http://www.muckety.com/maps/4166/George-Soros.png http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2009/07/george-soros-unholy-alliance-with-acorn.html http://community.marketwatch.com/gr...opicname=soros-has-project-install-democratic http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/the_soros_connection_in_the_mi.html http://www.secstateproject.org/ http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-forces-behind-obama-soros-and-acorn
When the Supreme Court first heard the case in March, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the FEC, was pulled into a discussion of an issue that took him down a slippery slope: If the movie were a book, would the government ban publishing the book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election time frame? Stewart said that it could. "That's pretty incredible," Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said. Then came questions about electronic devices such as the Kindle. "If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?" Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked. "That's correct," Stewart replied. "It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, 'And so vote for X,' the government could ban that?" Roberts asked. Bossie said this was the argument that turned a majority of the bench against the FEC and in favor of Citizens United. "That sent a chill down the Supreme Court," Bossie said. The argument became a "point of demarcation." Citizens United spent about $1.25 million in legal fees on the case -- so much, Bossie said, that it "makes you cry." But, he said, it was worth every dollar. "We have been trying to defend our First Amendment rights for many, many years," Bossie said. "We brought the case hoping that this would happen. . . . to defeat McCain-Feingold
Arnie ... It looks like you delved deeper into the issue here. Would you do me a favor and summarize your sentiment better. I am sincerely asking ... because I am interested.
I posted that excerpt from a news article on the SCOTUS decision so people who think this was a "bad" decision, can see that it really does go the heart of free speech. I'm no fan of big corporations, but if they were able to resrict their free speech, they can do this to anyone. Also of note is that this rule DID NOT apply to corporations involved in media. So the NYT, CNN , FOX et al could air anything they want, right up to electiojn time, while another corporation not involved in media would have been denied that right.
The reason this is a "bad" decision is because the money being spent by the corporations is going under the radar. The shareholders should be approving the money spent, at least in theory, right? What if you were a major shareholder in company A, and you found out company A were pimping a candidate you detested? It is the lack of oversight and control that makes this a poor decision. Why does that differ from other groups, like unions? Because the unions and union members are much more involved in the decision making process. They work in a collective manner. In a corporation, you could have one high level piece of shit just spend the money with no oversight whatsoever. The corporations oppose the collective process, as it puts the working class on an equal level with the ruling class. The unions are supposed to be representatives of their members... The corporations only represent the few individuals at the top of the pyramid of the corporations... Those who don't see this as a horrible decision, are the same ones who truly seek more destruction of the rights and standard of living of the average American, as it centralizes the power to influence elections in the hands of a few, with free money to play with (not even their own money!). The lack of oversight, the inability to regulate corrupt behavior, the corporate shield all make this as bad for a democracy as you can possibly get...
Shouldn't you be in Haiti? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4e601264cbdad356a9d677659aa5919c.51&show_article=1