Is This True? If yes then something needs to be done damn fast

[mmmjvpssm]

Corporations can contribute to candidates with no restrictions but there are limits on what unions can give?

 

[brono921]

Obama did very well on both ends.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Obama did very well on both ends.

That doesn't address the topic

 

[Rozman]

Corporations can contribute to candidates with no restrictions but there are limits on what unions can give?

And Obama running for President received millions from overseas donors,foreign donors who
knew just the right amount of money to send so as to keep their identity secret....

No one on the left complained about that...

 

[brono921]

B]That doesn't address the topic[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, it does. Ya see, many of you liberals didn't have a problem with Obama reneging on his campaign financing, as he pulled in millions from wallstreet, the soon to be bailed out banks, and unions.
Now that many of these institutions are bailing on the democrats, you've suddenly got a problem with it.
It's called hypocrisy, and you liberals seem to have plenty of it.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Corporations can contribute to candidates with no restrictions but there are limits on what unions can give?

And Obama running for President received millions from overseas donors,foreign donors who
knew just the right amount of money to send so as to keep their identity secret....

No one on the left complained about that...

That has nothing to do with it. Although that is a good thing if true. Maybe this little trick the Republicans have won't work

Now back to the subject, explain to me why we're violating a coporations freedom of speech when we put limits on what they can contribute but it's not a violation of free speech to put limits on what unions can give

 

[mmmjvpssm]

A huge part of the problem is that the Republicans have gotten what they'd been damanding for years, a "balanced unbiased Supreme Court" which sounds good except that when Republicans say "balanced and unbiased" what they really mean is far right and totally biased toward the far right

Coporations tend to donte more to Republicans then Democrats, so of course the lackies on the court want them to be able to give as much as they want

 

[mmmjvpssm]

B]That doesn't address the topic[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, it does. Ya see, many of you liberals didn't have a problem with Obama reneging on his campaign financing, as he pulled in millions from wallstreet, the soon to be bailed out banks, and unions.
Now that many of these institutions are bailing on the democrats, you've suddenly got a problem with it.
It's called hypocrisy, and you liberals seem to have plenty of it.

No, it doesn't

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Putting restrictions on contributions is either a violation of free speech or it isn't. It doesn't matter who gave how much to Obama or anybody else

 

[brono921]

No, it doesn't[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it does, for the reasons just put forth.
Your money is drying up, and now you're pissing and moaning.
Looks like Obama is going to be a one termer, just like Jimmy Carter.

 

[code1211]

Corporations can contribute to candidates with no restrictions but there are limits on what unions can give?

As I understand it, any organization is limited in the same ways in their donations to any candidate.

However, there is no limit whatsoever on the amount of money that can be spent by anyone or any organization on issue adds that do not mention a candidate by name.

Do you have a link to the source that made you post this topic?

 

[Moonglow]

they all get monies from all types of donors, how dumb it is to point fingers, when they are all guilty.

 

[code1211]

A huge part of the problem is that the Republicans have gotten what they'd been damanding for years, a "balanced unbiased Supreme Court" which sounds good except that when Republicans say "balanced and unbiased" what they really mean is far right and totally biased toward the far right

Coporations tend to donte more to Republicans then Democrats, so of course the lackies on the court want them to be able to give as much as they want

If there is a difference, it is not greatly unbalanced in either direction.

Do you have a link to a source that supports your assertion?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Corporations can contribute to candidates with no restrictions but there are limits on what unions can give?

As I understand it, any organization is limited in the same ways in their donations to any candidate.

However, there is no limit whatsoever on the amount of money that can be spent by anyone or any organization on issue adds that do not mention a candidate by name.

Do you have a link to the source that made you post this topic?

No link. But I thought the Citizens United decision said that corporations can give as much as they want and since then I've heard about restrictions put on unions and in some cases outright prohibitions

 

[California Girl]

Firstly, it's a tad stupid to ask a specific question and provide no link to show where it comes from.

Secondly, there is no need to bold your every word.... again, it makes you look stupid.

So, the question is.... is it true that you are, in fact, stupid?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

they all get monies from all types of donors, how dumb it is to point fingers, when they are all guilty.

No, they do NOT. Democrats get more from the unions then Republicans do, at least in cases where unions are allowed to give, because Republicans hate the working man and unions tend to not like that

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Seems it isn't all that new. Check out this little thing I found from 1998

U. S. Senator Trent Lott (R, Mississippi) seems to agree with me. On the Senate floor, Lott proclaimed: "No one should be compelled by a union or a corporation or a Congress to give their hard-earned dollars to a candidate or a campaign." (Los Angeles Times, 24 February 1998) Of course, Lott's sincerity remains to be tested. His emphasis is on union, as he promotes his bill to prohibit political donations by unions. But his inclusion of corporation in his statement now presents an opportunity to make an issue of corporate donations during the pending Congressional elections.
Will Lott retract his implication that corporations should not spend their stockholders' money on politics? Will his Republican colleagues repudiate his statement? Will Democrats support Lott's position? Will hypocracy continue to control campaign reform?
24 February 1998
Oops!
I sent a letter to Senator Lott about his speech and how it seemed to take a balanced approach to this issue by condemning political contributions from both unions spending their members' dues and corporations spending their stockholders' profits. The Senator wrote a reply to me, indicating that his mention of corporations meant that they should not spend money to help unions in their political causes. He sees nothing wrong with corporations spending the profits generated from their stockholders' investments on political causes that are contrary to the best interests of those stockholders. In other words: Forget balance!
11 May 1998

David Ross -- Union Dues for Political Campaigns

 

[Momanohedhunter]

A huge part of the problem is that the Republicans have gotten what they'd been damanding for years, a "balanced unbiased Supreme Court" which sounds good except that when Republicans say "balanced and unbiased" what they really mean is far right and totally biased toward the far right

Coporations tend to donte more to Republicans then Democrats, so of course the lackies on the court want them to be able to give as much as they want

Which rulings have been in favor of the right ? The one ware you can depict and possess children being molested or having sex as long as it is just a cartoon ? As for the rest, you can look it up here.

Citizens' Guide

 

[cutter]

A huge part of the problem is that the Republicans have gotten what they'd been damanding for years, a "balanced unbiased Supreme Court" which sounds good except that when Republicans say "balanced and unbiased" what they really mean is far right and totally biased toward the far right

Coporations tend to donte more to Republicans then Democrats, so of course the lackies on the court want them to be able to give as much as they want

You might be right. They are totally bias towards the Constitution. You Progressives hate that. That evil document protects you even if you guys hate it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The same laws have always applied to unions and corporations, in terms of political donations.

Citizen's United didn't change that.