our system of taxes. The story has been printed and e-mailed many times in different formats, but the basic concept remains unchanged. Although the origins of the story are unknown, everyone agrees that the good ole federal government clearly provided the inspiration.

Here it is:

Every evening, the same 10 friends eat dinner together, family style, at the same restaurant. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They always pay it the way we pay taxes:
• The first four are poor and pay nothing.
• The fifth pays $1.
• The sixth pays $3.
• The seventh, $7
• The eighth, $12.
• The ninth, $18.
• The 10th, (the most well-to-do) pays $59.

One night the restaurant owner announces that because they're such good customers, he's dropping their group dinner bill to $80. Let's call that a tax cut. They want to continue paying their bill as we pay taxes. So the four poorest men still eat free. But if the other six split the $20 tax cut evenly, each would save $3.33. That means the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat. The restaurant owner works out a plan: The fifth man eats free; the sixth pays $2; the seventh, $5; the eighth, $9; the ninth, $12; and the 10th guy pays $52. All six are better off than before, and the four poor guys still eat for nothing. The trouble starts when they leave the restaurant and begin to compare what they reaped from the $20 cut. "I only got a dollar of it," says the sixth man, "but he (pointing at No. 10) got $7." The fifth guy, who also saved a dollar by getting his meal free, agrees that it's not fair for the richest to get seven times the savings as he. No. 7, grousing that the wealthy get all the breaks, points out that he only got two bucks. "Wait a minute," the first four poor guys yell in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men jump the 10th and administer a severe beating. The next night he doesn't come for dinner. They shrug it off and eat without him. The customary $80 bill comes. Surprise! They're $52 short.

Yes, those who pay the most taxes get the most back from tax reductions. But tax them too much — punish them for the wealth they may have — and they just might stop bringing their money to the table.

I guess this is why American businesses have about $10 trillion in offshore deposits. You can’t blame them. After all, they got tired of getting beat up to forfeit their “fair share.”

This is one of those sticky areas where there are no perfect answers. People should have freedom to support candidates through various means but when our politics become so expensive and politicans rely on raising tons of cash in the neverend campaign cycle, it would be foolish to think this doesn't at least heavily influence their decisions in a way that gives one citizen preference over another. Then our congressmen retiring, like Hobson, fall into a lobbyist position.

I tend to think we have to reign in the buying of politicans and give it priority.

.

Here are some pearls of wisdom from Aristotle of trying to find a balance.

We ought not to define a democracy as some do, who say simply, that it is a government where the supreme power is lodged in the people; for even in oligarchies the supreme power is in the majority. Nor should they define an oligarchy a government where the supreme power is in the hands of a few: for let us suppose the number of a people to be thirteen hundred, and that of these one thousand were rich, who would not permit the three hundred poor to have any share in the government, although they were free, and their equal in everything else; no one would say, that this government was a democracy. In like manner, if the poor, when few in number, should acquire the power over the rich, though more than themselves, no one would say, that this was an oligarchy; nor this, when the rest who are rich have no share in the administration. We should rather say, that a democracy is when the supreme power is in the [1290b] hands of the freemen; an oligarchy, when it is in the hands of the rich: it happens indeed that in the one case the many will possess it, in the other the few; because there are many poor and few rich. And if the power of the state was to be distributed according to the size of the citizens, as they say it is in Ethiopia, or according to their beauty, it would be an oligarchy: for the number of those who are large and beautiful is small.

Nor are those things which we have already mentioned alone sufficient to describe these states; for since there are many species both of a democracy and an oligarchy, the matter requires further consideration; as we cannot admit, that if a few persons who are free possess the supreme power over the many who are not free, that this government is a democracy: as in Apollonia, in Ionia, and in Thera: for in each of these cities the honours of the state belong to some few particular families, who first founded the colonies. Nor would the rich, because they are superior in numbers, form a democracy, as formerly at Colophon; for there the majority had large possessions before the Lydian war: but a democracy is a state where the freemen and the poor, being the majority, are invested with the power of the state. An oligarchy is a state where the rich and those of noble families, being few, possess it.

IggyPride00 wrote:

Back on semi-topic....it would appear that the public agrees with the decision.

Those polls are over 3 months old, I would be interested to see what the numbers look like now that it has happened and people have started to grasp the fallout.

Agreed. Although that would render the public a tad hypocritical, as the basis of the decision was a straight up or down on the first amendment, on which the public agreed in the poll.

