In his New York Times blog, “The Caucus,” Jeff Zeleny takes a look at the Political Fallout From the Supreme Court Ruling and dishes up a bowl of thin gruel for his mostly anguished readers. Remember Mirror, Mirror, the bearded Spock episode in the original Star Trek, the one about an alternative reality where your evil twin Skippy exists in a separate, malevolent universe?

Well, really, that’s what it’s like to scroll through Jeff’s story and especially the readers’ comments. Here’s how he starts:
Even before their Massachusetts victory this week, Republicans already enjoyed a multitude of advantages in this year’s midterm elections. The Supreme Court has likely just delivered one more: money. Today’s ruling upends the nation’s campaign finance laws, allowing corporations and labor unions to spend freely on behalf of political candidates…
Am I remembering it wrong, or didn’t Democrats rake in tons of corporate dough themselves last time around? And, not to belabor the Star Trek metaphor, in what parallel or non-parallel universe have labor unions ever spent freely on behalf of Republicans?
More from Jeff: “Republicans, of course, hailed the ruling as a victory for the First Amendment.”
That’s a real nice touch, Jeff, the way you make hailing a First Amendment victory sound so distasteful! He quotes approving Republicans and dismayed Democrats, and ends with a Doomsday prediction from Russ Feingold:
The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.
But that’s just the beginning of the fun. I used to live in a small town, with its own local weekly, and a friend called its lengthy letters to the editor section “a bulletin board for nuts.” I was once more reminded of that description when I clicked on the “Readers’ Comments” reacting to Zeleny’s blog. Think of this species of Times readers as a herd of would-be Keith Olbermanns, from Keith’s insistence on reasoned discourse to his gift for nuanced thought, and of the “Caucus” comments section as their own private padded cells at MSNBC.
Exhibit A, Janet, Salt Lake City, Utah:
‘This decision is the product of insane minds.
Exhibit B, Antiqueye from San Antonio:
This is just one more step toward the institutionalization of the propaganda state under which we live.
Exhibit C, Jim O’Connor from Roswell, GA:
Just another indication of how far the extreme right in this country will go to prevent another Election ‘08 result from ever happening again. Praise the lord!! The leadership of the country will be resstored to old, po’d white guys again.
Exhibit D, GF, from NY, NY:
So now it really is Slave Owners versus the Slaves. Thanks to all who voted against their own interests in Massachusetts.
Exhibit E, James from Brooklyn:
Time for a revolution. Enough of this.

Exhibit F, KernelPanic from Cape Cod:
What’s next for Roberts et al? Reconfirming the Dred Scott decision?
Exhibit G, democrazy from Boston:
Possible solution: Require any and all corporate donations to be taxed at 100%, the proceeds of which would then be handed to the opponent of the candidate receiving the original donation. Problem solved. You can’t stop them from speaking, but you can tax that speech.
Exhibit H, David from New York:
One of the major problems is that this not only opens the floodgates of simple purchased advocacy but gives even further amplification to the onslaught of vicious lies that form the essence of the right wing message. This is not only the final nail in the coffin of our former democrary but endangers the nature and perception of reality itself. The only hope is that the human spirit has throughout history managed to overcome such vile movements, but always with a high price.
The high court has done more than just squander the esteem in which it was once held. It has now attacked the social compact under which American society has operated… The Right is going beyond attacking the Great Society or the New Deal. They are now attacking the very regulations which kept this country from going Socialist 100 years ago.
Exhibit J, Susan G., from St. Louis, who seems totally unaware of the entire Tea Party phenomenon (not to mention Tuesday’s election!) – not entirely surprising, if she gets her news exclusively from The Paper of Record:
I keep looking for an “I’m mad-as-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it” movement by citizens (the purpose served, in the distant past, by elections), but nothing seems to have a lasting effect.
Then there’s Exhibit K, Bill, from MA, who has an even tinnier ear for irony:
There is no silver lining in this decision, unless it produces the long-overdue pro-democracy movement we need to save our liberty and freedom of corporate control. I’m not optimistic.
