Man, some day soon there is going to be some big piece of internet legislation that will be shot down. No doubt corporations will want to regulate the people, but for once the people will fight back. Then, I have no doubts that some company talking head will say something the lines of "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake." We'll finally have our debates on whether or not corporations are buying politicians.

That or there will be a witty headline about it on some news aggregate but for the most part it will go unnoticed and nothing bad will come of it for the corporate parties or the politicians.

Splinshints: HotWingConspiracy: PAC money used for bribing election officials?

I thought that was implicit in the supreme court decision...

McCain was basically correct in his statements, which also go against the trend within his own party. How about giving him a little credit.

Have you ever noticed that no matter what Obama does the right wingers hate him anyway?

Now think of how you view them when they do that.

Typical. The Fark commie-brigade is out in full force to cry for the restriction of Corporate and personal rights to free speech. Just because I spend a few million helping a politician get elected, and then maybe ask for a few small favors down the road doesn't mean I'm buying influence. You make it sound so cheap and tawdry. Paying an elected official, directly or indirectly, to garner votes and/or support for certain legislation or other considerations is not corruption or bribery. It's good, clean, Jesus approved free-market capitalism. It is this unfettered access to our nation's policy makers that has made this nation great! It's not like it's an unfair system - everyone gets the same vote and the same opportunities. There's nothing in the world stopping you from donating unlimited sums of money to political campaigns. If you feel that your voice isn't being heard, stop your whining and open your checkbook!You can all speak to your elected officials. Whether you choose to speak with your vote, your voice, an email, written letter, or duffel bag full of cash is none of my business or anybody's else. Speech is speech. If huge piles of $100 bills helps my congressman hear me better, then so be it. If you don't like it, vote for the other guy. (I bought him too, just in case. Tee Hee!).

Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

??

Rann Xerox: 1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

McNulty-Feingold?

What do I win?

A Dark Evil Omen: Geotpf: Lunaville: Lionel Mandrake: Time to amend the Constitution.

just needs to be repeated

And let me repeat something I keep saying:

If your solution to a problem is amending the constitution, you don't actually have a solution to said problem. It is neigh impossible to pass an amendment on anything remotely contraversal, by design.

On an unrelated note, I actually think Citizens United was correctly decided. But I'm a First Amendment zealot who wants protects of such to be enforced as widely as possible.

Fortunately, it's not remotely controversial. Some 80 percent support reversing the decision.

[citation needed]

Plus, it absolutely is controversial. Lots of Republicans in particular are against it. Opponents control enough of Congress and statehouses to stop an amendment from being passed. More than one third of the House and one third of the Senate are against it, and so are more than one quarter of the state legislatures.

Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.



?

----

But yeah... this is not a surprise. SCOTUS basically destroyed one of McCain's few major triumphs--one of the major bipartisan triumphs ever in Congress. Why would anyone think he'd support the CU decision?

Small wonder that it was one of the idiots responsible for the poorly written bill that was overturned by the SCOTUS. The decision isn't the fault of the SC. It's the dummies in Congress. By the way, you think we'll get a bill without a thousand loopholes next time? Yeah me neither.

Maybe he shouldn't have voted against the Disclose act, then. It's easy to come around now that there are enough Republicans to block any real action, but where was he when his opposition would've actually mattered?

McCain did talk about the announced topic, how the number of earmarks in Congress increased when Gingrich was House Speaker from 1994 to 1998.

The number of earmarks only went up by four?

Ptttpppttt. Big deal

Oh my God, don't tell me McCain found his integrity again. I bet it was in his other pants, I've been saying that all along.

I used to like him when he was anti-torture, wanted an investigation into why we went into Iraq under false pretenses, was into clean campaign finances, and didn't really know who the fark Sarah Palin even was .

I'm sure it won't last though. McCain lost it all years ago.

kapaso: McCain was basically correct in his statements, which also go against the trend within his own party. How about giving him a little credit.

Have you ever noticed that no matter what Obama does the right wingers hate him anyway?

Now think of how you view them when they do that.

There's some fairness to the point, but here's why I am bothered. McCain did not have a problem with any money sources when he was running for president or during any senatorial runs. If I had to guess, this is his way of saying "I don't plan on running again", or more likely, he will say these are bad, bad things (that I have to use to win a 407th term as senator).

Add on top of that how much of his credibility he was willing to, without batting an eye, flush away on the recent presidential run. It's difficult to take what he says as coming from an honest place because of his actual track record, not the story of a record that doesn't match reality (see the GOP Obama narratives).

If his next campaign was Buddy Roemer style, ditching the super-PAC's and PAC's, etc., I might believe him. If he took those words and used them to justify why he was foolish to support Mitt and switched to Team Roemer, I would see consistency... As it stands he has no actions backing words that appeal to a current populist movement. This is why I would deride him.