IggyPride00 wrote:The final and best part about this is that foreign owned corporations can start pumping money into our elections by just setting up a U.S corp to funnel the money through, not to mention many U.S multi-nationals have major international portions of ownership.

In Stevens descent, I would the following portion telling when discussing how the founding fathers might have felt about a Supreme Court decision that opened up an avenue for foreigners to play a large roll in our election process.

“If taken seriously, our colleagues’ assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government’s ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by ‘Tokyo Rose’ during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders,” Stevens wrote. “More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

In an apparent dig at the originalists in the majority, Stevens said throwing U.S. political campaigns open to foreigners would have upset the Founding Fathers. “The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers, whose ‘obsession with foreign influence derived from a fear that foreign powers and individuals had no basic investment in the well-being of the country,’” Stevens wrote, quoting a law review article from Fordham professor Zephyr Teachout.

Stevens also suggested some of his colleagues were refusing to address the green light the opinion could give to political activity by huge global enterprises. “The majority never uses a multinational business corporation in its hypotheticals,” the justice wrote.

Says the justice that uses foreign case law to render decisions on the US Consitition. Loves me some Irony there, JP.

IggyPride00 wrote:It does appear though that some in Congress are trying to come up with plans on how to negate the ruling. The one I have read in some spots that would put a damper on this sort of advertising expenditures would require CEO's of companies who do these expenditures to name themselves as CEO and their company at the end of the ad just like politicians have to. The other route is requiring that any corporation wishing to engage in political expenditures like this would have to seek majority shareholder approval before doing so.

Solutions like those would not end up being thrown back out as unconstitutional because they do nothing to damper the free speech, but the publicizing of the companies and getting shareholder approval would certainly make some companies think twice before diving head in when disclosure would otherwise be minimal.

Totally cool with this approach...sounds akin to the "fire in a crowded theater" rule.

2trap_4ever wrote: I see people on here complaining that these companies should not be able to have "free speech" and give money to political campaigns, but it is okay for news corporations to give their opinions instead of being bias to either party, or for unions to use their money and power to help candidates(see past presidential election). I see that the Democrats are the ones that really don't like this decision and I believe it is because now they believe the corporations will give all that money to the Republicans which counters the unions with the Dems. It makes me laugh, you can only have Free Speech if you are on the liberal side of all issues.

Who said companies should not have free speech? Or did you just make that up?

People are against corporations being able to outright buy politicians and turn the Republic into a bought and paid for oligarchy. Which is exactly what this is going to do.

Your examples of news corporations giving their opinions is not even close to teh same thing.

Dems don't care either. They receive as much money from corporations as the Republicans do.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." Justice kennedy, SCOTUS

Unless you don't trust the citizens to think for themselves.
Like our President.

chs71 wrote: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." Justice kennedy, SCOTUS

Unless you don't trust the citizens to think for themselves.
Like our President.

Since when does the freedom of speech claim encompass foreign entities buying American lawmakers?

Quite a stretch there...under the blanket of the first ammendment. What a crock. The entire political process has a price tag on it today. Is that what the Constituruion wanted?

Kudos to Obama for calling out the SC for the traitorous slimeballs that they are.

Incredible. But don't worry. The bin Ladin tycoons will close their ads by stating..."we approve this message".

New huddle, yet I haven't read the rules

-LJ

Ghmothwdwhso wrote:

Foot,

Please add me to you list as well. In addition, here is some interesting reading I recieved in an e-mail recently. Don't know the originator, but found it interesting.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"
Although found nowhere in the national archives or known writings of Benjamin Franklin, it is widely accepted that he once said “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

According to the most recent data from the Congressional Budget Office, the bottom 50% of all income earners pay just 3.4% of the taxes collected! Conversely, the top 20% of income earners pay a whopping 85% of the taxes collected. In other words, 80% of income earners contribute a miserable 15% of the taxes collected! When you consider that this lower income bracket is totally dominated by politicians that overwhelmingly favor wealth redistribution, Americans are now able to “vote themselves money.” One is left to wonder if we have already begun to “herald the end of the republic.”

Let’s not forget plank number two in Karl Marx’s ten planks toward communism in his Communist Manifesto, which is “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Years ago, I came across a great analogy to our system of taxes. The story has been printed and e-mailed many times in different formats, but the basic concept remains unchanged. Although the origins of the story are unknown, everyone agrees that the good ole federal government clearly provided the inspiration.