In fact, only one Times reader, Indy 08 from Delaware, has a proposal that a rational conservative might endorse (a variant of which I myself proposed over a decade ago — that all congressmen should suit up like race car drivers with their campaign donors patched on their uniforms for clear viewing):
Corporations may as well brand the Congressmen for product placement, Nike will have exclusive rights to the Senate, Exxon for the house. All Senators can only wear Nike suits on the floor and only drink coke, signed and sealed. Our government is up for sale.
Again, all for it — as long as we get to see Reid and Pelosi plastered with ACORN AND SEIU decals.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
112 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, BigJournalism. BigJournalism said: Supreme Court Bounces McCain/Feingold, NY Times Readers Go Nuts http://bit.ly/8f7iPp [...]
Yet more examples demonstrating that only 48% of don't live with our heads up our asses…
I am amazed when I read this type of spoor because, as the author points out, these folks are looking at a different colored sky than me. I have tried from time to time to debate with Libs on issues, but usually these attempts are fruitless as we can never get past what the definition of "is" is.
Is it my math or was the deciding vote in the 5-4 decision by a Liberal Supreme Court Judge? And isn't that why we have 9 Justices and not 8 or 10? maybe the Liberals think we aught to "Change" to a 1 or two branch government? Then we wouldn't worry about Legislation from the bench…waitaminit…isn't liberal legislation from the bench sanctioned by the Dems? 9th Circuit Court of Appeals I.E.
Campaign ads are, for the most part, nothing but lies, spin and half-truths. That being said, it is still the right of all Americans to be allowed to voice their political opinion regardless of side supported or even the stupidity of the message.
The only thing I wish for is that campaign ads had to follow the truth in advertising regulations, like any other advertisement has to.
It's the hypoxia.
The free-speech NAZIs just can't stand the free flow of information–some of it might be true and expose them for the thought-control droolers that they are. What a disaster the Democrat-controlled funding of "public" schools, for the last 60 years, has been.
Liberals, activists, Democrat politicians and the MSM are screaming mad over this. What better endorsement of this decision.
Schumer's rant alone tells me this was a good decision.
I'm curious; the photo's in the article, the man in the last one, with the Change, changhe, change tee shirt? Is that Michael Moore?
Is there anyone who can say, without reservation, that Koros did not buy the Presidency for Obama?
I believe it is, Cowboy…I wish he would 'change' into a frog, maybe…so we wouldn't have to listen to his 'free speech'…
Oh no, now corporations will have the opportunity to pay millions for 30 seconds of airtime supporting candidates who don't try to blame them for everything that has ever gone wrong. How will the easily led sheeple of America ever avoid being brainwashed by "big business" when the only source providing the alternative view is nearly every television channel, newspaper, and internet site 24/7/365? /sarc
They call O'Reilly the Worst Person in the World?? …Wonder what they think of Glenn Beck…especially after his show today…..:)
What makes it oh so sweet, is that they are really upset because George Soros' checkbook suddenly doesn't look so big.
Liberal slogan: Rules for thee, but not for me.
Conservative slogan: Don't tread on me.
He probably bought the primary election, but there was no stopping his freight train of a campaign, especially with McCain et. al. not even trying to make his radicalism a issue.
But Soros' checkbook is looking mighty small today up against corporate cash.
Unions can give hundreds of millions of dollars to Obama's campaign, but the very corporations that overpay those union thugs cannot spend their money on ads. Yeah, sounds fair.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Hold the phone libtards. The M-F (hmm, nice acronym) Finance Law is only a few years old. Was Democracy finished until it was enacted?
These lefty people are insane!
I'm sick of the people who actually want to turn us into slaves of the State complaining about slaves and slavemasters.
I'm pretty sure Michael Moore's elbow rolls are saggier than then guy in the picture.
The more he has to spend, the less he has to buy young boys from Indonesia.
"I keep looking for an “I’m mad-as-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it” movement by citizens (the purpose served, in the distant past, by elections), but nothing seems to have a lasting effect."
Hmmm…Guess they missed that whole TEA party thing. Oh, that's right, it wasn't covered by the Times or the MSM.
I'm really looking forward to Beck's show tonight and can't wait to see what the progressives response will be. They hate the truth and tonight Beck starts laying out the truth about progressives!
Were you even paying attention Tuesday…?
By your convoluted logic, Scott Brown should have been bought and paid for by somebody, right…?
Here's the answer; he WAS bought and paid for…by the People of Massachusetts, the Conservative voters, and by TEA Party activists that scraped together what meager funds they have left from those "Hope and Change" policies…
Pay attention…the ONLY group a politician is really beholden to is the PEOPLE who vote…Unions and Corporations, Left and Right Political Parties, and Special Interest Groups all have seats at the table, because what a politician does affects all of them, too…
But its the VOTE that ultimately counts…which is WHY ACORN, SEIU, and the new Black Panther Party attempt to defraud the PEOPLE of their franchise…
If you don't like a corporation's message, don't listen…or are you so afraid of your own weak position you have to stifle ANY opposition…?
The progressives hate it when everyone gets to voice their opinions. They just can't win when things are out in the open in the light of the day. Everyone should be able to voice their opinions and thus the country have the debate on the issues in the open; of course every time this is done the progressives lose!
Congress shall make no law . . . why is that so difficult for the pinko-commies to understand?
I needed some laughs over coffee this morning. Thanks.
The 100 years remoark is what makes my head spin with confusion. McCain-Fingeld was passed 20 years ago. I have no idea what this 100 years is about, unless Liberal years is like dog years. The U.S. has been around far longer than 100 years and has survived a Civil War intact. Libtards really have short memories don't they?
lol, but also so very true. After reading those comments and then reading all the positive comments on the various Breitbart sites in regards to this decision, my belief that we need 2 American nations is reinforced.
I don't know why we keep trying to put a square peg in a round hole. The reality is that the USA needs to be broken up into two countries: The Peoples Democratic Socialist State of America and the Free Republic of America (or whatever). The point is that we should not have to be slaves to their socialist and agenda and if they want to have a socialist country, let'em, but it sure as hell isn't going to be the same one I'm living in.
The truly sad thing is, though, that the socialists have lots of countries they could move to where they can have the way of life they (think) want. Those of us who embrace Capitalism and a Constitutional Republic do not. In fact, we have no where to go at all. And this means that if we cannot gain our freedom here and now in this nation, we and our children are doomed to slavery for a long, long time.
I don't, as a general rule, read the New York Times. (I know that makes me an uninformed, unintelligent knuckle-dragger. Mea culpa.) However, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and hazard a guess that these fine folks who are bemoaning that SCOTUS upheld the First Amendment (disturbingly by only one vote) were cheering the Kelo v. New London decision, which granted all this power to the government to take people's property from them. Empowering government = good. Empowering citizens = bad.
Personally, I believe that the more, the merrier. At the very least, the business' being repressed by the libtards eco-slavery agenda will have a chance to answer back directly, which can't be a bad thing.
As stated above, I find it hard to believe that a question concerning the 1st Amendment would come down to a 5-4 decision.
It truly is time for we and our brethren in the Tea Parties to apply pressure to the system to bring it back in line with what the Founders intended it to be.
Under the old screed that all politics is local, I will be attending my local precinct caucuses, to see if my local GOP has the nuts to get on with the people's work, and to propose a plank or two myself.
I can't wait to see this. The radical left's reaction to Beck's exposé should be very entertaining, as well.
I think the number is better than 48%. It's really a very small but very well-covered segment that is convinced that all businesses/corporations/banks are pure evil.
These hyperventilating loons are upset because they think that now, suddenly, Exxon et al will be pouring billions into GOP coffers. Yes, corporations DO contribute largely to Republicans. Why? It's because the GOP and conservatives are BUSINESS-FRIENDLY! Look at Obama- the guy thinks banks are the enemy, and what happens? The stock market TANKS. How is THAT good for average Americans???
Liberals have no sense. They react on pure emotion. The litmus test is: If a leftist is upset and screaming about it, it's probably good for the country and average Americans.
The "truth" to a leftist is whatever they agree with or fits their agenda, so "good luck!" with that idea!
It's better if people just do a little homework, stop being so stupid and lazy and ACTUALLY LOOK AT A CANDIDATE'S RECORD.
Amen. Schumer hates it so that means it's good for America.
It's Rosie O'Donnell.
Free speech sucks!… No, wait, everybody else's free speech sucks!
I'm DVRing it.
Because Socialists don't believe in the Constitution. One of their primary goals is to destroy it.
This is true. He's going to have to re-evaluate his priorities!
She's obviously looking only in the NY Times.
