[Spencer Daily Reporter nameplate] A Few Clouds ~ 70°F  
High: 72°F ~ Low: 51°F
Monday, July 28, 2014

SCOTUS and the Campaign Finance Ruling

Posted Friday, January 22, 2010, at 11:02 PM

I can't help but think that the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday is a REALLY bad thing for the United States. Or will we now be the United Corporations of America?

I think that we can all agree that the winner isn't always the best person for the job, but rather the one with the deepest pockets. Now Corporations, Wall Street, and other special interest groups can spend as much money as they want to manipulate policies and elections in their own self interests. Will this just lead to further corporate control of our government?

What are your thoughts?


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Money is the root of all evil.

-- Posted by jusamom on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 10:14 AM

Corporation = person. This is where the first Common Sense Alarm ought to be going off! As I see it this debate started in 1886 with a ruling by the supreme court in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886). That case was fairly unremarkable. The railroad didn't want to pay taxes. What was remarkable was what the court didn't write. In these procedings a court reporter, in this case, J.C.Bancroft Davis, is charged with writing a header to the courts descision. It just summarizes what was decided. In it he wrote ""The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

Chief Justice Morrison Waite looked it over and said it was substantially correct and let it go at that. What just happened? Corporations were given the status of 'legal persons', as opposed to 'natural persons'(that's you and me) and were afforded the rights (mostly) of a natural person under the 14th ammendment to the constitution. This is called an obiter dictum, or a passing remark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara...

Common sense alarm?

I do not think this was the intent of our founding fathers when they framed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As a matter of fact some of them warned against this very thing.

Al Gore argues that, because of the 1886 decision, "the monopolies in commerce' that Jefferson had wanted to prohibit in the Bill of Rights were full-blown monsters crushing competition from small businesses, bleeding farmers with extortionate shipping costs, and buying politicians at every level of government".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_p...

Note: Three of the judges, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas were on the majority side that stopped the recount in Florida in 2000.

Want to see Obama chipped off. Watch this flic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23...

Why isn't the GOP? We're all in the same pool and big business just peed in it. Nobody wants fascism, right? When big business controls the government, that is a pretty good definition.

Well if I'm going to talk about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, I should at least listen to what they have to say. So, I went to their site.

http://www.citizensunited.org/about.aspx

The big letters said, "Citizens United-Dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control".

The small letters said, "Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise,strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens".

American Sovereignty Project

American Sovereignty Project ("ASP") is the grassroots lobbying arm of Citizens United that

works to protect American sovereignty and security. ASP's major objectives include complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations, defeat of the treaty to establish a permanent U.N.-

controlled International Criminal Court, and rejection of one-world government."

That little voice of mine that has saved my bacon soooo many times was saying "It's time to go now."

So I watched the movie that started the most recent round of fighting. It's called "Hillary, the movie" Got a couple of hours?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

This movie really does a number on the Clintons, especially Hillary. I mean this sucker drew blood. It's a little dated. It has John Edwards asking why Hillary doesn't just go into 'tell the truth mode'. And it has that delicate little rose pedal Ann Colter in it. It doesn't really matter what they say about them. I didn't like them anyway. How can I look up to an impeached president? Many people don't even know that he was impeached and what he did to the office of President was no big deal. Those people are kind of disappointing too.

I would just like to say that the decision of the Supreme Court the other day was really scary. This is not a partisan issue. Everybody should be alarmed.

-- Posted by Lee51 on Sun, Jan 24, 2010, at 5:35 AM

First of all, I must say that it's the love of money that is the root of all evil. A conservative acquaintance of mine accused Branstad of being only about money. Yes, he talks about the budget, but that's because it's in a mess. And yes he will receive millions of dollars in support and that's because he has a face and a name people recognize. I disagree that he now can receive those millions from corporations. No one should be able to do that. The only way I would agree with that is if corporations ran their own commercials showing their corporate support for candidates. I don't agree with writing anonymous (or at least not publicized) checks to politicians. I want a politician that is willing to stand up to certain corporations (i.e. drug companies) not take handouts from them. It's a very dangerous game that will now commence, and at a very critical time. By the way, thanks Lee for doing your research. Many people are willing to ramble away in a message board or blog but very few actually look things up and go into meticulous detail as you did. I wish more people would do more research and think more before they speak. Those are my thoughts.

