The last nail in Democracy in America's Coffin!

[Wry Catcher]

McCutcheon v. FEC; now the Koch Brothers can come out of the closet and buy members of Congress, Members of State Legislators and Members of City and County Boards and Councils around our nation with complete immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has legalized bribery and calumny from any civil or criminal penalty.

See: The Koch's 'secret bank' takes another step out of the shadows

Is this about Free Speech or fear of the masses and the desire to establish an oligarchy for the rich and powerful?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

McCutcheon v. FEC; now the Koch Brothers can come out of the closet and buy members of Congress, Members of State Legislators and Members of City and County Boards and Councils around our nation with complete immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has legalized bribery and calumny from any civil or criminal penalty.

See: The Koch's 'secret bank' takes another step out of the shadows

Is this about Free Speech or fear of the masses and the desire to establish an oligarchy for the rich and powerful?

 

[Wry Catcher]

So one must suppose that CrusaderFrank believes the Supreme Court has acted in good faith and in support of the freedom for all Americans. I wonder though, which brand of Kool-Aid he consumes (we can assume it is only red)?

 

[RandomVariable]

Not a direct reply to the OP but a little research. The Freedom Partners currently have five videos on their YouTube channel. All directed against candidates and those candidate's support for Obamacare. I expect that the message will pivot to the new topic once that it is decided. They probably understand Obamacare has a limited shelf life at this point and are just building up the machine.

 

[william the wie]

This is very good news.

 

[Defiant1]

McCutcheon v. FEC; now the Koch Brothers can come out of the closet and buy members of Congress, Members of State Legislators and Members of City and County Boards and Councils around our nation with complete immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has legalized bribery and calumny from any civil or criminal penalty.

See: The Koch's 'secret bank' takes another step out of the shadows

Is this about Free Speech or fear of the masses and the desire to establish an oligarchy for the rich and powerful?

Please explain how you believe restricting how someone can spend their own money is freedom.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

McCutcheon v. FEC; now the Koch Brothers can come out of the closet and buy members of Congress, Members of State Legislators and Members of City and County Boards and Councils around our nation with complete immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has legalized bribery and calumny from any civil or criminal penalty.

See: The Koch's 'secret bank' takes another step out of the shadows

Is this about Free Speech or fear of the masses and the desire to establish an oligarchy for the rich and powerful?

Please explain how you believe restricting how someone can spend their own money is freedom.

Right leaning people are the new Kulaks so all Wry will tell you, in between frothing spittle, is that it's bad bad bad for people who are not George Soros to be able to spend money to get their ideas out

 

[RandomVariable]

I feel like trying to control political campaign spending is like trying to define an assault rifle. Both sounds good but neither is doable. I do have a real issue with people not having to take responsibility for funding ads. If the pharmaceutical companies are funding ads for the protection of mortgages the public has the right to know this.

 

[Wry Catcher]

McCutcheon v. FEC; now the Koch Brothers can come out of the closet and buy members of Congress, Members of State Legislators and Members of City and County Boards and Councils around our nation with complete immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has legalized bribery and calumny from any civil or criminal penalty.

See: The Koch's 'secret bank' takes another step out of the shadows

Is this about Free Speech or fear of the masses and the desire to establish an oligarchy for the rich and powerful?

Please explain how you believe restricting how someone can spend their own money is freedom.

One short example might cause you to think through the issue:

You want a piece of property to be zoned for a business you would like to open. The business would provide an alternative to the only other same business in your town and you explain to the town council competition would be good for all.

Mr. Smith who operates the business which you will compete learns of your appeal and decides to donate $500 to each voting member of the council for their reelection campaign. Do you believe his freedom to spend his own money in this manner is fine?

It really is that simple, too bad CrusaderFrank is so partisan he can't see how the Supreme Court Rulings on election is harmful to all Americans.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

McCutcheon v. FEC; now the Koch Brothers can come out of the closet and buy members of Congress, Members of State Legislators and Members of City and County Boards and Councils around our nation with complete immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has legalized bribery and calumny from any civil or criminal penalty.

See: The Koch's 'secret bank' takes another step out of the shadows

Is this about Free Speech or fear of the masses and the desire to establish an oligarchy for the rich and powerful?

Please explain how you believe restricting how someone can spend their own money is freedom.

One short example might cause you to think through the issue:

You want a piece of property to be zoned for a business you would like to open. The business would provide an alternative to the only other same business in your town and you explain to the town council competition would be good for all.

Mr. Smith who operates the business which you will compete learns of your appeal and decides to donate $500 to each voting member of the council for their reelection campaign. Do you believe his freedom to spend his own money in this manner is fine?

Did you miss Kelo decision?

SCOTUS ruled that the state can give someone your property if they're willing to pay higher real estate tax

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_108

 

[Wry Catcher]

Please explain how you believe restricting how someone can spend their own money is freedom.

