The Supreme Court has sold out the American people

[grandmama]

Well you have a lot of Dems railing the decision since last week and you have the President of the US calling out the Supreme Court for it. So either they are lying to the public or they truly are unhappy by it. I think the reason they are unhappy is they realize their bank accounts might not run as deeply as others. And there is NO way Congress will pass a law dealing with campaign finance reform. I mean look at what the President said as a candidate about taking public money and then seeing how much he could raise on his own and bagged that immediately.

And I don't think regular citizens have a say right now and before the decision of the Court.

I agree with everything you said above, that's what sad about the whole thing. do you not feel powerless in regards to political freedom? I think these Sen and Reps should wear patches on their suits with the company logos from whomever they get campaign $ from. That way we all know where their cash is coming from and who's side they're really on. Similar to the way nascar drivers have patches on their driving suits.

[husker]

all the supreme court did was make things equal to everyone. you ether have to let everyone contribute, or no one. i would rather see none (along with what you can spend of your own money), along with getting rid of all lobbyists. any candidate can get their views to the public through TV (national), or local newspapers (local elections).

[TruckeeT]

This really is an amazing moment in partisan politics. It is absurd to me that those on the right are not horrified by this decision, but the fact that on radio, in print, and online they are DEFENDING this decision is enough to make one lose hope.

There are many gray areas in politics.... who should be taxed? how much? how should our tax dollars be spent? What to do in the Middle East? How to fix health care? How to create jobs? There is no easy answer to any of these dilemmas, but when it comes to whether or not major corporations should be given the green light to control our political elections??? This is as black and white to me as the question: Should we allow states to make child molestation legal if they choose??? In both scenarios, the answer is clear if you are thinking outside of partisan rhetoric for one minute of the day, and anyone who answers yes to either of these questions is going to have to live with the fact that it will result in a lot of innocent people getting unwelcomely screwed.

Be true to your ideals, be true to your party, be true to the fundamentals of your conservative values....... but come on, people, you are defending an abortion... of justice, and of democracy, and of the noble idea that ANYONE can be ANYTHING they want in this country...... because with this decision, the door slams on all but the monied elite. I thought you all HATED elitists......

[Jamaicanman]

This really is an amazing moment in partisan politics. It is absurd to me that those on the right are not horrified by this decision, but the fact that on radio, in print, and online they are DEFENDING this decision is enough to make one lose hope.

There are many gray areas in politics.... who should be taxed? how much? how should our tax dollars be spent? What to do in the Middle East? How to fix health care? How to create jobs? There is no easy answer to any of these dilemmas, but when it comes to whether or not major corporations should be given the green light to control our political elections??? This is as black and white to me as the question: Should we allow states to make child molestation legal if they choose??? In both scenarios, the answer is clear if you are thinking outside of partisan rhetoric for one minute of the day, and anyone who answers yes to either of these questions is going to have to live with the fact that it will result in a lot of innocent people getting unwelcomely screwed.

Be true to your ideals, be true to your party, be true to the fundamentals of your conservative values....... but come on, people, you are defending an abortion... of justice, and of democracy, and of the noble idea that ANYONE can be ANYTHING they want in this country...... because with this decision, the door slams on all but the monied elite. I thought you all HATED elitists......

Did you have the same concerns when unions have influenced politics?

[TruckeeT]

JamaicaMan, I believe that as a country we should be moving in the direction of limiting the influence of ALL special interests, including corporations, lobbyists, and unions. We should be severely RESTRICTING the spending power, and thus the ability for special interests to have so much control over the engine of democracy.

I am aware that this does not follow the typical Democratic party-line, but that is because I refuse to pledge blind allegiance to any party or movement. The otherwise thoughtful and patriotic posters on here who have defended this decision should really consider doing the same.

[grandmama]

JamaicaMan, I believe that as a country we should be moving in the direction of limiting the influence of ALL special interests, including corporations, lobbyists, and unions. We should be severely RESTRICTING the spending power, and thus the ability for special interests to have so much control over the engine of democracy.

I am aware that this does not follow the typical Democratic party-line, but that is because I refuse to pledge blind allegiance to any party or movement. The otherwise thoughtful and patriotic posters on here who have defended this decision should really consider doing the same.

