Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Michael van der Galien

the most notable event was SC Justice Alito mouthing ‘not true’ in response to Zero’s accusation that their recent ruling regarding campaign finance reform would allow ‘foreign corporations’ to run political ads

is there anyone left Zero hasn’t attacked directly?


2 posted on 01/28/2010 4:55:43 AM PST by blueplum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: blueplum

Wow! Does anyone have a video of that?

I would love to see that.


3 posted on 01/28/2010 4:58:17 AM PST by proud American in Canada (my former tagline "We can, and we will prevail" doesn't fit with the usurper's goals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: blueplum

Let alone that obama was wrong again!

the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

The president’s statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... .”

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.

And this——
The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election.


4 posted on 01/28/2010 4:59:14 AM PST by Freddd (CNN is not credible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson