PDA

View Full Version : Worse Than Shittizens United - The BCE Felonious Five Strikes Again!



Satan
10-10-2013, 11:37 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9n4cXHrjM8

Satan
10-10-2013, 11:43 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD9bcIaSZYo

Satan
10-10-2013, 11:57 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sszNF4QqOvI

Satan
10-10-2013, 03:54 PM
http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/tt131010.gif

Satan
10-11-2013, 07:25 PM
(upside down cross posted from the Bill Moyers thread)

FORD
04-02-2014, 12:37 PM
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2014/140402-proof-that-both-parties-arent-the-same.jpg

Supreme Court lifts ban on aggregate campaign donations
Richard Wolf and Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY 12:21 p.m. EDT April 2, 2014 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/02/supreme-court-campaign-finance/4481675/)

The decision represents another step toward easing decades-old restrictions on political contributions that were designed to combat corruption


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court took another step Wednesday toward giving wealthy donors more freedom to influence federal elections.

The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision leaves in place the base limits on what can be given to each individual campaign.

"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combating corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption — quid pro quo corruption — in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."

The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which came nearly six months after it was argued at the beginning of the court's term in October, marks the latest round in the bitter national debate over the role of money in American politics.

More immediately, it alters the political landscape ahead of November's midterm elections and could transform state contests as well. Legal experts said the ruling also erodes aggregate contribution limits imposed by the District of Columbia and 12 states, ranging from Connecticut to Wyoming.

It's the most important campaign-finance ruling since the high court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts independently to influence elections.

The court's four liberal justices dissented vehemently from Roberts' ruling. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the minority, said the decision "understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions."

"Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, today's decision eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve," Breyer wrote.

The case pitted the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech – which the justices previously have equated with spending money in elections – against the government's interest in preventing political corruption.

"Today, the court made clear that restraints on the political speech of those whose views you don't like must fail," said Dan Backer, the lawyer who brought the case. "Free speech is the right of all Americans, and not a revocable grant from the government of the day."

The decision was a victory for the Republican National Committee, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, and Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon, who challenged the $123,200 cap on contributions an individual can give to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees in a two-year election cycle.

McCutcheon's challenge did not extend to the $2,600 limit a donor can give to a federal candidate in each primary and general election or the $32,400 limit that can go to a national party committee, because of concerns about corruption that are at the root of the federal law. In his ruling, Roberts reiterated the importance of those limits in protecting against political corruption.

"Our cases have held that Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption," he said. "Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others."

Under the court's ruling, donors will have to stick to that $2,600 limit but can give to as many campaigns as they want without worrying about the previous $123,200 ceiling. The decision also could jeopardize separate contribution caps in at least a dozen states, from Arizona to Wyoming.

"While I understand some base limits on the dollar amount of single contributions, limits to the overall number of candidates, parties and committees are nothing more than unnecessary limits to First Amendment freedom," McCutcheon said in reaction to the ruling. "The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of aggregate limits."

McConnell, perhaps the nation's leading opponent of campaign finance limits, noted the ruling doesn't lift restrictions on the most corruptible contributions.

"Let me be clear for all those who would criticize the decision: It does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party," he said. "It just respects the constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to support."

The limits on campaign contributions had stood for nearly 40 years. The high court drew a distinction between those contributions, which it said could lead to corruption, and money spent independently in its landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling. Independent spending was expanded in the Citizens United case to include unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions.

While four of the court's conservative justices joined the Roberts ruling, the fifth, Justice Clarence Thomas, went even further and said he would have voted to strike down Buckley. Thomas said there should be no difference in the regulation of spending and contributions.

"This case represents yet another missed opportunity to right the course of our campaign finance jurisprudence by restoring a standard that is faithful to the First Amendment," Thomas wrote. He agreed only with Roberts' decision, not its rationale.

Defenders of government limits have warned that so-called "joint fundraising committees" now will be able to funnel up to $3.6 million from one donor to any vulnerable candidates.

