As if corporations didn't have enough power

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
bigbadberry3
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: USA

Post

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/201...itics

I have to completely agree with the dissent here. "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."


User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 26254
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

I heard this on the radio today. I wonder what the people in the car next to me thought as I had a mini flip out.

Turn on Rush, he loves it. Listed to Norman Goldman, he hates it. I see bad things as well. Companies are people now eh? How ya figure sports fan?

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

I'm not quite sure of the angle on this yet and why the SC actually did it.

"We've made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election," Obama says, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying "we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations." --- Barack Obama 2007

The past election showed that the Dems and their special interest groups could pull in millions upon millions more than the GOP's special interest groups. Who, indeed, are "the masters at gaming this broken system"?

User avatar
RobPaulson
Posts: 6577
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:04 am
Car: 2013 Subaru WRX

Post

i'm a bit confused on this one, i thought companies could already donate to campaigns etc

i feel like this is already going on, and they just made it 'more' legal? the system is already eff'd, they jst made it more legally acceptable and easier to corrupt further?

User avatar
bigbadberry3
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: USA

Post

RobPaulson wrote:i'm a bit confused on this one, i thought companies could already donate to campaigns etc

i feel like this is already going on, and they just made it 'more' legal? the system is already eff'd, they jst made it more legally acceptable and easier to corrupt further?
Yes, it has been legal for individuals, PACs, and corporations to donate money to political campaigns. From what I remember, McCain/Feingold (sp?) limited the amount of the donation to individuals 1000 dollars per candidate and bigger corporations 5000$ per candidate. I don't remember the money that can be donated to a party but I know there was a cap that wasn't more than 40k per year. Now, corporations can donate as much as they would like, the cap has been removed. Is that a better clarification?

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 15983
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

Whats weird for me is how people are JUST now understanding how much influence the corps have on the Gov. I've been upset since I learned how the lobbyists get involved and basically buy votes...legally. This is just an extension of what has become a total goat*uck...

When the Supreme Court does some stupid s*** like this, it's a gentle reminder of why I like to stockpile ammo and study up on how to live off the grid.

New World Order...how you doin?


User avatar
RobPaulson
Posts: 6577
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:04 am
Car: 2013 Subaru WRX

Post

bigbadberry3 wrote:Is that a better clarification?
very, thanks though for breakin it down!

and ya... thats wicked phukd up

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

Here's another viewpoint from Faux-news on why it should have been stricken down in it's current form:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...ngold/


User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 15983
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

Excellent article. Sheds some different on different aspects of the law. If the law didn't have such broad strokes that left things to interpretation it very well might have stayed. Honestly, I don't care anymore. Anything that comes from either party that holds office is just corrupt crap these days. Doesn't matter if they are total hippie liberals or fierce right wing nut bags...we simply aren't "for the people" anymore.

I do agree that no one should be able to tell me what I can or can't watch or read. To bad if it's damaging to a certain party or person. Reality sucks, truth hurts etc blah...get on with it.

Obama is a waste of friggin skin with his, "oh we're gonna get together with a bipartisan blah blah...yeah sure you are poopyhead. Just like this last year...what a piece of crap you and your entire administration has turned out to be.


User avatar
bigbadberry3
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: USA

Post

I just came across this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/...l?g=0

Made me laugh but wonder what if . . .


Return to “Politics Etc.”