ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,719
- 1,830
So the Supreme Court once again shits on citizens and says we dont care if money corrupts politicians...Give 'em more money...All the money you want. The law the overturned was called the Corrupt Practices Act of 1912. Because even in 1912 people knew that more money equals more problems like Biggie Smalls so eloquently put it. The AG disagreed
Supreme Court permits no limits on state campaign funds | Reuters
Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling Shows Reformers' Weak Position - Alex Roarty - NationalJournal.com
Let's hear it for states right...right? But I'm like...What corruption?
So he Steve Bullock the AG did another interview:
Montana Defies Supreme Court's Citizens United Case : NPR
Thats from 1912 and they knew better. Dont tell me some crap about Corporations right to speech...Right now they have more money, more rights than average citizens. I'll ask again for those on the right and the left. How is making unlimited campaign donations from corporations a good thing for democracy?
Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock opposed the appeal.
"As Montana's history attests, corporate independent expenditures can corrupt," he wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court. "No state in the union has detailed a more compelling threat of corruption by corporate campaign expenditures than Montana."
Supreme Court permits no limits on state campaign funds | Reuters
In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer agreed. He reiterated his existing objection to the Citizens United decision, arguing that the proliferation of political spending amounted to a quid pro quo arrangement between politicians and political spenders. He also backed the states right to decide on its own whether corporate spending constituted a corrupting influence, the threshold conservative justices have argued laws must pass to be constitutional.
Thus, Montanas experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Courts decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Courts supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so, Breyer wrote.
Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling Shows Reformers' Weak Position - Alex Roarty - NationalJournal.com
Let's hear it for states right...right? But I'm like...What corruption?
So he Steve Bullock the AG did another interview:
Montana Defies Supreme Court's Citizens United Case : NPR
STEVE BULLOCK: Our legislature, our judges, down to the local county assessors, were almost bought and paid for. Mark Twain even said that, you know, the amount of money coming in in Montana makes the smell of corruption almost sweet.
Thats from 1912 and they knew better. Dont tell me some crap about Corporations right to speech...Right now they have more money, more rights than average citizens. I'll ask again for those on the right and the left. How is making unlimited campaign donations from corporations a good thing for democracy?