If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   High-ranking politician promises to overturn unpopular law that was upheld by the Supreme Court as soon as their candidate is sworn in next January. No, not that law. And no, not that candidate, either   (rawstory.com) divider line 126
    More: Spiffy, supreme courts, Citizens United, Democrats, campaign finance laws, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

5224 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2012 at 11:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



126 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-27 10:06:50 AM
that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.
 
2012-09-27 10:09:58 AM

Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.


I agree. And a little silly to make such a promise.
 
2012-09-27 10:18:02 AM
Remember, corporations are people and free speech is money, but unions shouldn't donate to Democrats because that's a conflict of interest.
 
2012-09-27 10:21:23 AM

Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.


Which is a farkin' tragedy.
 
2012-09-27 10:23:01 AM

Cythraul: Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.

Which is a farkin' tragedy.


agreed...but nobody in Congress is going to repeal the ruling that gives them all unlimited amounts of free money. that never happens.
 
2012-09-27 10:47:24 AM
That's some cute grandstanding, now really fu*king do it. I double dog dare you.
 
2012-09-27 11:20:07 AM
This will probably be the first Amendment to the Constitution i'll see passed in my lifetime. I think overall Americans regardless of political affiliation realize that the Citizens United decision and SuperPacs are a very, very bad thing.
 
2012-09-27 11:20:23 AM
Citizens United is not a law that was upheld, it was a law that was struck down. Meaning they can pass a different law with different wording and it can be Constitutional
 
2012-09-27 11:21:56 AM

Lost Thought 00: Citizens United is not a law that was upheld, it was a law that was struck down. Meaning they can pass a different law with different wording and it can be Constitutional


Assuming it survives the courts, of course.
 
2012-09-27 11:24:52 AM
PEEELLLLOOOOOOSSSSSSIIIIIII
 
2012-09-27 11:24:53 AM

Citrate1007: This will probably be the first Amendment to the Constitution i'll see passed in my lifetime.


I sincerely hope so...if not, we're doomed to a permanent government of the sheeple, by Chosen People, for the Very Important People.
 
2012-09-27 11:25:00 AM

Weaver95: Cythraul: Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.

Which is a farkin' tragedy.

agreed...but nobody in Congress is going to repeal the ruling that gives them all unlimited amounts of free money. that never happens.


The GOP has been benefiting much more from Citizens United than the Democrats have been.
So it makes total sense to me that the Democrats could willingly give up the resources offered by Citizens United.

They're basically calling for mutual disarmament when they're outgunned.
 
2012-09-27 11:25:16 AM

Citrate1007: This will probably be the first Amendment to the Constitution i'll see passed in my lifetime. I think overall Americans regardless of political affiliation realize that the Citizens United decision and SuperPacs are a very, very bad thing.


Every conservative I know agrees. They also all vote republican; people who don't agree. Then they come into work and start biatching about what foxnews told them about how Obama has all these donors and he's only going to win based on all the money he spends. Except for that one month when the primaries ended and the donors were allowed to donate to Romney a second time around since it was for a different campaign (june or whatever). Then within a day I'd heard from 10 different people how Romney was so going to beat Obama because look how much the people like him to flood his campaign with money.

And they defend Adelson, listen to crossroadsGPS, etc.

You'd THINK the bulk of Americans wanting X would get X to happen, but that isn't necessarily the case these days.
 
2012-09-27 11:26:58 AM

GhostFish: Weaver95: Cythraul: Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.

Which is a farkin' tragedy.

agreed...but nobody in Congress is going to repeal the ruling that gives them all unlimited amounts of free money. that never happens.

The GOP has been benefiting much more from Citizens United than the Democrats have been.
So it makes total sense to me that the Democrats could willingly give up the resources offered by Citizens United.

They're basically calling for mutual disarmament when they're outgunned.


And Blacks pushed for civil rights when they were mistreated, it didn't make them wrong about civil rights.

Do you think the Citizens United ruling was good for the nation?
 
2012-09-27 11:27:01 AM
Adelson could put a billion into Romney and still make 2 billion in tax cuts because of it. that's sad.
 
2012-09-27 11:27:53 AM
Republicans, who argue that political spending is a form of free speech that should not be limited.

Then why is it limited to me, as a person; yet the corporation, which is a person, is unlimited? As are the PACs, Parties, etc.
 
