How are we feeling about this latest court ruling?

[esaabye]

I have to say that I am torn on this. From the legal / constitutional side I support it.

Why is one organization more equal than others? If labor unions, non-profits, community organizations and others can pick sides and spend money why not corporations? The corperation I work for is much more likely to further my goals then say SAIU or the local Pipe Fitters union.

I have nothing against the rights of those groups but little in common with the goals. I do not want to take their rights away but I do not want to join a union or political organization to exercise mine.

I would rather see none of these groups involved but I think that it would require a constitutional amendment to get to that place. I am growing very tired of laws being passed that try to get around that unfortunate document. As a friend of mine has said, “Oh don’t start talking about that old thing, it doesn’t matter anymore.”

We forget that we can change the rules if we want to, but we have to work for it. The legislator’s and judges cannot do it for us not should they try!

[mutt]

Why is one organization more equal than others? If labor unions, non-profits, community organizations and others can pick sides and spend money why not corporations? The corperation I work for is much more likely to further my goals then say SAIU or the local Pipe Fitters union.

In my opinion, none of these organizations should be allowed to bribe our government. If people with like views want to organize and pick a single spokesman to be their voice, so be it. That spokesman should wait their turn in line to speak with whomever in government just like any other private citizen. But they should not be allowed to bribe, and that's all lobbying is, govt to get preferred treatment for their views.

Half of the problem with our govt is lack of term limits for Congress and the Judiciary. Letting these people sit in such positions of authority for basically their entire lives breeds a political elite that are corrupted by power. Our fore fathers warned of this danger in various writings. Term limits must be imposed.

The other half of the problem is the billions of dollars that flows to these political elites via lobbyists. No sane individual can honestly believe that letting such vast sums of money flow through the political system doesn't absolutely corrupt it. Why 'We The People' tolerate this obvious corruption by rationalizing 'that is just how things get done' is beyond me. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

In my opinion a law should be passed that no organization/corporation may contribute money to a politician, period. Contributions from individual citizens may only amount to $100 a year per politician. And that money must be strongly accounted for. If such a law were introduced you'd have the instant effect of

1) The rich and powerful really no longer have more buying power than the common citizen. Voters begin to matter after election day.

2) Politicians, still needing vast sums of money to run campaigns, would be forced to actually engage and listen to the people rather than just giving us lip service. When you need vast numbers of people to contribute to your campaign, you suddenly begin to take an interest in each and every one of them.

3) Politicians no longer become beholden to a few rich individuals/organizations. They aren't forced to pay back bribes via favorable legislation or treatment. At most if they piss off a voter, they lose 1 vote and $100 dollars. Maybe then principles and beliefs would guide their actions rather than perverting their power to ensure the bribes keep coming from a few powerful sources.

But considering Congress would have to pass such a law, don't hold your breath. We have the fox watching the chicken coup.

[GreenScoutII]

In my opinion, none of these organizations should be allowed to bribe our government. If people with like views want to organize and pick a single spokesman to be their voice, so be it. That spokesman should wait their turn in line to speak with whomever in government just like any other private citizen. But they should not be allowed to bribe, and that's all lobbying is, govt to get preferred treatment for their views.

Half of the problem with our govt is lack of term limits for Congress and the Judiciary. Letting these people sit in such positions of authority for basically their entire lives breeds a political elite that are corrupted by power. Our fore fathers warned of this danger in various writings. Term limits must be imposed.

The other half of the problem is the billions of dollars that flows to these political elites via lobbyists. No sane individual can honestly believe that letting such vast sums of money flow through the political system doesn't absolutely corrupt it. Why 'We The People' tolerate this obvious corruption by rationalizing 'that is just how things get done' is beyond me. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

In my opinion a law should be passed that no organization/corporation may contribute money to a politician, period. Contributions from individual citizens may only amount to $100 a year per politician. And that money must be strongly accounted for. If such a law were introduced you'd have the instant effect of

1) The rich and powerful really no longer have more buying power than the common citizen. Voters begin to matter after election day.

