An honest question to conservatives.

[Liberal]

The Citizens United is an ideologically conservative non-profit group that challenged the Federal Election Commission and aspects of BCR Act of 2002, etc.. I am sure you all know by now..

Read more here.

Basically opening the doors for a ton of Corporate spending in elections.

Do you, as a conservative, agree that this was a good ruling from the supreme court? And furthermore, that it was the right thing for a conservative "limited" government group to do?

Not trying to flame bait, I just want to see what conservative citizens really think about this.

 

[Katzndogz]

There was nothing in the Citizen's United ruling that prevents substantial corporate donations from going to the DNC. They are equally capable of getting millions of dollars in donations and do. The democrats are just losing the money election. The ruling was fair.

A limited government interferes in private activity as little as possible, including donating to whatever political party it wishes. Democrats just don't like the way donations are going. They don't complain when Unions heavily donate to democrats and Unions are as much as a collective entity as a corporation.

 

[naturegirl]

Unions have been doing this for years, it was time to level the playing field. It's either all or none. Personally I think candidates should run on their experience and knowledge.

I'm not fond of election buying but it's been going on for years. Citizens United really didn't change that much, it just made it easier so it didn't have to stay hidden.

 

[Liberal]

There was nothing in the Citizen's United ruling that prevents substantial corporate donations from going to the DNC. They are equally capable of getting millions of dollars in donations and do. The democrats are just losing the money election. The ruling was fair. A limited government interferes in private activity as little as possible, including donating to whatever political party it wishes. Democrats just don't like the way donations are going. They don't complain when Unions heavily donate to democrats and Unions are as much as a collective entity as a corporation.

I NEVER said that it was some "exclusive" ruling that was only for the RNC..

I don't like the existence of this ability at all for ANY party.

But, you really think that the injection of countless dollars into an election is acceptable? Does that not detract from the ability for Washington to get things done for people (you know, you and me)?

Has it not been proven that an election is where the corruption can start? Political contributions with strings attached for a favor at a later point.. I think that conservatives can agree that political corruption is on both sides of the isle, does this ruling not increase the chance of the corruption?

 

[Liberal]

I'm not fond of election buying but it's been going on for years. Citizens United really didn't change that much, it just made it easier so it didn't have to stay hidden.

But, it has already shown that the ability to hide behind a PAC has increased the ammount of money coming in..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

McCain/Feingold should be scraped as well.

 

[PredFan]

The Citizens United is an ideologically conservative non-profit group that challenged the Federal Election Commission and aspects of BCR Act of 2002, etc.. I am sure you all know by now..

Read more here.

Basically opening the doors for a ton of Corporate spending in elections.

Do you, as a conservative, agree that this was a good ruling from the supreme court?

Yes. It was a good ruling because it was accurate. Good or bad should never be a concideration from the SCOTUS.

And furthermore, that it was the right thing for a conservative "limited" government group to do?

Yes, I don't see how it goes against "limited government" as you are implying.

 

[Katzndogz]

No. What is real corruption is when the government gives a company government money to get a portion back as political contributions as obama has done. When a company gives only its own money, it's not corruption.

Democrats find the fact that republicans win elections unfair.

 

[JanPMa]

There was nothing in the Citizen's United ruling that prevents substantial corporate donations from going to the DNC. They are equally capable of getting millions of dollars in donations and do. The democrats are just losing the money election. The ruling was fair. A limited government interferes in private activity as little as possible, including donating to whatever political party it wishes. Democrats just don't like the way donations are going. They don't complain when Unions heavily donate to democrats and Unions are as much as a collective entity as a corporation.

I NEVER said that it was some "exclusive" ruling that was only for the RNC..

I don't like the existence of this ability at all for ANY party.

But, you really think that the injection of countless dollars into an election is acceptable? Does that not detract from the ability for Washington to get things done for people (you know, you and me)?

Has it not been proven that an election is where the corruption can start? Political contributions with strings attached for a favor at a later point.. I think that conservatives can agree that political corruption is on both sides of the isle, does this ruling not increase the chance of the corruption?

Yes, you're absolutely right, but that horse is out of the barn. Obama and McCain promised to limit their campaigns to government funding and Obama reneged. We all know how well that worked out for McCain. Citizens United levels the playing field by balancing the donations that go from unions to the Dems.....and they don't like it.

 

[asaratis]

Better for private sector corporations to buy the elections than Saudi Arabia, George Soros and union goons.