2012-09-27 11:28:56 AM
Smackledorfer: And they defend Adelson

This is what scares me most. Adelson admitted that he's giving Mitt countless millions so that the DoJ will stop looking into criminal charges involving his casinos (bribery & money laundering). Apparently this is not only legal, the farker is confident enough to say it on camera.

Sheldon Adelson: Investigation Into His Casinos By Justice Department Is Top Reason For Backing Romney
 
2012-09-27 11:30:07 AM
Couldn't they just pass a law clarifying the role of corporations and limiting their rights, and thus, negate CU? The Supremes can't argue it's a violation of their rights, as the Constitution makes no mention of corporations to begin with.
 
2012-09-27 11:30:36 AM

Weaver95: Cythraul: Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.

Which is a farkin' tragedy.

agreed...but nobody in Congress is going to repeal the ruling that gives them all unlimited amounts of free money. that never happens.


I think the Dems might have an incentive.

imageshack.us
 
2012-09-27 11:30:45 AM

Weaver95: Cythraul: Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.

Which is a farkin' tragedy.

agreed...but nobody in Congress is going to repeal the ruling that gives them all unlimited amounts of free money. that never happens.


It's still illegal to give unlimited amounts of money to campaigns. Also, How do you repeal something that was struck down by the courts?
 
2012-09-27 11:31:05 AM

Smackledorfer: GhostFish: Weaver95: Cythraul: Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.

Which is a farkin' tragedy.

agreed...but nobody in Congress is going to repeal the ruling that gives them all unlimited amounts of free money. that never happens.

The GOP has been benefiting much more from Citizens United than the Democrats have been.
So it makes total sense to me that the Democrats could willingly give up the resources offered by Citizens United.

They're basically calling for mutual disarmament when they're outgunned.

And Blacks pushed for civil rights when they were mistreated, it didn't make them wrong about civil rights.

Do you think the Citizens United ruling was good for the nation?


It may just be because I have him farkied in green but I didn't get the impression he does from that post.
 
2012-09-27 11:31:49 AM
I don't know about overturning Citizens United in only 4 years, but with Democrats in charge of the House, legislation could be passed that would blunt some of CU's effects.
 
2012-09-27 11:32:11 AM
All right, Pelosi is corrupt as all hell and kind of a dick, but I've never thought the woman was stupid. What's making her think that she can sell a political pledge based on no one knowing about the separation of powers? I mean, playing to ignorance I get, but I'm pretty sure even stupid people know "there are three branches of government" even if they don't know why.

//I guess someone's free to correct me on this if they want to make me sad.
 
2012-09-27 11:32:54 AM
Allow me to laugh even harder.
 
2012-09-27 11:33:20 AM
Oh, she's proposing an amendment. Strike what I last said, apparently my coffee hasn't taken full effect yet.
 
2012-09-27 11:33:54 AM

Citrate1007: Smackledorfer: And they defend Adelson

This is what scares me most. Adelson admitted that he's giving Mitt countless millions so that the DoJ will stop looking into criminal charges involving his casinos (bribery & money laundering). Apparently this is not only legal, the farker is confident enough to say it on camera.

Sheldon Adelson: Investigation Into His Casinos By Justice Department Is Top Reason For Backing Romney


Adelson feels he's being targeted unfairly. I'm not taking his side, and while that's exactly what you'd expect a guilt person to say - it's also what an innocent person might say. Spending $70-100 million on an election is unseemly and does suggest shadiness, but by itself, that statement and Adelson's spending are proof of nothing.

// Adelson's still a cock, though
// and good luck getting anti-CU to pass through Congress
// even if, by some crazy chance, that happens, good luck passing the Senate
// even if, by some crazier chance, that happens, good luck getting 38 states on board/past SCOTUS
 
2012-09-27 11:35:01 AM

Notabunny: I don't know about overturning Citizens United in only 4 years, but with Democrats in charge of the House, legislation could be passed that would blunt some of CU's effects.


As pointed out upthread: the CU ruling only explains why the previous law was unconstitutional. A newly passed law would stand as written until adjudicated so that's a good solution at least in the short term since getting a constitutional amendment through is a bit more challenging.
 
2012-09-27 11:35:17 AM

Weaver95: Cythraul: Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.

Which is a farkin' tragedy.

agreed...but nobody in Congress is going to repeal the ruling that gives them all unlimited amounts of free money. that never happens.


They'll "try" though. They'll write a bill,bluff and bluster about how great it is, and then somehow manage to come up juuuuuust a few votes short. Then they'll throw up their hands and say "Dang it! Oh well, we tried. It's the other guy's fault." and walk away whistling nonchalantly.
 