Now that you mention it, it is. I didn't recognize her, since she lost all that weight.
Michael Moore? Naw, it's his better looking and slimmer brother.
At least one of those craz….errr…Progressive/Socialist "kumbaya" singing respondents was honest with his description of himself, DemoCRAZY. It is a sad day a coming, all of our teachers for the past 2 decades have become marxist indoctrinators to their students, and the little Che's are coming home to roost.
Actually, the M-F Act was enacted in 2002. That's a grand total of 8 years, barely.
How in the world did the US survive before today?
Speaking of the illustrious Russ Feingold, he has been relegated into irrelevancy, since co-signing the McCain Feingold disaster.
Lo and behold, he is all over the newz today. Just came out and said he would NOT support Ben Bernanke being reseated as the FED chair.
Talk about a no confidence vote, Obama is going to go down in a blaze of glory, and Helicopter Ben is going to pilot the aircraft………..
And we all know how that turned out for Kelo.
I admit to being less-than-well-informed, getting my news from Drudge and Fox, but I'm not sure what the whining from left is all about.
If "big money corporations" can't contribute funds to political candidates, don't they just continue funding their favorite media company (especially if they own it) and make their influence felt that way? Hence the plethora of opinion-talking head shows like Olberman, Maddow, O'Reiley, etc, etc.
Either way, the "evil corporations" are voicing their political bent, aren't they? But by doing away wqith McCain-Feingold, they can do so freely as the First Amendment allows them to……? Am I way off here? Maybe I need another cup of coffee.
Ever notice how those who love throwing around words like "slaves" and "sheep" and "nazi" most are the ones who a) want the most regulation of people's activities and, b) scream bloody murder whenever people are given more choices and more control of their own lives?
It's also peculiar that these folks are the most averse to changing their minds when presented with facts contrary to their beliefs. They're wrong, they're ignorant, and they intend to stay that way.
I can white eyes!
Exactly. Free speech is only a good thing when it promotes the Statist agenda.
I'm not sure yet but I think think there are problems with this decision. Corporation the operate in the U.S. and not necessarily owned by Americans. Do we want BMW, British Petroleum, Toyota funding ads in our elections. They definitely have U.S. operations but are not even close to majority U.S. owned. Something to think about. Do we want China funding our elections?
There is no disinfectant quite like sunlight.
Psst…I think you missed the sarcasm tag…
I do see a point in what Kataklysmic is saying….You can say all you want that it's the people's vote that counts, but let's be honest – $ will still play a huge factor in winning. Yes, we are seeing some exceptions, and I would love to see a whole lot more, but there are still a ton of sheeple out there, conservatives and leftists, who are not interested/don't have the time to do the homework themselves about candidates. Those sheeple will rely on tv/MSM for their info and if one side can outspend the other in ads, most likely they will win. That's what history tells us. I supported Brown ($) despite him being a RINO b/c he was better option than Coakley. I haven't seen finance records yet, but I seriously doubt Brown won purely b/c of the people. I hope I am proven wrong. While this SCOTUS decision may have leveled the monetary playing field, I see it as a leveling down. Maybe we need to fight fire with fire, but I see it as perpetuating the big-$-interest problem. Now corporations will be just another special interest group that politicians will be beholden to.
Keith Olbermann, Jeff Zeleny and these NYTimes readers are the worst people in the universe.
As the justices themselves pointed out, the only large corporations that had no such limits were, of course, large media companies like G.E. etc. At the very least we won't see the disgusting lies that Obama went through last year when he claimed he would take public money and then reversed himself and outspent Mccain by millions. All the while Mccain dangled uselessly with his own campaign finance laws wrapped around him. It's glorious irony that we will then put a quick end to either pathetic of these ridiculous spectacles happening again with this one clear eyed decision!
Talk about over-reactions! All the Supreme Court decision does is take us back to pre-MCain/Feingold. How far back is that? What? About 2 years? Hardly and earthquake in human history!
Fox and Drudge make you BETTER informed! Only they expose the news that the radical left propaganda press bury every day in a vain attempt to brain-wash the American public! You are better informed than the other 60% of the public! Celebrate that!
Ugh, I just watched the whole video. It looks like this guy's whole shtick is to bash Fox News and Sarah Palin. One would think this 'echo chamber' for the self deluded egocentric functionally retarded elite who wouldn't know a fact if it was gnawing their buttocks would get old fast. Go figure.
