"F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5210c748$0$32476$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>
> "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."
>
YUP. What so many forget is: The Democratic National Committee is
incorporated. The Democrats hate "right wing" PACS but love left wing PACS.
he Koch brothers are evil but George Soros is not.
>
>> The soapbox is empty.
>> NEXT!
>>
>> --
>> _____
>> / ' / T
>> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
>> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
>
|
| 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 |
|