McCain and Whitehouse v Citizens United

[BDBoop]

McCain and Whitehouse urge High Court to note impact of Citizens United decision - The Hill's Ballot Box

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), in an amicus brief filed on Friday, pushed for the Supreme Court to note the impact of its landmark decision in the Citizens United case.

The senators explained that anonymous political spending has exploded in the wake of the January 2010 ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts in elections.

“We are deeply concerned about the rise of unlimited, anonymous money now flooding our elections,” Whitehouse and McCain noted in their brief, which was filed on a Montana court case that may be heard by the court. The Montana case focuses on a state law that stops corporations from funding election ads, which was ruled legal in the Citizens United case.

“This unregulated and unaccountable spending invites corruption into our political process, and undermines our democracy. We urge the Supreme Court to make clear that legislatures can take appropriate actions against corrupting influences in campaigns.”

Light at the end of the tunnel? I hope?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Good! Only US Citizens and not Corporations, should be able to give donations to politicians.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

McCain and Whitehouse urge High Court to note impact of Citizens United decision - The Hill's Ballot Box

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), in an amicus brief filed on Friday, pushed for the Supreme Court to note the impact of its landmark decision in the Citizens United case.

The senators explained that anonymous political spending has exploded in the wake of the January 2010 ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts in elections.

“We are deeply concerned about the rise of unlimited, anonymous money now flooding our elections,” Whitehouse and McCain noted in their brief, which was filed on a Montana court case that may be heard by the court. The Montana case focuses on a state law that stops corporations from funding election ads, which was ruled legal in the Citizens United case.

“This unregulated and unaccountable spending invites corruption into our political process, and undermines our democracy. We urge the Supreme Court to make clear that legislatures can take appropriate actions against corrupting influences in campaigns.”

Light at the end of the tunnel? I hope?

The impact of Citizens United is that people who are in the government actually have to answer for what they do, no wonder they want it changed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good! Only US Citizens and not Corporations, should be able to give donations to politicians.

You should tell Obama that, his website doesn't even make sure his donations come from US residents, never mind actually checking their citizenship.

 

[BDBoop]

McCain and Whitehouse urge High Court to note impact of Citizens United decision - The Hill's Ballot Box

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), in an amicus brief filed on Friday, pushed for the Supreme Court to note the impact of its landmark decision in the Citizens United case.

The senators explained that anonymous political spending has exploded in the wake of the January 2010 ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts in elections.

“We are deeply concerned about the rise of unlimited, anonymous money now flooding our elections,” Whitehouse and McCain noted in their brief, which was filed on a Montana court case that may be heard by the court. The Montana case focuses on a state law that stops corporations from funding election ads, which was ruled legal in the Citizens United case.

“This unregulated and unaccountable spending invites corruption into our political process, and undermines our democracy. We urge the Supreme Court to make clear that legislatures can take appropriate actions against corrupting influences in campaigns.”

Light at the end of the tunnel? I hope?

The impact of Citizens United is that people who are in the government actually have to answer for what they do, no wonder they want it changed.

And the money has nothing to do with it? Because that's the big objection.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

McCain and Whitehouse urge High Court to note impact of Citizens United decision - The Hill's Ballot Box

Light at the end of the tunnel? I hope?

The impact of Citizens United is that people who are in the government actually have to answer for what they do, no wonder they want it changed.

And the money has nothing to do with it? Because that's the big objection.

No it isn't, the big objection is that incumbent Senators are loosing primary elections.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Good! Only US Citizens and not Corporations, should be able to give donations to politicians.

Who was it that said, "corporations are people too"?

 

[BDBoop]

Good! Only US Citizens and not Corporations, should be able to give donations to politicians.

Who was it that said, "corporations are people too"?

Mittens.

He got booed.

 

[whitehall]

I guess McCain found another democrat stooge after Russ Feingold lost. The reason George Soros's media matters propaganda tank is tax exempt is because of the monstrosity McCain/Feingold created with their ironically named " campaign finance reform". The supreme court determined that money is speech and democrats have been whining about it ever since. Live with it people. Corporations are not your enemy. Any American can incorporate or create his/her own corporation. Every small business is incorporated for a variety of reasons. The Sierra Club and PETA and media matters are incorporated as well as the NRA. Why would bigots like McCain and his democrat stooge prevent Americans who happen to be members of a corporation from pooling their money to support a candidate? Because asses like McCain don't believe in the political process that keeps them in office or maybe they think it's a popular issue among ignorant quasi-socialists and they might get invited to the next liberal media cocktail party.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

good! Only us citizens and not corporations, should be able to give donations to politicians.

who was it that said, "corporations are people too"?

FDR

by virtue of the authority vested in me by section 5(b) of the act of october 6, 1917, as amended by section 2 of the act of march 9, 1933, entitled “an act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes”, in which amendatory act congress declared that a serious emergency exists, i, franklin d. Roosevelt, president of the united states of america, do declare that said national emergency still continues to exist and pursuant to said section do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental united states by individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations and hereby prescribe the following regulations for carrying out the purposes of this order:


Section 1.

For the purposes of this regulation, the term “hoarding” means the withdrawal and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates from the recognized and customary channels of trade. the term “person” means any individual, partnership, association or corporation.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

 

[Ernie S.]

Good! Only US Citizens and not Corporations, should be able to give donations to politicians.

What about labor unions and why?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Citizens United was the correct decision, regardless its unintended consequences.

In essence the Court ruled that there may indeed be a problem where the wealthy – be it corporate or individual – have an undue influence on the election process, but violating the First Amendment is not an appropriate remedy.

And as it has been the case before and after Citizens United, it’s ultimately the responsibility of each voter to research the issues and vote in an informed and responsible manner.

That there are lazy, ignorant voters who allow themselves to be swayed by partisan attack ads is not justification for preempting a given entity’s First Amendment right.