I know some libs who claim Oglemen is 'funny'. Sorry, but Dennis Miller has more funny in his pinky toenail than Oglemen could hope to have with a thousand clones.
Anyone left who still thinks you can't buy a Supreme Court?
They (Chinese & Lippo) did for the Clintons. Remember AlGore at the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple?
How about enforcing the laws we have/had instead of limiting speech for some while giving vast amounts of power to others (Soros, ACORN, SEIU, GE, Goldman Sachs, etc., etc….the MSM, Hollywood, etc., etc.)?
M-F did more harm than it did good, if any good at all.
All I have to say about the idiots in Exhibit A – J is… you hypocrites!!! These idiots would be jumping for joy if the Catholic Church and guns were suddenly banned. They care squat about our Constitution and only about themselves.
He'll have to get them from Haiti now.
Yep! Hussein even bought his own channel on DISH Network. Like he needed it with total control and support of every outlet but Fox. It's mind boggling, the hypocrisy of the left.
Oh yeah!! To torture the lib friends with.
Uproarious in its stupidity.
Consumerist.org ran an article and several commentators said the "fascists" are taking over. You can't fix stupid….
Now any company in the world can dump money into our elections. I don't understand your list though. ACORN, GE, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood are all Americans. Do you want to stop American speech? The problem that I see is now any corporation in the world can fund a candidate. Is this a good thing? I guess we will see.
The first amendment gave free speech to Americans. Did it give free speech for everyone in the world to influence our elections? Until now the answer was no but now the SCOTUS has said yes. This is a massive change.
No they shouldn't be stopped, just as other American corps. shouldn't be stopped. Yes, the whole Clinton-Chinese connection was problematic as well as all of the Indonesian Lippo money. M-F was not the answer, though, as it only limited honest American's speech and did nothing to foreign interests like Soros' as well as the billions of foreign cashed pumped into the Obamao campaign from Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Yeah, we could do something about that. But M-F?… it's like I always tell lib friends who want to ban guns… do so and only the criminals will have them.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by BigJournalism: Supreme Court Bounces McCain/Feingold, NY Times Readers Go Nuts http://bit.ly/8f7iPp…
I agree, debating with libs is about like beating a dead horse, no matter how much you try you'll never bring them back. I personally find it more entertaining to catch them in a lie and call them a hypocrite, then sit back and watch the fireworks.
The part of the 1st. amendment that pertains to free speech “congress will make no law….” is clear. If you want to see who is donating to your favoite candidate demand “disclosure” of the donations. It will be easy to see who is supporting who for what. Nothing wrong with that. With the internet I’m sure there would be plenty of sites that would help you determine that, if not right now, soon there will be.
I’m only disappointed that it was a 5 to 4 decision. We really have to do something about the activist judiciary. Perhaps congress could legislate some budget cuts for them or perhaps some reorganization and consolidation of that branch of Government – they can you know. They do control their budgets. Food for thought!
Shhhhh! you'll give Barney Frank something new to go on about.
I'm in favor of giving them a separate State all to themselves. They would have to build a wall to keep people in and we'd still end up feeding them, but oh well.
Oh, snap!
Actually, the thought was "to educate any nearby children, including, one day, my own I hope", but having it playing when liberal friends come to visit would be delicious, if a bit rude.
I don't know but I'm pretty sure he needs to change quite often. That poor feller looks a might ripe.
Good responses to Ken's concerns. M-F did little to bring "fairness" to fund raising. At least now there will be more openness and more REAL fairness.
How many non-US citizens own GE stock in their portfolios?
How many of them send in their ballots and vote for board members?
How are those board members voting when it comes to decide where to send campaign money?
Who has GE been behind for the most part lately? (Obama!)
I don't like it, but I also feel that they have the right to spend their money however they see fit. I don't like that they supply parts to Iran which are found in IEDs in Iraq. Instead of having a tantrum about all of this, I simply exercise MY rights not to buy their products.
Any protest by Obama, Pelosi, or Reid rings as hollow as Brer Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the briar patch. With this decision, there is nothing to stop The Great Obama from putting extra TARP funds into the gov't owned companies FRE, FNM, GM, or AIG, and having those entities run ads for Democrats.____And the protests by the MSM, who are upset at losing their legal monopoly on corporate propaganda, might actually allow their parent companies to survive. Running all those extra political ads should be very profitable.