Here it is:

Every evening, the same 10 friends eat dinner together, family style, at the same restaurant. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They always pay it the way we pay taxes:
• The first four are poor and pay nothing.
• The fifth pays $1.
• The sixth pays $3.
• The seventh, $7
• The eighth, $12.
• The ninth, $18.
• The 10th, (the most well-to-do) pays $59.

One night the restaurant owner announces that because they're such good customers, he's dropping their group dinner bill to $80. Let's call that a tax cut. They want to continue paying their bill as we pay taxes. So the four poorest men still eat free. But if the other six split the $20 tax cut evenly, each would save $3.33. That means the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat. The restaurant owner works out a plan: The fifth man eats free; the sixth pays $2; the seventh, $5; the eighth, $9; the ninth, $12; and the 10th guy pays $52. All six are better off than before, and the four poor guys still eat for nothing. The trouble starts when they leave the restaurant and begin to compare what they reaped from the $20 cut. "I only got a dollar of it," says the sixth man, "but he (pointing at No. 10) got $7." The fifth guy, who also saved a dollar by getting his meal free, agrees that it's not fair for the richest to get seven times the savings as he. No. 7, grousing that the wealthy get all the breaks, points out that he only got two bucks. "Wait a minute," the first four poor guys yell in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men jump the 10th and administer a severe beating. The next night he doesn't come for dinner. They shrug it off and eat without him. The customary $80 bill comes. Surprise! They're $52 short.

Yes, those who pay the most taxes get the most back from tax reductions. But tax them too much — punish them for the wealth they may have — and they just might stop bringing their money to the table.

I guess this is why American businesses have about $10 trillion in offshore deposits. You can’t blame them. After all, they got tired of getting beat up to forfeit their “fair share.”

I've seen that before, and when people don't get it, or see it as simple as that, then they are blindly drinking the progressive/liberal kool aid.

I am definitely not in the "90%+" or the 9 or 10 in your argument, but I am around the 75%+ or guy number 7 or 8. So, I am not taxed THAT bad, but I do actually PAY taxes instead of paying zero like guys 1-4 (the lower ALMOST 50% in the US).

I'm afraid of the "number 10 leaving" case, the only way to pay for the US government at that point is to raise taxes on those of us in the middle class (50-75%).

There's a changing landscape going on right now in the business world. CEOs and exec's are tired of all the regulation and taxation they've been getting over the last century (thanks Progressive's) and unlike in the early age's of America, have other places they can go and not face such high taxation and regulation. Andrew Carnegie said it best when he said that we shouldn't interfere with business as much, for it is in the interests of the wealthy to provide for the poor (but not through welfare, but through jobs). Like in the case above, if number 9 and 10 leave, it's a big problem for the US. Businesses will not call for more regulation on themselves, but will most likely call for more laissez faire practices, which is only a positive in getting America back to where we belong.

Edit: I didn't say it in my post, but I agree with the ruling. Let businesses get out in the public and explain why government regulations only hurt America. A candidate that supports free markets is a-ok with me.

bigmanbt wrote: There's a changing landscape going on right now in the business world. CEOs and exec's are tired of all the regulation and taxation they've been getting over the last century (thanks Progressive's) and unlike in the early age's of America, have other places they can go and not face such high taxation and regulation. Andrew Carnegie said it best when he said that we shouldn't interfere with business as much, for it is in the interests of the wealthy to provide for the poor (but not through welfare, but through jobs). Like in the case above, if number 9 and 10 leave, it's a big problem for the US. Businesses will not call for more regulation on themselves, but will most likely call for more laissez faire practices, which is only a positive in getting America back to where we belong.

Read the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. You will find that his capitalist model has been bastardized by the unfettered markets.

Big business has left America to improve the bottom lines that much is definitely true. Now, the hastening of offshoring and outsourcing will be at the forefront. As a result, the typical American citizen will flounder.

Again, those that place this as a constitutional argument, fail to recognize that the constitution was pro American...and not pro other countries.

Edit: I didn't say it in my post, but I agree with the ruling. Let businesses get out in the public and explain why government regulations only hurt America. A candidate that supports free markets is a-ok with me.

The repeal of Glass Steagle was the biggest culprit in our latest economic debacle.

American government is run by the international corporate oligarchs. Big business does not want laissez-faire economics. That is not in their best interests.

Collusion, oligopolies and even monopolies are their collective goals and their end game plan.

Now, more than ever, they will pull the political puppet strings....

And now, the Supreme Court has escalated their power in averting anything resembling free market economics.

No more...is the country run "of, for or by the people". Good bye America...as we once proudly knew her.