An honest question to conservatives.

[Fordsflylow]

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.

You left out one important aspect of this ruling. The OODLES of money can now be hidden. Just sayin!

 

[Fordsflylow]

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.

Depends entirely on what any particular rich fuck's agenda is, AND their return on investment.

What do you thing the Koch's want from the con's in return vs Soro's from the lib's?

I have breaking news for ya, the gov we now have, in large part on one side if the aisle, is an arm of mega-corporations. Of course they want to get as many schmucks to support the notion of smaller gov? After all, now that many are too big to fail, what the majority of people want matters not. Prior to mega-corp's buying our gov, the gov was big enough to stop "for-profit" from doing what they did and want in the not-so-distant past; which is fuck the workers/masses in general.

Too many people have been FOOLED into believing gov is the problem when in fact "for-profit gov" they bought and are continuing to enforce is thee REAL problem.

Amnesia?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ford's can you read? You most certainly are not a conservative. But since you can't read I guess I should feel sorry for you. But I don't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Depends entirely on what any particular rich fuck's agenda is, AND their return on investment.

What do you thing the Koch's want from the con's in return vs Soro's from the lib's?

I have breaking news for ya, the gov we now have, in large part on one side if the aisle, is an arm of mega-corporations. Of course they want to get as many schmucks to support the notion of smaller gov? After all, now that many are too big to fail, what the majority of people want matters not. Prior to mega-corp's buying our gov, the gov was big enough to stop "for-profit" from doing what they did and want in the not-so-distant past; which is fuck the workers/masses in general.

Too many people have been FOOLED into believing gov is the problem when in fact "for-profit gov" they bought and are continuing to enforce is thee REAL problem.

Amnesia?

Why do people who bring up koch brothers forget about George Soros?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

Depends entirely on what any particular rich fuck's agenda is, AND their return on investment.

What do you thing the Koch's want from the con's in return vs Soro's from the lib's?

I have breaking news for ya, the gov we now have, in large part on one side if the aisle, is an arm of mega-corporations. Of course they want to get as many schmucks to support the notion of smaller gov? After all, now that many are too big to fail, what the majority of people want matters not. Prior to mega-corp's buying our gov, the gov was big enough to stop "for-profit" from doing what they did and want in the not-so-distant past; which is fuck the workers/masses in general.

Too many people have been FOOLED into believing gov is the problem when in fact "for-profit gov" they bought and are continuing to enforce is thee REAL problem.

Amnesia?

Why do people who bring up koch brothers forget about George Soros?

The Koch brothers are a syndicate of boogyMEN.

Not just some random dude that collected property, for NAZI Germany from his fellow jews as they were being sent off to those wonderful summer work camps.

 

[eflatminor]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUdFaIYzNwU&feature=player_embedded]3 Reasons Not To Sweat The "Citizens United" SCOTUS Ruling - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eflatminor]

An interesting debate on the Citizen's United case:

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

 

[Shelzin]

An interesting debate on the Citizen's United case:

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

That was a really good debate. I would suggest anyone that has, or wants, thought about the subject to watch that. +rep

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Depends entirely on what any particular rich fuck's agenda is, AND their return on investment.

What do you thing the Koch's want from the con's in return vs Soro's from the lib's?

I have breaking news for ya, the gov we now have, in large part on one side if the aisle, is an arm of mega-corporations. Of course they want to get as many schmucks to support the notion of smaller gov? After all, now that many are too big to fail, what the majority of people want matters not. Prior to mega-corp's buying our gov, the gov was big enough to stop "for-profit" from doing what they did and want in the not-so-distant past; which is fuck the workers/masses in general.

Too many people have been FOOLED into believing gov is the problem when in fact "for-profit gov" they bought and are continuing to enforce is thee REAL problem.

Amnesia?

Why do people who bring up koch brothers forget about George Soros?

The Koch brothers are a syndicate of boogyMEN.

Not just some random dude that collected property, for NAZI Germany from his fellow jews as they were being sent off to those wonderful summer work camps.

Poor little georgie he's so misunderstood.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Depends entirely on what any particular rich fuck's agenda is, AND their return on investment.

What do you thing the Koch's want from the con's in return vs Soro's from the lib's?

I have breaking news for ya, the gov we now have, in large part on one side if the aisle, is an arm of mega-corporations. Of course they want to get as many schmucks to support the notion of smaller gov? After all, now that many are too big to fail, what the majority of people want matters not. Prior to mega-corp's buying our gov, the gov was big enough to stop "for-profit" from doing what they did and want in the not-so-distant past; which is fuck the workers/masses in general.