Did you happen to hear Pelosi's response when a congressman asked her if "being forced to buy health insurance was constitutional," and she said, "Are you serious?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xYCqRhXawc
Did you happen to hear Pelosi's response when a congressman asked her if "being forced to buy health insurance was constitutional," and she said, "Are you serious?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xYCqRhXawc
It was nice to hear David Rotten Gerkin squeal like stuck pig. You'ld have thought Barney was plumbing his depths.
My mistake, I did miss the tag…my apologies…
Really…?
All I see is everyone is being put on equal footing…and we need that…unless the unions get slashed along with corp America…
Fish or cut bait…
I was attempting to be "snarky" with my "Drudge/ Fox" remark……apparently I did not succeed.
I like what both venues provide in terms of news. If I feel Fox is being a bit too right-leaning, then head to Drudge, scroll down to CNN, BBC, etc, etc….and I get my fill of "fair & balanced". I also have a link to Al Jazeera (the Fox News of the Muslim world, we're told) in order to get another point of view as well.
For humor, North Korean Peoples News is pretty funny.
Has anyone read this excellent article about the case? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
Hmm, Michael Moore can do whatever he wants, as well he should, but the FEC can BAN BOOKS AND MOVIES unfavorable to Dims? I wonder if we'll be allowed to see "Hillary: The Movie" now?
"Campaign lies as cause for impeachment".
I'll go for that.
Can't be. Too clean and skinny.
I hear the cheers of the republicans across this nation over the supreme court decision on McCain. They cheer the silencing of the voice, the vote of a vet a real person who put their life on the line for this country, they have diminished life it’s self. They cheer that people have become slave and property has become KING. No where in the constitution does it declare property as a person and has the right to diminish the life, voice, and the vote of a person..
Property is taxed and thus has no vote so now we the people have become surrounded, by those busying them selves into making people as discarded property. The republicans and democrats have proven once again they are socialist.. The unborn baby has no chance if they not killed then they will taxed for just existing and when he or she is born they will nothing more than a slave to those who own the gold and use the power of government. The republicans have final declared people are less than property.
Reminds me of a debate I had with a group of modern liberals a few years back. I don't remember the exact topic, but I rebutted with its not listed in the constitution, so there for the government is prohibited from doing it.
The response: What does the constitution have to do with any of this?
As a troll to this sight. I recieve no debate, so your words are false.
To this republic there is nothing more sacred than individual freedom, for it was individual freedom an individual sacrifice the sacrifice of blood, body, and life that gave meaning and birth to a nation before a single word on a piece paper was written. Our sacred documents our soaked in the blood of individual sacrifice and thus it is individual freedom that must have priority over the money of business.
Business has no vote and thus no voice.
Business is a creation of government and thus part of government and thus no voice.
Business can not exist with out government, only trade between two individuals can and thus no voice.
Government can not exist without individual sacrifice and thus individual freedom has top priority.
When a business can bleed and die for this country then they should have a voice. Freedom has died today in dramatic fashion. The government parties have officially silenced the voters and declared this republic dead.
where is your head?
. The SC just gave foriegners and foriegn governments influnce in our political process. you voice your vote was just became diminished.
I hear the cheers of the republicans across this nation over the supreme court decision on McCain. They cheer the silencing of the voice, the vote of a vet a real person who put their life on the line for this country, they have diminished life it’s self. They cheer that people have become slave and property has become KING. No where in the constitution does it declare property as a person and has the right to diminish the life, voice, and the vote of a person..
Property is taxed and thus has no vote so now we the people have become surrounded, by those busying them selves into making people as discarded property. The republicans and democrats have proven once again they are socialist.. The unborn baby has no chance if they not killed then they will taxed for just existing and when he or she is born they will nothing more than a slave to those who own the gold and use the power of government. The republicans have final declared people are less than property.
Everyone seems to be missing one general point. McCain-Feingold didn't work anyways! Obama was the first candidate for president EVER to have more than 1 billion dollars in Campaign donations. Even then, McCain still got over $600 million!
