Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As dilloduck stated, the left doesn't have a problem with Soros doing it ....
Come on, dumb ass, Soros is as much a citizen as you are. In fact, probably more of one, since he is naturalized, and had to pass tests that you probably could not.
Well golly gee, why don't we all just elect him as the next president.........
Bradley A. Smith (born 1958) is a former Commissioner, Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and currently serves as the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio
Post-FEC career
After leaving the FEC, Smith returned to teaching at Capital University, and founded a non-profit organization, the Center for Competitive Politics, to promote deregulation of campaign finance.
LOL no wonder he's spouting off about campaign funding instead of what the decision is actually about.
It's about the ability for a corporation to spend unlimited amounts of money advertising for or against a candidate.
Previously they were allowed to do this advertising for or against an issue. Like the way the Mormon Church (yes religious entities are included in this ruling too) spent millions on ads against gay marriage in California. That was funding an issue. Now they can do this for a candidate too.
Hey maybe the Taleban and Al Qaeda can spend money advertising for a candidate. Won't that be awesome.
no worse than Soros
Come on, dumb ass, Soros is as much a citizen as you are. In fact, probably more of one, since he is naturalized, and had to pass tests that you probably could not.
Well golly gee, why don't we all just elect him as the next president.........
Well, golly gee, why don't your read your Constitution before you flap your idiotic yap?
This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.
Al Capone was an American citizen.LOL no wonder he's spouting off about campaign funding instead of what the decision is actually about.
It's about the ability for a corporation to spend unlimited amounts of money advertising for or against a candidate.
Previously they were allowed to do this advertising for or against an issue. Like the way the Mormon Church (yes religious entities are included in this ruling too) spent millions on ads against gay marriage in California. That was funding an issue. Now they can do this for a candidate too.
Hey maybe the Taleban and Al Qaeda can spend money advertising for a candidate. Won't that be awesome.
no worse than Soros
Soros is an American Citizen. Has that fact escaped you?
Lets see......
We can have the Saudis help determine our energy policy
China can help establish our export policy
Mexico can set our immigration policy
Thanks Supreme Court
they already do......at least we will have a written record of it now.....all kidding aside....before mccain fiengold they could do it.....why the outrage now....
A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."
The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.
Stevens continued: The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nations political process. Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.
Read more: White House: Obama is right about Supreme Court decision - Mike Allen and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Barry lied. He didn't even read the decision.
Really? Seems that Justice Stevens said exactly what the President said.
And these are the Justices that gave us George W. Bush. We all know how well that worked out.
Let me see, Prince Alaweed's adviser Khalid Monsour got Obama into Harvard and Iraqi Oil for Food Fugitive Nahdmi Aucho funneled money through Rezko to buy the Obama's House and pay him $600,000 in land that only cost Obama $125,000.
Yeah, that foreign money can have an influence
Barry lied. He didn't even read the decision.
Really? Seems that Justice Stevens said exactly what the President said.
And these are the Justices that gave us George W. Bush. We all know how well that worked out.
Fact is that your messiah lied, rocks. Hey, how about that election in Ma. eh?
Bet you fell off your crapper on that one.
Really? Seems that Justice Stevens said exactly what the President said.
And these are the Justices that gave us George W. Bush. We all know how well that worked out.
Fact is that your messiah lied, rocks. Hey, how about that election in Ma. eh?
Bet you fell off your crapper on that one.
Only a sheep would call someone a liar who spoke the truth. If he lied, then Roberts lied in the decision when he basically said that congress would have to keep the foreign own corporations out.
A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: “There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."
The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”
Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”
Read more: White House: Obama is right about Supreme Court decision - Mike Allen and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Barry lied. He didn't even read the decision.
Obama taught "Constitutional Law" for 10 years at the University level. He's no George friggen Bush. I'm pretty sure Obama knows what he is talking about. Besides, every lawyer in the US agrees.
Republicans - Don't believe scientists
Republicans - Don't believe lawyers
Who do they believe? Michelle Bachman.
Conservatives jumped on Obamas comment. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said on Fox Newss "Hannity" that Obama was embarrassing our Supreme Court. This will be the huge takeaway moment.
On National Reviews The Corner, law professor Bradley A. Smith wrote: The president's statement is false. This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.
Conservative Dan Riehl added: f this becomes the narrative it hurts Obama and distracts from anything he may have wanted to accomplish with the address.
Read more: White House: Obama is right about Supreme Court decision - Mike Allen and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
LOL no wonder he's spouting off about campaign funding instead of what the decision is actually about.
