Instead of "You Lie". This time its "Not True" by Justice Alito in Audience.

[Midnight Marauder]

in 1907 and again in 1910, I believe, laws were written to limit corporate spending...so the 100 years is accurate.

THOSE laws weren't affected by this ruling Ravi. They were UPHELD.

 

[Darkwind]

Look while I disagree with the ruling, it's clear that the court left intact the prohibitions regarding direct contributions to elections from corporations. So to use the term "bankroll" would imply that these companies can now simply send unlimted amounts of money directly to campaigns.

(CN) - The Supreme Court on Thursday killed a central part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and ruled that corporations may spend as much as they wish to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. The 5-4 vote left intact limits on corporate gifts to individual candidates.
Courthouse News Service

you think there's a substantive difference if they can run ad after ad after ad and pervert the information that's being disseminated? Since the money raised in campaigns is largely used for airtime... it is bankrolling campaigns.

So, only the candidates are permitted to distort the truth. This is what your saying?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

you think there's a substantive difference if they can run ad after ad after ad and pervert the information that's being disseminated? Since the money raised in campaigns is largely used for airtime... it is bankrolling campaigns.

The only difference now Jill is: They can run these adverts right up to election day.

 

[JWBooth]

Instead of "You Lie". This time its "Not True" by Justice Alito in Audience.

Shows that Judge Alito was paying attention to what was being said.

 

[jillian]

Didn't watch the speech, eh.

No...but I read what he said about the court's decision and I don't see a lie in there. What are you referring to exactly?

Didn't watch the speech, eh.

No...but I read what he said about the court's decision and I don't see a lie in there. What are you referring to exactly?

THIS is the lie ladies:

"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," Obama said.

It was NOT a "century of law" and they CANNOT "spend without limit." And "foreign corporations" and even DOMESTIC ones STILL cannot contribute directly to political campaigns!

It's just a flat-out LIE and mis-representation of the ruling.

bull...you want to haggle over a few years... THIS is what the decision did..

However, the Court overturned critical holdings in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (upholding restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (upholding the central provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law). The result is seismic for opening up elections to corporate spending. It is also a case of Justice Kennedy finally achieving a majority after voting against these limitations in 1990. While Justice Sandra Day O’Connor later changed her position to uphold campaign financing, Kennedy has remained firm that such limits run counter to the first amendment. He believes that public policy can be achieved through transparency provisions: “The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”

The opinions offer strikingly different views of the First Amendment with Stevens writing: “The basic premise underlying the court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its ‘identity’ as a corporation.” While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law.”

Both the Kennedy and Stevens opinions are very compelling and fascinating. The Kennedy decision does raise some questions over the sweep on his first amendment views and why any limits on campaign finances are constitutional. It also reintroduces the question of why corporations are treated as persons for the purposes of the first amendment. That latter question could now be the focus of a fight over a constitutional amendment. My opposition to a constitutional amendment is that I believe that there are more important political reforms to the system that need to be made. I do not believe that it is the money that has caused our political system to become so dysfunctional. It is also important to note that these restrictions were imposed on unions and non-for-profit corporations. The result of the restrictions, in my view, were disturbing line drawing as to what the government considered electioneering and what the government considered legitimate documentary work as with the distinction between Hillary the Movie and Fahrenheit 911.

There is a push now for a constitutional amendment, which I would not favor. It may be time for a paradigm change in how we think about this problem. We have a political failure in our system that is sucking the life out of the Republic. The monopoly of the two parties on power produces endless loops of corruption and conflict. The problem in my view is structural not financial. We need to break the domination of incumbents and the two parties. This can be done with fundamental changes in our primary system, eliminating the electoral college, creating new opportunities for third parties, and other reforms.

The FEC ruled that the film was prohibited as a “prohibited electioneering communication.” The lower court decisions proceeded to curtail the distribution of the film by restricting the conservative group in broadcasting and promoting the movie during the presidential primaries. In July, a three-judge panel granted the FEC’s motion for summary judgment.

Specifically, the desire of the group to put the movie in TV-on-demand access on cable TV was shelved due to the FEC’s decision.

