Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: An Attempt to Return the Country Back to the People?

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,418
    Post Thanks / Like

    An Attempt to Return the Country Back to the People?

    [B][SIZE="4"]APNewsBreak: 22 states join campaign finance fight[/SIZE][/B]

    HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia are backing Montana in its fight to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision from being used to strike down state laws restricting corporate campaign spending.

    The states led by New York are asking the high court to preserve Montana's state-level regulations on corporate political expenditures, according to a copy of a brief written by New York's attorney general's office and obtained by The Associated Press. The brief will be publicly released Monday.

    The Supreme Court is being asked to reverse a state court's decision to uphold the Montana law. Virginia-based American Tradition Partnership is asking the nation's high court to rule without a hearing because the group says the state law conflicts directly with the Citizens United decision that removed the federal ban on corporate campaign spending.
    The Supreme Court has blocked the Montana law until it can look at the case.
    The Montana case has prompted critics to hope the court will reverse itself on the controversial Citizens United ruling. The 22 states and D.C. say the Montana law is sharply different from the federal issues in the Citizens United case, so the ruling shouldn't apply to Montana's or other state laws regulating corporate campaign spending.

    But the states also said they would support a Supreme Court decision to reconsider portions of the Citizens United ruling either in a future case or in the Montana case, if the justices decide to take it on.
    Legal observers say don't count on the Supreme Court reconsidering its decision.

    "It is highly unlikely that the Court would reverse its decision in Citizens United," said law professor Richard L. Hasen of the University of California-Irvine.
    At best, the court would listen to arguments and might agree a clarification is needed to allow the Montana law to stand. But even that is a long shot, Hasen said.

    Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock argues that political corruption in the Copper King era led to the state ban on corporate campaign spending. A clarification of Citizens United is needed to make clear that states can block certain political spending in the interest of limiting corruption, he said.
    American Tradition Partnership argues that the state bans unfairly restrict the ability of corporations to engage in the political process that also affects them.
    Bullock wrote in a brief to be released Monday that the state does not "ban" corporate political speech, rather, it regulates that speech by requiring the formation of political action committees.

    The Democrat, who is running for governor, said the upstart political corporations hoping to take advantage of unfettered spending are merely "an anonymous conduit of unaccountable campaign spending."
    Montana and the other states are asking the court to either let the Montana Supreme Court decision stand or to hold a full hearing. They argue laws like the one in Montana that bans political spending straight from corporate treasuries are needed to prevent corruption.

    The other states, many with their own type of restrictions hanging in the balance, argue local restrictions are far different than the federal ban the court decided unconstitutionally restricted free speech. Further, state elections are at much greater risk than federal elections of being dominated by corporate money, requiring tailored regulation, the states' court filing says.
    "The federal law struck down in Citizens United applied only to elections for President and U.S. Congress," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman wrote on behalf of the states. "By contrast, Montana's law applies to a wide range of state and local offices, including judgeships and law enforcement positions such as sheriff and county prosecutor."
    The joining states, unlike Montana, ask the court to go further and reconsider core findings in Citizens United. They argue, for instance, it was wrong for the court to say unlimited independent expenditures rarely cause corruption or the appearance of corruption.
    And other critics of the Citizens United decision who believe the court was wrong to grant corporations constitutional rights, have intervened and asked the court to reverse itself.
    "There is a growing bipartisan consensus that Citizens United needs to be overturned, and Montana is leading the way," said Peter Schurman, spokesman for a group called Free Speech For People. "The Supreme Court has an opportunity to revisit Citizens United here. That is important because there is evidence everywhere that unlimited spending in our elections creates both corruption and the appearance for corruption."

    On Friday, Montana's case was given a boost when U.S. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-D-R.I., signed on in support. The senators argue evidence following the Citizens United decision, where millions in unregulated money has poured into presidential elections, shows that large independent expenditures can lead to corruption.

    The states who filed the brief in support of Montana are New York, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

    [url]http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-22-states-join-campaign-064738670.html[/url]

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,418
    Post Thanks / Like
    I love when the same people who scream about the affect of unions on our democracy fail to see the stranglehold corporations have on everything. I am in favor of stripping away (as much as possible) the influence of both.

