Freedom without equality is no justice.

Remember past southerners' argument about their freedom ... to enslave and later to segregate.

Citizen United is today's version of 'argument for slavery' in the 21st century - using freedom to justify it again.

The Supreme Court does not need to do much to totally screws us: next to deciding in favor of George W. Bush being the President, instead of Al Gore and the approval of Citizens United, have been two catastrophic decisions. They just turned the US into a big country for sale to the richest person. What a senseless decision to let the richest people in the country to decide who will be the next President.

That is just as bad as telling people that ideas are garbage, that the only thing that counts is MONEY.

Never mind all the years of legislation in favor of election reforms, and trying to keep elections clean. We have NO BUSINESS whatsoever telling other countries how to govern, if we behave like a WHORE with our elections.

Remember a conservative Supreme Court can do a lot of damages - self-inflicted wound. Remember Dred Scott (1857 justifying slavery) and Plessy (1896 justifying segregation).

Their name of the game in both cases: freedom - (pure garbage).

Mitt the Unfitt will not win in November - no matter how much support from the SuperStuperPac

Hey, just d facts... how about actually using some facts? Guess your name is just lip service.

Unfortunately try telling that to the Koch Brothers who have the Supreme Court in their pocket.

"Just_D_Facts" is the most oxymoronic name of the year.

You are right about one thing... if Willard IS elected, his decisions WILL affect your offspring and theirs. However, it will not be in any way you desire unless you are lucky enough to be at least as wealthy as Willard.

The judges that support this decision have NO second thoughts because they know exactly what they have done to this country. They don't care ! They have been rewarded richly.

The only way to overturn this decision is thru revolution.

The law needs to be changed so that only those eligible to vote in an election can give to candidates in that election. In other words, only those who are legal residents that are eligible to vote in a given state can donate to candidates in statewide elections such as senators, governors, etc. By the same token, only those that reside in a given congressional or state assembly or state senate district can give to candidates in those elections. The same should apply to ballot measures or initiative. Only those eligible to vote on those items should be allowed to donate. The same would go to national elections, only those eligible to cast a vote for president can make a donation to a presidential candidate. This will take all of the big money from corporations and outside interests out of politics. No more corporate money, no more union money, no more special interest groups - only people eligible to vote get to make contributions. Also, candidates would not be allowed to use their personal wealth to fund their campaigns beyond the personal donation limit. This would keep wealthy people from trying to buy elections the way Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman did in CA (where I should point out that both failed in their attempts).

Another alternative would be to have all campaigns financed with public funds. Anyone who gets enough valid signatures on petitions to have their names placed on primary ballots would get a set amount of money to spend in the primary election. Then the winners of those primary elections would get a set amount to spend in the general election campaign. If there is no primary involved then anyone who gathers the required signatures and meets the requirements to have their names on the general election ballot would get a set amount of money for their campaign. Money would not be able to be carried over from a primary campaign to a general election campaign. This would keep those who have no challenger in a primary from saving that money to outspend their opponents in the general election. In addition, like in the alternate proposal above, candidates would be precluded from using their personal wealth to supplement the pubic funding.

Either of these systems would level the playing field allowing average citizens to have a realistic chance at getting elected. No one would be able to use their connections to wealthy individuals or personal wealth to give them a big monetary advantage in the elections.

TC-2599690

remind me again how much did Obama spend for his election in 2008? who in the history of the united states has spent more?

It's not how much was spent, but who contributed how much. Your logic and conclusion are flawed, my friend.

As long as people are ignorant enough to vote based on ads, the spending will continue to grow. Again, not the point here.

tc -

so what you're silently saying is: the pubes get the supremes to pass this ridiculous legislation so they can catch up? corporations are people? really???

quite the straw man argument which is status quo for a pube...

TC-2599690 Romney will; and the next after him, and next. It will start to look like one of those IF THEN loops: IF someone has won their primaries, THEN there will be more money spent than ID=Last cycle.

ELSE Text=Error Message ("what went wrong with SuperPacs"?ID#)

tc

you could say them same about bush after the 2004 election. Whats your point? every election cost more then the last one?

The repubs and Mitt say corporations are people too? The Supreme court bought and payed for by rich repubs.

Teabaggers...show us the birth certificates of each corporation. Tell the soldiers families that have died all these years that corporations are people. Tell that to all the wounded and dying soldiers and their families that corporations are people too. Haliburton, Blackwater..people too? Soldiers bleed red blood, a corporation can only bleed red ink.

Stevens is a good man.

TC sounding like a typical undereducated Gooper. Candidates can spend as much as they want. Pre-Citizens United, though, individuals and corporations could only donated a limited amount.

It's not the spending by candidates that's the problem, it's the unlimited resources of corporations and billionaires that threaten our democracy. Those floodgates were thrown wide open thanks to Citizens United, yet people like you just dont' get it.

All of us knew this was an ignorant law when it passed. Unbelievable. These republicans are coming up with a bunch of doozies. Poor bastards lost their honor somewhere along the line. Shameful and completely unamerican. COMPLETELY!

jac-931625 -

No, it's not ok. Are you dense? What about the fact that progressives want this repealed across the board don't you get? It's not healthy that corporations, unions, or anyone can have this much influence, much less anonymously. Holding up unions as a "but you guys like this!!!1!" counterpoint has no effect at all. If anything, it only demonstrates that people oppose Citizens United on principle rather than for political gain.

Citizens United now makes it allowable for foreign countries to buy a candidate. Repubs are to blame....so patriotic.....

TOSS this POS decision to the curb, along with the activist Judges who support it!

Amen sister.

They stole the 2000 election, and now the right-leaning SCOTUS has put Party before country yet again. If rightwingers feel no trust in government, does it ever occur to them it's because of THEM and the obstructionist Teapublican House in Congress, Emergency Manager oligarchy in Michigan, voter suppression in Florida, and a list of litany too long to cover in this post?

Whether "Obamacare" or Citizen's United, may Alito, et al, get burned for their repeated 5-4 decisions, and legislating from the bench per political ideology rather than the rule of law.

In the meantime, prepare for unlimited, untraceable money (from a PO Box in Phoenix) – 1 billion this fall from the rightwing (not including what Romney will spend) –- This dark money will flood in late in the election cycle, about 30 days prior to election day, ambushing Dems with lies. May The People overcome this dirty money with their collective votes.

EAT your heart out trib of nonsense. ; ] [you know who you are]As many of MY readers know this has been the crux of MY argument over this despicable decision being made to over turn a law that stood for 65 years now? Hmmm. Foreign campaign contributions ... ; ]

Cheers

mary i was thinking the samething about the supreme court being bought off.its like every single branch of our government has turned its back on the american people.the worst is getting rid of tariffs.they make things made in china cost as much as if they are made here so theres no reason to move our jobs out of the country

Backcountry another fox news false news talking point. The whole world is aware of the rich 1% buying the politicians. Carl Rove voter id suppresion laws to get 1% less Dem voters in 9 key states. Norquist no taxes for the rich.......ALEC making laws(Corporations) and buying repubs while meeting with them to pass their laws. Try reading the blog story. The system Citizens United (rich repubs) now trump with their money all citizens with their money. Hundreds of millions buying each and every election. Foreigners in corporations able to bujy their candidate because no one knows who the corporation is.

Where's your proof. Do you really want Corporations and the wealthy to run this country, because that's what will happen if campaign reform is not enforced. Just look at the ads on TV, most are not endorsed by the candidates, and most are just done right lies just to sway the votes. Do you really think the Corp's & the wealthy will have your back(unless of course your one of them), no they will destroy everything this country stands for, and you will see a lot people in the poor house, and that's just what they want.

The worst part is the lack of transparency. Any gazillionare or corporation, domestic or foreign, can buy a politician. And even if the ads give an organization's name, these can be shell organizations with a PO Box like the one in Phoenix or UPS drop box.

These 1%ers and/or corporations are willing to contribute huge sums because they are expecting huge returns -- Especially businesses that can remain anonymous so therefore don't have to worry about negative impact for customers learning they are buying a politician and why.

Unions just want to preserve labor rights and good paying jobs here in the US, and their members are real, individual citizens that could be traced. Hollywood does not expect huge returns either. Just Big Business -- Wall Street now gives to Teapublicans 5 to 1, Big Oil also around 80% of contributions to the GOP.

Anyone can lie cheat and steal when know one knows it is YOU doing it. Like being able to face your accuser in court politicians should be able to go after those lying. THERE past should come out so citizens will know they are the liars behind such attacks. ; ] IF and that is a BIG IF groups such as these pacs as they are known are so sure of themselves why hide? Because the law says its "legal" Really? How "American" of them is it not? Hmmm. In fact you should WANT your name behind good deeds behind good works and truth. ONLY cowards hide in obscurity lying and attacking people from there perch on high. ; ]

Cowards lay in the weeds sniping there opposition and we are not in a war to make it relevant are we. It is an election and those poring in cash in obscurity do so only because they wont get called on it.

What would God say about such cowards.

Cheers

Corporations DEFINITELY buy elections. Prop 29 in CA would add a $1/pack tax on cigarettes to be used for cancer research and smoking cessation programs. The Lance Armstrong Foundation donated $1.5 million to support it and the American Cancer Society donated $1.6 million in support.

BUT, in OPPOSITION, Philip Morris (Altria) contributed $23.6 MILLION to defeat it, RJ Reynolds Tobacco another $9.6 MILLION, etc. Total corporate contributions (including the ever popular CA Repug. Party that donated $695,000!) are almost $40 MILLION, while those supporting good health could only raise $4.7 million.

The lies and half-truths told by the opposition and repeated over and over and over again because they have 8 times the amount of money to spend are just outrageous. We've tried over 10 times in CA to increase the tax on cigarettes (which definitely makes them less affordable and causes more and more to quit smoking) and been defeated every time by the likes of Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. The Cancer Society can't afford to put up say $10 million to get this passed - they have to be very careful with the limited funds they have. The tobacco companies have what amounts to unlimited funds.

A true David & Goliath matchup!

Backcountry164

@starsailing

What you many of you libs fail to realize, probably because you only listen to other libs, is that democratic politicians have benefited most from this system.

So I guess libs are just too stupid to realize that unlimited and untraceable campaign contributions are actually GOOD for us! Wow! Thanks, Backcountry! I musta been talking to another lib all this time. I am now enlightened.

Your data on corporate donations is pure FOX bull@!$%#. In an attempt to misinform on the subject, they counted people that WORK for a corporation as a donation FROM that corporation... an asinine and twisted approach to "even out" campaign donations. Nice try though.

I do have a question, though. While the Dems seem to be discussing how this SCOTUS decision was morally and ethically lame and that all should be fair, you and other right wingers just that everyone else does it, so it's okay.

Why do I never hear "best for the people" or "good for the country" or "do the right thing" from the right anymore? Maybe because they've lost their moral foundation. They've lost track of what "truth" is.

JS in SD

Great post. Thanks!

All should be FAIR..... for LIVING - BREATHING American Citizens..... I am sorry Supreme Court but you really screwed this one up.....

TOSS this POS decision to the curb, along with the activist Judges who support it!