2012-09-27 11:36:39 AM

Antimatter: Couldn't they just pass a law clarifying the role of corporations and limiting their rights, and thus, negate CU? The Supremes can't argue it's a violation of their rights, as the Constitution makes no mention of corporations to begin with.


what they need to do is take away corporate personhood. but that wouldn't stop it. what you have to do is have hard ,fast limits on campaign financing. you could make public financing the only legal option I suppose. everyone gets the same amount and it's a battle of ideals only. not who has the most money.
 
2012-09-27 11:37:14 AM
It's a great talking point. But it's not going to happen.
 
2012-09-27 11:37:33 AM
www.opensecrets.org

Where does a private corporation fit into this chart? As an individual? 

I'm really not clear on what "are people too" means. 

/PACs are people too, my friend.
 
2012-09-27 11:37:36 AM
But overturning Citizens United is almost universally opposed by Republicans

...

the DISCLOSE Act, which would have required the head of any organization that puts a political ad on TV or radio to publicly state that he or she approves the message, similar to what candidates must do now. Republicans have blocked the bill twice.


Umm... what was that link a few down from some right-wing site pontificating about moral policies?
 
2012-09-27 11:38:02 AM

Citrate1007: This will probably be the first Amendment to the Constitution i'll see passed in my lifetime.


Damn, you're a teenager?
 
2012-09-27 11:38:29 AM

Dr Dreidel: Citrate1007: Smackledorfer: And they defend Adelson

This is what scares me most. Adelson admitted that he's giving Mitt countless millions so that the DoJ will stop looking into criminal charges involving his casinos (bribery & money laundering). Apparently this is not only legal, the farker is confident enough to say it on camera.

Sheldon Adelson: Investigation Into His Casinos By Justice Department Is Top Reason For Backing Romney

Adelson feels he's being targeted unfairly. I'm not taking his side, and while that's exactly what you'd expect a guilt person to say - it's also what an innocent person might say. Spending $70-100 million on an election is unseemly and does suggest shadiness, but by itself, that statement and Adelson's spending are proof of nothing.

// Adelson's still a cock, though
// and good luck getting anti-CU to pass through Congress
// even if, by some crazy chance, that happens, good luck passing the Senate
// even if, by some crazier chance, that happens, good luck getting 38 states on board/past SCOTUS


Whether innocent or guilty.....it is quite obvious his investment into Mitt with the intention of influencing an elected official is highly unethical, legal bribery.
 
2012-09-27 11:39:04 AM

Smackledorfer: And Blacks pushed for civil rights when they were mistreated, it didn't make them wrong about civil rights.


Correct. Though it's sad that more than a few of them appear hypocritical about civil rights when it comes to other oppressed groups. Like gays, for instance.
So yeah, simply being against something that's not in your favor doesn't necessarily mean your motives are completely selfish. But it doesn't necessarily mean you're a conscientious humanitarian either.

Do you think the Citizens United ruling was good for the nation?

The level of influence of money in politics is rather disgusting, and it should be reduced if not eliminated.
But if a law is unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional. We need proper, legal ways to deal with the problem.
We can't just toss the law out the window when it serves us. I'd be perfectly happy with a law that can put the
same restrictions in place legally.

I don't really know if I agree with the SCOTUS decision, but my opinion doesn't change their ruling.
 
2012-09-27 11:39:17 AM
Did any of you believe the government wasn't bought and paid for before CU? Show of hands?
 
2012-09-27 11:39:48 AM
I'd be happy with them passing the Disclose Act.
 
2012-09-27 11:40:14 AM

actualhuman: Notabunny: I don't know about overturning Citizens United in only 4 years, but with Democrats in charge of the House, legislation could be passed that would blunt some of CU's effects.

As pointed out upthread: the CU ruling only explains why the previous law was unconstitutional. A newly passed law would stand as written until adjudicated so that's a good solution at least in the short term since getting a constitutional amendment through is a bit more challenging.


I like the idea of applying sunlight through the mandatory identification of donors. And I mean actual donor names, not vague group IDs like "Americans for a better America". With Pelosi as Speaker, something like that could happen quickly.
 
2012-09-27 11:40:31 AM
The idea was that CU was a huge Republican win, but I'm not sure I buy that anymore. I feel like it's caused the political parties to lose some control of their message, and since the Republican party is the more shattered party currently, it's really hurt them by stepping up the civil war between the moderates and the teatards.
 
