Since Obama, on his address last night, drew a very much needed attention to the US Supreme court's overturn of its decision on the Citizens United case and removal of limits on corporate contribution to political campaigns, I was just curious how my fellow DTers felt about that or if you were even aware that the Supreme Court did that (given its very light coverage)....

Most people would be able to guess my feeling on the subject but I will sum it up with that no corporation nor Union should be allowed to influence an election so flagrantly.

=========================================================================
Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Union Spending in Campaigns
Posted: 01/21/10
The Supreme Court overturned two of its own decisions and a 63-year-old law limiting corporate contributions to political campaigns in a 5-4 ruling Thursday, the Associated Press reports. The ruling allows companies and labor unions to spend as freely as they like on election campaigns, and threatens separate prohibitions of those activities currently imposed by 24 states.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion, saying, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

The law leaves in place rules that keep corporate donors from contributing directly to politicians, but struck down key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that barred union- and corporate-sponsored issue ads within 30 days of an election.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), an opponent of campaign-finance restrictions, praised the ruling, according to the New York Times. In a statement, he called it "an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day."

The case stems from a documentary, produced last year by the conservative Citizens United, that was an attack on then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The filmmakers wanted to promote it during the 2008 primary season, but a federal court blocked its airing on cable television, as well as ads for it.


The case was the first one heard on the bench for the newest Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, who voted in dissent, CNN reports.

Free Speech Glim .. ...you have a problem with free speech dont you ?

i figured you'd see it that simple....

Nope, no problem with free speech senor Goulet.

Yes let Raul and Nutty Hugo decide for you

You cant have an argument without naming those two can you? Sheesh!
you need some serious deprogramming dude!

If you fail to see the importance of that overturn, your sole purpose in life is to regurgitate what has been planted in your brain about those two.... knock yourself out!

we will be getting rid of them soon .......Yes we can ......

Freedom of Speech!

Cut and dry.

No arguement can be applied without infringing on freedom of speech.

You poor excuse for a mammal!!!

'Cut and dry' you say.... this is for campaign finance reforms from Big Corps and Unions you programmed robot you !

This is for the REMOVAL OF LIMITS that were imposed ..its not like they couldnt do so !!

If you fail to see any issue at all may I suggest that unplug yourself from that program installed in you and give it a thought or two!

In fact, I'm surprised that no one else here thinks this was a major issue coming from the Supreme court, and Alitos flagrant disrespect to the President... this may indicate that I spend far too much time at this forum, when it brings me to volley with AC on this topic....hahha

Using your logic you are saying that nobody can make up their own minds and only people who think like you can protect the people from themselves.

Pretty arrogant statement on your part.

What is that track 14 on your program listing?

no silly, my comment was in reference to your oversimplifying comment of 'Cut and dry' (and i quoted in the last post too), bcs it isnt ;cut and dry, if it were, it wouldnt have made it to the Supreme Court.

The subject is controversial and the supporters have good angles, hell, justice Kennedy wrote the favorable opinion and Stephens the 'right' one but lost the decision....it was an overturn mind you.

Watch Forbes and Perot or the likes, resurface..... but we have to hand it to Colbert, he foresaw the future, do you remember his “Stephen Colbert Nacho Cheese Doritos 2008 Campaign” ? hhaha