Much as I decry the impact of the Citizen's United decision by the Supreme Court, I suspect that it may be based upon the correct reading of the constitution, feisty.

If, in other contexts, the courts do treat corporations as "people", holding them accountable for legal violations, subjecting to taxation, then it perhaps follows that corporations enjoy many of the same rights as do citizens and non-commercial associations of citizens.

Unfortunately, the framers of the constitution did not envision a political world dominated by mega-corporations, billionaires and modern media. It may take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to fix this oversight.

This is why it is so important liberals get out and give Obama 4 more years. Ginsburg, at 79 is ready to retire. Obama would replace her with another young liberal women, which is what the court needs. Plus this will force Scalia to sit on the court until he is 80 in hopes of a conservative POTUS in 2016. If he doesn't get it, he'll most likely retire anyway. The last thing this country needs is a more conservative court. Women especially need to realize what this means for you and your reproductive rights if the court turns more conservative. Don't allow the SCOTUS to turn into another government body completely dedicated to eroding our rights and allowing big business to do whatever it wants.

In America, those with the most money/gold/toys, win!

America has the most corrupt politicians money can purchase, on all government levels!

America is for sale, has been for sale, and will be for sale!

It is apparent that the present Court does not participate in the checks and balances part of Government of the United States. Plus the fact that the teabag Repuglicans see it as no big deal to hold the government hostage unless these idiots get their way.

Look at history folks!! Granted it may be a little over the top but that's how Hitler came to power. By the Nazi part holding the German ruling government hostage until Hitler was named chancellor.

Sooner, rather than later, the staunch supporters of the right and far-right will sadly realize that those politicians and judges who, by their actions, words, legislation and judicial decisions are supporting big corporations, financial institutions, and wealthy individuals and groups have stripped them of their liberties and the little wealth they have acquired; that will be the day that we POSSIBLY become a UNITED States once again! Only when, not if, the 1% to 5% of the very wealthy control 95% of all wealth and wealth producing capacity in this country will the remaining 43% of the CONSERVATIVES realize that they have been 'HAD' by their SUPPOSED colleagues! Perhaps then change will occur; I fear it will be violent and destructive!

listen to loser argumets coming from the far rihgt wing pathetics.

Unions do not donate unlimited anonymous money.. HOWEVER because of Citizens Unites Israel has it's own Super-Pac(s).

Why owuld we allow anonymous donation to our politics. Basically this countries military is now in the hands of whomever can get their guy into the white house and congress..

if you are a billionaire and you can form an allegiance with other billionaires who all believe they need to take back this country for everyone own good, how is anyone going to stop the onslaught of false information being tossed around..

All these billionaires have to do is push a couple of touchy buttons like planned parenthood, abortions., and contraceptives to send 35% of this nation into a frenzied tizzy, and then all they have to do is use miss information campaigns to sway the remaining 16% and that is the goal of the far rihgt wing.

Sad part is the far rihgt wing are nothign but a bunch of morons incapable of setting personal freedoms aside and insisting that relgion and personal beleifs become law of the land.. The greedy fascist plutocrat billionaires and foreign nations know this. They have done plenty of studies and know exactly how to divide ans conquer, and all they have to do is use and abuse their wealth and power, and the tea baggers and far rihgt wing evangelicals are gullible enough to swallow all the BS

Stevens should go back to sleep. It was the right decision at the time and remains the right decision, constitutionally.

A very "Sticky Wicket!" ...... Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ...

Congratulations to the Most Honorable Justice John Paul Stevens for his outspoken comments .. on this issue. He joins the ranks of the two other great justices, Hugo Black & William O.Douglas in this position. In fact, Corporate political contributions in federal elections had been prohibited since the Tilman Act (1907) Not untill 1949 was it ever recognized that corporations were protected by the 14th amendment (Equal Protection Clause) of the constitution until the finding in Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, was the issue considered and the eloquent dissent by Justice William O Douglas joined by Justice Hugo Black clearly shows why :

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs, dissenting.

"It has been implicit in all of our decisions since 1886 that a corporation is a "person" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396, so held. The Court was cryptic in its decision. It was so sure of its ground that it wrote no 577*577 opinion on the point, Chief Justice Waite announcing from the bench:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."

There was no history, logic, or reason given to support that view. Nor was the result so obvious that exposition was unnecessary.

The Fourteenth Amendment became a part of the Constitution in 1868. In 1871 a corporation claimed that Louisiana had imposed on it a tax that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the new Amendment. Mr. Justice Woods (then Circuit Judge) held that "person" as there used did not include a corporation and added, "This construction of the section is strengthened by the history of the submission by congress, and the adoption by the states of the 14th amendment, so fresh in all minds as to need no rehearsal." Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 1 Woods 85, 88.

What was obvious to Mr. Justice Woods in 1871 was still plain to the Court in 1873. Mr. Justice Miller in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71, adverted to events "almost too recent to be called history" to show that the purpose of the Amendment was to protect human rights — primarily the rights of a race which had just won its freedom. And as respects the Equal Protection Clause he stated, "The existence of laws in the States where the newly emancipated negroes resided, which discriminated with gross injustice and hardship against them as a class, was the evil to be remedied by this clause, and by it such laws are forbidden." P. 81.

Moreover what was clear to these earlier judges was apparently plain to the people who voted to make the 578*578 Fourteenth Amendment a part of our Constitution. For as MR. JUSTICE BLACK pointed out in his dissent in Connecticut General Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77, 87, the submission of the Amendment to the people was on the basis that it protected human beings. There was no suggestion in its submission that it was designed to put negroes and corporations into, one class and so dilute the police power of the States over corporate affairs. Arthur Twining Hadley once wrote that "The Fourteenth Amendment was framed to protect the negroes from oppression by the whites, not to protect corporations from oppression by the legislature. It is doubtful whether a single one of the members of Congress who voted for it had any idea that it would touch the question of corporate regulation at all."^[1]

Both Mr. Justice Woods in Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, supra, p. 88, and MR. JUSTICE BLACK in his dissent in Connecticut General Co. v. Johnson, supra, pp. 88-89, have shown how strained a construction it is of the Fourteenth Amendment so to hold. Section 1 of the Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without 579*579 due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Italics added.)

"Persons" in the first sentence plainly includes only human beings, for corporations are not "born or naturalized."

Corporations are not "citizens" within the meaning of the first clause of the second sentence. Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359, 363; Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126.^[2]

It has never been held that they are persons whom a State may not deprive of "life" within the meaning of the second clause of the second sentence.

"Liberty" in that clause is "the liberty of natural, not artificial, persons." Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, supra, p. 363.

But "property" as used in that clause has been held to include that of a corporation since 1889 when Minneapolis & St. L.R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26, was decided.

It requires distortion to read "person" as meaning one thing, then another within the same clause and from clause to clause. It means, in my opinion, a substantial revision of the Fourteenth Amendment. As to the matter of construction, the sense seems to me to be with Mr. Justice Woods in Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, supra, p. 88, where he said, "The plain and evident meaning of the section is, that the persons to whom the equal protection of the law is secured are persons born or naturalized or endowed with life and liberty, and consequently natural and not artificial persons."

History has gone the other way. Since 1886 the Court has repeatedly struck down state legislation as applied 580*580 to corporations on the ground that it violated the Equal Protection Clause.^[3] Every one of our decisions upholding legislation as applied to corporations over the objection that it violated the Equal Protection Clause has assumed that they are entitled to the constitutional protection. But in those cases it was not necessary to meet the issue since the state law was not found to contain the elements of discrimination which the Equal Protection Clause condemns. But now that the question is squarely presented I can only conclude that the Santa Clara case was wrong and should be overruled.

One hesitates to overrule cases even in the constitutional field that are of an old vintage. But that has never been a deterrent heretofore^[4] and should not be now.

581*581 We are dealing with a question of vital concern to the people of the nation. It may be most desirable to give corporations this protection from the operation of the legislative process. But that question is not for us. It is for the people. If they want corporations to be treated as humans are treated, if they want to grant corporations this large degree of emancipation from state regulation,^[5] they should say so. The Constitution provides a method by which they may do so. We should not do it for them through the guise of interpretation."

The question is further decided in the 1957 case United States v. United Auto Workers, 352 U.S. 567 with both justices dissenting .. Justice Black writing the dissent

"We deal here with a problem that is fundamental to the electoral process and to the operation of our democratic society. It is whether a union can express its views on the issues of an election and on the merits of the candidates, unrestrained and unfettered by the Congress. The principle at stake is not peculiar to unions. It is applicable as well to associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers' leagues, farmers' unions, religious groups, and every other association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions. It is as important an issue as has come before the Court, for it reaches the very vitals of our system of government. Under our Constitution, it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important -- vitally important -- that all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community."

By these rather iniquitous presidents the ability to essentially change the basic interpretation of our constitution was grounded ... by a ultra conservative supreme court ...

The next election will be a pivot point in American jurisprudence ... if a conservative is elected, Americans had fought liberties will be set back fifty years .... think about what that will mean to your survivors ...

Colorado-Man:

RE: your post #1.44

I hope you realize that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen United is not go to bring YOU, more power or freedom. It is actually stripping YOUR freedoms and powers. Only the very wealthy and powerful will have control over who are leaders are and what OUR laws will require. PLEASE give this some very serious thought, for your own sake!

Hey back country point the finger at both parties, they are bought and paid for by somebody. As long as there is a buck to be made from campaigning, you will see everybody resisting change to this law. The media will see to that. They control the thought process there. It doesn't matter what media organization it is, they are all own by some mogul who's only intent is to make money. And you will be surprised who own most of these organizations. Plain and simple.

It takes a DOPE to think that SuperPACs are an abortion of only one of the two political parties in power.

How many times does this have to be said?

About as many times as I read these flaming ridiculous posts about how one of these two parties we have smells like s**t while the other one smells like roses.

Wake up. Your politcal voice is being taken away from you by your favorite Democrats and Republicans. Because they both benefit from SuperPACs, and you don't, because you don't get the secret money or any say with who gets elected by it.

@Mike

You clowns are just pissed because you started this crap and the Democrats are better at it then you are. Sure does suck to be you Mike.

Be happy to show those corporate birth certificates... right after you show me the birth certificates of all the unions that buy elections for Democrats starsailing.... now if you try to weasel down to membership birth certificates, I can match you investor and worker birth certificates for union member birth certificates all day long....

Ironic that the decision will be tossed after the GOP use it to buy the election with overseas money and cash from Kochs and their ilk. Once their man is in then trash the decision so that the liberals can't used the GOP's own dog against them.

