"Court OK’s corporate campaign spending; Lets companies, unions use funds freely in races; ruling hailed and decried" by Susan Milligan, Globe Staff | January 22, 2010
WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled yesterday that labor unions and corporations can spend unlimited amounts to influence federal elections, throwing out a ban that had been in effect for 63 years and adding an explosive new element to this year’s midterm elections.
Don't they already?
The 5-to-4 ruling dismayed lawmakers and public interest groups that fought for decades to limit the influence of wealthy special interests in politics.
Have not really fought that hard as the are taking in the campaign check$, have they? Bank bailout got done in a week.
But it cheered those who have railed against what they see as government control of free speech in election campaigns....
They are calling it free $peech, huh?
Pffft!
President Obama blasted the ruling, saying the high court “has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans,’’ Obama said.
Yeah, the SAME PEOPLE that FUNDED HIS CAMPAIGN!
Wasn't Goldman Sachs his biggest contributor?
Just wondering why this paragraph and quote took the whack:
The decision reversed previous Supreme Court rulings and reflects the new, conservative bent of the court established during the presidency of George W. Bush. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas joined Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and President Obama pick Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice John Paul Stevens in a blistering dissent.
"The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation," Stevens wrote.
I have news for him; with the rigged elections and the ungodly amounts of money involved in the campaigns, it has already happened.
I don't even believe in elections anymore, not after "Mr Change" Obama.
Obama said he would meet with bipartisan leaders to “develop a forceful response’’ to the ruling. Obama opted out of the federal matching funds program in his 2008 presidential campaign, and raised a record $745 million for his winning race....
Oh, he's incredible!
“It’s Congress for sale....’’
That's NOT NEW!
--more--"
Of course, when the agenda-pushing Globe PROMOTES and ENDORSES the decision on its front page I know I'm against it.
"Campaign financing shift may aid critics; Cash could go to interest groups" by Jeremy Herb, Globe Correspondent | February 24, 2010
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court’s watershed decision on campaign finance, lamented by critics who say it gives undue influence to corporations, could strengthen the very advocacy groups that oppose the ruling.
How Orwellian!
In a nod to free speech, the court last month gave businesses and unions the power to spend as much money as they wish on political advertisements that endorse or oppose candidates -- providing a potential source of money for groups that have traditionally survived on individual donations.
Of course, the Zionist War Daily approves because now AIPAC won't have to hide in the shadows.
But one question lingers: Will those organizations, particularly liberal ones openly critical of the court ruling, seek money from corporate sources? Or will they sit on the sidelines and risk losing influence?
What, like they have any?
I mean, as we have just seen with health care, they are taken for granted!
Those wars are also still going on, aren't they?
Yeah "liberals" re going to lose influence.
Also see: Googling Control of Congress
Told you it was already being bought.
“My hunch is most people at first will say, ‘I’m not going to take that, that’s tainted money,’ ’’ said Shaun Casey, a professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington and an adviser on faith to Barack Obama when he was running for president. “Then they’re going to find themselves in a ground war where they’re being outspent. At that point, somebody’s going to knuckle up and say, ‘Heck yeah, we’re going to take the cash,’ particularly if the midterm elections turn out to be a bloodbath.’’
And thus a group that one would look to as fighting for the average person will just be another "leftist" shell of corporate shillery.
For corporations, liberal nonprofits might seem to be an unlikely political ally. But corporations, as a matter of strategy, often throw their support behind the party in power, or play both sides of a campaign, said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law.
Yup, that is why I am SOUR on POLITICS now!
Four years of "change" convinced me that neither party is worth a damn.
Neither is the court or the executive.
It’s still unclear how corporations will respond to the ruling, but their track record on Capitol Hill lobbying suggests tens of millions of dollars could be in play annually. The quandary over corporate cash affects a wide range of liberal organizations....
Yeah, the money wasted on political lobbying and the like makes one ill.
When Obama embraced health care overhaul legislation last year, liberal religious groups had a signature cause to rally around. But Obama’s health plan is now on life support, and the court decision has opened the door for more spending by insurance companies....
Too late.
What does it matter anyway? They wrote the bill.
Had enough of the fooley politics, readers?
"Spending ruling adds twist to Mass. politics" by Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff | March 31, 2010
Corporations may now spend unlimited sums to influence elections in Massachusetts, a result of a US Supreme Court ruling in January that struck down limits on corporate spending in federal elections on the constitutional grounds that it restricted free speech....
And I already despise Massachusetts politics.