    Whats most insulting to free thinkers is the arrogance of the corporate people behind the initial law suit; naming it [I]Citizens[/I] United. Its almost as manipulative as the [I]Patriot[/I] Act.

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4473142][B][SIZE="4"]APNewsBreak: 22 states join campaign finance fight[/SIZE][/B]

    HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia are backing Montana in its fight to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision from being used to strike down state laws restricting corporate campaign spending.[/quote]

    How many States are fighting in the exact same way against State Immigration Enforcement Laws being struck down?

    How many States are fighting in the exact same way against Obamacare?

    But now, suddenly, you are a proponent of States Rights & Sovreignty?

    [QUOTE]I love when the same people who scream about the affect of unions on our democracy fail to see the stranglehold corporations have on everything. I am in favor of stripping away (as much as possible) the influence of both.[/QUOTE]

    Sure you are. We read your posts on the massive Money and Manpower effect of Unions on our elections , and their role funding and supporting social unrest like "Occupy", all the ti....oh, right. No we don't.

    Obvious lip service is obvious. We all know where you stand, anti-Business and anti-rightwing speech.

    [QUOTE]Whats most insulting to free thinkers is the arrogance of the corporate people behind the initial law suit; naming it Citizens United. Its almost as manipulative as the Patriot Act. [/QUOTE]

    Citizens can unite into both Unions and Corporations. Nothing dishonest about that name.

    The Patriot Act, tho......well, may as well call it the Obama Act now, given that he's kept it, and rather strongly gone above and beyond it's original scope now. So much so, he has the power to kill U.S. citizens without any form of trail or due process, as long as he calls them a "terrorist" first.

    Funny how the same libs who used to bash the hell out of Patriot are now silent. You included.

    But sure, you're against both Business AND Unions. Riiight.:rolleyes:

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think it is hard to tell people (and companies) where they can and cannot spend their money.

    Perhaps a solution is to tax political donations over a certain level?



    My Solution:

    The real solution is to expand the membership of the House of Representatives. The 1st house was 1 member per 30,000 citizens now it is 1 member per 700,000 citizens.

    If each member represented 50,000 citizens money would not be as important to her as individual votes. She would not need to be on TV. In Theory it would be possible to meet every voter in the district during campaign season. It would also be easier for the electorate to see if their congressman is representing their interests or those of contributor out of the district. Some district will be pro-union some pro-business but fewer will be bought and sold.

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4473167]My Solution:

    The real solution is to expand the membership of the House of Representatives. The 1st house was 1 member per 30,000 citizens now it is 1 member per 700,000 citizens.

    If each member represented 50,000 citizens money would not be as important to her as individual votes. She would not need to be on TV. In Theory it would be possible to meet every voter in the district during campaign season. It would also be easier for the electorate to see if their congressman is representing their interests or those of contributor out of the district. Some district will be pro-union some pro-business but fewer will be bought and sold.[/QUOTE]

    Your solution is a perfect world for Unions, whose manpower advantage and abillity/willingness to mobilize it's members in nay given jurisdiction would utterly crush anyone who went against them in ways a Corporation or Business could never manage in such small and insular jurisdictions.

    If thats truly your solution, why not take it out to it's logical conclusion. 1:1, i.e. direct Democracy.

    If 1:250,000 is bad, and 1:50,000 much better, how about 1:1000 or 1:100 or best of all, 1:1?

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,418
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4473160]How many States are fighting in the exact same way against State Immigration Enforcement Laws being struck down?

    How many States are fighting in the exact same way against Obamacare?

    But now, suddenly, you are a proponent of States Rights & Sovreignty?



    Sure you are. We read your posts on the massive Money and Manpower effect of Unions on our elections , and their role funding and supporting social unrest like "Occupy", all the ti....oh, right. No we don't.

    Obvious lip service is obvious. We all know where you stand, anti-Business and anti-rightwing speech.