"With its Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, the Supreme Court has turned our representative system of government into a sandbox for America's billionaires and millionaires to play in," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the public interest group Democracy 21. "The court's decisions have empowered a new class of American political oligarchs."

But other campaign finance watchdogs took solace in the court's decision to leave intact limits that cap individual donations to $2,600 for a primary or general election. "The base limits do not appear to be under immediate challenge," Paul Ryan, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, said.

Nearly 1.3 million people donated more than $200 to federal candidates, party committees and PACs last year, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money. Only about 600 hit the maximum donation limit to federal candidates in the 2012 elections, the center found.

McCutcheon and his allies also argued that lifting the cumulative cap on contributions might help candidates and national parties counter the rising influence of new "super PACs." Those entities, ushered in partly by Citizens United and a separate lower court decision in 2010, can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money independent of particular candidates.

FORD
04-02-2014, 03:21 PM
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/10152595_10152316819759255_748327949_n.png

Nickdfresh
04-02-2014, 05:28 PM
Fucking awful! It's tough for us to criticize cunts like Putin and that douchier version of Chavez in Venezuela when our "democracy" is nothing but a plutocratic free-for-all...

jacksmar
04-02-2014, 06:33 PM
The Supreme Court held that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they join together to form businesses and individuals making campaign donations already face disclosure rules.

You guys are nothing more than typical liberal Democrats and commie libs predicting doom if they and their special interest allies are required to follow the Constitution.



http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee90/portable118/wad.jpg

FORD
04-02-2014, 06:45 PM
And there goes jerksmear, carrying water for the KKKoch brothers again...... :puke:

FORD
04-02-2014, 06:50 PM
Merged with earlier thread, with videos that explain this hideous piece of shit case and what it will do to this country.

jacksmar
04-02-2014, 07:12 PM
............and Turd sides with John McCain and..................

(oh my)

Senator Benjamin Tillman

That maKKKes you a first class racist.


TURD, you continually show yourself to be nothing more than a useless simp; nodding, parroting, bleating. Try to grow past your ideology. As a socialist ideologue you're not worth much to yourself.

Again; know your 'liquid worth'.

FORD
04-02-2014, 07:46 PM
Campaign Finance was one of the few things John McCain was ever correct about.

And the law which existed until Shittizens United killed it was called "McCain-Feingold", of course.

Russ Feingold was correct about 98% of the time. And sure enough, thanks to Shittizens United, he lost his seat in 2010, and the KKKochs put a goddamned pedophile in his place. Along with a bunch of other useless pieces of shit that they put in Wisconsin.

Among other states, but their takeover there was one of the worst, given Scott Walker and the assault on unions, etc.

ODShowtime
04-02-2014, 08:27 PM
We all knew there would be days like this. Just about 10 years ago, when that shitstain was re-elected. We knew he'd stock the supreme court with his boys and this and the other terrible fascist decisions is the end result. Our government is a joke. I guess I should be happy because I really thought the nuclear war would have happened by now.

jacksmar
04-02-2014, 09:46 PM
Campaign Finance was one of the few things John McCain was ever correct about.

And the law which existed until Shittizens United killed it was called "McCain-Feingold", of course.

Russ Feingold was correct about 98% of the time. And sure enough, thanks to Shittizens United, he lost his seat in 2010, and the KKKochs put a goddamned pedophile in his place. Along with a bunch of other useless pieces of shit that they put in Wisconsin.

Among other states, but their takeover there was one of the worst, given Scott Walker and the assault on unions, etc.

Well, not quite. The Citizens United decision stated that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they join together to form businesses.

The defamation of this fact is a political lie. The never tried a case, fat, gun-hating oompa loompa didn't know what she was talking about in her own dissent.

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLEE GENERAL KAGAN: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:

I have three very quick points to make about the government position. The first is that this issue has a long history. For over 100 years Congress has made a judgment that corporations must be subject to special rules when they participate in elections and this Court has never questioned that judgment.