Too many people have been FOOLED into believing gov is the problem when in fact "for-profit gov" they bought and are continuing to enforce is thee REAL problem.

Amnesia?

Why do people who bring up koch brothers forget about George Soros?

The Koch brothers are a syndicate of boogyMEN.

Not just some random dude that collected property, for NAZI Germany from his fellow jews as they were being sent off to those wonderful summer work camps.

I'd really like to read this proof you have on your claims? Care to share?

 

[Wiseacre]

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.

If unions can spend hundreds of millions in elections, why shouldn't corps be able to do the same? Yeah, I think it was the correct ruling from the SCOTUS. There's nothing that says corps have to spend anything to either party, and I see no reason why they should be denied that ability. Big corps do support democratic candidates too, in their home districts. And some do support Obama, but probably not by as much as the unions do.

To me, the real issue is about limited spending, no bailouts, fewer or no tax breaks and subsidies, less regulations unless really needed. If you reduce the ability for politicians to give paybacks or special favors then possibly the issue of excessive political donations becomes less important. Quite frankly, it ultimately comes back to the voters, if we continue to re-elect people who are in bed with big corps or big unions, then do we not deserve the gov't we get? I think it's high time we got more involved, like the Tea Party groups have.

 

[naturegirl]

So the progressives are losing it because corporations are donating to a candidate that supports business?? They could put it all toward Obama like the Unions have been doing for years. Can you explain to me why businesses would support the very candidate that doesn't support them??

Political Spending by Unions Far Exceeds Direct Donations - WSJ.com

 

[Wiseacre]

So the progressives are losing it because corporations are donating to a candidate that supports business?? They could put it all toward Obama like the Unions have been doing for years. Can you explain to me why businesses would support the very candidate that doesn't support them??

Political Spending by Unions Far Exceeds Direct Donations - WSJ.com

Piggybacking on naturegirl's post, there is a website called OpenSecrets.org, that posts the following numbers as of yesterday:

Obama Raised $348,413,128 Spent $193,373,762
Romney Raised $262,968,849 Spent $163,205,427

These are numbers reported to the Elections Comission, don't know what it includes or doesn't include, or how much that might be. What I do know is that according to this website Obama seems to be doing better than Romney with both small and large individual contributors, which I assume includes businesses. I don't really see a problem here.

 

[Mad Scientist]

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.

It was a bad decision.

If Corporations are really people (and citizens), then why don't they have a Passport? When they move their Companies overseas why don't they continue to pay taxes on earnings over $77,000 as I would have to do?

Why doesn't a Corporation say the "Pledge of Allegiance" ? Because they have no allegiance.

 

[whitehall]

Is this back again? Will lefties ever quit whining?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

It was a bad decision.

If Corporations are really people (and citizens), then why don't they have a Passport? When they move their Companies overseas why don't they continue to pay taxes on earnings over $77,000 as I would have to do?

Why doesn't a Corporation say the "Pledge of Allegiance" ? Because they have no allegiance.

That corporations and unions enjoy First Amendment protection is long-established, settled, and accepted case law, and was not at issue in Citizens United:

The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations… This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech…political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” “The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

At issue was whether or not the government’s effort to preempt corporate free speech concerning political debate was justified under the First Amendment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I thought you said this was an honest question.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief asking that section 203 of the BCRA be struck down as facially unconstitutional, yet you are calling it a conservative position. That leaves me a little confused, when did the ACLU become a conservative group?

 

[westwall]

Why do people who bring up koch brothers forget about George Soros?

The Koch brothers are a syndicate of boogyMEN.

Not just some random dude that collected property, for NAZI Germany from his fellow jews as they were being sent off to those wonderful summer work camps.

I'd really like to read this proof you have on your claims? Care to share?

No problem at all. It's well documented as are the "well he was only 14 years old so of course it was OK for him to do it" mantra from the left. Of course he also stated that it was "the happiest time of his life".....that one the sycophants seem to ignore...a little.....


"#3 25 April 2009, 04:45 PM
snopes Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 100,909

"Comment: On Dec 20, 1998, on 60 Minutes did Steve Kroft interview George
Soros where Soros, a Hungarian Jew, admitted collaborating with the Nazi's
as a teenager and stated: "...I had no sense of guilt."

This may have been cited in a Martin Peretz article in the New Republic."



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2U6Rl98PM]George Soros "The Happiest Time in My Life" - YouTube[/ame]

George Soros, Nazi collaborator - snopes.com

 

[Annie]

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?

So raise a case to get all pac money, including unions out of elections. Good luck with NEA and SEIU.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Are you trying to sell that unions have more power in elections than do corporations?

If so, you have much to learn grasshoppa!