Thanks.

-- Posted by Gabe Licht on Tue, Jan 26, 2010, at 11:34 AM

Money is far from the root of all evil. If I put a $100 bill on the table, it will just lie there. It is the person who possesses the $100 bill that decides if it will be used for good or evil. Everything is personal choice - money has no will or decision making ability.

As for campaign finance reform. A person can spend his or her money however they choose, but I have a problem with corporate sponsored candidates, especially when those corps are using profits to buy politicians rather than create jobs or increase pay and benefits to hard working employees.

-- Posted by randy cauthron on Tue, Jan 26, 2010, at 4:26 PM

Money is the root of evil. If it wasn't we would not have children dying over the sneakers they wear, or 'good neighborhoods' or homeless. Money feeds greed and the need for more money. Anytime that money can influence anything it will not have a good outcome.

If you leave that $100 said dollars on your table it might sit there for you, but others may see it and do anything in their power to obtain it. It might not be your idea of evil but to others it is. You take away all money and have to trade or barter for things and you will see a whole new USA.

-- Posted by jusamom on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 11:07 AM

You can not blame money, guns, or any other object for the actions taken by people. We better do away with rocks because someone might pick one up and hit somebody with it. You better outlaw cars because a drunk driver might get behind the wheel of one and hurt somebody. No humans and their actions determine good and evil - not objects.

-- Posted by randy cauthron on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 2:06 PM

You can not honestly sit there and deny that if money were taken out of our lives that there would be a lot less hate in the world. A lot less crime, and a lot more love and respect and getting along. I think you missed the word GREED in there. Humans are just that-human and are succumbed by temptation. Without the money they would not have the temptation. Plain as that.

When you start letting corporations give whatever they want to one politician over another it is a big money game. And how can this be favorable for our people? The more money you have the better the chances of your guy winning. And once again, money is the key factor. Not always the solution nor the best for the USA in my eyes.

-- Posted by jusamom on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 7:38 PM

Actually "The love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10, KJV)is the real quote. I believe it refers to greed. Profit is not a dirty word. If a business goes out of business for lack of profit, how does that help anybody. But greedy corporations or people frequently put money over their morals. That can get pretty ugly.

-- Posted by Lee51 on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 11:09 PM

jusamom, if money were taken out of our lives, people would be greedy and fight over possessions, land, politics, etc. Money is just a piece of paper. The meaning behind it- the ability to gain power, necessities, etc- and the things greedy people will do to acquire those things is the root of all evil. Tribal societies who exchange goods and services for other goods do not use money and they still experience problems. Humans were human long before someone invented the printing press.

-- Posted by notinia on Thu, Jan 28, 2010, at 10:49 AM

USA, Inc.

The only thing stopping a corp run country is a strong, effective gov't. Nobody or nothing else can stand up to big business on behalf of the individual. That's why big business is always trying to get us to vote to weaken and shrink the gov't. Think about it, and always, always, follow the $.

-- Posted by helped_myself on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 5:33 PM

You get rid of money and someone will still have more "goats and chickens" then everyone else. There's always going to be a person "wealthier." That's just part of us as humans. Maybe it's the desire to be wealthy is the root of the evil here. Doesn't really matter what it is.

When the rich wage war it's the poor who die.

-Jean-Paul Sartre

-- Posted by _Samantha_ on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 3:27 PM

If we allow these Unions, George Soros, and all these stupid groups to contribute, why can't corporations? Which by the way is the only reason this crook we have in office made it. Corporations have more at stake than the individuals, you should want your company to get people in office who are going to look after them. That means they will look after you.

We have groups that are able to spend like crazy to get crazies in office. These crazies(Obama, Pelosi, Reed, So on) put corporations last. No wonder our economy is in a shamble. We spend all this money on junk(can't even call it science anymore) thought like global warming. Now that we have the facts, the facts were made up(which doesn't even cut it in a 5th grade science project), we should end all funding.

When the rich get richer, so does everyone else. I can't believe the vote was even that close. It has been awhile since the Supreme Court actually upheld the constitution instead of making a gut judgment. We have tried to take away the advantage that money gives one, that is stupid. People work hard to make more money. The incentive is that money can buy them things, aka advantages. If we do not allow that why work hard. Everyone has the choice to take a shower, shave, and work hard. Everyone also has the choice to be average. Why do we reward average. The rich should be glorified to inspire people. They should not be demonized by people who were to lazy to try to achieve.