Number two -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait, wait, wait, wait. We never questioned it, but we never approved it, either. And we gave some really weird interpretations to the Taft-Hartley Act in order to avoid confronting the question.

GENERAL KAGAN: I will repeat what I said, Justice Scalia: For 100 years this Court, faced with many opportunities to do so, left standing the legislation that is at issue in this case — first the contribution limits, then the expenditure limits that came in by way of Taft-Hartley — and then of course in Austin specifically approved those limits.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don’t understand what you are saying. I mean, we are not a self — self-starting institution here. We only disapprove of something when somebody asks us to. And if there was no occasion for us to approve or disapprove, it proves nothing whatever that we didn’t disapprove it.

GENERAL KAGAN: Well, you are not a self-starting institution. But many litigants brought many cases to you in 1907 and onwards and in each case this Court turns down, declined the opportunity, to invalidate or otherwise interfere with this legislation.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But that judgment was validated by Buckley’s contribution-expenditure line. And you’re correct if you look at contributions, but this is an expenditure case. And I think that it doesn’t clarify the situation to say that for100 years — to suggest that for 100 years we would have allowed expenditure limitations, which in order to work at all have to have a speaker-based distinction, exemption from media, content-based distinction, time-based distinction. We’ve never allowed that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many of the the Roth Army faithful have never read nor gave any consideration to the Taft-Hartley Act.

Considering current events, Taft looks like a prophet. He wasn’t perfect, but his reluctance to tie the US to the ball and chain of this permanent entanglement (Russia) sure looks prophetic after the loss of lives, wealth and freedom of the last twenty years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"McCain-Feingold" defined : The world will be a better place when the only political speech allowed is speech that has been reviewed by, and censored if necessary, by the government.

FORD
04-02-2014, 10:11 PM
Taft-Hartley was the beginning of the corporatist assault on the American people, but I don't see what it has to do with this thread.

Except for the fact that the damage done by Taft Hartley pales in comparison to anything that's been done since December 12, 2000 :(

FORD
04-03-2014, 12:43 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7UOVlRM_90

Nitro Express
04-03-2014, 02:10 AM
I think the corporations are now so entrenched in the federal government the only way to clean house is for the states to hold a constitutional convention. The states fire all three branches of government and clear the slate. Fire everyone. I say add term limits to the congress and supreme court justices.

People need to remember the states hold most the power. We don't have to take this shit from a rogue federal government or the corrupt corporations it serves.

FORD
04-03-2014, 12:15 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWZZ9r3Txy4

jacksmar
04-03-2014, 12:35 PM
All you need to know : McCain-Feingold lost.


Citizens United :

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case.

Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

Perspective on our Constitutional Republic.

ELVIS
04-03-2014, 01:49 PM
We're no longer a Constitutional Republic...

Kristy
04-03-2014, 01:54 PM
We're no longer a Constitutional Republic...

We're a DVD conspiracy selling without fact checking one.

Nickdfresh
04-03-2014, 05:11 PM
Well, not quite. The Citizens United decision stated that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they join together to form businesses.

The defamation of this fact is a political lie. The never tried a case, fat, gun-hating oompa loompa didn't know what she was talking about in her own dissent.

...

Oh fucking please! This is nothing but legalized corruption. It's tantamount to donating money to the police and town board to never get traffic tickets. FFS! Money is not and never has been speech! If it is, then a whole host of criminal enterprises will soon be legal...

ELVIS
04-03-2014, 06:56 PM
We're a DVD conspiracy selling without fact checking one.

"We're" nothing...

You're a loser junkie pretending to be female and I'm steadily moving up the food chain of life on multiple avenues at the same time...

So, go get high again and stop bothering the people who work to support your drug habit...

Did I say you're a loser, loser ??

I thought so, Claude...


