How are we feeling about this latest court ruling?

[mutt]

So let me understand, You do not have a problem with a ‘legal entity’ but just against those who would ‘bribe’ . That works just fine while you are the one judging the difference between the two.

I'm not deciding the difference between anything. If a 'legal entity' or an individual tries to influence a govt official with money or gifts, it's a bribe. It doesn't matter that we've institutionalized it and called it lobbying, it's still a bribe. If you see no problems with groups or individuals 'donating' millions of dollars to politicians in order to influence govt, then we really have nothing to discuss. We'll just agree to disagree.

How many cheap goods did you buy? Why, you know better, you should have paid a local union shop for that loaf of bread or that tv.

Nice attempt at trying to simplify a very complicated issue. Maybe I'll cede the high ground to you if you can honestly claim you have zero foreign goods in your household. I try to buy American goods when I can, and when it makes financial sense. That's probably why I like AR's so much. At least those are still made here.

Did you buy your energy from the local options or did you pay market rate and get what was available?

I don't see how that even has any bearing here but I'll answer anyways. I live in the metro area. I get my energy from xcel just like the vast majority. It's not like I really have a choice. As far as I know that electricity is produced domestically.

You use solar panels made in the USA? You distill your own ethanol? Only burn wood from American trees to heat your home? Good for you.

Not happy the job got offshored, did you call all the reps 10 years ago and complain about the HB1 numbers?

And I'm sure you did. How'd that work out for ya? I can guess not so good considering how many bribes, sorry I mean contributions, Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco, etc gave to your representatives and senators. Last I looked around my office there were plenty of Hindus doing jobs my unemployed friends were far more qualified to do. But hey, at least those 'legal entities' had their voices heard. My unemployed friends' voices and votes, not so much.

We are all created equal, then we must find our own ways. Look how far we have come from the original issue.

We try to justify reduction of rights of a small group who we think is not us.

If it is not us now it will be soon.

Again, last time I looked non-human 'legal entities' weren't citizens. They don't have any rights to get reduced.

I think some people support this because it means their favorite group, corp, social club, etc can now bribe govt in new and exciting ways (or in old ways that we're outlawed for a while). Hurray! And what's the harm so long as the bribes come from 'the good people'? Right?

Be careful, you may find 'good' getting re-defined when the other side can out bribe you.

[roman gnome]

I may be wrong but it was my understanding that Corps could buy ads for or against an issue or candidate,not straight to their funds.if that's the case I would like to know who's paying for what.

To me it just evens the playing field a little.

That and I don't choose who or what to vote on by TV or radio ads,cause they all lie!

Let Soros spend all his money with his name on it, not hiding behind some phony PAC's.

[RMGOdirector]

RMGO has the only Colorado pro-gun PAC.

I would think most on this list would be happy to have a PAC like this involved in Colorado politics (you should, as we've played a role in electing all of the best pro-gun leaders in Colorado).

And, with an organization's PAC, it dramatically favors groups with large numbers (like gun owners).

The problem is that some "pro-gun" PACs give money to our enemies (NRA's PVF does it regularly).

Those gun owners who suggest broad limitations on campaign donations need to re-think their stance....

[sniper7]

Well all I can say is that is Stevens doesn't like it, I will more than likely be opposite of that view.
If people want to blow all their money supporting an issue or a candidate, they are going to do it. Soros has been mentions by others. they is no mistaking that he gives more than the legal limit is other ways.
I can see this issue as both helpful and hurtful, but I don't see that a limit need be placed.
Stevens said he doesn't want the integrity of elected institutions to be undermined but they already are, even with the limits that were set in place.

[mutt]

Those gun owners who suggest broad limitations on campaign donations need to re-think their stance....

Just because organizations and causes I support may benefit from this situation, it still doesn't make it right. Mixing vast sums of money and politics is just asking for eventual disaster. I understand the pro-gun lobby has no choice but to play this game since the anti-gun lobby will use the system to their advantage. But everyone involved should be asking if this game of legalized corruption should even be played at all? I realize I'm advocating some Utopian view of how a perfect system should work, but I will stand by the belief that this is simply wrong.

I think we can agree that most Americans citizens, real flesh and blood voters, were against the TARP and government bailout of the banking sector and Wall Street. Many people asked why our Government continued down this path when so many were vehemently opposed to it.

In 2008 alone the Finance industry spent $476 million dollars lobbying our government. Of that almost $58 million was in the form of direct contributions to Congress. While they slightly favor Republicans, they were more than happy to buy Democrats as well. They hedge their bets so to speak. The top contributors reads like a who's who of TARP recipients. Since 1990 the industry has pumped $2.3 billion dollars into the political system. Do you still wonder why Govt bailed them out against our wishes?

The sickening thing is the Finance industry is just one lobby amongst countless others.

I don't need to re-think my stance.

[esaabye]

Mutt, your points are well made and I understand where you are coming from.. I also do not like the special interests impact on policy.

So here is the problem, how can I trust congress to muzzle special interest groups in a fair and even method? To answer my own question, I can’t. I have no reason to believe that these representatives could or would enact a law that would prevent excessive influence while not infringing on my rights to lobby my representatives and to do so with any association I would like including Corporations or Non Profits.

I also do not see the constitutional basis for it and thus cannot support it. I would like to see us amend the constitution if we need to, but not pass laws that skirt it in the hope that the populist support will carry it thru.


I think that mutt and I must agree to disagree.

[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.

[tackspitter]

Nevermind...

I just saw Chuck Schumer badmouthing the ruling. That's all I need to know to understand this must be a good thing.

And I am in favor of 1st Amend freedoms.

+1 Anything Chuck U hates I AM ALL FOR .