Montana Supreme Court Slaps Down Citizens United

[Liability]

ok buttercup

closer.

I accept your concession, dweeb.

ok buttercup

Thanks dweebles.

 

[Synthaholic]

How idiotic.

The Supreme Court will overrule this decision. A state government has no more authority to restrict freedom of speech than the federal government does. If the Sc rules that corporate spending on political speech is protected, then the state government cannot ban it.

End of story.

Any controversy over this Montana decision has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with a State SC trying to usurp the power of the Federal SC (SCOTUS).

The SCOTUS decision does concern, but is not strictly limited to, free speech. It also concerns campaign finance, the 14th Amendment, questions of bought elections, corruption, and a general un-American unfairness, disenfranchising non-monied interests - like the majority of the American public.

It doesn't matter what it "concerns." It was overturned on the basis of the First Amendment. Your so-called "concerns" where just bullshit rationalizations for violating the First Amendment.

Apparently my post went right over your head.

 

[Synthaholic]

Then buying elections will continue. It will never go back to the most qualified candidate, only the one with the most money.

But that's what the neo-cons really want.

Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations - The Washington Post

How does this troll post negate what DaGoose said in any way?

 

[Synthaholic]

What are they? Typewriters? Pogo sticks?

Similar. They are property.

You know what corporations are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says they can't have a voice in politics.


You know what unions are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says their voice in politics is necessary.

In both cases, they are wrong, and so are you. If you are limited, as an individual, to a ceiling dollar amount, why should you be able to contribute more through your corporation?

Corporations, unions, school groups, whatever - none of it should be allowed.


Another daveman generalization of The Left is proven false.

 

[Synthaholic]

Of course, dipshits like Plasmaballless find shiny pieces of foil "amusing" too.

So Cain was a piece of tinfoil?

there is a very simple State law does not trump Federal Law. While i agree with Montana's ruling, they did indeed step out of bounds here. Scotus already ruled on this, and most likely will rule the same way on appeal.

The same goes for the healthcare laws, and Immigration. The same would happen if the Federal Government got into the license game.

Thats the difference between you and i. I'm consistent. Well no i am wrong you are also consistent, you have picked two loosers for Presidents. Three is you back McCaon and palin in 08, which i assume you did.

YOU are amused by tinfoil, moron. Not me. And Mr. Cain was a good candidate. HE got slimed. Ass-suckers like you lap that shit up.

I have not backed losers. I backed Fred Thompson. The best candidate that year, but a poor campaigner. I also liked Mr. Cain. He got slimed. That's all. He still had far more intelligent positions than any of the other candidates. Certainly superior to the numbskull in chief presently infesting the Oval Office.

 

[Skull Pilot]

As a person born in Montana, as well as a legal resident during my entire career in the Navy, I'm very glad this is happening.

Corporations are NOT people.

Neither are unions, political action committees or the RNC and DNC.

So if we have equal application of the law then I'm all for it.

All money collected and spent by politicians should be from individual voters.

 

[daveman]

"Groups of people working for a common purpose" should not be considered persons. Each individual member of the group, yes. The group itself, no.

Then you oppose union donations to political campaigns.

 

[daveman]

Then buying elections will continue. It will never go back to the most qualified candidate, only the one with the most money.

But that's what the neo-cons really want.

Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations - The Washington Post

How does this troll post negate what DaGoose said in any way?

It's not a troll post. Stop desperately trying to redefine words, moron.

According to Goosey's "logic", neo-cons want Obama to win.

 

[daveman]

Similar. They are property.

You know what corporations are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says they can't have a voice in politics.


You know what unions are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says their voice in politics is necessary.

In both cases, they are wrong, and so are you. If you are limited, as an individual, to a ceiling dollar amount, why should you be able to contribute more through your corporation?

Corporations, unions, school groups, whatever - none of it should be allowed.


Another daveman generalization of The Left is proven false.

Really? Ask Goosey if his union should be able to donate to Democrats.