The Super Pac are allowed to do whatever they want anonymously, and yet Republican Governors restrict a small teacher's union from existing (or driving the poor and disabled to the polls, or to encourage people to vote), while certain other organizations (police and firemen) are allowed to keep their unions. That certainly shows the inconsistency and lack of democracy within the Republican Party and Mitt the Pitt Billionaire. His business in the past was to take over companies and then to destroy the companies along with the mass of jobs for the working class people. So why in the world would a party, if they truely believed in democracy, want such a person as Mitt The Pitt as a candidate for the President? Is that their best candidate that they can come up with? Of course he is, since he has a lot of money and big corporations that think just like him! It's time for all of John Q Public to stand up to the wealthy elite by ignoring the ads by thinking for themselves for a change, and about democracy in the next election. Turn off the TV and e-mails that attempt to destroy what little is left of our democracy. Take back the control of our Government by ALL the people, and take away all the benefit attitudes for only the wealthy elite. Haven't we given enough out of our pockets and with the loss of lives in wars already to the wealthy elite ?? Think about who benefited from the current wars, and who was restricted, or stripped at the airports (granny's and toddlers), etc. That's not democracy to restrict some while giving complete freedom to the wealthy elite. But that is exactly where the Republican Party has been heading for several decades now. The Super Pac may have the money, but they can't take away our ability to think, or to know what is right or wrong. Ask yourself what does a corporation or a Presidential Candidate know what it is really like to be disabled, minority, poor, sick, or elderly? I say, esp.those such groups, to get out there and vote even if you have to walk to the voting booths. Even better, do it through the absentee ballots, since the Republican Governors still have not taken that right away from the poorer and disabled persons.

Teabaggers...show us the birth certificates of each corporation.

What a great idea!

This is the WORST SCOTUS in history. I'll bet Kennedy feels stupid he followed the wingnuts on this one.

Does this mean the Coch bros go away along with their sheeple like Romney and Walker?

Scrambolo - In fact it does increase my impact because it equalizes the field with unions and George Soros-funded organizations.

CM, unions are required to make their donations known to the public.

The individuals and corporations both domestic and foreign who give under the rules of Citizens United are completely anonymous.

In any case if you think that makes it "even" please provide evidence that the bulk of money contributed for political campaigns comes from George Soros and unions.

You can't because it's a lie.

Let's hope it's overturned soon. We are in real trouble. I suspect we may need a new Constitution.

REVEALING GOP DIRTY SECRET

GOP Scotus said " Corporation is People" The idea is to Screw-up the Middle Class to bears the "Burdens" of all the Private Corporation debt.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows Bailouts..

Socialism in America at it's Best !

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)

Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)

Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)

Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)

Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)

Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)

Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)

Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)

JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)

Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)

UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)

Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)

Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)

Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)

BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)

and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation">http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation">http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation">http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-InvestigationHYPERLINKhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation">http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation

Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696">http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696">http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696">http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696HYPERLINKhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696">http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696

FULL PDF on GAO server: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf">http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf">http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf">http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdfHYPERLINKhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf">http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

If the Republicans win the Presidency, we will two more right-wing Supreme Court Justices. And two much more radical than any on the court now. This will give a 5 -3 majority for decades to people who would enslave us to the rich and corporations. We will become what the corporations want us to be - a low wage third world country with a few very rich and the majority in poverty. We are going in that direction already.

But if we re-elect President Obama AND a majority Democratic Congress - we will rebuild our infrastructure, have new bridges and roads, better and affordable education. We will also have a Supreme Court that will protect us rather than sell us out.

Vote like your and your children's lives depend on it - IT DOES!

Bottom line is this has become a government for the rich and by the rich............They are no longer governing by the consent of the people.....We must reform our government.......I hope it can be done by voting...In the 21st century there is no reason for armed revolution..But we need a technology ( Internet ) based revolution now......We don't need all of these representatives representing us anymore.....Letters don't arrive weeks later by horse drawn buggies anymore...Our government needs to evolve into the information age soon or it will come to some type of armed revolution ......And I don't want to see what comes of that considering the DODO birds who have the most guns and their backwards ( conservative ) ideology....After all they think Native Americans ( what they call illegals ) and women and people of color do not deserve equal rights..........

AMEN Edward Bruce Williams-------Vote for the party that atleast throws the people a bone.....The democrats look for the working mans and womens vote.....The GOP looks for the vote of hate and fear...

SuperPacs are bad

We the Trolls, forming various minipacs, are the true backbone of democracy and freedom.

I sure hope your right, because Obama warned everyone about this, and he was right.

Actually, if you've read "almost all of their decisions" you'd see that Alito actually isn't this uber-conservative villain so many of these commenters seem to assume he is. Yes, some of his decisions are what we now refer to as "conservative" but he's actually pretty reasonable when it comes to criminal law - especially (or perhaps because of) being a former US Attorney - and, aside from Citizens United, which is tragic, his First Amendment opinions are some of the most thoughtful I've read as a First Amendment scholar. Thomas can go to hell, Kennedy's turned out to be a huge disappointment, Scalia can be unreasonably reliant upon this whole notion of "originalism" but once in awhile will protect fundamental rights in a non-conservative way (seriously), and Roberts is no leader. But Alito I haven't lost faith in just yet; there are glimmers of evolution there.

Really, last I heard, obama evolved and stated super pacs were ok.

He never endorsed the idea he just said he would accept money from them because he figured as long as it was the law of the land he would fight fire with fire. More putting word in the oppositions mouth as truth which is a lie.

Whomever is responsible for repeated collapsing of Feisty on this board should explain why! She has not insulted anyone personally and her comments are always rated with high agree scores. I thought we had free speech unless the rules of the board were broken. NO?

OK so explain why that happens please and thank you very much

now unknown, untraceable money can buy our politicians. Before we knew who buys them, and now we have no clue. Founding Fathers would be so proud!

Thinking that candidates will set their own ethical and moral boundaries is just as lame as thinking corporations or banks will regulate themselves and do the right thing. This isn't a winnable or even worthwhile argument about who did what in past elections, this is about the size and strength of voice we allow for some and not all. Special interests and big money will continue to gain more and more power and control under our current campaign contribution rules.

Contributions should only be allowed by those eligible to vote in whatever election they are contributing to.

Outside influence, no matter how you cut it... by city, county, state, or country... is the root of most election manipulation. And by the way, corporations can't vote so they shouldn't be allowed to donate. I'm saying get rid of the PACs and the SuperPacs and disallow union contributions as well.

How is the elimination of non-human non-voter money a violation of our freedoms?

TJM07

The unions cannot use dues money for political purposes. They must solicit money specifically for that use by their membership. There are many similar groups like retirees, the elderly, and even groups that are geographic in nature.

PACs are the same way. They are the corporate equivalent to unions. Corporate PACs solicit money from their employees for use in politics... all above board.

SuperPACs are a different animal. Corporate money, source unknown can be contributed in volums... very different!

I'm sure Obama is not the first or the last president to have been or will be visited by Union bosses.

Does this mean Karl Rove will have to stop selling the United states to the highest bidder?

TJ the Union thing is a fossil your comments are stupid and if you really want to know the only ones in this country who want to get rid of them are the corporations , Republican Party, and the people dumb enough to believe what they say. and they are very few people . I am sorry to ruin your day but there are just as many Republicans in the Union as any other Political affiliation

Stevens is extremely liberal so it is not surprising he would have this view. Stevens is letting his politics get in the way on his judicial thoughts. He was a very poor justice so there is no reason to listen to what he says.

Citizens United is the most wrong-headed court decisions in generations. Huge majorities of Americans realize that, including huge majorities of Conservatives...until the right wing echo chamber started beating the drum of how "correct" the court had been.

Anonymous, unlimited campaign contributions used to be known by a different name...bribery. Who knows what quid pro quos are out there waiting to be called in? It literally is impossible to say because we have no idea who is bribing, oops, providing campaign contributions for the candidates? Just this week Mitt Romney had a private meeting with Sheldon Adelson, prime benefactor of Newt Gingrich during his campaign.

Using Adelson as an example, he's already contributed millions in publicly-known donations this cycle. Who knows how many millions more he has and will contribute under the table, away from the disinfecting sunlight? We never will, because the Supreme Court has deemed bribery to be illegal.

So what we have is a tendency away from one person, one vote and toward one dollar, one vote.

Without question the Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves over this miscarriage of the American way.

Jonal11,

It is common sense that unlimited money from anyone...

Says who? "The Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...".

Did I miss the part the says "unless you want to speak more than some government bureacrat decides"?

By the way, if you want to limit excessive speech, then it's time to shut down the NY Times, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, et al. The monetary value of their editorializing is far in excess of all other campaign expenditures combined. Note that all those organizations are big, evil corporations. Would you shut them down, too? Or would you prefer that the government censor their content?

The Founding Fathers had it right. "The Congress shall make no law...".

"Corporations are people my friends."

And you really want the guy that said that to be the POTUS?

John B,

You write as though people can make unlimited contributions to candidates - they cannot.

But they can excercise their previously lost right to free speech and association. Before Citizens United, if you spent your own money to buy a little time on your local TV station to say "Vote for my candidate", you would have committed a crime. That is, your elected officials (led by Senators McCain and Feingold!) determined that you could not be trusted to speak about them. Now, that is wrong-headed.

Once again, it's pretty simple: "The Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech".

what the court is trying to do is get enough republicans to power then later reverse their decision.

I think it will backfire on them because Obama is going to win this election, it does not matter how much they going to spend all I want people to understand is do not your religious believe decieve you on election day . the Republicans are not christian more than Democrates.

In America, he with the most toys/gold/money "wins".

America has the most corrupt, crooked politicians, money can purchase!

America has been for sale, was for sale, and will be for sale!

Economan,

"The Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech".

Until you can prove to me that corporations eat, sleep, crap, give birth, etc., you cannot compare them to human beinings. Corporations are not people - they exist because of people but they never have been and never will be people.

OBX

see that little box in-between Feisty's name and the word "comment?" CLICK on it, wherever the original post is located.

pssst, we won't tell anyone ;)

as for "why," it's just the jealousy of a troll at work. you may not have noticed --- Feisty's posts are usually first in line. ;)

Dangerous Mind, you're right about fascism. Benito Mussolini, the leader of fascist Italy during WWII, said fascsim was when you can't slip a cigarette paper (he must have rolled his own) between government and business.

Exactly, bayllie - To which I can only add "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

Economan...It could NOT be stated any better!! People just dont believe in the Constitution any more!! It's ok if the rules go their way, but if it goes against them then it must be wrong. EVERY LAW should be ran by the Constitution before its is put "into" law and if it doesnt cut it then it doesnt apply. Even if I dont like it at least it is "Constitutional"!!!

Bayllie...if you feel that way about corporations then where is you outrage about UNIONS?? OH, I forgot, the unions go the way of YOUR liberal party. Sorry for my stupidity. HAHAHA

@Mike in Delray,

Let me see the repuks don't do public financing for which they can get unlimited money from any where including abroad and you want the dems to tie there hands behind our backs because we made a promise? Either you are the dumbest person in the world to think any fool would do that or you are the dumbest person in the world. Your choice.

Spin your warped mind in another direction if you think you can work with unlimited money to defeat me and I should work under a cap. Not even a moron would agree to that BS. Only someone who listens to FIX NEWS would even say something that stupid and think people would agree to it.

OOOPPSS you agreed to it. - FIX NEWS LISTENER

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and....