Do you really think in a recessionary economy that the American public had this kind of money to spend or were the donations coming from corporations anyways, under dummy names?!?!?
McCain-Feingold never worked. Let's bid it adieu and start from scratch.
This McCain ruling has giving foreigners and foreign government and our enemies the right to influence our government and thus you cheer our surrender to our foes.
This McCain ruling has giving foreigners and foreign government and our enemies the right to influence our government and thus republicans cheer our surrender to our enemies.
"So now it really is Slave Owners versus the Slaves. Thanks to all who voted against their own interests in Massachusetts."
This one really gets me going, I am sick and tired of being told, what is in my best interest. I would be much happier if everyone else would quit worrying about my happiness.
I am quite concerned that there is such hostility toward Constitutionalism & limited representative government. It seems to me that people on the left are generally dismissive of Republicans & Libertarians. All I can say is I have legitimate & intellectual concerns about where we are & where we are seemingly headed. Limited representative government is not an outlandish & ruinous principle by any means-this country was founded on it. If you don't like the Court ruling the way they did, then work to amend the Constitution. Instead, it's doomsday & character asassinations. 'I think it's a good law, so I don't care whether it''s Constitutional'. I guess that is the battle cry of those viewing the constitution as a living, breathing document. 'If I view it as the right thing to do, then it's Constitutional regardless'. That kind of rationale is simply not part of my makeup.
Soros' money can now be trumped by the money of actual Americans. They are pissed that their liberal financer from accross the Atlantic is now rendered irrelevant in the big picture. Corporate money vs Soros money, hmmm.
There are very few people in America today that really want our constitution to be absolutely protected from its original intent. That includes both de3mocrats, republicans, and every other philosophy held. The fact of the matter is, the Supreme court ruled correctly. The arguement that corporations or unions will now influence Americans in a harmful way, is only valid if you think Americans will continue to settle for unconstitutional acts by those in power. Yhe American people are the final check against all unconstitutional acts…yes for 100 years we have sat around and allowed the people in charge to rape the document in every way imaginable. Justice black once said…”no law means no law”. It really is thyat simple. But that also holds true for the 2nd amendment. How many of your on the right are ready to allow citizens to openly carry their firearms in your cities? How about felons? I am, because “no law means no law”. Every single law in america that infringes on the 1st OR 2nd amendment is unconstitutional, yet we on all sides have sat by passively accepting these thousands of laws we have on the books. For all the doubters, why did the citizens require an amendment to outlaw alcohol? Why didn’t they pass thousands of liquor laws? Because they had respect for the constitution and changed it the only way that is constitutional…by a constitutional amendment. If you don’t want felons or open carry, then pass an amendment..but dont continue to disrepect the highest law in the land. If you don’t like marijuana being legal, pass an amendment. Your unconstitutional laws have no meaning or force. The federal govt has so abused us thru unconstitutional laws that what I say now sounds crazy to you. You have been brain washed. All of you. The 10th amendment gives states the power to make laws not specific given to the feds. Why does your state even honor federal laws? 99% are unconsitutional and totally out of their jurisdiction. Once Americans wake up to the truth and allow each state to individually make laws not given to DC, we will once again get along peacefully because we dont all have to agree on everything in our individual states, as long as we are not violating any constitutional principal. And if we dont like it, the founders told us how to change it…thru amendment…not goofy laws. Do yourself a favor…start respecting the constituion and all other problems will subside and we can return to a nation of diverse and individual freedom loving people with different values and ideas…a place where we do not have to fight over every little detail…because the details do not belong to a central government. They belong to us locally, the people.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion, "The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether." Score one for the First Amendment.
Now starts the whining. Democrats can't wrap their brains around this one. They are perfectly willing to accept Supreme Court decisions like Kelo v. New London, because that essentially empowers the government. But when it comes to protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and empowering the private sector rather than government … not a lot of Democrats will stand up and fight for that.
OK … let me tell you what the Imperial Democrats are so worried about. Up until now they had the edge in campaign donations. Take a large corporation. The unionized employees of that corporation were free to donate to Democrats … just as their shop stewards and union leaders suggested they do. The company itself? Prohibited. The Democrats are afraid that large businesses that are traditionally more attuned to the pro-business Republicans than they are to the pro-union Democrats are going to tip the balance of power here.
