"Frank McCoy" <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:se4v09pscsrdedo7dbmncjmtc3rvvg7iai@4ax.com...
> "F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Frank McCoy" <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in message
>>news:96fqv850qadfaemhusjstdak0h5kedpb1t@4ax.com...
>>> Justin Thyme <abuse@localhost.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 09:18:55 -0400, "F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I follow the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their battles against
>>>>>censorship
>>>>>and restrictions on free speech. Many of the appellate rulings they win
>>>>>contain the
>>>>>phrase, "would have a chilling effect on free speech." Makes me think
>>>>>that
>>>>>the
>>>>>appellate courts understand SCOTUS's position on free speech.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems to me that the Bush court has the view that free speach only
>>>>applies to corporations.
>>>
>>> ... And government politicians ... Those belonging to the particular
>>> party in-power at the moment, of course.
>>
>>Which is why the Citizens United decision infuriates them, although they
>>incorrectly blame Citizens for lifting the monetary restrictions imposed
>>by McCain-Feingold. Speech Now Org sued the FEC and won over those
>>restrictions. While Citizens was decided by SCOTUS, Speech Now
>>ended at the DC appellate court, the Justice Dept deciding not to appeal.
>>
> Um ... I might point out that the ruling allowing unlimited monetary
> spending by corporations FAVORS by huge amounts the party and people
> in-power at the moment, and NOT those trying to kick the current SOB's
> out!
You misunderstand the definition of a "corporation" as applied in Citizens.
You and others see "corporations" as GM, AT&T, Microsoft etc, Political
Action Committes formed by individual voters like Citizens United
incorporate
for legal protection. If they don't incorporate the individual donors would
most likely face SLAP suits by their political opponents in an attempt to
silence them.
Big corporations like GM etc have always been able to donate directly and
indirectly to political candidates. What they were prohibited from doing was
engaging in "electioneering", paying for advertising directly advocating for
or against a political candidate. This is known as "corporate independent
expenditures", a form of political free speech which the government is
prohibited from restricting under the First Amendment.
Corporations, big and small, are comprised of individual investors, share
holders, who while they may be members of a group still ahe the right of
political free speech.
> It's always FAR easier for incumbents to raise money and support,
> especially by and from corporations than those trying to take their
> places.
>
> Thus your argument fails.
Fails, really? Then explain why the Democrats lost so heavily in both
state legislative and Congressional elections in 2010. Incumbents were
slaughtered. mainly due to the new voter PACs getting their message
out to the public.
> It was the BUSH administration that had the most to gain (at that
> time) by Citizens United; that most-likely being why the Justice Dept.
> THEN didn't appeal. Those in-power at the time didn't WANT an appeal.
Wrong. Citizens was not decided until January 21, 2010. Bush left office in
January 2009.
> NOW, of course, with Democrats more in-power, the situation and ruling
> backfired on the Republicans.
How do you reach that conclusion? Obama stayed in office through dirty
politics and the main stream media being an arm of the White House and
Democrat propaganda machine.
> That tends to happen all the time with rules intended to help keep the
> current SOB's in and the opposing party out. When the out-party
> complains, the in-party just sneers ... until THEY are out, and said
> rules are used against them. THEN they complain, and point-out that
> the new in-party USED to complain, so why do they now support and USE
> those same rules?
>
> Turn-About it seems, is NOT considered "fair play" in politics.
Yeah, you should hear all the Democrat whining and crying in NC since
the Republicans captured both the Governor's office and both houses of
the state legislature. The Dems gerrymandered voting districts to favor
Dems for decades, now when the Repubs do it, it's "dirty politics."
> The soapbox is empty.
> NEXT!
>
> --
> _____
> / ' / ™
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 |
|