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Someone please show me in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights where the civil rights of corporations are guaranteed? Our Constitution and the later Bill of Rights were in-acted to protect the rights of the people. Corporations are NOT people. They may be run by people, but they are not an living entity. I'm really, really confused how one stretches the 1st amendment to protect a corporation's rights to the guarantee of free speech. How does a corporation have inalienable rights in the first place - it isn't a being deserving of inalienable rights - its a freaking legal instrument for the limitation of liability.

I'm not a particular support of Justice Stevens, but I suspect he's right about this particular topic - in my opinion, this particular ruling was one of the most poorly thought out rulings by our Supreme Court in generations - solely because it is based on the assumption that a corporation is protected by the Bill of Rights.

(Incidentally, the word "corporation" doesn't exist in any part of the Constitution or the 27 Amendments - it only exists in the legal code in-acted by Congress)

JS in SD

Your ideas on campaign financing are exactly right. There is way too much outside money involved in political campaigns.

bayllie,

How simple does it have to be??? "The Congress shall make no law". What part of "no law" confuses you?

Ironic that the decision will be tossed after the GOP use it to buy the election with overseas money and cash from Kochs and their ilk. Once their man is in then trash the decision so that the liberals can't used the GOP's own dog against them.

Economan, you are not showing the part of the Constitution that grants freedom of anything to a corporation.

Contrary to what some people think, the Citizens United decision did not "invent" corporate personhood.

In 1819, the Supreme Court ruling in Dartmouth College v. Woodward gave corporations "personhood" for the purpose of contracts.

The case of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet, (1823) gave corporations the same property rights as individuals.

In 1886, the SCOTUS decision in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific confirmed that corporations and unions had full protection, under the 14th Amendment, to EQUAL PROTECTION under the law.

But, it was in the case of the United States v. UNITED AUTO WORKERS in 1957 that prohibitions on corporate and union political spending were struck down.

The Citizens United case simply ruled that the government could not place limits on the "political speech" of corporations and unions anymore than it could on individuals.

It struck down that portion of the McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited corporations and unions from using their GENERAL TREASURY to fund "electioneering communications" within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Otherwise, those restrictions would also have to apply to individuals and ALL corporations including television and radio stations, newspapers, books and magazines, and movie studios. In other words, pretty much ALL informational outlets.

It all goes back to one of the basic principals upon which this country was founded; "no taxation without representation". If you're going to tax them, you can't deny them access to the political process.

Any judge that would rule otherwise is undermining the basis of democracy.

I love Citizens United.

foolishness abounds...What Citizens United was really all about:

In 2004, Michael Moore released his Fahrenheit/911, a film critical of President Bush. Citizens United filed a complaint with the FEC (Federal Election Commission)....The complaint was dismissed. ...Fast Forward to 2008....Citizens United produced a documentary --Hillary, The Movie-- a film critical of Presidential Candidate, Sen.Clinton....The FEC ruled the film could not be aired prior to Democratic Primaries.....That's why Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ended up at the Supreme Court in 2009. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.

Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission.....was the lower court case that came after that allowed for PAC's and SuperPac's

Citizens United became the buzzword whipping post for the blogosphere.....For more real info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

The Super Pacs are allowed to do whatever they want anonymously, and yet Republican Governors restrict a small teacher's union from existing (or driving the poor and disabled to the polls, or to encourage people to vote), while certain other organizations (police and firemen) are allowed to keep their unions. That certainly shows the inconsistency and lack of democracy within the Republican Party and Mitt the Pitt Billionaire. His business in the past was to take over companies and then to destroy the companies along with the mass of jobs for the working class people. So why in the world would a party, if they truely believed in democracy, want such a person as Mitt The Pitt as a candidate for the President? Is that their best candidate that they can come up with? Of course he is, since he has a lot of money and big corporations that think just like him! It's time for all of John Q Public to stand up to the wealthy elite by ignoring the ads by thinking for themselves for a change, and about democracy in the next election. Turn off the TV and e-mails that attempt to destroy what little is left of our democracy. Take back the control of our Government by ALL the people, and take away all the benefit attitudes for only the wealthy elite. Haven't we given enough out of our pockets and with the loss of lives in wars already to the wealthy elite ?? Think about who benefited from the current wars, and who was restricted, or stripped at the airports (granny's and toddlers), etc. That's not democracy to restrict some while giving complete freedom to the wealthy elite. But that is exactly where the Republican Party has been heading for several decades now. The Super Pac may have the money, but they can't take away our ability to think, or to know what is right or wrong. Ask yourself what does a corporation or a Presidential Candidate know what it is really like to be disabled, minority, poor, sick, or elderly? I say, esp.those such groups, to get out there and vote even if you have to walk to the voting booths. Even better, do it through the absentee ballots, since the Republican Governors still have not taken that right away from the poorer and disabled persons.

If we are going to get rid of unions then lets start with the Firemans , Police, Municipal, long shoremen, truckers union name some more we get rid of them ALL of them not just the auto unions and the unions you don't like and I 'll tell you there are manny A$$$$Ole Repuicks in these UNIONS

Well, if corporations are people , too, then Mitt and Bain Capital are mass murderers.

TOSS this POS decision to the curb, along with the activist Judges who support it!

Amen sister.

They stole the 2000 election, and now the right-leaning SCOTUS has put Party before country yet again. If rightwingers feel no trust in government, does it ever occur to them it's because of THEM and the obstructionist Teapublican House in Congress, Emergency Manager oligarchy in Michigan, voter suppression in Florida, and a list of litany too long to cover in this post?

Whether "Obamacare" or Citizen's United, may Alito, et al, get burned for their repeated 5-4 decisions, and legislating from the bench per political ideology rather than the rule of law.

In the meantime, prepare for unlimited, untraceable money (from a PO Box in Phoenix) – 1 billion this fall from the rightwing (not including what Romney will spend) –- This dark money will flood in late in the election cycle, about 30 days prior to election day, ambushing Dems with lies. May The People overcome this dirty money with their collective votes.

This was a case of judges run a muck. I have yet to meet anyone of any political affiliation that thought this was a good idea.

John B,

You write as though people can make unlimited contributions to candidates - they cannot.

But they can excercise their previously lost right to free speech and association. Before Citizens United, if you spent your own money to buy a little time on your local TV station to say "Vote for my candidate", you would have committed a crime. That is, your elected officials (led by Senators McCain and Feingold!) determined that you could not be trusted to speak about them. Now, that is wrong-headed.

Once again, it's pretty simple: "The Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech".

Ah, yes they can...as long as they do it through the charade of a SuperPAC...and anonymously as well.

And money isn't speech...it's bribery.

Citizen's United overturned almost a century of precedent. It allows unlimited and untraceable money to influence elections because of loopholes and no law requiring transparency. As such money can come from individuals, and shareholders of corporations, who may not be US citizens. Anyone (Mike Filmore) with half a brain should be alarmed by the fact that the GOP will spend 1 billion this fall, and we don't know where all of it is coming from.

Stevens is correct in his belief that the SCOTUS is already having second thoughts about their ruling on Citizen's United (assuming some like Alito have a conscience). The quote "I'll believe corporations are people the day Texas executes one" is spot on. The SCOTUS is also struggling with "Obamacare" because they are learning the many good things in it.

Currently the repeated 5 to 4 decisions are proof of a right-leaning court that is legislating from the bench -- ever since Sandra Day O'Conner, a swing vote, was replaced with rightwing Samual Alito. Heaven help us if Teapublicans are able to appoint more rightwing judges, now it would be a far-Right wingnut like Bork. We need at least one more appointment by President Obama to even it out, and better yet two in case the Teapublicans win the election after that and the Party is still so extreme.

Obama/Biden - 2012!

Contrary to what some people think, the Citizens United decision did not "invent" corporate personhood

Of course it didn't...everyone who's studied the issue realizes that. What you're ignoring, however, is that the term "corporate personhood" has always been understood in a very limited sense. Citizens United extend the concept of "corporate personhood" into parts of the legal realm where it never previously existed, all for the purpose of allowing our wealthy elites to buy the political system.

Solutions539 -- Speaking of FIX News, Fox and Friends actually ran an anti-Obama ad on behalf of the GOP/TP worth big bucks of airtime for free.

From Media Matters: "While Fox & Friends has long been a home for some of the most vicious, misleading, petty, and dishonest attacks on President Obama, they crossed a new ethical line today by producing and airing what is essentially a four-minute anti-Obama attack ad."

The video appears to have been taken down from the FIX News website today. Citizen's United? We need to reinstate some form of the FCC Fairness Doctrine too. "Fair and Balanced" was already removed, and now FOX needs to remove the "News" part too.

Having second thoughts huh? Never should've had first thoughts to begin with. Anyone with basic understanding of how our country works could see this was a bad thing thru and thru. This never should've been passed in the first place. Instead of doing what was good for the country and average American the usual bend to the lobbyist and corporate will won out and now believe it or not some of those who approved it might actually be showing signs of brain activity and are realizing this wasn't a good thing at all. They let a monster out of its cage and its starting to turn on them and show them it doesn't care who helped it all it is hungry and everyone is on the menu. Hopefully they can get this repealed before it goes on to much longer. Cracks? Well I have some chisels and sledge hammers, and I ready to widen those cracks and start taking out chucks.

This is why we need reform not only on Wall Street but in DC itself. Term limits, ban on lobbyists, campaign reforms, no more just a two party option to elect, and so on. It is time America. We have got to demand this happen. If we ever hope to get out of this funk our country is in then this is something we have got to do. They got us here it is up to us yet again to dig out but to also make sure it never happens again. Oh and don't forget reb or dem it is the same two headed snake, so spare me the my side is better BS. The more that you carry on with that the less chance a real change will ever happen. The sooner you see it the better.

Mike in Delray

I never said that the Citizens United case was about the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations and unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.

As I said, it was about "political SPEECH" and "electioneering communications".

As I also said, it was in the 1957 case United States v. UNITED AUTO WORKERS that the PROHIBITIONS on DIRECT contributions by unions and corporations were lifted.

The LIMITS on direct contributions remain and are the SAME as those on individual donors. The rules have to be the SAME for both individuals and the unions/corporations.

Yes, the movies you mentioned were the reason that the Citizens United case was begun. I was writing about the legal precedents and principals around which the case revolved.

As I showed, the CU case did NOT "make corporations people". That happened a long time ago.

The KEY case in this whole "corporate personhood" debate is the 1886 case that I cited that gave corporations and unions EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW per the 14th Amendment.

That made it so the SAME rules had to be applied to individuals and unions/corporations

Lets just hope Justice Kennedy does the right thing with that and DOMA. It seems lately that the constitution holds little meaning to the supreme court, politics does. I have more faith that Justice Kennedy will do the right thing than many of of the other bought and paid for right wing justices.

And corporations are NOT people, they are entities comprised of people with the sole purpose of making money for their investors.

foolishness abounds.....I was adding to your post that I agreed with. Sorry if I didn't make that clear....

That is the reason Justice Alito mouths the words " Not true" when Obama scolded the SCOTUS at the State of the Union Address.....and he was shaking his head in disbelief that the Constitutional Law Professor (Pfft) got it so wrong.

With the 'Citizens United' ruling, there is no way of knowing how much foreign money is influencing American politics........Certainly does raise concerns about the five conservative Supreme Court justice's wisdom, if not their patriotism.

