IcyPatriot

This decision would actually be no problem for the people if we operated more as the republic we were meant to be than the democracy we have become. The federal government - both sides - have done their best in modern times to be more of a democracy - using slim majority margins to exercise their political desires over rather large groups that are the 49 %ers.

This country was never designed so that 51% could control 49%. States were designed to have more rights ... which is better for the people. States rights mean more individual rights. So now we have a country where Monsanto and Exxon and all the others can exert influence on the entire country by targeting key politicos in DC.

Oh well ... it is what it is ... we could have a democracy like Iran I guess. We make more of it than what it is. i think we're doing okay even with a more powerful federal government controlling us.

PatsFanInVa

This will lend a whole 'nother meaning to the old chestnut "Freedom isn't free."

I notice that there's no mention of removing restrictions on what individuals can give... please don't tell me you and I don't have freedom of "money talks", only corporations do...

PatsFanInVa

Sure you don't mean a monarchy or something? Let's go through this again:

A direct democracy may not be a republic, but the US is not a direct democracy. It's governed by a representative form, and that makes it a bloody republic.

Do you prefer that each corporation be apportioned a certain number of representatives in the House of Corporations, and each individual be apportioned a certain number in the House of Investors? I mean, that's a republic too, and you can just directly sell the seats, which would be an even better remedy to "the democracy we've become."

Icy. Dude. Democracy's good. Ask a place that doesn't have it. They'll tell ya.

PFnV

s.t.e.n.d.e.c

You mean i can't bust out a couple of million from the billions i have stashed in my mattress and give it to whom i please?

IcyPatriot

I said it was good PF ... I did ... really.
I still think when we look at the history of how our government evolved that we have too much power in DC and too little in the states. A good recent example is the health care mess ... some states are very ticked off about it and with good reason. It's going to be one more thing the fed controls which is not good.

BTW ... what happened to Mrs PF ... did she get tired of talking to the wall in here.

patsfan13

The case was about a non profit corp. I agree individuals should have no restrictions on their donations either. The court did mention that making donations/spending reporting requirements was acceptable.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

sdaniels7114

#1 Money isn't speech. Speech is words coming out of a person's mouth, money is a paper product used to pay for goods and services.

#2 right up until the disaster that was the Bush administration, this would have been rightfully voted down. That moron put two idiots on the bench and they aren't going anywhere. Ever wonder why I'm so furious at you duma$$ Bush voters? this is it in a nutshell. Your own most recent Presidential candidate sponsored and successfully passed a very sane and sensible law that limited just how much the rich could control elections and this court just tossed it out.

__________________
Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob everyone.

Wolfpack

If you're asking my opinion on this matter, then I don't think there should be any restrictions on individual contributions either. If I have a million dollars and want to spend it advertising for Scott Brown over Marcia Coakley, I don't see how it is the government's place to tell me I can't do that.

patsfan13

Speech is the ability to express you opinion the way you do that doesn't matter. You can talk start a blog, newspaper print flyers, or make a video for you tube or the tv where you buy airtime,


Why do you think it matters?

Why should porn be free speech but not political speech?

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Wolfpack

Nowhere did I intimate any such thing. If you are incorrectly inferring things within my statements, the fault lies with you and not me.
Yes, free speech certainly has limitations. An individual cannot say anything they want to anytime they want to. As I mentioned before, threats and slander are not protected speech.

But this particular ruling refers to entities supporting/opposing political agendas in appropriate forums.
Yeah that's one of the pesky things about free speech. Everyone gets to practice it - even all those jerks who disagree with how you feel.

But no, I don't think I am in the minority believing in and supporting the United States Constitution.
Don't have a hissy fit just because I humiliate you by throwing your own words right back in your face.