    Citizens can unite into both Unions and Corporations. Nothing dishonest about that name.

    The Patriot Act, tho......well, may as well call it the Obama Act now, given that he's kept it, and rather strongly gone above and beyond it's original scope now. So much so, he has the power to kill U.S. citizens without any form of trail or due process, as long as he calls them a "terrorist" first.

    Funny how the same libs who used to bash the hell out of Patriot are now silent. You included.

    But sure, you're against both Business AND Unions. Riiight.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    1. I would gladly sign up for the unions losing collective bargaining rights if corporations were not allowed to manipulate our democracy in their own ways. In a heart beat. Because then we would truly be on our way to restoring power to [I]actual [/I]individuals.

    2. The UNPatriotic Act has always been simple for me; I was against it when an (R) was in power because I believed it was a power grab and unconstitutional....and I am still against it now that a (D) is in office.

    3. Anti-Business and anti-right wing speech? Spare me. What I am against is greed and fascism. Here is another irony; Americans are being trained to think that we are on the precipice of some socialist take over. But a closer look at the events of this country post 1980 reveals the opposite; we are gravitating towards fascism.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4473186]Your solution is a perfect world for Unions, whose manpower advantage and abillity/willingness to mobilize it's members in nay given jurisdiction would utterly crush anyone who went against them in ways a Corporation or Business could never manage in such small and insular jurisdictions.

    If thats truly your solution, why not take it out to it's logical conclusion. 1:1, i.e. direct Democracy.

    If 1:250,000 is bad, and 1:50,000 much better, how about 1:1000 or 1:100 or best of all, 1:1?[/QUOTE]

    Direct government will never work. 310,000,000 people voting on every freaking bill nothing else would get done.

    We are supposed to be a representitive Republic. Lets at least get the Ratio down to 1 to 100,000.

    My snarky response to your snarky response:


    Your solution is SMALLER GOVERNMENT.

    Make Warfish God-Emperor.

    Thus government is small.

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4473341]What I am against is greed and fascism, [B][U][COLOR="Red"]SELECTIVELY [/COLOR][/U][/B]. Whne it's right wing based I post. When it's Liberal based, I don't[/quote]

    Fixed your post. Honesty goes a long way.

    [quote]Here is another irony; Americans are being trained to think that we are on the precipice of some socialist take over. But a closer look at the events of this country post 1980 reveals the opposite; we are gravitating towards fascism.[/QUOTE]

    Nope, no bias here. :zzz:

  9. #9
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4473379]My snarky response to your snarky response:


    Your solution is SMALLER GOVERNMENT.

    Make Warfish God-Emperor.

    Thus government is small.[/QUOTE]

    Oh, I don't think you'd want that. True equality, freedom above all and liberty tempered by personal responsabillity and accountabillity?

    It would be hellish for some folks.;)

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4473384]Oh, I don't think you'd want that. True equality, freedom above all and liberty tempered by personal responsabillity and accountabillity?

    It would be hellish for some folks.;)[/QUOTE]

    Mostl of the hellish pain would come from watching the God-Emperor of the USA suck up to the Conservative posters on this board. It was painful enough when you were a mod. But as our nations leader... it'd be too much.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    A tidbit for the unintelligentjetsfans that blather endlessly about fascism:

    Fascism is a Corporatist-Socialist movement with industry control/ownership concentrated in the hands the government and organized labor.

    Government takes over major industries?

    Tells corporations where they can and can't set up shop to placate unions?

    Tells banks who to lend to at what rates?

    Gravitating towards fascism? It*'s already[B] been[/B] here courtesy of B. Hussein and the (D)generates

    [SIZE=1]*Cash for Commies reparations/redistribution offer good while private sector supplies last or November 6, 2012, whichever comes sooner[/SIZE]
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 05-21-2012 at 09:49 AM.

