It was only a matter of time . . .
l3wis [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRKkXtxDRA&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
1st Amendment
Five Supreme Court judges prove to be corporate tools
What good it the First Amendment if we can’t let non-people use it to?
While I am a registered Indy, I often lean to the left but have supported Republicans in the past, but I think what bugs me the most about Conservative Republicans is how they will bend over backwards to trample on the little guy so corporations can have their way, and this ruling proves it;
Some South Dakota political operatives are wary of a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down Thursday that nullifies a 100-year-old restriction and allows corporations and unions to spend more money to influence federal elections.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned rules that barred corporations and unions from using their money to sway federal elections and ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals to spend as much as they wish to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.
This is disgusting on many levels, it would be one thing if the 5 justices that voted for this were just a bunch of regular Joes before they rolled into the SC, but not the case at all. Chief Justice John Roberts was a corporate tool before he got the job, and before that he worked for the second worst president we ever had, Ronald Reagan. He has an agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with joe-six-pack.
Joel Rosenthal, former chairman of the state Republican Party, said the decision goes against what most people want.
“The public mood today is, ‘Let’s get this money out of politics,’ ” Rosenthal said. “This allows more money in.”
While I agree a 100% with Joel’s STATEMENT I find it ironic that he would say this, since he has assisted city candidates in the past that have taken plenty of money from BIG DEVELOPMENT company owners. But, hey, that’s okay because the companies themselves aren’t cutting the checks 🙂
Mark Anderson, president of the South Dakota Federation of Labor, said corporations aren’t people, and the First Amendment shouldn’t apply. Thursday’s decision “squeezes out the little guy.”
Well, Mark, not sure if you have not noticed, but the little guy has been squeezed out for a long, long, time.
Also, the court affirmed federal rules that require sponsors of political ads to disclose who paid for them.
In small 4 point type, of course.
Most experts have predicted the decision will send millions of extra dollars flooding into this fall’s elections. And they predict Republicans will be the main beneficiaries.
Get outta here! Makes you wonder why people even bother to vote anymore?
The dissenters included the three Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. They joined a dissent written by 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens. Speaking from the bench, he called Thursday’s decision “a radical change in the law … that dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions – and the narrow interests they represent – in determining who will hold public office.”
In other words, Bend over America!
South Dakotans prefer openness? Yah think?
I hope judge Caldwell and Roger Hunt take a good hard look at this survey;
By a 3-to-1 ratio, South Dakotans say campaign finance disclosure laws, such as the one state Rep. Roger Hunt skirted in 2006, provide valuable information for voters. The minority say those laws violate a donor’s right to free speech.
The problem I have with the Hunt case is that it wasn’t about ‘free speech’. What I do on this blog is considered ‘free speech’ what Hunt did is considered ‘money laundering’. I still think he got away with a crime. If you feel passionately enough about an issue to give $750,000 to it, the voters have the right to know who gave that money. That is what I consider ‘free speech’.
In one question, 75.4 percent agreed or strongly agreed that disclosure laws provide valuable information for voters, while 20.2 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.
In another, participants were asked which view was closer to their own position on the effect of disclosure laws: that they provide valuable information or they violate free speech. Valuable information won 72.4 percent to 22.8 percent.
I think this was worded incorrectly. Like I said above, I don’t think providing your name when you donate to a political cause is violating your free speech rights. You have a choice, you can remain anon and not give the money, no one is forcing you to give up your name, unless you donate the money. Voters have a right to know, in all fairness, who is donating to these causes. I always find it ironic that neo-cons never mention free speech rights when they are being publicly protested, only when it is helping their cause.
1st Amendment
America
anger
Bush
Caves
Dumbass
Freedom
Fuck Off
Homosexuals
Jews
obama
racism
Roly-Poly
Unemployment
You Tube
Holy holy holy!
Oliver Surden [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCvkatCGNFY[/youtube]I have no words. Just watch and throw up a little.
Not so fast
As I suspected, your constitutional rights CAN be suspended when you are convicted of a felony. Judge Delaney explains his sentence and first amendment rights in the Newland case;
The advocacy ban was an infringement on Newland’s First Amendment rights. Delaney doesn’t deny that. But neither does he consider it more onerous or any less appropriate than many other infringements imposed as part of felony sentences.
The random searches Newland faces in the next year would be violations of his constitutional rights, but for the felony plea. Felons can face otherwise unconstitutional firearms restrictions and the right to associate with certain people or go to certain establishments, Delaney said.
“We restrict speech as well in a lot of protection orders, or in divorces, where in some cases the parties’ freedom to speak to one another may be limited,†he said
I don’t agree with limiting someone’s free speech, BUT, the judge makes a good point, felons often have many rights limited when they are on probation. It would be much worse for Bob if he was sitting in jail.