-- Posted by DOWNWITHDEMS on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, at 2:06 PM

Down, Please educate yourself with facts before posting. Corporations have always been able to give to campaigns in the form of PACs. They regularly ask all employees to join their PAC, I know I get the requests and have for years. Now, the corporations don't need to even do that. They can just take from their general fund accounts. Also, they don't even have to be American owned companies, just incorporated in America.

How has that "letting corporations look after you" and "we all get richer if the rich get richer" working out? Health care costs out of control, economic meltdowns, unsafe consumer products of all kinds, etc. Believe me, corporations are not about blue or red but green. Give me any example and I'll show you how the corporate decision is tied back to increasing the bottom line. In terms of real dollars, the average workers income has been stagnant at best for the last 30 years, while expenses increased. Since it takes American consumer spending to run the world economy, the shortfall had to come from somewhere and corporations gladly offered it in credit.

As far as SCOTUS goes, the 5 that voted to overturn 100 years of precident all stated in their congressional questioning that they believed in Stare Decisis. So, they must have lied and now qualify to be accused of writing the law from the bench and being an activist court.

-- Posted by helped_myself on Mon, Feb 8, 2010, at 9:31 AM

Profit is a good thing. It is why people go into business and take the risk. Health care costs are on the rise for numerous reasons. No caps on lawsuits, forced to provide care to illegals, not allowing people to buy across state lines, and insurance companies have to provide certain benefits across the board. Those problems are easy to fix and costs would go down dramatically. When the government gets involved it will drive costs up and care down.

Helped_Myself the only thing you ever helped yourself to is other peoples money. You liberals are always demonizing corporations, why? I think it is jealousy. You wish you had the power and resources they do. These companies provide jobs for everyone. If you liberals wouldn't mandate they have to hire certain people, provide certain benefits(to all), can't fire who they want, maybe we could keep some of them in this country. Unfortunately like everything else liberals have destroyed American Industry. I suppose that murdering, sexual harassing, drunk Teddy was a hero of yours.

Thank you Supreme Court for getting one right. We can finally silence the loud voice of lunacy that has been coming from the other side.

-- Posted by DOWNWITHDEMS on Mon, Feb 8, 2010, at 12:48 PM

Profit is good. How it's made is the issue. Some of the recent record profits made by the banks came from taking the TARP $ that was supposed to be loaned to small businesses (which provide more jobs than big business) and instead was used to buy TBills, which the Federal Gov't then pays interest on. Free Federal $ to the banks with no risk of the banks own capital.

Non partisan accounting organizations have stated that Tort Reform will only lower health care costs by 2%. There are states that have already done that and costs have not decreased. And the insurance companies have stated that they still would not lower their malpractice premiums to doctors.

Why are insurance companies the only industry exempt from anti trust laws?

I probably pay more in taxes than you earn in a year. And gladly do so. I want to live in a healthy educated caring productive society. Those that strive to be the sickest, poorest, stupidest can do so on their own.

People that can help themselves but don't shouldn't expect support. But what are your answers to what to do for those that can't help themselves, like kids, elderly, disabled, war victims, disaster victims? Ignore them? What about those that worked for 30 years and are now btwn jobs and have no health insurance? Why are there so many fund raisers to pay for medical bills for people that have health insurance.

As far as name calling, it speaks for itself about you.

-- Posted by helped_myself on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 10:48 AM

I would be happy to trade tax returns with you. I would love to live in a healthy productive society. Unfortunately those that choose to remain uneducated, unhealthy, and unproductive are the people you want to take care of. Not me let them fend for themselves. It is ludicrous that more than 55% of my income goes to the government. They didn't sweat for that money, I did. I took the risk, not them. Why are they more heavily rewarded than I. I know that Exxon has had record profits because oil prices went through the rough. Farmers also had record profits too(even the little farmer), were you demonizing them. Insurance companies are not the only companies that do not fall under antitrust laws. Ever heard of pro sports?

There are reform measures that will work and tort reform is one of them. Look at Texas, they were losing health providers. They reformed there health system, malpractice insurance was cut in half. They are gaining doctors at record rates. Meanwhile Hawaii and Mass who have either tried or have socialized medical systems have gone bankrupt for it. Health insurance should be portable which is what the RIGHT side is saying. To have it tied to an employer is idiotic.