It's about the ability for a corporation to spend unlimited amounts of money advertising for or against a candidate.
Previously they were allowed to do this advertising for or against an issue. Like the way the Mormon Church (yes religious entities are included in this ruling too) spent millions on ads against gay marriage in California. That was funding an issue. Now they can do this for a candidate too.
Hey maybe the Taleban and Al Qaeda can spend money advertising for a candidate. Won't that be awesome.
HAMAS had phone banks operating for Obama
Yea, what a threat - "HAMAS" with all their BILLIONS of dollars.
Let me see, Prince Alaweed's adviser Khalid Monsour got Obama into Harvard and Iraqi Oil for Food Fugitive Nahdmi Aucho funneled money through Rezko to buy the Obama's House and pay him $600,000 in land that only cost Obama $125,000.
Yeah, that foreign money can have an influence
HAMAS had phone banks operating for Obama
Yea, what a threat - "HAMAS" with all their BILLIONS of dollars.
You have no problem with a terrorist organization helping a candidate for POTUS? I wonder if you would feel the same had they been pitching for McCain?
I find your attitude towards this to be impressively stupid.
Yea, what a threat - "HAMAS" with all their BILLIONS of dollars.
You have no problem with a terrorist organization helping a candidate for POTUS? I wonder if you would feel the same had they been pitching for McCain?
I find your attitude towards this to be impressively stupid.
On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain
As the Washington Post detailed Wednesday, Al Qaeda cadres see a McCain as the best bet to perpetuate the policies of President Bush they see bankrupting the United States and the West:
"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush...
...It further suggested that a terrorist strike might swing the election to McCain and guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in the Islamic world.
"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda," said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. "Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America."
You have no problem with a terrorist organization helping a candidate for POTUS? I wonder if you would feel the same had they been pitching for McCain?
I find your attitude towards this to be impressively stupid.
On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain
As the Washington Post detailed Wednesday, Al Qaeda cadres see a McCain as the best bet to perpetuate the policies of President Bush they see bankrupting the United States and the West:
"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush...
...It further suggested that a terrorist strike might swing the election to McCain and guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in the Islamic world.
"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda," said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. "Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America."
Again and again you link to rubbish to back up your argument. I find it laughable, I really do.
Simple fact, the POTUS was wrong. Shocking as it may be, he was wrong.
A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."
The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.
Stevens continued: The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nations political process. Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.
Read more: White House: Obama is right about Supreme Court decision - Mike Allen and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
In the case of Barack Obama v. Supreme Court of the United States, that was some oral argument on Wednesday night. With the Justices arrayed a few feet in front of him in the House chamber, President Obama blistered their recent decision defending free political speech for corporations and unions. As Democrats in Congress and Cabinet members rose and applauded around them, the Justices sat stern-faced, save for Samuel Alito, who was seen shaking his head and mouthing the words "Not true."
Bravo, Justice Alito.
We're not among those who think the Supreme Court is above criticism. Especially in recent decades as the judiciary has become more political, and has encroached on the powers of Congress and the executive, politicians in the other branches have an obligation to defend their powers. Mr. Obama may have exhibited bad manners in sandbagging the Justices without warning on national TV, but he has every right to disagree with their rulings.
But could a graduate of Harvard Law School at least get his facts right? "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Mr. Obama averred. "Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
Let's unpack the falsehoods. The Court didn't reverse "a century of law," but merely two more recent precedents, one from 1990 and part of another from 2003. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce in 1990 had set the Court in a markedly new direction in limiting independent corporate campaign expenditures. This is the outlier case that needed to be overturned.
Mr. Obama is also a sudden convert to stare decisis. Does he now believe that all Court precedents of a certain duration are sacrosanct, such as Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal, 1896), which was overturned by Brown v. Board (1954)? Or Bowers v. Hardwick (a ban on sodomy, 1986), which was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas (2003)?
The President's claim about "foreign entities" bankrolling U.S. political campaigns is also false, since the Court did not overrule laws limiting such contributions. His use of "foreign" was a conscious attempt to inflame public and Congressional opinion against the Court. Coming from a President who fancies himself a citizen of the world, and who has gone so far as foreswear American exceptionalism, this leap into talk-show nativism is certainly illuminating. What will they think of that one in the cafes of Berlin?
Desperate Presidents do desperate things, and Mr. Obama's riff against the Supremes reveals a President wholet us try to follow Mr. Obama's admonition about changing the "tone" of our politicslacks grace under pressure.
