McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law Shut Down

[ZarakiKujata]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us.../22scotus.html

And thus Goldman Sach's iron grip on government has grown tighter.

[Xno Kappa]

Shit is going to be awesome. Real life Shinra Electric Power Company, Yes Please!

[Correction]

It doesn't seem to have completely shut down all of McCain-Feingold, only the part that prohibits all but 'issue ads' funded by corporate entities. The bans on soft money and limits on direct contributions are intact.

[Leif]

The world just got a little bit better.

[Skjie]

Persident Obama, brought to you by McDonalds, I'm lovin it!

(PS: Glass America)

[ravbane]

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

[Olo401]

This country is finished unless something is done to end corporate personhood and the wholesale purchase of our government by corporations and scummy propaganda groups created by them such as Citizens United.

http://www.savedemocracy.net/

[Skjie]

As much as I hate bringing up Canada all the time (I don't!) here the law is $5000 maximum personal donation and companies cannot donate. A few years ago a bunch of people got in shit when it was found out that the elementary level children of some businessmen had also donated $5000 to the same political party as their parents.

[Acturus]

This country is finished unless something is done to end corporate personhood and the wholesale purchase of our government by corporations and scummy propaganda groups created by them such as Citizens United.

http://www.savedemocracy.net/

Is there a way to support this that doesn't involve Alan Grayson?

[Olo401]

Is there a way to support this that doesn't involve Alan Grayson?

Yeah, there is it's called PULL UP YOUR FUCKING PANTIES AND JUST FUCKING SUPPORT IT WHO CARES IF ALAN GRAYSON IS BEHIND IT OR NOT!

[Olo401]

Corporations controlling government is just the next logical step of fascism.

Fixed for reality.

[Acturus]

Yeah, there is it's called PULL UP YOUR FUCKING PANTIES AND JUST FUCKING SUPPORT IT WHO CARES IF ALAN GRAYSON IS BEHIND IT OR NOT!

Hey, I'm about supporting causes. I'm just not a fan of being used by some political circus monkey in order to do so.

[Olo401]

Hey, I'm about supporting causes. I'm just not a fan of being used by some political circus monkey in order to do so.

Well guess what? That political circus monkey is the one with a vote in Congress and we're not. Buck up, junior.

Edit: We should also be lucky that there's a congressman left with the balls to stand up and try to do something. I mean, where's the fuck is Kucinich?!

[archibaldcrane]

I'm torn.

If the American people cannot tell or don't care which candidates are bought and paid for by certain special interests, then the American people deserve their Haliburton overlords.

But basically what this comes down to is that the only candidate money can't buy is Russ Feingold, so he'd better get his shit together for a 2016 run.

[Leif]

I don't really understand what anyone is saying in this thread, so I'll pose a legitimate question to supporters of this act?


What is the distinction between a corporation and an individual? How is a corporation more than the equivalent of a group of friends who donate together?


Essentially, how is McDonalds different from Bob and Steve's 10-member book club? If they both agree internally to give money as a block, what's the difference?

[Correction]

It doesn't seem to have completely shut down all of McCain-Feingold, only the part that prohibits all but 'issue ads' funded by corporate entities. The bans on soft money and limits on direct contributions are intact.

I knew when I wrote this that people wouldn't understand it and start losing their heads over campaign contributions, an issue not touched by the decision.

[Leif]

I knew when I wrote this that people wouldn't understand it and start losing their heads over campaign contributions, an issue not touched by the decision.

It is unfortunate that this has yet to be touched by the court, but those limitations on free speech are also blatantly unconstitutional.

[Correction]

It is unfortunate that this has yet to be touched by the court, but those limitations on free speech are also blatantly unconstitutional.

And the line between bribery and campaign contributions would then be...?

But yeah keep pretending to be a constitutional scholar, I'm sure sooner or later that ol' Supreme Court will see the light and do things how you see them.

[Solefald]

I knew when I wrote this that people wouldn't understand it and start losing their heads over campaign contributions, an issue not touched by the decision.

i think you are underestimating the magnitude of this ruling

american democracy is done for

[Leif]

And the line between bribery and campaign contributions would then be...?

The line between bribery and campaign contributions would be.... *big shocker coming*... where the line has always been.

Bribery, a form of pecuniary corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient

Campaign finance refers to the fundraising and spending that political campaigns do in their election races. As campaigns have many expenditures, ranging from the cost of travel for the candidate and others to the purchasing of air time for TV advertisements, candidates often devote substantial time and effort raising money to finance campaigns.

How, exactly, do you feel the two overlap?

But yeah keep pretending to be a constitutional scholar, I'm sure sooner or later that ol' Supreme Court will see the light and do things how you see them.

Except, to the best of my knowledge, they didn't have the opportunity to obliterate the entire act because the entire act was not being challenged.

i think you are underestimating the magnitude of this ruling

american democracy is done for

Are you being sarcastic?