On 1/22/10 01:57 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Jan 21, 5:10 pm, Editor RadioTalkingPoints
wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:02 am, Stevie wrote:





http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/...upreme_court_c...

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely
to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress,
easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal
campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old
ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money
from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The
decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to
participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits
imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-
Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-
paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
----
Here's a suggestion for Congress: instead of unconstitutional
restrictions on free speech, how about legislating 100%
transparency for all campaign contributions?

Well, it is about time, a big thumbs up to the Supreme Court, THANK
YOU!

If Congress were doing their job regulating commerce and currency
issues, we would not need unions? All this money spent on science,
and they can't advise business, but somehow they can mandate things?
Unions are the birth place of political corruption, the embryonic
chamber of destruction when left to their own devices?

Competition solves problems, and now we have choice too? No more
unions getting a monopoly (even though it with campaign funds, never
really occured to me, Rush has said it before, but the way he
explained it today, it just sunk in there?) Nice job today Rush, I
think Rush is getting better! Genius improving Genius? INCREDIBLE!
Thank you GOD!

Thank YOU mmmmmm mmm mmmmm Rush Hudson Limbaugh mmmm mmmm mmmmmmm

Well, whatever else they've done - they have handed the elections and
thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America. Extrapolate from that what you will.

Bruce Jensen



That may not be the case. Scott's campaign in Massachussetts was
funded primarily with small donations from individuals. Small
donations being $5, $10 and others less than $100. His war chest
went from from the low 6 figures to mid 7 figures literally
overnight after a single appearance on TV, all from small donations
of less than $100 from individuals, and mushroomed from there.

There is no doubt that large donations are solicited and accepted
from corporate entities, but there is now no denying that a
successful campaign can be waged without them.

The real question should be, given that this law has been on the
books for 60 years, and McCain-Feingold has been on the books since
2003. Why did the court that refused to consider this matter when
McCain-Feingold was enacted, choose to take this decision now?