Check out this link: It's OpenSecrets.org, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics. You can see where the political contributions from the top 50 industries go. Check out the Top 50, the Top Republican Industries and the Top Democrat Industries. Now this is money donated by the people who work in these industries .. not the companies themselves.
Just a few high(low)points from the list:
Top contributor overall:
Lawyers and Law Firms. 83% of their contributions to Democrats.
Top Republican Industry:
Health Professionals. 63% of their contributions to Democrats. (That's right … even the top contributor to Republicans gives more to Democrats,)
Top Democrat Industries:
Lawyers and Law Firms again.
OK .. now you see why the Democrats are upset
I go to open secrets. and don't disagree with what you said. We have many problems balancing free speech of groups, but a corp is not a group it is a business and not a real person.
http://www.ourcaucus.com/Article1.html
both parites take the big money.
American stock holder already have the right to vote and free speech and spend their money at their pleasure, but not all holders are American some are Bin ladin.
I also can't find in the constitution declaring business as a real person.
I hope they went more freaking crazy than they already are and that would be hard to do as they are insane already.
So corporations will be able to contribute. Why not? Don't they hav an interest in how our elected officials will treat them? They pay taxes levied by Congress as if they were people. They employ people. Maybe they would stay here or come here if we had a government that actually passed favorable legislation. I can testify. California and new jersey are short on private industry due to the incredibly burdensome regulations and taxes placed on those businesses. So, they went someplace else. Why shouldn't they have a say? Isn't that the equivalent to taxation without representation? SCOTUS didn't say they could vote at the polls. SCOTUS said they could voice an opinion, with money. Just like every other special interest group. I mean Corporations don't have the same rights as ACORN!
EXCELLENT! For the first time in history, the rich, white guy has the advantage!
C. Montgomery Burns
Springfield
Like corporations, unions or use rich people had no influence over the political process before this ruling. I would rathe see who is putting up the cash than for a corporation or some Socialist Greek Billionaire hiding behind the "Committee for everything good in the world" 527.
Obama don't like this ruling, it levels the playing field. He working on a bill to try and stop this ruling. He said it should be ready in a couple weeks.. How much money is he going to steal from the taxpayers, to give to ACORN< SEIU, and big labor to steal elections. Get ready for more taxes, just like he wants to tax the banks for paying back that stupid tarp money.
To this republic there is nothing more sacred than individual freedom, for it was individual freedom an individual sacrifice the sacrifice of blood, body, and life that gave meaning and birth to a nation before a single word on a piece paper was written. Our sacred documents our soaked in the blood of individual sacrifice and thus it is individual freedom that must have priority over the money of business.
Business has no vote and thus no voice.
Business is a creation of government and thus part of government and thus no voice.
Business can not exist with out government, only trade between two individuals can and thus no voice.
Government can not exist without individual sacrifice and thus individual freedom has top priority.
When a business can bleed and die for this country then they should have a voice. Freedom has died today in dramatic fashion. The government parties have officially silenced the voters and declared this republic dead.
Free speech in the Constitution until recently was considered solely a right of a person. Corporations do not have true voices, only people have voices. Those who own the corporations already have free speech as individuals. Only since comparatively recent changes were the corporations allowed to give any money at all to politicians. McCain=Feingold were not inventing anything new, they were trying to restore the original intent of the Constitution by limiting the amount of contributions. It would politically probably not have been possible to return to actually prohibiting corporations from making contributions to politicians.
What is ti about the phrase " Congress shall make NO law" that you don't understand!
This McCain ruling has giving foreigners and foreign government and our enemies the right to influence our government and thus republicans cheer our surrender to our foes.
Personally, I like Exhibit J
"I keep looking for an “I’m mad-as-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it” movement by citizens (the purpose served, in the distant past, by elections), but nothing seems to have a lasting effect."
Obviously, this amoebic intelligence has not the capacity to correlate things like TEA PARTIES and the Massachusetts vote.
No wonder they're so F'd up. Apparently, reality is too much of a bitch for them to quit using drugs long enough to find a rational thought.
The information presented is top notch. I’ve been doing some research on the topic and this post answered several questions.
[...] to believe the moonbat ravings of New York Times readers or the unhinged, Howard-Beale-like broadcasts of MSNBC’s Keith [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.