Joe from Kokomo wrote:


OK, the end of America as we know it. A BIG win for the Corporatocracy.

Want to know why you should worry about the Corporatocracy? Read
"Hoodwinked" by John Perkins, also the author of "Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man".

Ya'll are just now figuring this out? The SCOTUS just codified what's
already happening.

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...
bpnjensen wrote:

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

Extrapolate what I will?

OK, the end of America as we know it. A BIG win for the Corporatocracy.

Your assumption is that all corporations are either evil or do not have the
interests of people they serve. As long as there is a disclaimer of where
the money comes from there is no problem unless you think Americans are to
dumb to figure things out.

Want to know why you should worry about the Corporatocracy? Read
"Hoodwinked" by John Perkins, also the author of "Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man".

Is there assumption that corporations are evil/bad?

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...
bpnjensen wrote:

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

OK, the end of America as we know it. A BIG win for the Corporatocracy.

Joe Irvin wrote:

Your assumption is that all corporations are either evil or do not have the
interests of people they serve. As long as there is a disclaimer of where
the money comes from there is no problem unless you think Americans are to
dumb to figure things out.

To my way of thinking, getting the best politicians money can buy is
still wrong, a fine print disclaimer notwithstanding.

Want to know why you should worry about the Corporatocracy? Read
"Hoodwinked" by John Perkins, also the author of "Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man".

Is there assumption that corporations are evil/bad?

If you read the first half of the book quoted above, you wouldn't be
asking that question. We can continue this debate when you actually read it.

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...
bpnjensen wrote:

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

OK, the end of America as we know it. A BIG win for the Corporatocracy.

Joe Irvin wrote:

Your assumption is that all corporations are either evil or do not have
the interests of people they serve. As long as there is a disclaimer of
where the money comes from there is no problem unless you think Americans
are to dumb to figure things out.

To my way of thinking, getting the best politicians money can buy is
still wrong, a fine print disclaimer notwithstanding.

Money whether its from individuals or corporations/business, is necessary
for people to get elected to office. Saying that it is somehow wrong for
corporations to give money if there is a disclaimer, IMO shows a distrust
for the people.

Want to know why you should worry about the Corporatocracy? Read
"Hoodwinked" by John Perkins, also the author of "Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man".

Is there assumption that corporations are evil/bad?

If you read the first half of the book quoted above, you wouldn't be
asking that question. We can continue this debate when you actually read
it.

Why don't you give the theme of the book. The 1st amendment most
fundamental purpose is to protect political free speech. This decision
seems to be a step in that direction. If they could only strike down
McCain-Feigold.

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?

bpnjensen wrote:

Well, whatever else they've done - they have handed the elections and
thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America.

Wealthiest corporations in *America*???

Heard on the media last night (01/25) that this ruling also applies to
FOREIGN corporations.

Has anyone else heard this or can it be verified?

-If- it is indeed true, people on these NGs that support the ruling
are either extremely naive -- or should be in jail (along with the
Supreme Court) for supporting such a treasonous idea.

Sorry, but I don't want some Saudi or Chinese company donating millions
to support a candidate of THEIR choice in an AMERICAN election.

On Jan 26, 1:38*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
Well, whatever else they've done - they have handed the elections and
*thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America.

Wealthiest corporations in *America*???

Heard on the media last night (01/25) that this ruling also applies to
FOREIGN corporations.

Has anyone else heard this or can it be verified?


Not sure if it would, but a lot of corporations are owned by
foreigners. If you think someone like Rupert Murdoch is an American
just because he became a naturalized citizen, well, think again. He
only did so because legally only US citizens are allowed to own
American TV stations.


-If- it is indeed true, people on these NGs that support the ruling
are either extremely naive -- or should be in jail (along with the
Supreme Court) for supporting such a treasonous idea.

Sorry, but I don't want some Saudi or Chinese company donating millions
to support a candidate of THEIR choice in an AMERICAN election.

Well, it's going to happen, thanks to the right-wing faction of the
Supreme Court. First, right-wingers practically sink the country
financially and now they're just giving it away to any unscrupulous
cabals out there for the taking of it.

Joe from Kokomo wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:

Well, whatever else they've done - they have handed the elections and
thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in America.

Wealthiest corporations in *America*???

Heard on the media last night (01/25) that this ruling also applies to
FOREIGN corporations.

Has anyone else heard this or can it be verified?

-If- it is indeed true, people on these NGs that support the ruling
are either extremely naive -- or should be in jail (along with the
Supreme Court) for supporting such a treasonous idea.

Sorry, but I don't want some Saudi or Chinese company donating millions
to support a candidate of THEIR choice in an AMERICAN election.

A little late for the outrage...

On Jan 21, 8:10*pm, Editor RadioTalkingPoints
wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:02*am, Stevie Nichts 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!

You imbecilic moron, why don't you read up on some good old-fashioned
American history and learn why the restrictions were put there in the
first place. In fact, the justices could brush up on history as
well. Seems like people were smarter back in 1907 when they realized
how big business was interfering with the common man than they are now
in 2010. This is going to lead to political shambles, just like
repealing the Glass Steagall Act a decade ago allowed Wall St. to run
amock and get the country in the mess it's in today.

It was never in the contemplation of the Founding Fathers or the
drafters of the post-bellum amendments to endow corporations with the
personalities of human beings.

The foolish five in Scotus just legislated from the bench.