The last nail in Democracy in America's Coffin!

Freedom of Speech, or something else?

  • Yes, it grants all of us greater freedom

    Votes: 6 46.2%
  • Somethings Else (Expalin in post)

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • A success for the vast right wing conspiracy

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • The Death of Democracy in America

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
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?

I think this is a horrible ruling, but I also think that you guys are making too much of it.

The Koch brothers dumped millions into Romney's campaign. So did Sheldon Adelson and a lot of other rich douchebags.

But they still couldn't get the guy airborne even with a pretty dismal economy.

I also think that after the demise of Brendan Eich, a lot of rich CEO"s are going to think long and hard about where they throw their money if it effects their corporate image.
 
[

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

Barack_Obama_Antoin-Tony-Rezko.jpg

Oh my god, Rezko actually gave Obama the GANGWAY between their houses!!!!
 
It would be advisable to do a little research before you disclose just how full of crap you are. Koch brother contributions are not even close to that of your Soros gang, Democrat PAC boys, and union thugs. Your attempt to silence any and all opposition to your twisted progressive garbage is an affront to the right to freedom of speech as guaranteed under the Constitution, but then again, your distaste for the Constitution, empowerment of the people, and self determination is old news. But then again the left has always attempted to quell opposing viewpoints, its the socialist way.

I think when you have someone like Sheldon Adelson demanding that the GOP hopefuls come to Vegas and kiss his ring, and Jeb Bush, CHris Christie and Walker all show up and do so, then, yes, we should be really, really concerned that the rich have too much influence.
 
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?

dramaqueen.jpg

This is the complacent ignorance that could kill us.

We have seen the last election in the US. We're for sale and the poor do not have the money to compete. The working/poor classes work to support the 1%. That is their function, and idiot rw's like Frank sold his own future and the future of his children/grand children for next to nothing.

You can tell someone is a brainwashed Prog as soon they mention "the 1%"
 
It is neither the role nor responsibility of the Supreme Court to address and find a remedy to the problem of excessive money and its undue influence in the political process.

All the Court can do is determine the constitutionality of remedies the government sees fit to enact to solve the problem. And when the Court invalidates such acts, it does not do so with the intent or desire to allow the problem to persist, rather, it’s done to allow Congress to revisit the issue and find a remedy that passes Constitutional muster.

Consequently, this concerns the First Amendment, where it’s ultimately the responsibility of each citizen to educate himself as to the issues and candidates and vote in an informed manner.

I don't think I could disagree more, "THE LIFE OF THE LAW HAS NOT BEEN LOGIC; IT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCE"
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Human nature and recorded history suggests your comment is naïve and factually incorrect. We have a representative democracy and expect those who represent us, in all three branches of our government, to govern fairly and without bias - the Roberts Court fails that test.

And I couldn’t disagree more – for the law to retain its legitimacy it must be applied consistently, where the sole role of the judiciary is to subject laws to review and determine whether or not they are repugnant to the Constitution.

To safeguard our civil liberties laws that fail to meet a given standard of judicial review must be invalidated, placing necessary and proper restrictions on the state.

The problem, therefore, is subjective partisanism, not the rulings of the Court.

This is why rulings such as Citizens United and McCutcheon are similar to Roe v. Wade; in Roe the Court invalidated laws that sought to deny a woman her right to privacy. Just as it was not the role or responsibility of the Roe Court to ‘solve’ the problem of abortion, so too was it not the responsibility of the Citizens United Court to solve the problem of campaign financing.

In both Roe and Citizens United the Court made the correct determination, safeguarding citizens’ civil liberties at the expense of the state – leaving their respective problems to the people to resolve via the democratic process, where the people were disallowed to violate their fellow citizens’ Constitutional rights pursuing ‘remedies’ offensive to the Founding Document.

You argue, "The problem, therefore, is subjective partisanism, not the rulings of the Court" and if I understand your point on this we agree completely. The subjective partisans are the members of the Supreme Court - one cannot simply dismiss so many 5 to 4 decision without some sense that politics and 'social engineering' are not a factor in such conflicts, hence, when the ruling is rendered the objective is not the law, per se, but its future effect. Evidence is in the ruling, of those who confirm and those who dissent.

Furtther evidence of such is the manner in which nominees are grilled by the Senators, each Senator seeking to find their guy or gal to vote in a manner which suits the ideological values they hold and to reject, those who might rule in a manner they oppose., and in the answers by the nominee.
 
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?

Well you effing hypocrite! It's been fine for the Unions, BAR associations, NAACP, and the ACLU, but as soon as a Conservative gets the same rights it's suddenly bad and not fair.

Go whine to the Padre, he'll cry with you!!
You disgusting POS!!
 
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?

Well you effing hypocrite! It's been fine for the Unions, BAR associations, NAACP, and the ACLU, but as soon as a Conservative gets the same rights it's suddenly bad and not fair.

Go whine to the Padre, he'll cry with you!!
You disgusting POS!!

Thank you for a ridiculous response on a serious issue, I might respond in kind with a personal attack, but any comment in that manner would be truthful; hence, my pity for you is cause for restraint.
 
Money is property, not speech...

"Contributions" are bribes...pure and simple...

Bribing politicians should be banned, period.

The Dems have their bribe machines, just like the Republisquids...invoking "Koch" without mentioning Soros and Steyr is just plain dishonest...need to put a spending lid on all of them...one person, one vote and one $250.00 check, no matter how rich they are...a motivated homeless person could sell plasma and support his candidate with that amount of money...
 
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?

If Congresscritters can be bought for $2,500 why do you keep voting for the cheap whores?
 
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?

It's about free speech.

/THREAD
 
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.

Are you aware that McCutcheon v. FEC had nothing to do with local elections?
 
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.

How is an example of government taking property from poor blacks and giving it to rich whites not relevant to a discussion about corruption in government?
 
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.

The Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, had a problem with laws against bribery.
 
"Today a majority of the Court overrules this holding. It is wrong to do so. Its conclusion rests upon its own, not a record-based, view of the facts. Its legal analysis is faulty: It misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional interests at stake. It understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions. It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate's campaign. Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), today's decision eviscerates our Nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve"

From the Dissent: McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm'n, No. 12-536, 2014 BL 89958 (U.S. Apr. 02, 2014)

Read the entire decision here:

Bloomberg Law - Document - McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm'n, No. 12-536, 2014 BL 89958 (U.S. Apr. 02, 2014), Court Opinion

Breyer is upset that Congress cannot control speech under the theory that speech is community property?

Tough fucking shit, my speech belongs to me, not the community.

The question now is, did you read the entire decision, or did you stop at the part that made your head hurt?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top