Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS Rolls With Plutocracy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SCOTUS Rolls With Plutocracy

    A split Supreme Court Wednesday struck down limits on the total amount of money an individual may spend on political candidates as a violation of free speech rights, a decision sure to increase the role of money in political campaigns.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1

  • #2
    It's the right decision. You liberals may only like the first amendment when it suits your beliefs but unfortunatley you have to take the good with the bad.

    You can't cherry protect what speach is protected.

    Marketplace of ideas.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
      It's the right decision. You liberals may only like the first amendment when it suits your beliefs but unfortunatley you have to take the good with the bad.

      You can't cherry protect what speach is protected.

      Marketplace of ideas.
      I noticed that, not only did the GOP fund and back McCutcheon on this case, but they are now applauding the result across the board. Why is that? Most people who believe in free elections and democracy see this for what it is, just another step on the descent to full-out corporate oligarchy.

      Comment


      • #4
        I guess the Brookings Institution doesn't love it either:

        Today's Supreme Court decision to overturn longstanding aggregate limits on individual contributions to federal candidates and political committees should not come as a surprise to those who have followed the path of campaign finance jurisprudence under the Roberts Court. That Court has moved steadily, in a series of cases following the replacement of Justice O'Connor with Justice Alito, to disassemble a regulatory system constructed over many decades and upheld as constitutional by prior Courts.

        What remained was two worlds of campaign finance - one in which the source and size of contributions to candidates, parties, and traditional political committees are limited and disclosure virtually universal, the other a largely unregulated state of nature where almost anything goes, much of which escapes disclosure.

        This latest decision knocks out one of the pillars supporting the first world of hard money. It issues an open invitation to the wealthiest and most willing donors to circumvent limits on contributions to candidates and political committees. In his dissent, Justice Breyer kindly provides a detailed map showing how politicians can persuade and accommodate generous donors to increase their contributions to individual parties and candidates from amounts denominated in thousands to millions. Justice Roberts writes that such efforts to circumvent the limits are purely hypothetical and remote. Political consultants and election law specialists know better.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas...b_5078683.html

        Comment


        • #5
          Don't worry Democrats are rich also. It's not the welfare roll this law is for. At least the money has to be spent in the country. Think of the boost to the economy. Has anyone ever studied what elections bring to the economy?

          The problem could be solved IMO by saying all meeting with lobbyist have to be recorded. They are public servents and IMO the court wouldn't give them a right to privacy there.

          You would have to get the politicians to vote for it which they won't probably.

          Whatever I guess if dems are really in power to stay they will win white house, hilliary will turn the court 5-4 for the dems and then all this could change?

          Comment


          • #6
            Democrats get more money from the wealthy anyway, but I know, that doesn't count.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by barryr View Post
              Democrats get more money from the wealthy anyway, but I know, that doesn't count.
              The Republicans must not agree with you. They're the ones who pushed this case through. I doubt they would do that if they thought it would benefit the other party. First redistricting and now unlimited donations. Looks like they're getting it locked down.

              Comment


              • #8
                That flushing sound you hear is the republic of the United States going down the tubes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
                  That flushing sound you hear is the republic of the United States going down the tubes.
                  That flush happened quite a while back. Been circling the bowl for what seems like an impossible stretch of time.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by baja View Post
                    That flush happened quite a while back. Been circling the bowl for what seems like an impossible stretch of time.
                    ...and we still have these ****tards yammering about liberal conservative. ..blahblahblah.

                    Bunch of dumb asses.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by baja View Post
                      That flush happened quite a while back. Been circling the bowl for what seems like an impossible stretch of time.
                      I think this McCutcheon v. ruling is the final flush. Chris Hedges is calling for open rebellion. Unfortunately, half the country has gone fascist.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Here's the real bs about this ruling: The "originalists" on the court, like Scalia, Alito and Thomas, try to sell the idea to the American people that they are representing the original intent of the framers when it comes to Constitutional law. This is an out and out lie:

                        When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

                        Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

                        Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
                        Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
                        Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
                        Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
                        Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
                        Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

                        For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
                        States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

                        In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

                        In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court’s attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.”

                        But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.

                        http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporat...rporations-us/

                        They are the servants of the internationalist corporatist machine.
                        Last edited by Rohirrim; 04-04-2014, 06:26 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Bernie Sanders:
                          <iframe width="400" height="225" src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2014/4/3/sen_bernie_sanders_supreme_court_undermines" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true"></iframe>

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
                            I think this McCutcheon v. ruling is the final flush. Chris Hedges is calling for open rebellion. Unfortunately, half the country has gone fascist.
                            What I see is the masses have been so dumbed down that they just do not care. The movie idiocracy has become the reality;

                            <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/clYwX8Z43zg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                            Look at the outright murder by the Albuquerque police of a homeless man. His crime, sleeping in the park.

                            WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE


                            At the end of the day the citizenry will get the most oppressive government that they are willing to accept.

                            I am encouraged to see people waking up in large numbers these days. Only an awakened active populous can throw off the tyranny imposed all these decades by the power elite.

                            They did not anticipate the results of human networking made possible by the Internet. God help us if they take that away......

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Baja - Despotism is where we are at. It's sad and frustrating. We have all these clowns here arguing which side of the con screws them less. It's this weird stockholm syndrome that i haven't figured out. Dumbed down, brainwashing, combination of all of the above. I don't know.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X