Results 1 to 10 of 68

Threaded View

  1. #13
    JMS
    JMS is offline
    Usagi Yojimbo JMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ramona California
    Posts
    6,858
    Thanked: 792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PA23-250 View Post
    Let's just clarify here: what that decision did was allow corporations & unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign ads, where previously, the amount that could be spent was limited. No way can Joe Bloggs hope to compete w/ those monsters. The voice of the individual (as opposed to massive moneyed interests) could well & truly be washed out of the picture here. Sorry, but I fail to see how this is a good thing for democracy.
    Corporations are made up of people are they not? Just as unions are but under the previous laws the unions had the advantage but now its even.

    This is a first amendment issue which states:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    I made bold the part that should make it clear that the court did strike a blow for the first amendment and not against it as you believe

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to JMS For This Useful Post:

    59caddy (01-24-2010)

Posting Permissions

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