:mad2:

jacksmar
04-03-2014, 07:51 PM
Oh fucking please! This is nothing but legalized corruption. It's tantamount to donating money to the police and town board to never get traffic tickets. FFS! Money is not and never has been speech! If it is, then a whole host of criminal enterprises will soon be legal...

nick,
The court struck down federal “aggregate limits” on how much an individual may spend on otherwise legal contributions in a two-year election cycle to federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees.

My take on the benefit of throwing more money at the parties and politics is not positive. The money going into politics mostly goes into the pockets of the media and media corporations.

So this next part will be tough to read and comprehend,,,,,,,,,but, for example,

If you listen to Limbaugh or O'Donnell,

if you watch OReily or Maddow, Cnn or FOX,

if you listen to Hannity or Hartmann...............


you are getting the same message.

Kristy
04-03-2014, 08:07 PM
"We're" nothing...

You're a loser junkie pretending to be female and I'm steadily moving up the food chain of life on multiple avenues at the same time...

So, go get high again and stop bothering the people who work to support your drug habit...

Did I say you're a loser, loser ??

I thought so, Claude...


:mad2:
For all the gravy training welfare you've been for the past 10 years you sure are angry about your free lunches.

And you're a chronically unemployed cretin masquerading as a human being.

So, go back to your dollar store and stop calling 911 every time the store takes back their shopping cart.

Did I say you are chronically unemployed?

I thought so, junior.

FORD
04-03-2014, 08:07 PM
if you listen to Hannity or Hartmann...............


you are getting the same message.

Not even remotely true.

Hannity is a moron who parrots Rupert Murdoch/KKKoch brothers talking points.

Hartmann generally supports the Democratic Party as the "lesser of two evils", but is not afraid to call them out on policy, and in fact, does so on a daily basis. He does so more than Rachel or the others on MSNBC because he's not limited by Comca$t in what he's allowed to say. Sadly he's also not as vocally opposed as Mike Malloy, Cenk Uygur or Norman Goldman are. But I see that as a minor philosophical difference, i.e. believing you can still change things by voting for one of the two major parties - but radically changing that party.

Thom is a little more optimistic than I am in that regard. And it's because of Shittizens United and now Shittier United (the sequel) which will reinforce the lie that the "Democratic" party has to :blow: corporate cock (or Koch, more accurately) to compete with the Repukes.

ELVIS
04-03-2014, 08:15 PM
For all the gravy training welfare you've been for the past 10 years you sure are angry about your free lunches.

No, that's you...

My life is exactly how Bob Daisley wrote in the rock anthem Believer:

"Destiny planned out I don't need no handout"

And you're a chronically unemployed cretin masquerading as a human being.

I don't need a "job." I have multiple skills...

So, go back to your dollar store and stop calling 911 every time the store takes back their shopping cart.

That's fucking lame and proof you're locked in a closet smoking crack...

Did I say you are chronically unemployed?

Yes...:rolleyes:

I thought so, junior.


Whatever, crackhead, stoner, trannywannabe...

Fuck off...


:mad2:

Kristy
04-03-2014, 08:36 PM
Whatever, crackhead, stoner, trannywannabe...

Fuck off...


:mad2:

Poor bitter little racist. A chronically unemployed talking parrot for a paranoid cult of idiots. You spend more time here than you do at the employment office blaming anyone for your own misery who happens to have a nickel more than you do. Try getting out of your trailer park and socializing sometime.

jacksmar
04-03-2014, 09:23 PM
Not even remotely true.


Hartmann ..............


As you're a socialist, the point made went directly over your head.

Go back and re-read, the point wasn't about Hartmann or Hannity or any of the rest.

FORD
04-03-2014, 09:28 PM
You proclaim yourself a fan of Joe Stalin's direct beneficiaries, but I'm the "socialist" and the "commie lib".