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4473391]Mostl of the hellish pain would come from watching the God-Emperor of the USA suck up to the Conservative posters on this board. It was painful enough when you were a mod. But as our nations leader... it'd be too much.[/QUOTE]

    Oh, I can assure you that I'd make them just as unhappy as I'd make the various suckling little tin-pot Socialists we have about.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4473571]Oh, I can assure you that I'd make them just as unhappy as I'd make the various suckling little tin-pot Socialists we have about.[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWyG9TU3ltw[/url]

    :D

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,418
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4473558]A tidbit for the unintelligentjetsfans that blather endlessly about fascism:

    Fascism is a Corporatist-Socialist movement with industry control/ownership concentrated in the hands the government and organized labor.

    Government takes over major industries?

    Tells corporations where they can and can't set up shop to placate unions?

    Tells banks who to lend to at what rates?

    Gravitating towards fascism? It*'s already[B] been[/B] here courtesy of B. Hussein and the (D)generates

    [SIZE=1]*Cash for Commies reparations/redistribution offer good while private sector supplies last or November 6, 2012, whichever comes sooner[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

    And here is a little tidbit for the Jets fans from the Jungle :rolleyes: who fail to offer a complete picture..........;

    There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides. Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[38][39] A major element of fascism that has been deemed as clearly far-right is its goal to promote the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements.

    Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right" although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult.[43] There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[35] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.

    Fascism is considered by certain scholars to be right-wing due to its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism. Robert Stackleberg places fascism including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism" on the right, explaining that "the more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-gr101-257[/url]

    The point is that there are many forms of fascism and it ranges across the political spectrum.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4473594]And here is a little tidbit for the Jets fans from the Jungle :rolleyes: who fail to offer a complete picture..........;

    There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides. Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[38][39] A major element of fascism that has been deemed as clearly far-right is its goal to promote the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements.

    Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right" although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult.[43] There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[35] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.

    Fascism is considered by certain scholars to be right-wing due to its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism. Robert Stackleberg places fascism — including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism" — on the right, explaining that "the more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."

    [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-gr101-257[/URL]

    The point is that there are many forms of fascism and it ranges across the political spectrum.[/QUOTE]

    And of course uncritical libs have to travel down an intellectual cul-de-sac by saying, No, no, when we mean fascist, we mean of course the Fascist American Right Wing / GOP , as (re)defined by Progressive Academia/Historians.

    What else can I expect from someone who draws upon Wikipedia for knowledge?

    "The right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements"? That has always been the province of the American/ European Left - the American Eugenics Society and The ABCL/Planned Parenthood.

    Fascism is "socially conservative"?- In no way does social conservatism ever subvert the individual in favor of the state.

    Now, back to your OWS communal toilet

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4473167]The real solution is to expand the membership of the House of Representatives. The 1st house was 1 member per 30,000 citizens now it is 1 member per 700,000 citizens.

    If each member represented 50,000 citizens money would not be as important to her as individual votes. She would not need to be on TV. In Theory it would be possible to meet every voter in the district during campaign season. It would also be easier for the electorate to see if their congressman is representing their interests or those of contributor out of the district. Some district will be pro-union some pro-business but fewer will be bought and sold.[/QUOTE]

    +1

    The best strategy to effectively decrease the political power of money is to increase the representative political power of each individual.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    19,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4473594]
    There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides. Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[38][39] A major element of fascism that has been deemed as clearly far-right is its goal to promote the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sounds like the Eugenics movement, which was famously left-wing. Who are these "scholars" anyways? Their attempts to clean up the extremist Left's image are failing.

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,403
    Post Thanks / Like
    don't kid yourselves folks,
    as long as Democrats and Republicans are the only 2 parties people vote for, the country will NEVER be returned "back to the people"

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,418
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;4475222]don't kid yourselves folks,
    as long as Democrats and Republicans are the only 2 parties people vote for, the country will NEVER be returned "back to the people"[/QUOTE]

    excellent post.

  20. #20
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4475224]excellent post.[/QUOTE]

    So which third party will YOU be voting for this year?;)

    It's very easy to denounce the Two-Party System.

    Far harder, it seems, to back that stance with your vote.

    I'm willing to be (D) has yours rather squarely locked up this election.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us