Forum - View All -> Test -> President Obama, You Lie!
Post Info TOPIC: President Obama, You Lie!
Anonymous

Date:
RE: President Obama, You Lie!
Permalink   

Mr. Anonymous James,

 

Where did you do your research?  Well, if you would read the actual decision of the court maybe you would be better informed vice reading the garbage produced by liberal media. 

 

Unions and corporations still can work around the McCain-Feingold Law by virtue of Political Action Committees commonly referred to as PACs.  So before you get so high and righteous, be consistent.  If you have a problem with the film desired to be aired about Mrs. Clinton, you should be equally concerned with the activities of PACs that are not restricted by the law.  Oh by the way, the film was to be offered on a pay-per-view basis.  Reasonable people could conclude that the venue would not equate to that restricted by the Law. 

 

Citizens United attempted to make available on a pay-per-view basis their film.  The McCain-Feingold Law served to restrict electioneering that was directed using a public vehicle like TV, etc that could reach >50,000 individuals; restricting within 30 and 60 days of primaries and general elections, respectively.  The majority of the court, among other reasons, argued that the US Govt was creating an unfair burden that also restricted ones free speech.  Who is going to determine if the audience is >50,000? Etc..., etc etcto infinity!!!!!!!

 

You offer public funding as an option.  What about the George Soros of the country or other Billionaires?  Are you willing to allow them to opt out of public funding and use their own wealth as currently is allowed to support their election efforts if they choose to run for office?  Last time I checked, the liberal dems are against the wealthy evil ones, except if the wealthy are supporting their agenda.  So this being the case, it is OK for a George Soros to establish Non-Profit Entities to support his political agenda, but it is not OK for, say, Citizens United to do the same.  What should be good for the goose should be good for the gander! 

 

The James of our country need to start thinking on their own.  The James of our country need to stop blindly following ideologist, accepting their overstating, over reaching govt intrusive solutions to our problems.  The last time I checked the govt is only good at operating in the red checkout the track record of Amtrak and the US Postal Service. 

 

Whats a given here is the democrats are upset that the Supreme Court served to uphold Constitution right of free speech serving to maintain a level playing field!



__________________
James

Date:
Permalink   

For anyone who is interested, I have the done research. I enclosed the original law regarding corporations and campaign finance. I am also enclosing the recent "poor" decision made by the Supreme Court. Regarding foreign donations, they will be included. Here is an example, the second largest stock holder for Fox News is a Saudi prince. Do you really believe that he will not have any influence? We all have our party preferences, but facts are facts. The real key to solving this problem would be public finance of all elections. Anyone would be able to run for office, thus we would have true represention of the people. Finally, if you read the First Amendment, it becomes quite clear that it applies to people not corporations or labor unions.The Tillman Act of 1907 was the first of the electoral reform acts aimed at reducing the growing influence of large donations in federal election campaigns. The act made it illegal for corporations and national banks to make financial contributions to candidates for federal office.

 


An Act to prohibit corporations from making money contributions in connection with political elections.
Be it enacted, That it shall be unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any laws of Congress, to make a money contribution in connection with any election to any political office. It shall also be unlawful for any corporation whatever to make a money contribution inconnection with any election at which Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors or a Representative inCongress is to be voted for or any election by any State legislature of a United States Senator.  Every corporation which shall make any contribution in violation of the foregoing provisions shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and every officer or director of any corporation who shall consent to any contribution by the corporation in violation of the foregoing provisions shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not exceeding one thousand and not less than two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.


Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010), is a landmark 5-to-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited, because doing so would be in noncompliance with the First Amendment. The decision resulted from the non-profit corporation Citizens United's case before the court regarding whether the group's film critical of a political candidate could be defined as a campaign advertisement under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act.[2]The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which denied Citizens motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from enforcing provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act which prevented the film "Hillary: The Movie" from being shown on television right before the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3]

The Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting electioneering communications in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.[2] The decision completely overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The decision upheld the requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidates, in part IV.[5]



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

Hey James - I guess you are a coward by your own definition.  You posting is just as anonymous as the first guy.  If I had to guess, there are a lot of James in the world!  Oh by the way your response is standard democrat party line answer.  You can continue to be a lap dog to the democrats if you want to , but I hope there is enough brains between those ears to be able to be objective and open minded.



__________________
James

Date:
Permalink   

You are correct; the Supreme Court does not allow foreign companies to contribute money to campaigns. The law that stood for over 100 years prevented that from happening. The new ruling will virtually allow anyone to donate money. I suggest that you read the original ruling and compare it to the new one. You will find that you are sadly mistaken. Finally, only cowards make comments without revealing their identities!

__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

President Obama lied!  Shame on you Mr. President!  The Supreme Court ruling does not allow foreign corporations to contribute to political elections as President Obama mistakenly said. 

 

The President said he was going to change the tone in Washington.  The new tone is one that derides the Supreme Court, guest for his State of the Union address.  President Obama ought to be ashamed.  But he wont, because his arrogance and pride will not allow him.  Of course the democrats were quick to stand like lap dogs and applaud his mean spirited words and subsequently attack Judge Alito for silently dissenting to the President's misstatement.

 

Double Standard as defined by Washington Joe Wilson is rebuked for speaking truth, albeit in a rude and unacceptable manner.  President Obama is applauded for speaking an untruth that is delivered in a manner that directly attacks members of the Highest Court of the Land.  Change we can now see and believe!  Getting it real, the democrat way!



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Forum - View All -> Test -> President Obama, You Lie!


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard