Comments on: McCain in Vain: A Constitutional Triumph for the Freedom of Speech

By: property and casualty insurance

property and casualty insurance — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 18:22:02 +0000

The best website……

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……

By: psCargile

psCargile — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:24:53 +0000

Businesses typically donates campaign money to candidates of both parties in hopes that those candidates will remember them when they are voting on bills that further regulate and restrict business. In a sense, a business has to purchase a "protection plan" against legistlative harrasment; they have to "purchase" a politian who is not going to restrict their rights to earn a proffit. If the government was not so hellbent on hamstringing business, businesses would not have to donate for election campaigns, at least to the extent that they are seen as "buying an election". If a business takes a certain liking to a certain candidate and not the other(s), then, just like prior to McCain/Fiengold, they can create ads and run them up to the election. So what changes now if we revert to what was before? We people can still make up our minds about who to vote for no matter how much money is thrown at a candidate, or much is spent on an ad. Never once has an ad persuaded my vote.

By: peaches1

peaches1 — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:23:05 +0000

I hope AZ gets rid of McCain. He is a traitor.

By: PopTart1967

PopTart1967 — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:18:35 +0000

The Supreme Court should have struck it down on the first challenge. They failed to uphold the Constitution. I think President Bush signed thinking that the SC would overturn it and put paid to the whole issue. A veto just meant that it would keep coming up.

Now, as much as the President and certain members of Congress complain, there is nothing they can do. The Supreme Court has the final say. They can bluster all they want, but their only recourse is to try and pass new legislation.

By: thebarbarian

thebarbarian — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:12:35 +0000

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.

By: WarTip

WarTip — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:47:54 +0000

I think maybe it is time we define "Good behavior" as that is the prerequisite for sitting judges. Read the words of Madison and Jefferson and realize, if it is contrary to the Constitution, it is blatantly unconstitutional no matter what the SCOTUS may say. If this was the first time this criminal law came before the SCOTUS there is at least some room for a little leniency but … WHAT THE HAY TOOK SO LONG?

By: thebarbarian

thebarbarian — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:40:26 +0000

the stock holder already have the right to vote and have the right to spend their money as they please, but a corp is property and thus taxed and can advertise it products with in the law. A membership list can not be used as a vote or petition, because the individal has the right and duty to sign one on his own. when declare corp a non person the right to infulence politics you made all men a slave and property.

By: Lorben

Lorben — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:44:48 +0000

Another great example luilui! Just trying to have my eyes wide open.

By: klg1956

klg1956 — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:54:17 +0000

Actually, what the decision said today is that the Unions and the trial lawyers and the billionnaire lefists….(George Soros) won't have an edge over the corporations, and what about GM corporation, does that mean that they can give tax dollars to the liberal progressive "Demobrat" party and that taxpayers will have to foot the bill for it? Get ready for the teabaggers because they are on their way. If we can just survive the 60's again, and we're almost through it, we can survive anything. We're almost finished with them for good. Thank God and get ready for the 70's……those kids are gonna save us!

By: Amphipolis

Amphipolis — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:46:24 +0000

Bush did not like campaign finance reform.

My theory is that McCain reluctantly endorsed Bush back in 2000 in exchange for Bush’s private vow not to veto McCain Feingold. Sometimes we are so busy following the money that we neglect to see other motivators.

If I’m right then Bush likely made his decision to give his word based upon his assumption that M/F would not get through (pre-Enron) congress or, failing that, that the Supreme Court would strike it down.