Citizen United is challenging the federal “electioneering communications” disclosure requirements in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — a prohibition on corporations and nonprofits from airing broadcast ads, which refer to a federal candidate 30 days before a primary election. Citizens United is using the Court’s decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, which exempted issue advocacy from the electioneering communications prohibition.

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Against Campaign Limitations in The Hillary The Movie Case JONATHAN TURLEY

 

[Navy1960]

EADS North America is the U.S. holding company for the North American activities of EADS, the world’s second largest aerospace and defense company, and the largest in Europe.
As a leading supplier and industrial partner in defense and homeland security, commercial aviation, helicopters, telecommunications and services, EADS North America – together with its parent company, EADS – contribute more than $10 billion to the U.S. economy annually, supporting 190,000 American jobs.

EADS is proud to be a valued corporate citizen of the United States. Its EADS North America businesses have business units, operating companies and divisions located in 32 cities and 17 states, offering a broad array of advanced solutions to its customers in the commercial, homeland security, aerospace and defense markets.
EADS N.V. - Overview

Here is where the confusion on the decision is, EADS a foreign company in partnership with Northrop Grumman on the USAF Tanker can now spend their own money to advertise for candidates that are friendly to their side of this 100 plus tanker deal worth several billion dollars and likewise EADS along with Lockheed Martin on the US Army Helicopter program. While yes this ruling still leaves intact the the restrictions for direct contributions from these companies, it does not prevent EADS North America from now advertising for candidates as any other American company. Where the President was wrong was in the implication that the companies could simply "bankroll" elections and left many who did not know about the ruling the impression that any company foreign or otherwise could simply send a check to Candidate A or B.

 

[Xenophon]

Barry lied-Alito sighed.

 

[Sarah G]

Obama's War With the Court Just Escalated

One of the most dramatic moments in President Obama's State of the Union was his attack on the Supreme Court with the justices arrayed in front of him. "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," Obama declared. This prompted Justice Samuel Alito to shake his head and mouth the words "not true."

Alito had good reason to feel defensive--he replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who recently criticized the 5-4 Citizens United campaign finance decision and suggested she would have voted the other way--and bloggers are already attacking Alito's inappropriate intervention as a "You lie!" moment. Even more significant is what it says about Obama's welcome readiness to attack the Court's conservative majority for its judicial activism in the future. The conservative justices may have calculated that they could strike down campaign finance restrictions without provoking a full-blown presidential backlash. But it takes only a few high-profile presidential attacks to tar a Court as activist in the eyes of history. During the 1930s, the Supreme Court upheld a great deal of FDR's economic recovery program, but the New Deal Court is remembered today as a group of unprincipled activists because of just a handful of high profile decisions that FDR prominently attacked.

Obama's War With The Court Just Escalated | The New Republic

The Rightwing Supremes must buy into the theory that this country is still Right leaning even after the Bush/Repub congress failures and the voter's bitter rejection of them since 2005.

Obama confronting these pompous justices to their faces was one of the highlights of the speech.

 

[JWBooth]

Barry lied-Alito sighed.

Turk 182

 

[jillian]

Barry lied-Alito sighed.

do you think repeating the same mischaracterization over and over and over makes it true?

*shrug*

 

[Xenophon]

Barry lied-Alito sighed.

do you think repeating the same mischaracterization over and over and over makes it true?

*shrug*

No, that is why I am holding Barry accountable.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

No...but I read what he said about the court's decision and I don't see a lie in there. What are you referring to exactly?

THIS is the lie ladies:

"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," Obama said.

It was NOT a "century of law" and they CANNOT "spend without limit." And "foreign corporations" and even DOMESTIC ones STILL cannot contribute directly to political campaigns!

It's just a flat-out LIE and mis-representation of the ruling.

bull...you want to haggle over a few years... THIS is what the decision did..

You should read your own sources.

There's NO "haggle." The "100 years" is a LIE.

The rest of it is LIES just as I illustrated earlier.

And you know it is.

 

[jillian]

Barry lied-Alito sighed.

do you think repeating the same mischaracterization over and over and over makes it true?