Solutions539....(#2.28)..."Let me see the repuks don't do public financing for which they can get unlimited money from any where including abroad and you want the dems to tie there hands behind our backs because we made a promise?"

In case you hadn't noticed, Obama bailed on his Public Financing Campaign promise in 2008.....a full 2 years before the Citizens United and related cases came out in 2010.......And you called me dumb ???

McCain kept to his pledge.

...and all the Conservatives carefully talk around the most important point of all. Citizens United allows individuals and corporations (domestic and foreign) to give unlimited donations ANONYMOUSLY.

Unlimited amounts of money given to the campaign vehicles of candidates with no transparency whatsoever. No way to track what quid pro quos might even come from such a system.

Bribery.

I know how we can fix this mess. Install a cap as to how much total money can be spent, by person or corporation. when the cap is hit, all contributions end. A better question to ask is how did our elections turn into a cash cows whereby it is akin to a popularity contest and not a contest to produce the best possible candidate to lead our nation. The fact we are talking the type of numbers invloved is obscene in a time when so many are struggling economically. How does any candidate justify this type of spending to get elected to office so they can improve our financial state. Is this not insane. Let me spend close to a billion dollars to tell citizens that they feel our pain. There should be a change to the law but the change should entail restricting all money spent on elections in the millions, not billions. It doesn't show me that either candidate is a good leader when they watch all this money being wasted on grimy advertisers and media outlets to win. We don't need 1000's of ads played the same way we don't need to see 100 Mcdonald's ads a day. We know what you sell, try advertising when you add a new item or change an old one. If the message is the same, stop wasting your money.

These conservative Supreme crackpot won't allow such cracks.

Actually I found it rather informative. Anyone who hasn't read about ALEC needs to. It's crazy how this group basically runs the legislative agenda of the GOP. By the way, isn't the basic idea behind fascism that business runs government? Sounds like what ALEC's trying to do. Read about how much money they're putting into the WI recall election to protect their puppet Walker.

You missed the point jonal11 is making. "instead of individuals discussing their personal opinions..."

Acorn registered poor people to vote. All the other stuff was a boondoggle foisted on us by propagandist like yourself.

Hey Jonal11 - check out my copypaste job below: since they iritate you so I decided to post one myself.....

[Am I getting smart with you? ..... How would you know?....]

Matt...try some facts...maybe join Chip and Dale on some acorn gathering for storage.

A report commissioned by the House Judiciary Committee found ACORN, a community organizing group heavily criticized after an undercover video surfaced, has not violated any federal regulations.

The study by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found that ACORN correctly used all federal dollars it received and did not improperly register any voters during last year's presidential election.

ACORN came under fire after undercover video footage surfaced that showed employees discussing prostitution, tax evasion, and smuggling with a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute. Earlier this month an outside legal expert hired by the group found no laws were broken by staffers caught on video.

While ACORN was found not to have violated any laws, its conservative critics who made the video may have. The CRS report said the covert filming may have broken laws in Maryland and California, where some of the footage was shot. Both states forbid shooting video when both parties aren't aware of the filming.

After the videos surfaced, Congress voted to strip ACORN of federal funding, but the CRS report said courts "may have sufficient basis" to rule that unconstitutional.

Your link goes nowhere, Matt. I'm inclined to believe you invented it out of thin air.

You make some good points, who are you voting for? If you say Obama then you are voting for Mitt becaue they are the same thing, they would both sign the NDAA which makes it legal for the government to inprison anyone who is either considered a terrorist or gives considerable support to terrorists, inprisoned indefinently without trial I should add. This has since been ruled unconstitutional for good reason, but is expected to pass soon. The media is trying to test the idea of labling the 99% protestors as "home grown terrorists" so in otherwords if you descent you are a terrorist. If you don't think we should go to war with countries that might attack us with weapons of mass distruction they do not have and protest this you are supportive of terrorists. Romney and Obama accept money from the same donors so they have the same owners and will have the same policies with little to no difference. Obama passed things Bush couldn't like the NDAA which was presented by John McCain and never repealed the Patriot act. If you really want to vote for change vote Ron Paul. Watch his "what if" speach on youtube and see if you disagree with anything he says, then watch more of his speaches you'll see he's a uniter he isn't geting money from corporations, defends cival liberties, and never voted to raise taxes and wants to bring our troops home, will not take a pension and if elected president will take the salary of 40k the average american salary. Because he's the real voice of liberty the media is ignoring him even though he won 11 states. RON PAUL 2012!!!

Ellesig - Ron Paul is done. Give it a rest, already.

What's ironic is how so many people regard Reagan a a HERO! Nothing could be further from the TRUTH. His presidency was a pivotal moment for CORPORATE AMERICA taking over.

Ron Paul wants a pony!

Even Reagan couldn't be a republican today...after he realized it really was voodoo economics he raised taxes 11 times.....

Matt, the claims against acorn have largely been discredit including that piece of heavily edited/falsified reporting by that twenty something year old.

After the Citizens United case Democracy in America is DEAD. "1984" is just taking a little longer than prophetic writer George Orwell predicted when he wrote the novel in 1934.

Remember this ..... "Big Brother" is NOT goverment in 1984, Big Brother is a Private Corporation that has taken over, and runs goverment omnipitently. ..... With Citizens Untited, we are very close to that now.

Thank you Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito ... may you rot in hell for your idiotic decision.

Ron Paul isn't done, if you just want to stay sleeping and believe the news then you are done. You know what I'm saying is true about Obama and Romney, they both take money from Goldman Sachs, they are the same candidate, realize nothing has changed between Obama and Bush over all. We are still going to war over 911 even though Iraq had no weapons of mass distruction and Osama is dead. There is no clear goal for victory, we just keep fighting until we are broke. Same with the war on drugs, abolition didn't work, Obama won't legalize anything, and neither will Mitt, Ron Paul will, which make sense because you take the market away from drug dealers so crime goes down, and the drugs are regulated so they are less deadly and they will be harder for kids to get much like cigerettes and alcohol which are still poison. Ron Paul would also pardon all nonviolent convicted drug users, 65% of which are black yet black people make up around 15% of actual users. Drug addiction is an illness not a crime. I could give you a ton of great reasons to vote for Ron Paul and they all make sense.

The Citizens United ruling must be overturned - even if it takes a constitutional amendment.

Constitutional amendment? Never happen. You hav to have two thirds of the states to ratify it. No meaningful amendment that does not benefit the right wing will ever pass those state houses. We are slowly being bled to death as a nation. Proof of that was the lies they told to take over the house last election. Remember. It was all about jobs jobs jobs and they forgot about that even before they were sworn in. Elect Romney and all that crap they passed becomes law and you will not like to live in this country long with the corporate boot on the back of your neck. I am all for business but business like the rest of us has to be controlled or it is fascisim.

What does a terrorist look like? Me? Do all terrorist walk around looking for something to blow up? No. Right now we have one terrorist in high public view. Donald (go to China and get it made) Trump. "Don't worry about that it would create jobs and employ people here." He is an Un-American, Un-Patriotic, sorry excuse for a man I've ever saw. I consider you to be an economical terrorist to the people of my America. I wish you would put your fat butt on your big ol' plane and go to China. Where is your Birth Certificate and your Military record? I spent 24 yrs in the U.S. Army and have a DD214 to proove it. Yeh, a terrorist is hard to spot, But they all don't carry Bombs.

Ah you know their scared when they start collapsing posts for no legitimate reason other than they disagree with the post....

Funny it's in a thread that is partially about FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Liberals believe in freedom of speech only if your speech is from a liberal point of view.

Anonymous international corporations now influencing Americas elections. Thanks Roberts.

The Roberts' court is corrupt and owned by big business. Citizens United is clear proof of that fact. Time for term limits on the SCOTUS of 8 years instead of lifetime appointments.

Liberals believe in freedom yes freedom for all not just the richest few like you and the repuks want.

You have so much racial hatred in your heart you would vote for a corporation who will put you in the streets the first chance they get if you become ill, run through your saving and turn to the corporation who employed you because the government is unable to help you because you voted to get rid of it. Now what do you do if the same corporations you voted to take over our nation put you in the street?

Let me tell you - You would be poor just like the people you look down upon. Funny how that works some fool convinces you to vote against your own interest an they en-turn tells you to F-OFF if you turn for them to help you.

Fascism = Corporations running the government.

Devlin,

I think it goes both ways. Didn't you notice the very first post by Feisty (a staunch liberal) was also collapsed. It seems people on both sides " believe in freedom of speech only if your speech is from [their] point of view."

Ironic that the decision will be tossed after the GOP use it to buy the election with overseas money and cash from Kochs and their ilk. Once their man is in then trash the decision so that the liberals can't used the GOP's own dog against them.

Can we all agree that billionaires like the Koch Bros. and Sheldon Adelson should not be allowed to buy all elections going forward?

Gosh, that Citizens United ruling was a bone-headed idea. Just like President Obama predicted!!

High Horse with an Opinion,

Does anyone remember when Reagan opened the valve for all that money to "trickle down"? Where did it go? Methinks it went to accumulations of large amounts of capital that was used, not to create jobs or retool factories, but rather for corporate takeovers. Just think about the timeline when corporate raiding became the thing and all these megacorporations began to be born. There is where the money trickled down to. The whole thing was a shell game.

The Obamacare Bill was written by the Tides Foundation. The Stimulus Bill and the Cap and Trade Bill were written by the Apollo Alliance.

GEORGE SOROS OWNS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND USES THEM TO ENRICH HIMSELF AND HIS CRONIES AND TO ADVANCE HIS "ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT" AGENDA!!

Foolishness:

There are wealthy people that take an interest in those with less. And then there are wealthy people that are interested only in becoming wealthier. You seem to be having trouble finding the cheese. George Soros probably has some self-interest in his politics, but anyone who studies things carefully would have to conclude that his major interest is making sure the economy stays healthy as a result of a sound middle class. He believes that economic growth becomes greater and more sustainable when the middle class is enlarged in size and enhanced in purchasing power. He is also interested in education for the masses and the environment. The Koch Brothers care not a fig for such things. So study carefully, and you too can learn that the neocons want to make money through the military industrial complex and oil, gas, coal, etc. And people like Soros want a more balanced economy in which every child can grow up to be a talented entrepeneur or simply a good engineer, teacher, etc. Also, Foolishness, you undoubtedly despise unions. But truly international unions might raise the masses up from the subsistence wages that global competition threatens to bring to all of the industrialized nations. Again, you don't want to find that cheese. You would really have loved the middle ages in which the nobles and the church pushed the serfs around and the poor little serfs became so pathetic and dependent that they had no time to think for themselves. The Rich and the Church do the same thing now. And you love it.

With the impact of the Citizens United ruling and outcome of the upcoming election, it will soon be etched in stone whether we are destined to return to a mid-evil times culture of Lords, Barons and subjects, or a government of, for and by the people.

BeyondDEMOCRAT....(#3.32)...Your take on George Soros is bizzarre.....He says the biggest stumbling block to the New World Order is the United States.....he makes his big money manipulating the currencies of countries....