And then find me an article by a liberal condemning union donations.

 

[Synthaholic]

Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations - The Washington Post

How does this troll post negate what DaGoose said in any way?

It's not a troll post. Stop desperately trying to redefine words, moron.

According to Goosey's "logic", neo-cons want Obama to win.

It is a troll post. You are doing your typical "they do it , too".

They can be mutually exclusive, you know. Obama can raise a shitload of cash, and that doesn't stop Neo-Cons from wanting that system. They know that they come out better when it comes to corporate contributions than Democrats, historically and for the near future. And that system helps them in all their races, while you are narrowly thinking only about the POTUS election. The rest of the Democratic candidates for House/Senate don't raise money like Obama does - he's an A-lister. But ALL the Republican candidates can benefit from corporate money much more than Democrats can from unions.

 

[DaGoose]

How idiotic.

The Supreme Court will overrule this decision. A state government has no more authority to restrict freedom of speech than the federal government does. If the Sc rules that corporate spending on political speech is protected, then the state government cannot ban it.

End of story.

You're probably right about that.

Then buying elections will continue. It will never go back to the most qualified candidate, only the one with the most money.

But that's what the neo-cons really want.

Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations - The Washington Post

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[DaGoose]

You know what corporations are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says they can't have a voice in politics.


You know what unions are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says their voice in politics is necessary.

In both cases, they are wrong, and so are you. If you are limited, as an individual, to a ceiling dollar amount, why should you be able to contribute more through your corporation?

Corporations, unions, school groups, whatever - none of it should be allowed.


Another daveman generalization of The Left is proven false.

Really? Ask Goosey if his union should be able to donate to Democrats.

And then find me an article by a liberal condemning union donations.

Attention DAVEY........

Sorry to burst your bubble of infinite wisdom but my Union does not only donate to democrats.

And if companys and corporations are able to use their money to buy elections (to get rid of worker protection laws) then Unions should have the right to donate money to stop their assault on worker rights. See how it works? What's good for the "Goose" is good for the "Gander".

If corporations stopped buying elections then there wouldn't be any need for Unions to donate money, right?

 

[Synthaholic]

You know what corporations are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says they can't have a voice in politics.


You know what unions are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says their voice in politics is necessary.

In both cases, they are wrong, and so are you. If you are limited, as an individual, to a ceiling dollar amount, why should you be able to contribute more through your corporation?

Corporations, unions, school groups, whatever - none of it should be allowed.


Another daveman generalization of The Left is proven false.

Really? Ask Goosey if his union should be able to donate to Democrats.

And then find me an article by a liberal condemning union donations.

You weren't talking about DaGoose. You were talking about The Left:

You know what corporations are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says they can't have a voice in politics.


You know what unions are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says their voice in politics is necessary.

Is DaGoose The Left? You're always calling me a Leftist, and a Liberal. But I don't want money in politics.

So, are you wrong about The Left? Are you wrong about DaGoose? Or are you wrong about me?

We all know you are wrong about something - new year, same daveman bullshit.

 

[whitehall]

Gee a big corporate state like Montana? It must mean two or three hundred dollars.

 

[daveman]

How does this troll post negate what DaGoose said in any way?

It's not a troll post. Stop desperately trying to redefine words, moron.

According to Goosey's "logic", neo-cons want Obama to win.

It is a troll post. You are doing your typical "they do it , too".

They can be mutually exclusive, you know. Obama can raise a shitload of cash, and that doesn't stop Neo-Cons from wanting that system. They know that they come out better when it comes to corporate contributions than Democrats, historically and for the near future. And that system helps them in all their races, while you are narrowly thinking only about the POTUS election. The rest of the Democratic candidates for House/Senate don't raise money like Obama does - he's an A-lister. But ALL the Republican candidates can benefit from corporate money much more than Democrats can from unions.

Ahhh. You're just whiny that I dared criticize The Lightbringer.


But why do you make claims that can so easily be disproved?

Obama’s raised more money for Democrats from Wall Street donors than all Republican candidates combined « Hot Air

 

[daveman]

You're probably right about that.

Then buying elections will continue. It will never go back to the most qualified candidate, only the one with the most money.

But that's what the neo-cons really want.

Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations - The Washington Post

Thanks for proving my point.

If your point is that Obama is a neo-con favorite, sure.

 

[daveman]

In both cases, they are wrong, and so are you. If you are limited, as an individual, to a ceiling dollar amount, why should you be able to contribute more through your corporation?

Corporations, unions, school groups, whatever - none of it should be allowed.


Another daveman generalization of The Left is proven false.

Really? Ask Goosey if his union should be able to donate to Democrats.

And then find me an article by a liberal condemning union donations.

You weren't talking about DaGoose. You were talking about The Left:

You know what corporations are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says they can't have a voice in politics.


You know what unions are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says their voice in politics is necessary.

Is DaGoose The Left? You're always calling me a Leftist, and a Liberal. But I don't want money in politics.

So, are you wrong about The Left? Are you wrong about DaGoose? Or are you wrong about me?

We all know you are wrong about something - new year, same daveman bullshit.

Goosey said I'm not wrong. He wants to keep union money in politics.

And congratulations to you. You've made a small effort to think for yourself. Was it painful?

Oh, and still waiting for an article by a liberal condemning union donations.

 

[DaGoose]

In both cases, they are wrong, and so are you. If you are limited, as an individual, to a ceiling dollar amount, why should you be able to contribute more through your corporation?

Corporations, unions, school groups, whatever - none of it should be allowed.


Another daveman generalization of The Left is proven false.

Really? Ask Goosey if his union should be able to donate to Democrats.

And then find me an article by a liberal condemning union donations.

Attention DAVEY........

Sorry to burst your bubble of infinite wisdom but my Union does not only donate to democrats.

And if companys and corporations are able to use their money to buy elections (to get rid of worker protection laws) then Unions should have the right to donate money to stop their assault on worker rights. See how it works? What's good for the "Goose" is good for the "Gander".

If corporations stopped buying elections then there wouldn't be any need for Unions to donate money, right?

C'mon Davy. I'm awaiting an answer. But I doubt I'll get one.

 

[DaGoose]

Really? Ask Goosey if his union should be able to donate to Democrats.

And then find me an article by a liberal condemning union donations.

You weren't talking about DaGoose. You were talking about The Left:

You know what corporations are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says they can't have a voice in politics.


You know what unions are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says their voice in politics is necessary.

Is DaGoose The Left? You're always calling me a Leftist, and a Liberal. But I don't want money in politics.

So, are you wrong about The Left? Are you wrong about DaGoose? Or are you wrong about me?

We all know you are wrong about something - new year, same daveman bullshit.

Goosey said I'm not wrong. He wants to keep union money in politics.

And congratulations to you. You've made a small effort to think for yourself. Was it painful?

Oh, and still waiting for an article by a liberal condemning union donations.

Why would a liberal condemn something that helps protect the average working man?

 

[daveman]

Really? Ask Goosey if his union should be able to donate to Democrats.

And then find me an article by a liberal condemning union donations.

Attention DAVEY........

Sorry to burst your bubble of infinite wisdom but my Union does not only donate to democrats.

And if companys and corporations are able to use their money to buy elections (to get rid of worker protection laws) then Unions should have the right to donate money to stop their assault on worker rights. See how it works? What's good for the "Goose" is good for the "Gander".

If corporations stopped buying elections then there wouldn't be any need for Unions to donate money, right?

C'mon Davy. I'm awaiting an answer. But I doubt I'll get one.

Oh, sorry, passed this one by. Weird part is I referenced it in a reply to Synthia.

Prepare to be amazed: I pretty much agree. If unions can donate, corporations can, too, and vice versa.

The "If corporations stopped buying elections" union propaganda is horseshit, of course. Unions spend billions on campaigns and lobbying.