|
Posted by RD (The Sandman) on February 3, 2010, 3:45 pm
Please log in for more thread options
@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>>>>>>>> That year unions raised more than $15 million to defeat a slate
>>>>>>>> of measures sponsored by initiative activist Bill Sizemore.
>>>>>>> And $15 million is about 0.03% of Exxon's PROFIT last year. A
>>>>>>> mere drop in the bucket. The guys with the big money can now
>>>>>>> run their own campaigns, dwarfing anything a candidate could
>>>>>>> reasonably do on his/ her own. Left, right, I don't really care
>>>>>>> (well, I do, but not in this case). This ruling stinks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally, I think the kind of spending that goes on in
>>>>>>> political campaigns is obscene. To have a candidate talking
>>>>>>> about fixing the economy or helping the poor or lowering the
>>>>>>> deficit while spending tens or hundreds of millions on campaign
>>>>>>> signs and commercials is just wrong. And that goes for BOTH
>>>>>>> sides. There's GOT to be a better way, and letting big-money
>>>>>>> corporations run away with it is simply a giant step in the
>>>>>>> wrong direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What it really did was reverse parts of McCain-Feingold.
>>>>> That is what upsets the left so much.
>>>>> They thought they had a law there to muzzle their opponents.
>>>> Yep, which was one reason I was surprized that McCain was a
>>>> co-sponsor.
>>> I know..
>>> One reason I had a hard time supporting him in the end..
>>
>> One reason I didn't support him in the end.
>>
>>>>> In fact a group that produced a movie very critical of Hillary
>>>>> Clinton chose not to air it for fear of being prosecuted under
>>>>> McCain-Feingold.
>>>> That group was the case that the Supremes just decided.
>>> I hope they release the movie ...
>>> Or has it but the press has given it no notice ?
>>
>> Don't know.
>
> Chances are that few if anyone will see the movie. On it's own it's
> worthless. No one would pay to see it. It was paid for by corporate
> interests and it's purpose was to affect an election. It was meant to
> make Hillary look bad and to keep her from being elected.
Much like some of Michael Moore's stuff. ;)
That is the
> point of the law against corporations making contributions 60 days
> before an election. It's unfair.
I agree......there is no time for the candidate to reply to it.
> This movie was strictly a political
> statement. Because the movie has no commercial value proves that. They
> only made it to sway the election. Now that the Supreme Court has
> allowed things like this you can expect to see a lot more "movies" from
> corporations praising and excoriating candidates they like or dislike.
I disagree with the USSC decision in regard to corporations and unions,
but I also have a problem with the restriction of free speech. I wish to
see more of that, not less.
> There will be more corporate influence in the election process from now
> on. Hey isn't that great news? They corporations haven't had a voice in
> the process before and now they will. Good for them! The people need to
> give the corporations more say so in elections. After all corporations
> are people too. Just ask the Supreme Court, the same folks who told us
> black people were really only 3/5 of a person.
Much of what was overturned was parts of McCain-Feingold which was a
recent act.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Some points to ponder:
Why is it good if a vacuum cleaner really sucks?
Why is the third hand on a clock called the "second hand"?
Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
Why do we sing "Take me out to the ballgame" when we are already
there?
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>>>>>>> of measures sponsored by initiative activist Bill Sizemore.
>>>>>> And $15 million is about 0.03% of Exxon's PROFIT last year. A
>>>>>> mere drop in the bucket. The guys with the big money can now
>>>>>> run their own campaigns, dwarfing anything a candidate could
>>>>>> reasonably do on his/ her own. Left, right, I don't really care
>>>>>> (well, I do, but not in this case). This ruling stinks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I think the kind of spending that goes on in
>>>>>> political campaigns is obscene. To have a candidate talking
>>>>>> about fixing the economy or helping the poor or lowering the
>>>>>> deficit while spending tens or hundreds of millions on campaign
>>>>>> signs and commercials is just wrong. And that goes for BOTH
>>>>>> sides. There's GOT to be a better way, and letting big-money
>>>>>> corporations run away with it is simply a giant step in the
>>>>>> wrong direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> What it really did was reverse parts of McCain-Feingold.
>>>> That is what upsets the left so much.
>>>> They thought they had a law there to muzzle their opponents.
>>> Yep, which was one reason I was surprized that McCain was a
>>> co-sponsor.