2012-09-27 11:40:47 AM

jigger: Citrate1007: This will probably be the first Amendment to the Constitution i'll see passed in my lifetime.

Damn, you're a teenager?


Well I forgot about the 27th, but that one is just kind of blah. All it did was make it so out-going congress couldn't fark over the incoming congress by cutting their pay.
 
2012-09-27 11:41:25 AM

theknuckler_33: But overturning Citizens United is almost universally opposed by Republicans

...

the DISCLOSE Act, which would have required the head of any organization that puts a political ad on TV or radio to publicly state that he or she approves the message, similar to what candidates must do now. Republicans have blocked the bill twice.

Umm... what was that link a few down from some right-wing site pontificating about moral policies?


I don't think you get it yet... Or my sarcasm indicator is broken.

Morals are only good if they can be applied only to their opponents. When they can be applied to them, morals be damned. As long as they don't get caught.

/hand
//cookie-jar
///caught by slashies
 
2012-09-27 11:42:28 AM
I'm perfectly fine with Citizens United if corporations can be held responsible for all the things people are held responsible for.
 
2012-09-27 11:43:58 AM

zarberg: I'm perfectly fine with Citizens United if corporations can be held responsible for all the things people are held responsible for.


/When Pigs Fly
 
2012-09-27 11:44:43 AM

Citrate1007: jigger: Citrate1007: This will probably be the first Amendment to the Constitution i'll see passed in my lifetime.

Damn, you're a teenager?

Well I forgot about the 27th, but that one is just kind of blah. All it did was make it so out-going congress couldn't fark over the incoming congress by cutting their pay.


It was also authored 202 years before "full" ratification (and had possibly already been ratified and never enforced, so they sent it to the states again in '90-91ish).

So I award Citrate1007 half a technical point.

// but you watch your ass, Sonny Jim
 
2012-09-27 11:45:50 AM

Mentat: Remember, corporations are people and free speech is money, but unions shouldn't donate to Democrats because that's a conflict of interest.


Except that SuperPACs are taking in money voluntarily given by individuals and corporations. The problem with union donations is that many union members are forced into membership in order to work in certain industries and that their dues are being used, in part, to support political candidates and ideas with which they don't agree.
 
2012-09-27 11:48:39 AM

GhostFish: Smackledorfer: And Blacks pushed for civil rights when they were mistreated, it didn't make them wrong about civil rights.

Correct. Though it's sad that more than a few of them appear hypocritical about civil rights when it comes to other oppressed groups. Like gays, for instance.
So yeah, simply being against something that's not in your favor doesn't necessarily mean your motives are completely selfish. But it doesn't necessarily mean you're a conscientious humanitarian either.

Do you think the Citizens United ruling was good for the nation?

The level of influence of money in politics is rather disgusting, and it should be reduced if not eliminated.
But if a law is unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional. We need proper, legal ways to deal with the problem.
We can't just toss the law out the window when it serves us. I'd be perfectly happy with a law that can put the
same restrictions in place legally.

I don't really know if I agree with the SCOTUS decision, but my opinion doesn't change their ruling.


Good answer :D
 
2012-09-27 11:50:28 AM
What bugs me most about that ruling is simply that a corp. is not a self-guided entity, it is the people who run it. But those people get to donate as the people they are. Why should they get to donate again as a corporation? That is not a level playing field.

And the obviousness of that is what is most disgusting about the SCJs pro-arguments.

/justice, that word you keep using...
//rant 
 
2012-09-27 11:50:39 AM

Mentat: Weaver95: Cythraul: Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.

Which is a farkin' tragedy.

agreed...but nobody in Congress is going to repeal the ruling that gives them all unlimited amounts of free money. that never happens.

I think the Dems might have an incentive.

[imageshack.us image 800x455]


it's even more lopsided now. the 2012 chart will probably all be GOP superpacs in the top 10
and that's not counting individuals like Adelson
 
2012-09-27 11:53:06 AM

Hobodeluxe: you could make public financing the only legal option I suppose. everyone gets the same amount and it's a battle of ideals only


I am so running as an independent if this occured. The campaign can cover all of my meal, lodging, travel and booze expenses.... and there will be plenty of booze expenses.
 
2012-09-27 11:53:35 AM
balance of power is just so 18th century for the dems.
no surprise.
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report