Gop Defends Billionaires With Citizens United

[ScienceRocks]

The corrupt liberals (pardon the redundancy) have no problem with unions buying elections though.

Yep,

Everyone uses money to advance their message. Both sides would have to give up a lot.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well...your link...not exactly an objective view of the issue. "Overwhelmingly biased" comes to mind, as do the numerous example of extreme hyperbole. That the best you can do?

In any case, let's get to the heart of the matter. Do you believe the government should be able to restrict free speech near to an election? That is what CU was all about...the fact government passed a law banning political speech before an election. They banned a movie...in that case, a movie from Citizen's United. The SC, rightly in my mind, said 'you can't do that'.

So, you cool with government restricting speech or not?

Post a link that proves his is wrong.

And, uh, you don't get to talk about free speech while defending CU. That's like saying marshmallows put out forest fires.

The very purpose of CU is to restrict free speech and crush our constitution.

We don't prove negatives here.
The link is biased and is an opinion piece.
An opinion refuted by subsequent posts.
FAIL

 

[thereisnospoon]

Notice who BUYS ELECTIONS for the Subversives....

Did the Koch brothers put that out?

Nice try

 

[Penelope]

Notice who BUYS ELECTIONS for the Subversives....

Did the Koch brothers put that out?

Nice try

Oh, who do you think made that cute little pamphlet ?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Notice who BUYS ELECTIONS for the Subversives....

Did the Koch brothers put that out?

Nice try

Oh, who do you think made that cute little pamphlet ?

Both sides do it. How do we remove money from politics?

 

[eflatminor]

How do we remove money from politics?

By restricting politicians to acting within the strictly limited enumerated powers of the Constitution. After all, if politicians could not meddle to the financial benefit of themselves or those that support them, there would be no impetus to inject large amounts of money into the political process...because there would be no expectation of an adequate return. Limit government as was originally intended and you limit the money in politics.

 

[eflatminor]

Oh, who do you think made that cute little pamphlet ?

Who cares? Do you deny its accuracy?

 

[Stephanie]

I would love to see UNIONS restricted in buying a politicians


hell how much did unions and foreign money did they spend on Obama?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP:
2008 campaign costliest in U.S. history

• 
  
  

By JEANNE CUMMINGS | 11/5/08 5:28 AM EDT
Text Size

• 
  
  

Michelle Obama reaches out to the crowd after speaking at a Seattle fundraiser July 17. AP Photo
The 2008 campaign was the costliest in history, with a record-shattering $5.3 billion in spending by candidates, political parties and interest groups on the congressional and presidential races.
That sum marks a 27 percent increase over the $4.2 billion spent on the 2004 campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiled the figures.
The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion when all candidates and related expenses are included, the center found.
The party presidential nominees – Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain – together spent more than $1 billion, also an unprecedented figure.
The inflation in presidential fundraising was due in large measure to Obama’s decision to finance both his primary and general election with private donations. He was on track to raise more than $650 million.


His success has prompted many observers to declare the death of the Watergate-era, taxpayer-supported presidential financing program.

ALL of it here:
2008 campaign costliest in U.S. history - Jeanne Cummings - POLITICO.com

 

[thereisnospoon]

good grief, who can take any of you serious anymore?

you don't just support millionaires you ELECT them to be your master IN CONGRESS

you're both a joke and so is BRAD

Stoopid Stuff Speaks from ignorance as usual.

Its the RWs like you who elect those who ONLY support big money.

Not true.

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP;
Labor Unions Deliver For Obama With Post-Citizens United Ground Game
FROM: some of you here favorite place
Labor Unions Deliver For Obama With Post-Citizens United Ground Game

 

[Rikurzhen]

The corrupt liberals (pardon the redundancy) have no problem with unions buying elections though.

Comparing unions to CU?

That is downright laughable.

That's right! You tell him. Free speech is meant only for unions and not for anyone else. Damn Rethuglicans.

 

[1776]

Liberals only support speech for themselves.

 

[Stephanie]

snip:
How much are unions really spending on politics?
posted at 9:13 pm on July 11, 2012 by Karl

• 125 SHARES

Don’t get me wrong: The Wall Street Journal’s Tom McGinty and Brody Mullins performed a valuable public service in compiling the Department of Labor data showing that Big Labor spent $3.3 billion more on political activity than the $1.1 billion they reported to the Federal Election Commission and congress. However, their analysis appears to take the numbers for political spending listed by the unions at face value. You will be shocked, shocked to learn those numbers might not be rock solid.
For example, we could look at the most recent annual report filed by the National Education, one of the nation’s most politically active unions and the one whose political activities sparked the current rules of disclosure of union political spending. The NEA’s most recent LM-2 disclosure form (downloadble here) lists tens of millions of supposedly non-political grants paid to its affiliates for its UniServ program. UniServ helps affiliates pay for their labor negotiators and professional staffers — but UniServ directors also administer fund-raising solicitations for the NEA’s political action committee, organize selection of union delegates to party nominating conventions, and organize activities to support NEA-endorsed candidates during election campaigns.

The notion that none of the tens of millions of UniServ dollars funneled by the national NEA seems like a bit of a stretch. This may not affect the WSJ calculations, because McGinty and Mullins followed the money down to the state level. But it does reveal a problem with the current reporting system and should be remembered the next time you hear union defenders brag about the transparency of the system. It’s only transparent if you do the extraordinarily tedious work of following all of the supposedly non-political money down to the affiliate level.
However, the WSJ analysis likely understates Big Labor’s indirect political spending. For example, as Rishawn Biddle noted at The American Spectator:

“Between 2005-2006 and 2008-2009, the NEA has increased its donations to nonprofits by nearly a six-fold, from $4 million to $26 million.” If you are thinking that those nonprofits are generally Democratic Party client groups, you would be dead on. If you are thinking that the NEA does not always categorize this spending as political, you would be dead on.

all of it here:
How much are unions really spending on politics Hot Air

 

[Penelope]

Oh, who do you think made that cute little pamphlet ?

Who cares? Do you deny its accuracy?

I would not depend on it.

 

[eflatminor]

Oh, who do you think made that cute little pamphlet ?

Who cares? Do you deny its accuracy?

I would not depend on it.

I wouldn't either...so I confirmed it's accuracy. Now don't you think too deeply on this. Remember, it's all about what feels right.

 

[rdean]

Someone has to defend billionaires. They've been so maligned.
Thank God for Republicans living in trailers.

 

[chikenwing]

Well...your link...not exactly an objective view of the issue. "Overwhelmingly biased" comes to mind, as do the numerous example of extreme hyperbole. That the best you can do?

In any case, let's get to the heart of the matter. Do you believe the government should be able to restrict free speech near to an election? That is what CU was all about...the fact government passed a law banning political speech before an election. They banned a movie...in that case, a movie from Citizen's United. The SC, rightly in my mind, said 'you can't do that'.

So, you cool with government restricting speech or not?

Post a link that proves his is wrong.

And, uh, you don't get to talk about free speech while defending CU. That's like saying marshmallows put out forest fires.

The very purpose of CU is to restrict free speech and crush our constitution.

The very purpose of CU is to restrict free speech and crush our constitution.

Well when you see a post like this ya know they are totally lost.

CU does the very opposite,that's why the court did what it did. Free speech has a long reach.

 

[Vigilante]

Someone has to defend billionaires. They've been so maligned.
Thank God for Republicans living in trailers.