2) Politicians, still needing vast sums of money to run campaigns, would be forced to actually engage and listen to the people rather than just giving us lip service. When you need vast numbers of people to contribute to your campaign, you suddenly begin to take an interest in each and every one of them.

3) Politicians no longer become beholden to a few rich individuals/organizations. They aren't forced to pay back bribes via favorable legislation or treatment. At most if they piss off a voter, they lose 1 vote and $100 dollars. Maybe then principles and beliefs would guide their actions rather than perverting their power to ensure the bribes keep coming from a few powerful sources.

But considering Congress would have to pass such a law, don't hold your breath. We have the fox watching the chicken coup.

Again, +1.....

[Marlin]

McCain-Feingold never should have happened.. That said, MuzzleFlash said it better than I can.

[MuzzleFlash]

Mutt

You're playing into the socialist gameplan. You forget the media role. Limiting the ability of people of all stripes and political persuasions to organize and make their voices heard just empowers the mainstream media outlets. Organizing means unions, advocacy groups, political parties, corporations, partnerships, etc. It's un-American to limit who can say what and when about a politician. It's the downhill path to tyranny.

You also seem to assume that the people that spend the most and dominate the airwaves will usually win. There you are very mistaken. Read the book "Freakonomics" for a well done study that totally repudiates this myth.

esabye

Very good points. Points that were not made today on the MSM. You've noted that the decision also unleashes all the liberal special interests including unions.

Anyone watching CBS, NBC, ABC or CNN today heard a very biased version from these left wing wackos. They played down or omitted the part about the shackles coming off leftist groups like ACLU, AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, People for the American Way, VPC, Brady, etc., etc. 90-100% of what we heard about was that the chains came off those evil capitalist corporations. You know, the ones that want to rape, pillage, pollute the planet and take your first born children to sell them into slavery to pay for obscene pay raises for the fat cats that run the boardrooms. Sheesh!

The few network news stories that gave passing mention to unshackling non-corporate entities did so by showing a bubba looking dude with a pickup truck holding a bumper sticker saying "Vote Freedom First!". Oh no, the sky is falling! The NRA and other pro-gun groups are allowed to exercise free speech again!!

Including corporate free speech under first amendment protections allows capitalism to have a much needed voice. It counterbalances the socialist drum beat coming from all the leftists in the media and Democratic party. Like the NRA, corporations are organizations created by their members for a shared purpose - in this case, building wealth. Why can't they take on the people trying to prevent this most American of activities?

Now the NRA, GOA and RMGO will be free to call a spade a spade by buying radio or TV spots any time they deem effective - including the Monday night before the election. West slope oil interests can point out to voters this fall how the Democrats in congress and the Colorado legislature decimated their industry and destroyed jobs. Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley in California can point out how they were completely abandoned by Barbara Boxer when the water was shut off to their land over a stupid 3 inch bait fish called the Delta Smelt. These cowardly politicians won't have a three month holiday from criticism from the people they are screwing.

Other than that weasel McCain, do you see any Republicans wringing their hands and crying over this decision? That should tell you volumes about who the winners and losers are.

[mutt]

Mutt

You're playing into the socialist gameplan. You forget the media role. Limiting the ability of people of all stripes and political persuasions to organize and make their voices heard just empowers the mainstream media outlets. Organizing means unions, advocacy groups, political parties, corporations, partnerships, etc. It's un-American to limit who can say what and when about a politician. It's the downhill path to tyranny.

You also seem to assume that the people that spend the most and dominate the airwaves will usually win. There you are very mistaken. Read the book "Freakonomics" for a well done study that totally repudiates this myth.

I love how today's battle cry for some is 'socialism'. You disagree with me, you're a 'socialist'. You don't like Politician A or Party B, you're a 'socialist'.
It's almost like the McCarthy days when the same types used the word 'communist'. I really hope we don't decide to have hearings on whose a 'socialist'...