Lets take the small percentage of people that actually need government assistance and provide it to them. Then lets take the large majority of those receiving government assistance and make them fend for themselves(like I do). Making insurance companies compete is a big factor in driving down costs. In Iowa I bought a policy with a $10K deductible per person and paid $500/month. Across state lines I was able to buy a policy with $5k deductible for $265/month. Same benefits. Also why not make it so you can customize your policy and make it so individuals can form groups. These are great ideas. I do not want to pay for mental illness benefits, or sex change, or fertility treatment. Let people that want to pay for those things be in a group and pay a higher premium. Right now it is not allowed to do that. I think fertility treatment should not be covered by insurance, nor should sex change, or adoption, or a lot of this garbage. All these things are not medical necessities and drive up the cost of your and my insurance.

We should not have given out TARP. We should not have bailed out the Unions. GM and Chrysler should have broke the unions, they could actually become profitable again. I would rather have the banks and exxon being profitable, than GM and Chrysler giving all their money to the Union thugs and losing money every year.

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social

Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be

Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay

1% of the first $1,400 of their annual

Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65% (plus Employer pays 7.65%)

3.) That the money the participants elected to put

into the Program would be deductible from

their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4..) That the money the participants put into the

independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the

general operating fund, and therefore, would

only be used to fund the Social Security

Retirement Program, and no other

Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to

The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees

would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore

Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are

now receiving a Social Security check every month --

and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of

the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put

away' -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the

independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the

general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically

controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax

deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social

Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, wit h Al Gore casting the

'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the

Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start

giving

annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,

began to receive Social Security payments! The

Democratic Party gave these payments to them,

even though they never paid a dime into it!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

-- Posted by DOWNWITHDEMS on Tue, Feb 9, 2010, at 11:54 AM

Glad to see you can cut and paste. So you honestly believe that the majority of people receiving aid don't need it....hmmmm. Is that based on empirical evidence or real data? I can go dig up hundreds of critical facts about Republicans and complimentary facts about Democrats but that doesn't solve anything. Why are you so angry? Don't you get tired of being outraged and pessimistic all of the time?

America is the best. We've dealt with much worse than what you're complaining about. Sure there are problems in every type of organization like religion, the military, businesses, etc. So, identify and fix the problems. Don't just adovate walking away from all the good that is done for people that deserve to be helped.

If you pay 55% in taxes you need a new tax guy.

-- Posted by helped_myself on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 9:02 AM

I don't need a new tax guy, I guess I need to make less money. Lets look at welfare. For every dollar allocated to welfare over $.25 of that dollar is for bookkeeping. I don't know about you but bookkeeping runs me about $.5 of every dollar and is a lot more efficient than the government. Welfare recipients can have cell phones, What? Does that make sense? In some states like Ohio, you can inherit money and stay on welfare. Illegal immigrants get welfare. In Iowa we will pay for you to have multiple kids on our dime, but will not pay to fix the problem until you are 25(maybe 27) or had 3 kids. Why don't we correct the problem after the first one.

Leftists say that doing such things infringes on their rights. Well I think when you expect others to pay for your living you are infringing on our rights. We should be the ones that have some say in your life if you take money from us. Obviously these welfare lifers can't support themselves, what are they doing having kids. You should have to pass a drug test to get money as well. If you are "looking" for a job, you will need to be able to pass a drug test to get it. Well you better be able to pass one to get state funds.

There are people that really do need help, but I ask you to honestly look at the abusers. It is a huge percentage, well over half, that are capable of making a living but don't. We provide them with to much which gives them no incentive to work hard. It is like raising the taxes on the rich. You create no incentive for people to work harder.

Your justification of wasting billions of dollars every year is the ones that truly need the help. I am with you. Let's take some of this stimulus money we have laying around and investigate everyone receiving a check. People physically and mentally capable of work, lets cut them off. I am tired of buying votes for the democrats. We can cut them off and save billions a year. Let us also investigate illegal aliens with some of this stimulus and send them packing. Then we will have work available for the people we just fired from the government tit.

It is simple to find illegals and abusers, I see them every day. In every city show up to Home Depot and you can deport 50 a day. Drive into the low income districts look at the cars, tvs, phones, and everything else. It is easy to see who really doesn't need the money.