*shrug*

No, that is why I am holding Barry accountable.

you should hold the Court accountable.

he's telling the truth.

go argue with jonathan turley.

and now i think i'm going to step out of this "discussion". it's not going anywhere. and you guys seem to want, for some reason, corporations to be people.

and you know my feeling about discussions that go no where.

 

[Xenophon]

do you think repeating the same mischaracterization over and over and over makes it true?

*shrug*

No, that is why I am holding Barry accountable.

you should hold the Court accountable.

he's telling the truth.

go argue with jonathan turley.

and now i think i'm going to step out of this "discussion". it's not going anywhere. and you seem to want, for some reason, corporations to be people.

and you know my feeling about discussions that go no where.

I want the constitution to be upheld.

You should too.

Stop covering for barry's lies.

 

[jillian]

I want the constitution to be upheld.

You should too.

Stop covering for barry's lies.

no. you don't. the constitution protects individual rights. the right wants to destroy individual rights at every turn and pretend that corporations are people??? it's a cosmic joke. and every lawyer and judge i know is disgusted... but you all are talking about how you want t o uphold the constitution??? puleeze... Xeno, we're friends, and I like you, but we're not going to talk about this any more.

and that's the last i'm going to say on this subject.

 

[rayboyusmc]

They just gave corporations more free speech than the individual has because after their ruling free speech will be measured by how much money you can spend to speak it.

This does allow foreign entities (CITGO) which is owned by Chavez to have a say in our elections by buying the people who agree to do their bidding.

Corporations are not people and do not have any fucking free speech rights. Can't you get it through your conservative skulls that these activists right winger judges are simply putting their conservative value system on their interpretation of the Constitution. Once more the right is for the corporate fascist interest over the private individual. You bitch about socialism and yet accept this Fascist Corporatist takeover.

When it finally hits you and you lose to a corportion, you just might get it.

The Borg Mind was not a fantasy of TV, it is the current Republican mindset.

 

[PixieStix]

The McCain Feingold bill was unconstitutional from the very start

I was not lawfully allowed to give as much as I wanted, there was a limit on my free speech

How many people do not know this?

This is one of the main reasons McCain was and is despised

 

[Ravi]

EADS North America is the U.S. holding company for the North American activities of EADS, the world’s second largest aerospace and defense company, and the largest in Europe.
As a leading supplier and industrial partner in defense and homeland security, commercial aviation, helicopters, telecommunications and services, EADS North America – together with its parent company, EADS – contribute more than $10 billion to the U.S. economy annually, supporting 190,000 American jobs.

EADS is proud to be a valued corporate citizen of the United States. Its EADS North America businesses have business units, operating companies and divisions located in 32 cities and 17 states, offering a broad array of advanced solutions to its customers in the commercial, homeland security, aerospace and defense markets.
EADS N.V. - Overview

Here is where the confusion on the decision is, EADS a foreign company in partnership with Northrop Grumman on the USAF Tanker can now spend their own money to advertise for candidates that are friendly to their side of this 100 plus tanker deal worth several billion dollars and likewise EADS along with Lockheed Martin on the US Army Helicopter program. While yes this ruling still leaves intact the the restrictions for direct contributions from these companies, it does not prevent EADS North America from now advertising for candidates as any other American company. Where the President was wrong was in the implication that the companies could simply "bankroll" elections and left many who did not know about the ruling the impression that any company foreign or otherwise could simply send a check to Candidate A or B.

So unintelligent people took his words to mean something they did not.

That I can agree with.

 

[rayboyusmc]

There were no corporations when they wrote the Constitution. So to provide this protection now is to revise the original meaning of the Constitution.

Your side is so full of bullshit about protection the original intent.

 

[Xenophon]

I want the constitution to be upheld.

You should too.

Stop covering for barry's lies.

no. you don't.

and that's the last i'm going to say on this subject.

Yes, i do.

McCain-Feingold was an abomonation that never should have been passed.

Its high time that crap was thown out.

BTW, in an unrelated note, this is what will happen if the Dems try reconcilation with Barrycare.

The court will torpedo that also, that is why wen have them, to prevent Congress and the POTUS for acting like dictators and ignoring our Constitution.