Great assessment above truckee. people need to realize that some issues are greater than political parties. every lover of liberty should be pissed about this ruling. We should all be against anyone gaining more power: corporations, unions, and lobbyist. The argument that the "playing field" should be leveled for and that this ruling has done that is not a valid one. They (corps and unions) already have more power than the avg voter. Now they've been given a dose of HGH and we simply cannot compete with them anymore.

[Jamaicanman]

JamaicaMan, I believe that as a country we should be moving in the direction of limiting the influence of ALL special interests, including corporations, lobbyists, and unions. We should be severely RESTRICTING the spending power, and thus the ability for special interests to have so much control over the engine of democracy.

I am aware that this does not follow the typical Democratic party-line, but that is because I refuse to pledge blind allegiance to any party or movement. The otherwise thoughtful and patriotic posters on here who have defended this decision should really consider doing the same.

I couldn't agree more about the money and influence in politics, I just questioned whether your thoughts applied to unions since you didn't post anythng about union influence on elections? I think prior to this decision, unions had MUCH more power and influence. No one seemed to have many concerns until corporations were allowed under the SC ruling.

[TruckeeT]

Yes, I can see that point JamaicaMan. Unions have been given way too much leeway, and with little defiance from the folks who are so opposed to this ruling.

However, let's be honest. Even the most powerful unions in the country have bankrolls that are laughable in comparison to Exxon-Mobil and Pfizer. In a world in which powerful companies are still posting $10B profits, as the middle class struggles, it is not very difficult to see who will control all future elections and legislation if restrictions are abolished.

[flarendep1]

Yes, I can see that point JamaicaMan. Unions have been given way too much leeway, and with little defiance from the folks who are so opposed to this ruling.

However, let's be honest. Even the most powerful unions in the country have bankrolls that are laughable in comparison to Exxon-Mobil and Pfizer. In a world in which powerful companies are still posting $10B profits, as the middle class struggles, it is not very difficult to see who will control all future elections and legislation if restrictions are abolished.

Truck,

The problem with Unions is they TAKE money from their workers to pay candidates irregardless of their opinion. Its organized crime.

Workers at Exxon are free to vate the way they want and buy whatever kind of gas they want.

Do you have any idea what a company like Exxon pays in taxes? It is huge. I am glad they make a big profit, keeps the market and your 401k strong. If government ran it, they would be in the ground in no time.

[TruckeeT]

Flare, I have no problem with the free market system, and I am glad that many corporations of all sizes are able to thrive in this country. Exxon's ability to make a profit should be limitless, and it IS.

But Exxon's ability to use those profits to influence government SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT be limitless. This is my point, and so far writers from Peggy Noonan to Jonah Goldberg, to every last one of the Fox News "experts" has stood up for the right of every corporation to make profit!!!!!! but has failed to address the ENORMOUS difference between the right to make profit, and the right to use those profits to railroad governmental elections and legislation.

If all of you think that allowing union the power to help determine elections is WRONG, then how can you possibly think that allowing corporations even more power is AMERICAN? It just seems like such a knee-jerk reaction to support any "conservative ploy" regardless of how off-track it is, or how hypocritical it makes your points about unions.

[husker]

everyone is missing the point of the decision, it's about not discriminating against one entity. now congress can pass a law doing away with ALL large contributions if they want, they just can't pass one designed to restrict certain entities. everyone here would welcome this, no? controlling lobbyists are just as important also.

[poskid]

everyone is missing the point of the decision, it's about not discriminating against one entity. now congress can pass a law doing away with ALL large contributions if they want, they just can't pass one designed to restrict certain entities. everyone here would welcome this, no? controlling lobbyists are just as important also.

I agree and unfortunately i probably started the misguided way this conversation has turned. The best thing that could honestly happen is that lobbying and political contributions outside of single contributions would be outlawed. The important pert of this decision is that now it "hopefully" forces the politician's hands and gets them to give up the gravy train.

I think all sides of the argument would love nothing better than to see all group contributions abolished. I have no love for corporate America. I love my family's small business.

PK

[10DimeBry]

No taxation without representation. small and big corporations pay massive taxes just remember that

[husker]

No taxation without representation. small and big corporations pay massive taxes just remember that

true, but shareholders and executives of these co's do get to vote as long as they are US citizens. that gives them representation just like everyone else.

[grandmama]

true, but shareholders and executives of these co's do get to vote as long as they are US citizens. that gives them representation just like everyone else.

great point husker. If they want to donate their $ to candidates they can, but its not right for them to be able to donate $ from their corps that they own. too much power at that point.