Have any documentation of that, Mike in Delray? When and where did Soros say that? Where is your proof that he even has the money and clout to manipulate entire national currencies for his own benefit?

@Sheila, MD

Can we all agree that billionaires like the Koch Bros. and Sheldon Adelson should not be allowed to buy all elections going forward?

Oh, but it's okay George Soro's should be able to funnel as much as he wants to the Obama campaign? You can't have it both ways.

If your going to accept if on the Left you must allow it on the Right or allow it from neither.

Is George Soros a billionaire?

Then he's covered by Sheila's comment. Stop being so intent on making an attack and come to agreement on what should be a common value of all Americans. Powerful individuals and interests shouldn't be able to buy elections.

Actually no, anti-trust is not nearly as bad as a Super PAC. At least he's being active and trying to make a difference. And his group is all real people, not billion dollar companies and some oil-rich Saudi prince trying to influence our elections.

Yes sometimes he copies and pastes the info, but he also individually posts his opinions on many topics.

I copy and paste the two amendments for those too lazy to go to the PAM website to download the actual amendments for circulation. I have been promoting these two amendments here on Newsvine ever since they were created and have been encouraging all of you opposed to Citizens United to get behind this totally grass-roots petition drive. There are NO corporate sponsors of this movement (unlike all of the other so-called amendment movements). It is up to each individual to download the original petitions from the PAM website, sign and circulate them among family, friends, neighbors, then help form local and regional grass-roots organizations to collect the petitions and turn them into their respective Secretaries of State. Once you have collected enough signatures to reach YOUR state's threshold for calling for a constitutional convention, then it is the legal responsibility of your Secretary to call for such a convention. That is how the Popular Amendment (see the discussion on the PAM website) works.

Yes, I also helped to develop these two amendments out of discussions here on Newsvine back during the summer of 2010. The original election reform petition had five or six sections that were expanded upon, based upon our discussions on the vine at that time. The Term Limits petition was developed and added to the PAM website simply because so many posters were calling for such term limits.

Again, jonal11, what have you done to get involved in bringing about true campaign finance and election reform? Are you another individual who just sits there and complains, or are you willing to get involved in your community and help bring about change? I live in the US Virgin Islands where we don't get to vote for president, we have NO VOTE OR VOICE in the Senate, and only have VOiCE (no vote) on the floor of the House. Yet the Congress has total control over our lives through the Organic Act. That is why I'm encouraging others to get involved in this movement.

jonal11 - how fitting that your own response it a copy-paste, itself. At least the post you're attempting to respond to had a point. Yours is just garbage.

I could certainly get on board with that. If not solve a lot of problems, make it much harder for bad influence to continue!

you forgot no candidate or judge may hold stock in or work for a company or organisation in any way for at least 10 years after voting on or ruling over a piece of legislation that directly affects it ....

term limits are a stupid idea. limiting the time a congressman can serve is the easiest way to transfer institutional knowledge, and thus power, to unelected staffers and lobbyists. besides, there is an easier way to boot out a congressman: an election.

eh... it is shown that congressional elections are all but forgotten by voters. many retain their seats uncontested. this is a sham.

term limits end career politicians. If you think that career politicians (people more concerned with keeping their job rather than making politically risky decisions that happen to be the right thing to do) = good system of government, then yes... term limits are stupid..... sigh

11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.

This is a little broad and open to interpretation. It would be best to remove physical access to the lobbyist....ie, no offices allowed within x amount of miles from Congress, each lobbyist must sign in for each meeting, limit on interactions, etc

Long ago I posted that the problem in the US is our political system. When it got to the point where an official once elected had to start raising money for his reelection campaign before he was sworn in it was a rie time for those with money to swoop in and take control of the country. Lots of other countries fell from lofty positions becase they died from within. We are on that slippery slope today and heading downhill fast. Either we take our election process out of the hands of the fat cats or we will end up as other before us have. A third rate country.

It's a great idea. Sadly, it will never happen with the foxes guarding the hen house.

Unions don't want to compete against the corporations to get their puppets elected.

10 out of 10 liberals agree.

Clearly there are problems with large corporations who elect their own puppets. But not all of these super PACs are hell bent on twisting government policies to be destructive but rather make the US more competitive. I'd rather have that than the unions lopsided propaganda efforts.

anti-trust proponent,

That is one of the dumbest (and totalitarian) proposals I've ever seen in this country. It's so sophomoric that I'm hard pressed to know where to start tearing it apart.

In addition to repealing the First Amendment (there goes freedom of speech, press, association and petition - 4 out of 5 ain't bad), it criminalizes politics. Are there any other freedoms you'd like to eliminate? Just what kind of government do you think you'd end up with if you did that?

Really, are you serious?

Sammy-is that the van you live in? Unions make up less than 8% of American workers. You are obviously not a big facts person. Find some other boogey man-I'm sure limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Savage will give an idea.

I can agree with several points that you've listed.

Sammy, Citizens united gave unions the same "right" to spend unlimited amounts of cash as it did corporations. We want BOTH to be limited.

raddave:

Unions are " limited" by virtue of their limited number of members (read $$$) compared to the "unlimted"

resources (read $$$) of big corporations and billionaires.

REALIST,

union members constitute 8% of PRIVATE SECTOR workers. The unions have a stranglehold on public sector jobs.

AFSCME and the National Education Association (NEA) are two of the largest political donors in the country.

Unions will never have the money multi-national corporations have. Unions are concerned for the safety and the welfare of their workers.I am concerned with the questionable patriotism of multi-national corporations based in the US.Corporations exist for one reason only-profit. That is not true of unions. FOX may train people to think unions are bad and all business is good, but remember the British Partliament just declared Murdoch "unfit" to head a massive media company. I wish our courts had their nerve, LOL.

Anti-trust,.......I wholly support your views and determination to bring about meaningful, and ethical change in Washington, and I will sign the petitions.........However, I think the odds of getting the required 38 states to call for a convention is very slim, and then there is the matter of getting enough votes to enact particular laws once the convention is called. The power-ball lottery may be a better bet.

There is a much simpler and practical way to make the same changes you speak of by way of state or territory voter petitions. And that is in the way of petitions for state, or territory laws which requires public elected officials, from the city, to Congressional level to sign an agreement to abide by particular rules of terms and conditions for holding a public elected office charged with representing a part, or whole of a state in whatever legislative body...........In essence, something like a rental agreement which has been upheld in every court in the land.......

State, by state by state the people can reclaim control of their government, and at the same time instill and enforce some ethical rules in government that cannot be vetoed by any legislative body....What do you say ?

Donna i agree we do need to take our country back but do not be so naive to think that the Republican are the only one on the block with 1%'ers giving some scratch..

and how much does an ID card cost...25 bucks if best..come on now..what would you say if the GOP did that.....let people think for themselves...not everyone needs to have their hand held

take it easy

Donna I am also voting for Obama/Biden but there is the 1 Billion Superpac money on the far right. Really scary.

Just D Facts: 34 states have passed legislation including these latest one - didn't you get this in the mail? WHAT rock have you been under?

How about D Facts of which here are the latest:

May 22, 2012: Late last week, governors in Mississippi and Virginia signed voter ID legislation. The Mississippi legislation spells out the details necessary to implement the constitutional amendment approved by voters in November 2011. Virginia's new law expands the types of ID that are permissible for voting purposes (including adding some that do not bear a photo of the voter), but also moves Virginia into the "strict" camp by requiring voters who fail to bring ID to the polls to vote a provisional ballot and present ID within the few days following the election in order to have their ballot counted. The Mississippi Legislature sent a voter ID bill to the governor. The bill lays out the specific details necessary to implement the citizen initiative approved by voters in November 2011. The Virginia General Assembly has returned voter ID legislation to the governor. Among the changes he suggests are allowing a voter to be identified through a signature match in lieu of ID, allowing community college IDs for voting, and extending from one to three days the time period during which voters who failed to show ID on Election Day can return to election officials to show ID.

May 1, 2012: The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against Pennsylvania's new strict photo voter ID law that the governor signed into law on March 14, 2012.

April 5, 2012: The Minnesota legislature approved HF 2738, sending a constitutional amendment to the November 2012 ballot that will allow voters to approve or reject voter ID.

March 12, 2012: A state judge ruled Wisconsin's voter ID law unconstitutional (read the opinion). Unless the state succeeds in obtaining an injunction blocking this order, Wisconsin's new strict photo ID law will not be in effect for the April 3 presidential primary. Another state judge had issued a temporary stay in a separate case earlier in March (read the order).

March 12, 2012: The U.S. Department of Justice has denied pre-clearance for Texas's new voter ID law, passed in 2011. Texas also filed suit with a three-judge panel seeking pre-clearance; a hearing on that should happen this Wednesday. Read more.

Feb. 9, 2012: South Carolina has filed for reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Justice's denial of preclearance for its new voter ID law. The DOJ denied South Carolina's request for pre-clearance in December 2012. The DOJ found the law discriminatory because the state's minority voters are 20 percent more likely than white voters to lack a photo ID that meets the standard for voting.

NONE OF THIS SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR THE ID - and I'll wager it "ain't free". ID cards in my state for original issue:

$44.50

Cost of voter id also includes having to get copies of birth certificates, transporation back and forth, new social security cards or w-2's, all the running aroound costs more money than some people have to spend. Poor people, elderly, non vehicle people, going to buy prescription to keep alive or nonsense on voter id crap.

Florida repub is purging voters off the list of those able to vote. No reason no answer, mostly hispanics with last names ending in a vowel, and mostly democratic party people. Some repubs being purged also because their names end in a vowel. Florida planning up to 180,000 to be purged. Enough to swing votes for repubs...all in the Karl Rove plan.....Heil Rove ...the purger master planner.

Vote President Obama/Biden 2012 protect your voting rights!

Obama and Romney have they same donors/owners they get alot of money from Goldmen Sachs, you are voting for the same,when nothing has improved, we are deeper in debt and are looking to start another war. Remember when war was bad? Now it's good and we have to attack more contries that might attack us or our allies with weapons of mass distruction they don't have, sound familiar? Remember when he wanted to repeal the patriot act? Well he didn't and turnned around and signed the NDAA which is so vague on it's definition of terrorist that anyone who doesn't agree with the government and supports descent can be inprisoned indefinently without trial, which incidentally was a lovely thing Bush/Chaney wanted to pass but they weren't as popular so they couldn't. Obama straight up said he wouldn't sign it but then he did at the end of last year quietly. Wake up! Ron Paul is the only candidate that is still running that is not geting money from wall street. He is ignored by the Media even though he has won 11 states, the crap the numbers they are reported for Romney are guessed and fabricated. Please at least watch his What If speach and see if you disagree with him. Ron Paul wants to introduce debt free money unlike the money we use that is owed back to the fed with interest so there will never be enough money in print to pay the debt, it's a vicious cycle and our dollar devalues killing the middle class and poor. Ron Paul 2012!!!

Your savior Ron Paul is out of the race. Nobody will vote for him anymore. He will NEVER be POTUS. Get used to that cold, hard fact.

