Posted on 01/24/2010 9:59:44 AM PST by Cheap_Hessian
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. John McCain says the movement he led to reform how political campaigns are financed is dead.
McCain says the Supreme Court has spoken on the constitutionality of political contributions by corporations. The Arizona Republican had sought to regulate them with a landmark campaign finance law he wrote with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Guess you missed the SCOTUS decision this week - or else you are expecting it to be over-turned in the future?
Ding dong, the bill is dead!
The stupid bill. It just got killed.
‘cause SCOTUS went and smacked it on the head!
It’s gone where Jim Crow laws are now
Below below below
And now at last, the pernicious bill is dead!
Also, the bigger the contribution, the more extensive the disclosure. A million dollars is legal, but you have to also state your employer, any corporations in which you own more than 5% equity or debt, or sit on the board of directors or are an officer, and any ties to foreign governments or non-profit organizations. A billion dollars is legal, but you have to make your tax returns public as well. A trillion dollars is legal, but...
Yeah, he picked Sara Palin and made her a national figure. He also stayed imprisoned in North Vietnam when he was offered an early out on account of his daddy.
Oh, so the word got back to you, huh, John?
Yeah, that USSC finally does have a say in it after all these years. Told you if was unconstitutional as soon as you guys came up with the damn thing.
John, please switch parties.
Juan is still looking for hands to shake across the aisle...his ‘friends’. Why don’t you try sticking your hand in a bag of snakes, Juan? You’ll end up with the same result.
So the First Amendment’s protection of political speech has been restored.
Cool.
Free speech that involves financial expenditures to get a bigger audience for that free speech is still free speech.
Individuals have the right to contribute to a political action committee, or not. They have the right to own or buy stock in a corporation, or not. Presently they have the right to work for a union represented business, or not. How are the forced to contribute?
McCain accomplished absolutely nothing of any real value to the US while in the Senate. He needs to go and kick back in an Arizona retirement community or some other form of “Heaven’s Waiting Room”. “Reaching across the aisle” is for proctologists not senators.
Thank you to Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Also, thank you to everyone to Citizens United and everyone who assisted it in defending Freedom of Speech.
Some one tell McCain he is a failure.
Ole Johnny is just full of billgerent ideas! Kill political free speech! Cap and trade. Amnesty. Diversity racism. Bankster bailouts. Closing GITMO. He was for nationalized Romneycare (before the tea parties) before he was against it (after the tea parties.)
Gee, he’s such a DNC idea man!
Do we thank him now - or later?
“...but comprehensive immigration reform is still very much alive!”
I actually went to the article to search for that phrase. I would not have been all that shocked if it was there, McCain is that off kilter.
I'm afraid that you're just wrong on this. Read the 1st Amendment again. It doesn't say anything about a difference between individual rights and group rights.
The plain language of the 1st Amendment says what it says. You're interpreting it to mean what you want it to mean, and dubbing in something that it does not state.
If the members of a corporation want to put money toward promoting a candidate for office, or contribute to that candidate's campaign, then under our Constitution, they have every right to do so.
My wife and I, and one other partner happen to be a corporation of just three people. Are you saying that people like us should not have the right to speak out in support of a candidate, or spend our money to support them because we're legally incorporated?
That would be absurd. Where do you draw the line in your reasoning?
And you know this, even though you only signed up on July 26th 2009?
Sorry, I forgot the “sarcasm” tag.
But you’re right...McCain really IS that far off kilter!
" I guess you ought to read it. The Court said that a corporation can run an ad, but they still can not give money to politicians. The unions can still give money to pols and still run ads. Considering that corporations are adverse to pissing off a large segment of their customers, how many ads do you think they will run. Or taken the other way, if you are a corporation looking for a government contract, what do you think the politicians will lean on you for?
I think either can say any damn thing they want, but neither should be allowed to give money (by definition, other people's money) to politicians.
All the money Unions or Corporations would spend is in the end some other person's money. Ergo, money should only be allowed from individual citizens, not corporations, unions, organizations or any other incorporated group.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.