I am not forgetting the media role and I am not advocating limiting 'The People' from organizing and letting their collective voices be heard. I explicitly said "If people with like views want to organize and pick a single spokesman to be their voice, so be it.".

My view is these organizations should be forbidden from giving money directly to politicians. Money should be from actual citizens and limited per citizen to ensure no one has undue influence other than representing a majority view. Now if people want to pool their resources and run ads saying what they stand for and who they support, awesome! Welcome to America. But those ads should explicitly state who they are and the fact they have nothing to do with said politician/party other than a group endorsement.

And I never said anything about dominating airwaves and overall campaign spending. My issue is the fact the winners are invariably indebted to a few people/organizations if they do win. No one gives someone millions upon millions of dollars without expect something in return. The scariest part of our current system are the groups/individuals who give vast sums of money but never ever run an ad or openly endorse a candidate. What are they getting? What are we losing?

Allowing unlimited funds to flow into our system from rich corporations, special interests and wealthy individuals is the downhill path to tyranny and it's already begun. If being opposed to that makes me a 'socialist', so be it.

[Irving]

I think this is a good debate and I'm going to quote, copy, and paste it on another site. I'll leave the names out though.

[MuzzleFlash]

I love how today's battle cry for some is 'socialism'. You disagree with me, you're a 'socialist'. You don't like Politician A or Party B, you're a 'socialist'.
It's almost like the McCarthy days when the same types used the word 'communist'. I really hope we don't decide to have hearings on whose a 'socialist'...

I am not forgetting the media role and I am not advocating limiting 'The People' from organizing and letting their collective voices be heard. I explicitly said "If people with like views want to organize and pick a single spokesman to be their voice, so be it.".

My view is these organizations should be forbidden from giving money directly to politicians. Money should be from actual citizens and limited per citizen to ensure no one has undue influence other than representing a majority view. Now if people want to pool their resources and run ads saying what they stand for and who they support, awesome! Welcome to America. But those ads should explicitly state who they are and the fact they have nothing to do with said politician/party other than a group endorsement.

And I never said anything about dominating airwaves and overall campaign spending. My issue is the fact the winners are invariably indebted to a few people/organizations if they do win. No one gives someone millions upon millions of dollars without expect something in return. The scariest part of our current system are the groups/individuals who give vast sums of money but never ever run an ad or openly endorse a candidate. What are they getting? What are we losing?

Allowing unlimited funds to flow into our system from rich corporations, special interests and wealthy individuals is the downhill path to tyranny and it's already begun. If being opposed to that makes me a 'socialist', so be it.

A socialist is one who promotes heavy intervention of government in the free market and government forced redistribution of wealth and government ownership of capital. Let's see, TARP, STIM-1, Banking regulation growing by 300%, takeover of GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, mortgage bailouts, etc. Sorta sounds like socialism to me. There is nothing disingenuous about calling Obama and his supporters socialists. They are.

McCain Feingold is all about limits on free speech. It limits what can be said, by whom and when and using what media to do so. Laws that limit direct and indirect contributions to candidates were not invalidated by this week's SCOTUS decision. By 8-1 margin, SCOTUS upheld current transparency laws including those on who is paying for independent advertising. However, McCain Feingold's limits on uncoordinated advocacy advertising that criticizes candidates by name was struck down. Now unions, non-profits and yes, corporations are free to buy air time and make their case to the American people as to why Politician X is bad and Y is good. Note that some corporations have been allowed to do this always - newspapers, radio and television networks, etc.

Having said all this, one would have to put their head in the sand to think a politician is somehow more indebted to IBM for directly donating $25K through their PAC than say, IBM spending $25K for effective commercials telling everyone how the politician stood up for American values, jobs and mom's apple pie and needs to be reelected.

I hope congress gets serious now about instant transparency for hard and soft money as well as uncoordinated advertising expenditures. No more hiding the money trail.