He is "right" on this one because he is pandering, plain and simple. And if the winds of fortune or popularity or public indifference allow him to revert, he will.

Lionel Mandrake: Time to amend the Constitution.

YES! Repeal the 16th amendment!

Cyberluddite

mrjared: The decision that largely struck down his own piece of legislation is not farking Citizens versus United.

Wow, I hadn't even noticed that part of the quote. Grandpa appears to be losing his marbles even faster than I thought.

Racism is no longer acceptable, so resort to ageism - gotta be able to look down on some group of people based on characteristics they don't control!

Actually, both of you are the ones sans marbles - "Grandpa" didn't make that claim, the article's author did. And according to this, it did strike down major parts of McCain-Feingold, in addition to FEC vs Wisonsin Right to Life and Davis vs FEC.

EyeballKid: Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

Cloud

Chief!

Lord Dimwit: The question becomes then, what if? Never in the history of the country has a Supreme Court decision found to have been tainted by bribery or corruption. There is no higher court of appeal. Congress could initiate impeachment proceedings, but would the ruling itself stand? If a Justice were to be removed from the bench, would other decisions in which that Justice played a decisive role be reconsidered?

I guess the first question is the biggest - would it require a Constitutional amendment to change the outcome of Citizens United, or would the Court hand down a new ruling? Or what?

Actually this has happened before, with the Dred Scott decision. The resolution was the Civil War.

More seriously, any Supreme Court ruling can override a previous ruling. They usually try to decide things in a way that continues existing precedent, but they can take off in a whole new direction if they want. The usual example is Brown vs. Board of Education overturning Plessy vs. Ferguson.

Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

The problem is that McCain seems to have lost ALL integrity that he had just 4 years ago. I'm a little surprised by this as well, and I lived in Az at the time that the clean elections stuff was going on, I thought McCain had sold his soul to the devil, his message changed so abruptly... I still wonder if he really did, and this was just one last outburst before he went to Hell.

Who knows? Maybe the Maverick is back?

Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

Why do you have to be a dick? I think subby was just trying to make a clever tagline, not push an agenda. You could have said everything you said without including the "oh by the way, Subby is an idiot because clearly he doesn't realize that this isn't anything new."

But tearing down others whom you consider dumber than you probably builds up your self-esteem. Thank god for the internet, huh?

Lionel Mandrake: The only way around a SCOTUS decision is an amendment

Not even remotely correct, Counselor.

Citizen's United could be overridden by a simple Act of Congress.

And the Court can overrule itself, as correctly noted above.

Lionel Mandrake: Time to amend the Constitution.

Time to bite the bullet and start public funding of elections.

A Dark Evil Omen: Fortunately, it's not remotely controversial. Some 80 percent support reversing the decision.

Unfortunately, the only ones who matter in this are the politicians, and I would bet that with the exception of McCain, about 180% of politicians support keeping the status quo on this.

Mikey1969: Who knows? Maybe the Maverick is back?

The Maverick:John MCain, Chris Gaines:Garth Brooks

Technically the same people but they are just attempts to manufacture a personality to let them escape the fact they they are only popular with rednecks. Unsuccessful and disingenuous in both instances.

Too bad McCain tied his balls behind his back in 2008. Running for office should never mean giving up the principles that made you likable in the first place.

I wish the pre-preidential candidate MCain would come back - I liked that guy

p the boiler: I wish the pre-preidential candidate MCain would come back - I liked that guy

You wouldn't if you actually knew anything about John McCain.

Yes, subby, I too am shocked that McCain would feel somewhat upset that the supreme court invalidated a pile of attempts at campaign finance reform including the McCain-Feingold reform package.

Reeeeeeeal shocker there. People are usually totally cool with activist judges nuking the largest piece of their political legacy in a way that even the people from the other party thing is pants-on-head retarded.

jigger: p the boiler: I wish the pre-preidential candidate MCain would come back - I liked that guy

You wouldn't if you actually knew anything about John McCain.

The guy wanted to be CiC so he could finally impress his father, the 4 Star Admiral.

He wanted to be president almost as badly as Mitt does.

It will be mexican drug cartel money coming through a candidate in CA,AZ,NM or TX that is the first big scandal on this.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Mikey1969: Who knows? Maybe the Maverick is back?

The Maverick:John MCain, Chris Gaines:Garth Brooks

Technically the same people but they are just attempts to manufacture a personality to let them escape the fact they they are only popular with rednecks. Unsuccessful and disingenuous in both instances.