Besides, the second and third posts both hit nails on heads.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The Citizens United is an ideologically conservative non-profit group that challenged the Federal Election Commission and aspects of BCR Act of 2002, etc.. I am sure you all know by now..

Read more here.

Basically opening the doors for a ton of Corporate spending in elections.

Do you, as a conservative, agree that this was a good ruling from the supreme court? And furthermore, that it was the right thing for a conservative "limited" government group to do?

Not trying to flame bait, I just want to see what conservative citizens really think about this.

As right as the ruling on the socialist bill obamacare.

 

[AmericanFirst]

There was nothing in the Citizen's United ruling that prevents substantial corporate donations from going to the DNC. They are equally capable of getting millions of dollars in donations and do. The democrats are just losing the money election. The ruling was fair. A limited government interferes in private activity as little as possible, including donating to whatever political party it wishes. Democrats just don't like the way donations are going. They don't complain when Unions heavily donate to democrats and Unions are as much as a collective entity as a corporation.

I NEVER said that it was some "exclusive" ruling that was only for the RNC..

I don't like the existence of this ability at all for ANY party.

But, you really think that the injection of countless dollars into an election is acceptable? Does that not detract from the ability for Washington to get things done for people (you know, you and me)?

Has it not been proven that an election is where the corruption can start? Political contributions with strings attached for a favor at a later point.. I think that conservatives can agree that political corruption is on both sides of the isle, does this ruling not increase the chance of the corruption?

The unions inject large amounts of money to the dimwits, but that is okay, right? NOT!!!!

 

[martybegan]

The Citizens United is an ideologically conservative non-profit group that challenged the Federal Election Commission and aspects of BCR Act of 2002, etc.. I am sure you all know by now..

Read more here.

Basically opening the doors for a ton of Corporate spending in elections.

Do you, as a conservative, agree that this was a good ruling from the supreme court? And furthermore, that it was the right thing for a conservative "limited" government group to do?

Not trying to flame bait, I just want to see what conservative citizens really think about this.

What is the difference between a group of people organized as a pure political organization, and a corporation as a group of stockholders, represented by the Board? It is still actual people making the donations, and making them based on thier own interests.

If you eliminate the ability to collectively donate from one type, you have to eliminate it from all others, or all you are doing is going after people with means to donate who have political views you don't like.

 

[asaratis]

No. What is real corruption is when the government gives a company government money to get a portion back as political contributions as obama has done. When a company gives only its own money, it's not corruption.

Democrats find the fact that republicans win elections unfair.

Exactly!

Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.--William F. Buckley, Jr.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I believe nothing good will come of this decision and it will only further corrupt our politics

 

[PredFan]

I believe nothing good will come of this decision and it will only further corrupt our politics

I think it's only bad this election because it's the first one after the decision. I believe that these PACs will realize that they can go too far and turn people off.

Remember that good or bad should never be a factor in the decisions of the SCOTUS, only the constitutionality of the thing.

After this election, things will get back to the previous level of insanity.

 

[Katzndogz]

It only corrupts politics if republicans get the donations. If it's democrats its fairly supporting the candidate of their choice.

 

[Liberal]

It only corrupts politics if republicans get the donations. If it's democrats its fairly supporting the candidate of their choice.

I am sure that some Democrats think this. But, the "it's okay, because _______ does it" mentality (exasperated by the RNC, as of late) has become a cancer in our modern political system.

I think that any form of overt spending to influence elections is a bad thing for the average citizen.. Regardless of party affiliation.

 

[Shelzin]

There was nothing in the Citizen's United ruling that prevents substantial corporate donations from going to the DNC. They are equally capable of getting millions of dollars in donations and do. The democrats are just losing the money election. The ruling was fair.

A limited government interferes in private activity as little as possible, including donating to whatever political party it wishes. Democrats just don't like the way donations are going. They don't complain when Unions heavily donate to democrats and Unions are as much as a collective entity as a corporation.

I complain about both. I honestly don't believe a president should get any aid that doesn't come from a individual citizen.

 

[Shelzin]

No. What is real corruption is when the government gives a company government money to get a portion back as political contributions as obama has done. When a company gives only its own money, it's not corruption.

Democrats find the fact that republicans win elections unfair.

Oh I'm pretty sure that we both know that it works that way for both republicans and democrats. But it is bullshit, and should not happen.