Ellesig,

Ron Paul = Ralph Nader......Sorry but our republic cannot survive another Republican. We need to clear out the obstructionist Teabaggers and Republicants (and blue-dog Demo-pubs too!) and elect progessive representatives so that we can force Obama to turn this ship around. They are not two sides of the same coin as you and whomever is behind your ilk would like us to believe. If they steal this election...we are doomed. **I suggest you investigate Ron Paul and you will see he is all hat (2 gallons at best!) and no cattle. Name 1 piece of legislation he has introduced that has benefited the average American? Didn't think so!

He's not out of the race, you are not factual.Though I would say it is very hard for him to win because people are now choosing to believe the propaganda because it's from Obama and he's popular. Plus there is alot of fraud going on to try to knock him off but he's still running he's just not campagning in primary states where you need alot of money to win, but he has enough for a brokered convention and it's all about the delegates. He is the only one who can beat Obama, if Romney wins Obama wins. If no one believes Ron Paul can win then he won't but alot of us believe and I wish you would to.

If you didn't play the party game you would vote for Ron Paul, I voted for Obama, He said he would bring the troops home and he is not, he moved them to Afganistan and now talking about Iran. Google Ron Paul Legeslation, here are a few that would benefit the normal person:

Abolition of income tax: H.J.Res. 23, 2007-02-07. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens. Repeals the Sixteenth Amendment, income tax, estate tax, and gift tax, and limits the government only to Constitutionally authorized enterprises. Paul had proposed similar legislation in 1999-2000 and in 2001

Sunlight Rule. H.Res. 216, 2009-03-05, originally H.Res. 709, 2006-03-02. Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that Members have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will be voted upon. Prohibits votes on legislation from occurring until ten days after its introduction, with the intent of giving lawmakers enough time to read bills before voting on them; allots 72 hours for House members and staff to examine the contents of amendments. Paul charged his fellow legislators with voting for the Patriot Act in 2001 without reading it first; more than 300 pages long, it was enacted into law less than 24 hours after being introduced.^[

Cures Can Be Found Act of 2009. H.R. 1654, 2009-03-19, originally H.R. 3444, 2005-07-26. Provides tax credits for qualified stem-cell research or storage and for donation of umbilical cord blood.

Opposes federal use of capital punishment

to name a few, you did not research him at all you think just because he's a Rep he's like all of them and that bias is why you will not see the faults in Obama even though they are glaring, Just Wikipedia Ron Paul and you find tons that are all about protecting the little guy and our rights. Ron Paul 2012

The GOP is trying to suppress votes. That's 100% facts. Of course, you're lying by omission since the votes they are trying to suppress are illegally cast ones by cheaters.

What is wrong with photo ID for voting? You have a choice between disenfranchising people who are too incompetent to get the appropriate ID vs. disenfranchising people who cast their single legitimate vote while making a mockery of the system.

Seems like an easy decision to me! I guess that is because I'm on the side that doesn't get a 1-2% boost on election day due to fraudulent votes.

starsailing...(#6.6)....If you're so concerned about the rights of voters, why would you be opposed to removing those on the Voter rolls not eligible to vote ??....If even 1 person in Florida casts a ballot illegally, it cancels out my legal vote. Why don't you care about me being disenfranchised out of having my vote count ??.....Forget about all the Rove rantings....It's a simple question.

Econo-Sammy-Mike the "voter fraud" is just a smoke screen to steal another election like 2000. The Red states with Right wing governors are trying to stack the deck against the poor, minorities and elderly voters. None of these governors can provide any statistics or evidence of voter fraud.

This is Un-American and disgusting. "Corporations are people, my friend" but poor elderly minorities are not people? These states should be ashamed.

realist pondering....(#6.15)...

"May 09, 2012

Fla. may remove thousands from voter rolls

Gary Fineout

Florida may remove thousands of voters from the rolls because they are not U.S. citizens.

State officials announced Wednesday that they have identified more than 2,600 people who are in Florida legally but may not be eligible to vote."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2012/May/09/fla__may_remove_thousands_from_voter_rolls.html

What is wrong with that ??...Not legal.....you can't vote....

Anyone in Florida that is denied at the Polls, can cast a Provisional Ballot and has 48 hours to provide proof of eligibility....that's fair.

realist pondering,

If you think the 2000 election was stolen, then you probably should change your handle from "realist" to "wacko dreamer". As the rest of the world seems to know, Al Gore was the one who tried to "steal" the election. He wanted a recount only in the precincts where he thought he might do better. (As it turned out, he wouldn't have.) Furthermore, as nearly everyone else knows, major newspapers, including the left-wing NY Times recounted the votes every way they could. They couldn't find a single way to count them in which Gore would have won.

Now, if you want to talk about stealing elections, one needs only look to Al Franken's stolen election in Minnesota. Had hundreds of felons not been allowed to vote (and probably hundreds of ACORN cheats as well), Al Franken would never have been elected Senator and we would not be at the mercy of the Supreme Court to save us from ObamaCare. That's why voter ID is important.

As for the lame "Corporations are people" rant, those spouting it merely show the shallowness of their thought. The states that should be ashamed are those that openly invite cheating at the polls.

Mike thanks for the laugh. Republican are against this purge and found to many mistake. So stop the lying.

Photo ID 2012=Poll tax 1950.

Just_D_FactsExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

Name me one state that "requires" a state issued ID for voting that doesn't provide them FREE of charge or nearly free? How tough is that?

I know Eric Holder doesn't think there is any issues with voter fraud, but I think the guy who marched into Holder's voter precinct and could have been handed Holder's own ballot proves things are way too lax. Source: Priceless.

Also, you need to provide ID to buy Sudafed for God's sake, and people get their panties in a wad to prove their identity to vote, Really? Get over it.

Buying Sudafed is NOT a Constitutional right, voting is.

Economan, your post is false. In the recount, Gore would have won Florida. The Supreme Court overstepped it's authority is stopping that recount.

raddave...

No. The Associated Press, NY Times and a bunch of other (liberal) media outlets did their own recount and guess what conclusion they came to? Bush won Florida.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12VOTE.html

Mikey....give it up...repubs are taking voting rights away because Karl Rove planned to. He admits it. Says if he can get 1% swing in 9 states due to loss of Dem voters repubs win the election. Only repubs are passing voter suppresion laws because ALEC approved it. There is no voting problem...proven state after state. Repubs in Mn caught lying about saying same busloads of illegals going to vote in numerous polling places, when confronted they laugh about it and start it all over again next week. Problem in Florida, repubs are removing thousands of LEGAL voters and making them prove they are legal.

And now the Florida law has been blocked by a federal judge. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/31/493196/judge-blocks-florida-voter-law/

Justice can prevail as long as good people continue to fight.

Is it lunacy to grant "citizenship rights" to unions who have broadly influenced elections in the past, threaten union members to vote along particular lines or provided incentives not to vote at all if they disagreed with the union endorsement? Justice Stevens has long been a left leaning jurist...partisian to a fault...if he wanted to remain the activist he was during his tenure, then he should have stayed on the court. He comes across now as a bitter foolish old man, who seeks to remain relevant.

Why do you hate Unions so much? The Union I belonged to never told me who I had to vote for. They may have recommended someone but in no way, shape, or form did they tell me who to vote for.

All the money spent by unions in the 2012 campaign, the same unions that now represent 7% of the US private workforce, will likely not even equal the total of Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS during the same period. They simply do not have the resources to compete on par with even ONE of the major right wing groups.

The myth of union dominance in the US is pushed forward in order to extinguish what little is left of the labor movement. While belonging to a specific union may or may not be any kind of salvation for one individual, rest assured that the company or government agency does NOT have that individual's best interests at heart. In Europe, companies and unions work together, to help both the company and labor. In the US, both parties (labor and management) are guilty of extremism and absolutism. But the lifelong goal of the Right is and has been the total elimination of all obstacles to capitalist anarchy and the oligarchs who control the economy.

If a straw man ever existed, it is organized labor today. Outside of a couple of industries, the unions are almost completely moot. One of the biggest (SEIU) actually represents some of the lowest paid workers in the country; hardly a goldmine for fundraising there.

Still, for Citizens United, the idea that ANY nonhuman non-voting entity should be granted citizen rights has actually opened the door for a class of supercitizens whose voices and influence drown out any human citizen. That is not democratic in any traditional American sense.

TMJ I've yet to see a union rep. in the voting booth with a member??? Get a new song, yours is old and tired!

We need to be very careful people, because this country is reaching a point of no return. Between Citizens United and the election rigging that's currently going on, we're quickly heading toward a fascist state.

In Omaha, Nebraska the GOP dominated politicians have closed many polling places as a "cost saving measure". The polling places that were chosen for closure happen to be in areas of the city where the voter turnout was very likely to be Democratic.

Just D Facts... you seriously need a new nickname since you can't bring any game at all against the facts presented by Sandie. Typical brain dead troll. Who is paying you to spew mindless retorts against reality?

Hey D..faux facts is Mutt or the Koch heads paying you to sell out your fellow citizens?

Poor baby. You are starting to believe your own propaganda. A bad sign.

OneOfTheSane:

I'll bet its his mum..... If she pays him to go play on the computer, then he's out from under her apron strings. Really - what else do you do with a 12 year old these days?

Sandie Love, you should probably re-read your post...if regulation was the cause of people losing their jobs, their homes, and their future, then removing regulations is not only appropriate it is essential to grow the standard of living for the middle class, the economy and the future of this country.

SandieLove praises Obama for the Dow Jones being up but then cries about Wall Street??? Isn't that like wearing a Yankee's baseball hat while crying about how much you hate them after every game they win???

@8.6 -- You breastfeed them!

TJM07-relaxed regulations are the main cause for the home foreclosure debacle. It also gave rise to trading of non-existant equities and other economy killing greed. It really wasn't W. that destroyed the economy it was greed aided by the lack of oversight and protective regulation.

Yeah, REALIST.

But it was the DEMOCRATS that relaxed the regulations for home mortgages.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

True. Greed leads to corruption . You would think that these men would deign to look in the mirror sometimes.

GT-2021701 Nothing irks me more than the "Citizens United Decision".

Of course. Because you prefer unions have all the power like a good liberal would want.

Sammy-did you somehow fail to meet a union's minimum standards? Is it the only Right wing talking point you can comprehend? This constant repetition is as boring as you must be. Do you have any ideas of your own?

Sammy: as stated above, only 8% of the workforce is union. If following your (IL)logic, it' s a wonder they have any funds left to provide their members with health insurance, pensions, and decent wages since they apparently are spending all their funds on contributions. By the way, how much is the Chamber of Commerce contributing, I mean, what percentage of their funds, or the Corporations, just what is their political budget? Oh, you haven't gotten around to checking that out. RiGht!\

Sammy, as I stated above, the decision gave the same "freedom" to unions.

GILBOAGIRL

Are you INSANE??!!

The unions don't "provide their members with health insurance, pensions, and decent wages". Their EMPLOYERS (corporations and private businesses) do.

