TCUnation
social network for conservatives
Major U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down large portions of the abomination known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, especially those aspects of the law that imposed restrictions on corporate spending on political issues.
Naturally, President Obama immediately issued a statement opposing the decision. As the Washington Post reports::
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. … We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.
So there it is: the President and members of the Mandarin Class are preparing a “forceful response” to the First Amendment.
Had enough yet?
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. … We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.
So there it is: the President and members of the Mandarin Class are preparing a “forceful response” to the First Amendment.
Had enough yet?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Roger R. on -
Gone are limits on what a business can spend on behalf of or against a candidate. Gone are any restrictions that prevented massive conglomerates from buying and entire Congress and the Presidency.
Gone is democracy. Dead. Buried. Forgotten.
How many of you are going to be happy now that the ACLU and Acorn can spend whatever amount they want to ensure a Liberal Candidate gets elected?
How many of you are going to be happy now that Unions can spend whatever amount they want to ensure that a Liberal Candidate gets elected?
How many of your are going to be happy now that George Soros can set up a fictitious affiliate and spend as much money as he wants to get a Liberal Candidate elected?
Suppose this ruling came in November 2009. Scott Brown would not be the Senator from Massachusetts - Coakley would be.
Conservatives are happy about this decision? Amazing, simply amazing.
.
-
Permalink Reply by David on -
How many of you are going to be happy now that Unions can spend whatever amount they want to ensure that a Liberal Candidate gets elected?
The biggest lobbying group right now is the NEA. It has more political operatives than the DNC and RNC combined. Its a nonprofit too. Pays no taxes on over $300 million a year in income. No property taxes on its $80 million DC headquarters. It just about owns the Democratic party. The SEIU is almost as powerful. Obama meets with Andy Stern more than he does with Immelt and Blankfein, his corporate buddies.
This ruling is a blow for free speech, for restoring liberty. Soros and his minions are the ones who spent $15 million pushing McCain Feingold.They carved out a 527 exemption in that bill which they used to give hundreds of millions to liberal causes while, at the same time, censoring the speech of others.
In addition, this ruling overturns the 30 and 60 day before an election ban on groups placing political ads. That was flatly unconstiutional and UnAmerican. How any conservative cannot cheer this decision is beyond me.
Do you think Roger that members of this forum should, if we ban together and take out a political ad, have been fined or put in prison for doing it?
-
Permalink Reply by Roger R. on
-
Let us not forget the far-reaching effect this will have on other aspects of "free speech." I guarantee this ruling will have an effect on the FCC.
Be prepared to have more colorful Hollywood language in TV shows and on public airwaves. It's free speech after all.
You want unlimited free speech, you got!
You can’t have it both ways. Enjoy what you just received from a RINO activist SCOTUS.
.
-
Permalink Reply by David on
-
Enjoy what you just received from a RINO activist SCOTUS.
Not a RINO decision by any means. This restores freedoms Americans enjoyed from the founding until quite recently when liberals in congress slapped restrictions on political speech.
-
Permalink Reply by Roger R. on
-
Absolutely it is!! The SCOTUS just handed our elections to the highest bidder. Our elections and elected Officials may now go to the highest Corporate bidder - legally - thanks to yesterday's decision.
Acorn and the ACLU, and other Liberal causes, can spend, spend, spend to elect who they want in Office. We ordinary citizens can't compete with that!
Additionally, this decision is far-reaching. It'll effect the FCC too.
"Wardrobe Malfunctions" all over TV during family viewing prime time. It's all "free speech."
.
-
Permalink Reply by Roger R. on
-
Manchurian class of politicians? The RINO SCOTUS just ensured that Corporations can and will put whatever Manchurian politician they want into Office.
The American people can't compete with unlimited amount of money to prop up a Candidate. With the dearth of TV commercials Corporate America will create to cause the lemmings to vote for who Corporate America wants to place in Office?
This is a dark day in American history - and you thought January 20, 2009 was a dark day. Yesterday's RINO SCOTUS decision makes Obama's Inauguration as POTUS look like a fun summer day at the County Fair.
.
-
Permalink Reply by David on
-
This is a dark day in American history - and you thought January 20, 2009 was a dark day. Yesterday's RINO SCOTUS decision makes Obama's Inauguration as POTUS look like a fun summer day at the County Fair.
George Soros thinks that. The Center for American Progress thinks that. The New York Times said the same thing in an editorial today. The Democratic Party believes that. Why? Because liberals had passed these laws limiting political speech and crafted them in such a way their side was mostly exempt.
-
Permalink Reply by Roger R. on
-
Ban together and pay for political ads? I'm barely hanging on in this wrecked economy. We ordinary citizens shouldn't have to compete with Corporate interests to elect who represents us. That's just wrong!
The Constitution says: We the People...
not
We the Corporations...
.
-
Permalink Reply by David on
-
Protecting our right to political speech is never wrong.
Corporations are neither good nor bad. They are forms. Inside the forms are individuals who have banned together for various reasons. Those individuals do not give up their freedoms merely because they have choosen to incorporate.
Every liberal site on the internet, Liberals from MoveOn to Kos to the New York Times are whining about this restoration the freedom stolen from us by Democrats in congress.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Robinson on -
Why shouldn't corporations be able to voice their support for their chosen candidates without unconstitutional restrictions on how much money they can donate to any campaign. Everyone already knows that it is too easy to skirt and circumvent these ridiculous restrictions, so it's time we get rid of them and stop muffling the freedoms that the Democrats stole from us not very many years ago. Isn't it simply amazing how Liberals whine and moan about restoring freedoms that were unconstitutionally stolen from the People by Big Government! Maybe it's because our Liberal Socialist Progressives sense that the tide has now turned against them. Gotta' love it!
-
Permalink Reply by jim harris on
-
Well put! after all how much do they do for the economy? How many familly's do they feed with jobs? How many people are living that a corporation made the drug they need? People
run them and all people have a right to say what they think!!!
The corporations are not the bad thing Obummer and the Progressives would like people to think!
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