One short example might cause you to think through the issue:

You want a piece of property to be zoned for a business you would like to open. The business would provide an alternative to the only other same business in your town and you explain to the town council competition would be good for all.

Mr. Smith who operates the business which you will compete learns of your appeal and decides to donate $500 to each voting member of the council for their reelection campaign. Do you believe his freedom to spend his own money in this manner is fine?

Did you miss Kelo decision?

SCOTUS ruled that the state can give someone your property if they're willing to pay higher real estate tax

Kelo v. City of New London | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Do you go out of your way to appear stupid, or does it come naturally?

The question was simple, the answer was simple and yet you choose to deflect into an absolute non sequitur.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

McCutcheon v. FEC; now the Koch Brothers can come out of the closet and buy members of Congress, Members of State Legislators and Members of City and County Boards and Councils around our nation with complete immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has legalized bribery and calumny from any civil or criminal penalty.

See: The Koch's 'secret bank' takes another step out of the shadows

Is this about Free Speech or fear of the masses and the desire to establish an oligarchy for the rich and powerful?

Please explain how you believe restricting how someone can spend their own money is freedom.

One short example might cause you to think through the issue:

You want a piece of property to be zoned for a business you would like to open. The business would provide an alternative to the only other same business in your town and you explain to the town council competition would be good for all.

Mr. Smith who operates the business which you will compete learns of your appeal and decides to donate $500 to each voting member of the council for their reelection campaign. Do you believe his freedom to spend his own money in this manner is fine?

It really is that simple, too bad CrusaderFrank is so partisan he can't see how the Supreme Court Rulings on election is harmful to all Americans.

Hmm, so it's like a real estate developer giving a US Senator a piece of land?

 

[Moonglow]

Speech = money

 

[Wry Catcher]

Please explain how you believe restricting how someone can spend their own money is freedom.

One short example might cause you to think through the issue:

You want a piece of property to be zoned for a business you would like to open. The business would provide an alternative to the only other same business in your town and you explain to the town council competition would be good for all.

Mr. Smith who operates the business which you will compete learns of your appeal and decides to donate $500 to each voting member of the council for their reelection campaign. Do you believe his freedom to spend his own money in this manner is fine?



It really is that simple, too bad CrusaderFrank is so partisan he can't see how the Supreme Court Rulings on election is harmful to all Americans.

Hmm, so it's like a real estate developer giving a US Senator a piece of land?

Exactly. Would you provide bipartisan examples of how R's and D's both accept money, tickets, drink, prostitutes, jobs for family members, yachts, etc. etc. in quid pro quo, or would such a request offend your sense of dishonest partisanship?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Speech = money

Huh, next time you want something from a POL ask them; then when it does not get done, give them a a campaign 'donation' or their wife a job.

 

[Moonglow]

Speech = money

Huh, next time you want something from a POL ask them; then when it does not get done, give them a a campaign 'donation' or their wife a job.

They don't want nutin' from me unless it's criminal action...nuff said...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

speech = money

lol

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One short example might cause you to think through the issue:

You want a piece of property to be zoned for a business you would like to open. The business would provide an alternative to the only other same business in your town and you explain to the town council competition would be good for all.

Mr. Smith who operates the business which you will compete learns of your appeal and decides to donate $500 to each voting member of the council for their reelection campaign. Do you believe his freedom to spend his own money in this manner is fine?



It really is that simple, too bad CrusaderFrank is so partisan he can't see how the Supreme Court Rulings on election is harmful to all Americans.

Hmm, so it's like a real estate developer giving a US Senator a piece of land?

Exactly. Would you provide bipartisan examples of how R's and D's both accept money, tickets, drink, prostitutes, jobs for family members, yachts, etc. etc. in quid pro quo, or would such a request offend your sense of dishonest partisanship?

Wry, they ALL DO! That's why it was best to have as limited a government as humanly possible.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Hmm, so it's like a real estate developer giving a US Senator a piece of land?

Exactly. Would you provide bipartisan examples of how R's and D's both accept money, tickets, drink, prostitutes, jobs for family members, yachts, etc. etc. in quid pro quo, or would such a request offend your sense of dishonest partisanship?

Wry, they ALL DO! That's why it was best to have as limited a government as humanly possible.

No, it would be good if the Supreme Court allowed laws to prevent bribery. Why they didn't and each time on 5-4 decisions is telling. Roberts seems to be a bit schizophrenic. Thomas and Alito over the top partisan extreme conservatives and Scalia an egotistical jerk. Kennedy is an enigma.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

McCutcheon v. FEC; now the Koch Brothers can come out of the closet and buy members of Congress, Members of State Legislators and Members of City and County Boards and Councils around our nation with complete immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has legalized bribery and calumny from any civil or criminal penalty.

See: The Koch's 'secret bank' takes another step out of the shadows

Is this about Free Speech or fear of the masses and the desire to establish an oligarchy for the rich and powerful?

The left doesn't have any rich donors?