Oh BTW, the unions are 8% of the PRIVATE SECTOR workforce. The unions have a stranglehold on PUBLIC SECTOR jobs. Why do you think the Democrats are so he!!-bent on increasing the size of government?

What they need to do is wake up and realize that the first thing fascist Germany did was get rid of labor unions and then they started to divide and conquer. Looks like it's working in some quarters doesn't it? I read somewhere that Adelson does a fair amount of business in China. He likes their system better because he can do what he wants. I guess he doesn't want something like democracy to get in his way. The teachers retirement fund in Texas lost 400 million dollars or more, according to published reports to some venture being linked to Him. I wonder if someone is going to try to get that money back? I think not.

I wonder how much the Koch's and Adelson had to put out for that decision? I bet it was hefty.

Check the off shore bank accounts of those 5 justices. I'm sure that you'll come up with a number.

Bill, actually the Citizens United case did nothing of the kind.

That happened in 1819, in 1823, in 1877, in 1886, etc.

Just Google "corporate personhood" and learn the TRUTH before you flap your trap!

The Citizens United case just followed long established Supreme Court precedent.

It all goes back to the founding of the United States and the principal of "no taxation without representation".

Incorrect, fa. While the term "corporate personhood" has a long existence it was always understood in a very limited sense. What Citizens United has done is extend the concept of "corporate personhood" and defined it far more broadly than has ever been the case before.

It does not follow long established precedent, quite the opposite in fact. It through out over 100 years of stare decisis in order to cut out of whole cloth whole new, never before existent rights for corporations.

So much for the Justices only being umpires...

Yep. Even Kennedy has gone over to the dark side :)

prohb,

Yep, Scalia, Alito, Roberts el al knew exactly what they were doing. Perhaps it sounds quaint to the average liberal, but the case rested upon that arcane First Amendment. "The Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."

Perhaps you'd like to find some text to the contrary.

Econonman your need to read the Constitution. Your are so funny!!

Palmquist,

I've read the Constitution. How about you? I have cited text in the Constitution ("The Congress shall make no law...") to back up my position.

Why don't you cite anything in the Constitution to contradict anything I've written. (Hint: You can't.)

.

I'mmm baaaaacccccckkkkkk.

Sorry campers, but I had to do a little thing called sleep so I could get to work on time today and redistribute my wealth. Anyway, here we go...

Ah, Economan...typical right-winger holding up the Constitution like a shield over their eyes.

Remember, if you only hold up a shield you will fail to really see anything.

You claim to be a reader of the Constitution. Have you read anything on the First Amendment BESIDES the Constitution???? Have you read any of the court decisions about the First Amendment like Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Buckley and Bellotti, Burroughs v. United States and Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce?

First, you ignore the fact that the Citizens United decision divided the Supreme Court as much or even more bitterly than the Gore v Bush decision of 2000. This decision was a 5 - 4 vote.

Justice Stevens probably wrote the most brilliant dissent to a blatantly partisan decision I have ever seen in history. You see, Economan, Stevens has the quaint idea that all Americans deserve the frredom of speech AND THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ABILITY FOR SUCH! Stevens demonstrated that upholding the law actually promoted liberty and freedom of speech of ALL Americans while striking it down only promoted the liberty and freedom of speech of a few...... the wealthy and corporations (who by the way spend five to six times more than the declining unions....that conservatives hold up as a 'straw man' in this debate). Stevens also demolished the other ‘straw man’ that Scalia et. al., kept saying that “"there is no such thing as too much speech"

Economan's arguments , and the right-wing junta on the court remind me of the animals who took control at the end of the book 'Animal Farm' by declaring "All animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others."

That is the kind of country we are heading for with right-wing conservatives in power.

prohb,

First, sorry to take so long to respond - life intervened...

I've not only read the Constitution, I've read books on the Constitution, including books on just the First Amendment (including Carolyn Kennedy's work). I've read both the majority and minority opinions on Citizens United. I've read McConnell v FEC (which upheld McCain-Feingold). By complete coincidence I heard the oral arguments for Ledbetter.

I'm familiar with some of the cases you name. In them, I see a gradual erosion of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. I'm guessing that you see some sort of "evolution" in our "living Constitution". I've also read Robert Bork's "Slouching Toward Gomorrah". (I highly recommend it - it's a good read if you're interested in SCOTUS decisions.) It's also an excellent defense of the proposition that the ONLY proper way to interpret the Constitution is to see it in the context that it was written and to be faithful to that understanding. Some refer to that concept as "original intent".

Re Justice Stevens and "the equal opportunity and ability for such" argument: I reject it out of hand. The Founding Fathers understood (correctly and ine full sense) that "freedom of the press belongs to those who own printing presses". I agree with Scalia and Thomas Jefferson that there is no such thing as too much free speech, and that the antidote to "bad" speech is more speech. In McConnell v FEC, Scalia observed that Americans spend more money on potato chips than they do on political campaigns. "If the country is drowning in campaign spending, then it cannot swim."

I liken efforts to even up the playing field by limiting speech to the concept that we should even up economic outcomes by making the rich poorer without making the poor richer.

VH, that's simple. It's called a choice of convenience. I swap this for that. I'm not swapping my rights away to Republicans who only want to steal votes and rights away from everyone except the elite. They don't represent one single thing in your life. Romney and the other Republican snakes will do and say anything to get elected. Then turn their back on you for the last time. Voting will just be for show after that.

Unfortunately too many people drinking the bad tea and are either crazed or have gone to sleep

Some seem to like their rights being abridged. I guess they think they will be among the elevated. Just take a look at Wisconsin and Michigan. Democracy has a scarf over its head in those states.

So Funny VHNAVY thinks he is a rich 1% person when actually he is way below that line. Reagans top economic advisor is even laughing at people like him and teabaggers, saying they are insane and acting like they are hypnotized to believe the 1% nonsense. The 1% say they want to take away your Soc sec, your medicare, your post office and privatize. Vh and teabaggers say don't take away all that, then 1% brainwashes these same people to hate people like themselves. These same people vote repub and vote against their own self interests......Pretty insane all right!

Part of the reason that repugs are attacking education. Keep the public illiterate and ignorant , makes them easier to fool.They are winning that war in many places, namely the entire southern region of the country where repugs outnumber Democrats .Thank goodness not everyone watches fake news or listens to Rush the Junkie.

When the Republican and some Democrat sign Cover Norquist no taxes pledge is against the Constitution. And this is UN-American.

Palmquist,

When the Republican and some Democrat sign Cover Norquist no taxes pledge is against the Constitution

By what tortured logic do you come up with that???

Yes I came up with that. I am a free thinker unlike your are program.

We have to stand up as a nation to demand fully taxpayer-funded elections at every level of government.

We need legislation from Congress that says "money" is not the equivalent of "free speech." Citizens United was an attempt by the Supreme Court Five to chip away Congressional authority to regulate all interstate financial transactions--including campaign financing. This authority is clear in the Commerce clause of the Constitution, and case law has broadly interpreted congressional power of the purse. Calling money free speech not only defies common sense but also cleverly hides the pertinent fact: this Court wants to limit the authority of Congress as granted by the Constitution!

In acting as a legislature (neither party to the suit had addressed constitutional issues of any kind), they abandoned their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution by violating the Separation of Powers Clause. As a legislature rather than a court, they are without any governmental body to check or balance their decisions--a perversion piercing the heart of our system of government. This decision was an act of treason.

Those who allege here that "Congress shall make no law abridging free speech" should rather worry about the infringements on their free speech in the Patriot Act, which gutted our Bill of Rights!

You got the right picture doem, in 2010 82,000 illegal aliens voted in the Colorado election and elected a Dem senator. In 2008 and presumably 2012 every welfare queen who collects welfare under at least two different names and every moocher in the US ( the socialist contingency) will be in line voting for another term for him. Those are the people we need to stop voting. People who contribute nothing and sit on their porches drinking beer or doing dope and waiting for the next government check to come in.

doem,

I'm continually amazed by all the people ranting "corporations are people!". While it's true that corporations are nothing more than people excercising their First Amendment right of freedom of association, the important part of the First Amendment says, "The Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech".

Since it seems necessary to belabor the obvious, just read the first 6 words: "The Congress shall make no law". It's that simple.

I hope you spoke better to the attorney. I can't understand a darn thing you said.

If failed Gov. Scott Walker stays in office it will encourage the Koch's and their ilk to go out and buy more offices in more states. Failed Gov. Scott Walker will probably be indicted anyway and this will prove that money can't buy good government.

The unions are behind the Wisconsin recall. Walker balanced the budget without massive layoffs of state workers. Time to disband the city, state and government workers. They make the laws and are the only ones to benefit from them. In CA at 55 they retire on 80+% of their highest one year salary (adding sick pay and vacation to that also) and get medical care for life. What a gravy train of moochers.

Jerry your don't know what your talking about. There was massive layoff of teachers and did your know your lost 33,000 jobs in Wisconsin sent Walker in offices . All the taxes breaks he has giving to corporations has not help anybody and still these company have move out of state. Your need to thank Walker for destroying the state. Tea republican just don't get it.

I have been on the Vine, for quite some period. I have suggested a Direct Democracy Amendment to the Constitution. We absolutely have the technology to do it. The Constitution would stay intact, except when the People want to overrule the Congress, SCOTUS, or POTUS. It could be written online and give everyone a shot at editing it. We have to take back the country, and this is how to do it. People have to run the country again, one man, one vote, is the only way out of this quagmire. It would be a combination of Electronic Technology and personal verification, it can easily be done, and everyone could scrutinize it.

You'll be the first one bitching (behind get-a-lifer FIESTY who has a pathological need to post her useless posts first) when the decision is overturned because once it is Unions won't have the right they do now to interefere in the political process. People on the left are so ill-informed they fail to realize that the decision was about Unions as well as Corporations. Then again once people are informed they stop being Progressives.

Jeff-fixated on Feisty? The decisions was not about less than 8% of the workforce and their money but about 1% of the non workforce and their huge amounts of money and ego. Feisty has her life and hopefully you have yours. If it makes her feel good to post first, fine. Take up a hobby that gets Feisty off your mind. Is it sexual? Is it jealousy? Maybe it's both and you're a closet red headed female blogger?

Only high school graduates that have taken a civics should be allowed to vote.I have actually met people in my life,who ,while buying a house,thought,escrow,was a bird! I know a Mexican who became a US citizen and can't read or write but pull the lever "yes" for all new taxes because she never pays taxes.That's another thing someone should have to do is pay taxes and i'm talking about the sales tax paid and reembursed at the end of each year! Real taxes!

Its Amazing! Not only registered voters allowed to make political contributions, don't stop there! States taht don't allow third party, Independents ballots to be counted be exempt from Campaign funds from the Federal Election Funds, Pollsters from the both parties, and third parties, not allowed to work precincts, and non citizens, high school drop outs, or past convicted felons, working as volunteers to count the ballots, and to get digital voting into the works so the " Hard Copy Ballot sheets can't be copied by the Volunteers getting the hard copy for the next elections to encompass the deceased voters in the Cemeteries with USPS post office boxes at the location of the cemetery ending Absentee ballots from the Grave!