McCain had the Maverick style long before anyone gave him a tag. It's why I used to like him. Of course once he threw in with Caribou Barbie, his entire style changed, and I lost all respect, but I had liked his willingness to buck the Party, not because he was necessarily right or wrong, but simply because he stood for what he believed in. This is more like what he was like before the summer of '08.

And I'm not really sure about your disingenuous tag, especially for the Chris Gaines thing. Brooks never pretended like he wasn't Garth Brooks under that, he just experimented with a new direction. A direction I didn't like any more than his country gig, but he never lied to anyone.

MrEricSir: Too bad McCain tied his balls behind his back in 2008. Running for office should never mean giving up the principles that made you likable in the first place.

Wow, I've been trying to say this, but nowhere near as perfectly. +1 for you!!

timujin: I believe COlbert put it best (shocking, I know) when he said that if money is speech, then "the more money you have, the more you can speak."

But the statement "The more money you have, the more you can speak." *is* a true statement, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Money and speech *are* intrinsically linked, and there's no easy way to get around it.

Should it be constitutionally protected for you to stand on the corner of a busy intersection holding a sign that says "Vote Obama"? Well yes, obviously it should. But doesn't that sign make your speech more likely to be heard than someone who is just standing on the same corner yelling "Vote Obama" but without a sign? And that sign cost money to make. It may have cost a trivial amount to make, but it's still more than some people could afford, especially if you have a 'nice' sign with some color graphics and a HOPE picture. Should your right to stand there with a sign be dependent on whether the homeless guy next to you can also afford to make the same sign? How big a sign should you be allowed to make before we decide that you've spent too much? Should you be able to buy a billboard? A video billboard? A TV commercial? An independent movie? At what point does your right to have your voice heard interfere with the rights of other people to not have their voice overwhelmed?

Take that question one step further. What if I can't afford a nice big sign all by myself? What if I want to partner up with a bunch of people who all want ton contribute $1 to the purchase of a really big sign? Should we be allowed to do that? At what point should the government step in and stop you from pooling money to buy a bigger sign?

Those questions are in essence what Citizens United was about. Should the government be able to tell groups of people that they cannot organize themselves as a corporation (or a union) when they set out to make a political statement? What's so special about corporations (or unions) that makes them different from an LLC, or a limited partnership, or a very rich individual, and makes us think they need to be treated differently?

Mikey1969: MrEricSir: Too bad McCain tied his balls behind his back in 2008. Running for office should never mean giving up the principles that made you likable in the first place.

Wow, I've been trying to say this, but nowhere near as perfectly. +1 for you!!

yeah, but if he had run as 2000 john mccain, he would have come across as too similar to obama.

rudemix: It will be mexican drug cartel money coming through a candidate in CA,AZ,NM or TX that is the first big scandal on this.

Obama is against legalizing drugs. So are three of the four Republican candidates.

The cartels already have their candidates.

grotto_man: Cyberluddite

mrjared: The decision that largely struck down his own piece of legislation is not farking Citizens versus United.

Wow, I hadn't even noticed that part of the quote. Grandpa appears to be losing his marbles even faster than I thought.

Racism is no longer acceptable, so resort to ageism - gotta be able to look down on some group of people based on characteristics they don't control!

Actually, both of you are the ones sans marbles - "Grandpa" didn't make that claim, the article's author did. And according to this, it did strike down major parts of McCain-Feingold, in addition to FEC vs Wisonsin Right to Life and Davis vs FEC.

Listen, you must have missed the part where I largely agree with McCain on this issue. Where my concern lies is in the fact that man can't properly identify the court decision that he's farking talking about. I would be upset with my community college students for misidentifying this important court case, but a farking US Senator? One who is directly involved in the issue? Come the fark on. My ONLY point is that we should be concerned about how addled we allow US Senators to become.

The most telling thing about all of this, to me, is that such a statement is somehow "Off Message". Wow.

If that's not a datum in the political map, I don't know what is.

I hate to break it to you little Johnny, but McCain-Feingold didn't do a whole lot to keep that "evil money" out of politics.

Now go back to whining about Exxon not investing in alternative energy, or some other mavericky crap you usually spew.

CapnBlues: yeah, but if he had run as 2000 john mccain, he would have come across as too similar to obama.

Too bad that's considered a "bad" thing. Jesus, politics doesn't HAVE to be a bloody war between two diametrically opposed candidates ALL of the time. God, it's the same reason that Huntsman wallowed in near-obscurity. They have very different messages and approaches, but Obama vs Huntsman would have been a Presidential race that wouldn't have caused our country to massively shift one way or the other upon a win. Wouldn't it be nice if we got our country on a nice even keel, and then were able to maintain it? Personally, I think we need 5 viable parties before that can happen.