America was a great nation and can be again. We have to get back to our roots. We have to be self reliant, not government reliant. We have to be proud of our nation, not apologetic. We need to have the attitude and the will power to defeat our enemies. We need to stop being a bunch of oversensitive cry babies. We have to get rid of politically correct lifestyle.

-- Posted by DOWNWITHDEMS on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 10:58 AM

You don't think that people on Welfare should have the ability to call 911? Why the problem with them having phones?

-- Posted by stafinois on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 2:48 PM

You think that is all they have cell phones for. And no I don't think it is my responsibility to provide you communication of any form. Welfare should provide no more than the minimum amount to sustain existence. It is not there to provide a quality life. If you want a quality life and a quality of life earn it like the rest of us have to.

People who want a hand out need only the necessities at most. Food, Water, and Shelter. Not tv, internet, cell phone, home phone, cigarettes, alcohol, or any other of the crap they run around with. It you want to dig in your pocket book to provide more to people, do it, don't make me.

It is no wonder Spencer is failing. To many people focused on art, parks, beauty, and other leftist priorities. If you want to help people do it on your dime, don't steal my money and give it to people who are undeserving.

-- Posted by DOWNWITHDEMS on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 4:12 PM

If only this were a place of leftish priorities! I often feel that I'm a Smurf drowning in the Red Sea.

-- Posted by stafinois on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 4:26 PM

If only the Liberals were able to fend for themselves, maybe they could start their own land. That way the wouldn't ruin ours. Unfortunately they are not capable of doing anything on their own, they need other people to provide everything for them. It is pretty sad and pathetic. I don't know how anyone who lives like that can sleep at night. Pretty easy I guess since I probably bought them a new bed.

It is funny how we tell our children taking things from others is wrong. I guess you teach your kids taking things from others is wrong unless they have more than you do. Great parenting.

-- Posted by DOWNWITHDEMS on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, at 11:32 PM

Nah, my parents taught me, and I am teaching my child, to share. You know, "Sharing is Caring?" Barney is such a commie.

-- Posted by stafinois on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 9:51 AM

Your comment about liberals fending for themselves made me think of this funny that was passed around extensively a few years ago: http://bit.ly/bIImbM

-- Posted by stafinois on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 10:49 AM

Well I guess I will come over and take your car. I need some groceries, so I will help myself to what is in your pantry. Sharing is a great thing, but forcing people to share what they have with someone they do not want to is wrong. What gives you or anyone the right to determine how to distribute my money. Especially when most of it goes to people undeserving. Why don't liberals pony up for all these worthy causes. The average conservative donates more than %10 of their gross income to charity. The average liberal less than 3%. You liberals have all the causes, but they aren't worthy enough for you to donate any of your own money.

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show.

Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/el...

If everyone would pony up for what they believe in the world would be a better place. I don't use the library, the parks, or care about art, why should I contribute. I am more than happy to fund medical research and golf course development. I do not want to give my to teach children to have safe sex and abortions. I want to teach our children not to have sex, that is a better choice. I don't want to fund starving people in third world countries, maybe you haven't notice it does no good. If you want to donate, that is your choice. I would rather give my money to homeless vets.

The point is you liberals want to take my money and tell me how I should spend it. Why do you think that is right? Your causes are justified to you, but complete foolishness to me. Fund them with your own money, the problem is you don't have any.

Easy to fix. Step 1-Take a shower. Step 2- stop using drugs. Step 3-Get a job. Step 4-work harder then everyone else at your job. Step 5-you are successful. Simple.

-- Posted by DOWNWITHDEMS on Fri, Feb 12, 2010, at 12:08 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Aimee graduated from Spencer High School in 1994, and then moved to a large city on the west coast. She returned to Spencer in 2007. Aimee spent more than a decade in veterinary medicine and dog training, and now works in a public library. She lives with her husband, daughter, two dogs, and a cat.
Hot topics
The Hazardous Life of a Pedestrian
(1 ~ 3:25 PM, May 2)

Discrimination is the Pits
(4 ~ 9:50 AM, Jan 8)

Subway's Sportsman of the Year and the New Face of Nike
(8 ~ 12:33 PM, Jul 12)

Birthers and Balderdash
(13 ~ 8:08 PM, May 4)

Courteous Winter Driving
(3 ~ 7:13 PM, Feb 3)