Yeah, whatever Comrade Jerksmear.......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUXwjQUanJY

jacksmar
04-03-2014, 09:36 PM
TURD, you can’t un-program what you are. At the very least don’t fear it.

And don’t change, you do make this place fun to come to and that makes this a great place to be.

jacksmar
04-03-2014, 09:50 PM
And TURD, with every post you place here; your message is socialism.

Let me give you an example using the the topic of this thread that money is speech. You replies are fashioned such that:

When a socialist says equality; it's the same as saying that he doesn't like you and doesn't like the way you are. I want to change you and I'll use government force to do it.

Your last post with the vid is equal to:

Francis Bellamy was a bigot.

jerksmear got your message.

ELVIS
04-03-2014, 09:58 PM
Poor bitter little racist. A chronically unemployed talking parrot for a paranoid cult of idiots. You spend more time here than you do at the employment office blaming anyone for your own misery who happens to have a nickel more than you do. Try getting out of your trailer park and socializing sometime.

Keep dreaming, tranny...

ELVIS
04-03-2014, 10:00 PM
And TURD, with every post you place here; your message is socialism.



I agree with that...

FORD
04-03-2014, 11:05 PM
OK then, let's go to the dictionary.....



so·cial·ist
noun \ˈsō-sh(ə-)list\

: a person who believes in socialism

Socialist : a member of a political party that supports socialism



OK... kinda nebulous there. So I guess we need to define.....



so·cial·ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

Nope. not seeing how that fits me at all.

ELVIS
04-04-2014, 12:26 AM
I do...

Healthcare...

Energy...

Education...

Your answer for these things is always bigger and more government...

FORD
04-04-2014, 01:10 AM
Healthcare and Education are not "industries". They don't produce a tangible product.

Energy arguably does, but given all the damage the existing "fossil fuel" energy companies have done, it would be in our national interest to nationalize all of it, and then once the profit and greed is off the table, there will be no more excuses for NOT developing clean, renewable energy that doesn't require ownership of the source material, or invading foreign countries to acquire it.

FORD
04-04-2014, 11:27 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovprfGdZPs

Kristy
04-04-2014, 12:42 PM
Keep dreaming, tranny...

I don't have to dream. I rather enjoy seeing a cretin like you standing in the welfare line.

Nickdfresh
04-04-2014, 05:40 PM
nick,
The court struck down federal “aggregate limits” on how much an individual may spend on otherwise legal contributions in a two-year election cycle to federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees.

My take on the benefit of throwing more money at the parties and politics is not positive. The money going into politics mostly goes into the pockets of the media and media corporations.

So this next part will be tough to read and comprehend,,,,,,,,,but, for example,

If you listen to Limbaugh or O'Donnell,

if you watch OReily or Maddow, Cnn or FOX,

if you listen to Hannity or Hartmann...............


you are getting the same message.

No, actually, that just means that corporations can essentially make dumb fucking American political hacks their dancing fucktards (even more so than they are now). But good job of you and "Elvis" spinning this complete plutocracy nightmare into something that might resemble your less than middle class interest....

ELVIS
04-04-2014, 05:58 PM
Earth to Dickforbrains...

You're a moron...


:biggrin:

FORD
04-04-2014, 06:06 PM
Earth to Dickforbrains...

You're a moron...


:biggrin:

Says the one who buys into Stalin funded bullshit agendas which are destroying the planet.

FORD
04-05-2014, 12:33 AM
The Daily ShowGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

FORD
04-05-2014, 12:33 AM
The Daily ShowGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

FORD
04-05-2014, 12:34 AM
The Daily ShowGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Nitro Express
04-05-2014, 01:55 AM
Their whole gimmick is making corporations legally people so "We the people" become "We the corporations in reality." The end result is the corporations put who they want into office and the corporations end up regulating themselves. The result is the big fuck up we have now. Romney didn't need to win, Obama has done just as good of a job making sure the corporations have their way.

Satan
05-03-2014, 12:35 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiiOUp-V6-4