I saw that. I didn't have time yesterday to look into the reasoning in detail but it sounds to me like a very bad decision.

Here's a reaction

The Problem isn't the law but the Court

I'm not sure if there is any legislative fix to this the way there was to Ledbetter. It doesn't sound like it. So either people will need to change the Constitution or change the Court. Of course there is nothing that says that society couldn't increase taxes on corporations or require equal access to media during elections for everyone-imperfect solutions though. Ultimately this all goes back to decisions granting corporations "personhood" imo.

China says US criticism over internet controls is unjustified and "information imperialism".
China Responds

This is how I understand this. Anyone weigh in if I'm wrong.

Right now there are limits on how much a corporation can contribute to any one political party. This "reversal" will allow all major corporations to pay millions/billions to whomever they want to support politically correct? Most of big business are usually "Republican" right? So you get a candidate who has nowhere near that kind of money, the other side will obviously get way more exposure giving that candidate a real edge. So any "little" guy (so to speak) won't stand a chance. The election can be bought??????

Also, this law has been in affect for years and years and was voted for change with a strictly partisan vote from a Supreme Court where the majority are Righties.

Weigh in and enlighten me. Tell me how it's fair. Oh, and DT or Kly, if you know, are there any legal options for those who oppose? I doubt it, but thought I'd ask.

TIS

"This "reversal" will allow all major corporations to pay millions/billions to whomever they want to support politically correct?"

No TIS, it won't. The ruling does not invalidate that part of the law which prohibits corporate contributions directly to candidates.

In any case, I support the ruling since it is consistent with the First amendment of the US Constitution which was, if anything, drafted and ratified to safeguard political speech.

I think that in life, at some point most people will have had cause to be upset over a romantic setback or rejection.

But this goes WAY beyond what most people would be willing to do in response...
Oracle President on Billboard

That ain't right. But Hell hath no fury, huh?

Ha ha ha!! I saw that this morning, but had no idea who these people were.



TIS

I agree, Oli. Here's a very sound article from today's Wall Street Journal (which is widely considered to be the most liberal of the 20 top selling newspapers in the country). My point being, there's no "right wing conspiracy" at work here. And if even the far left Wall Street Journal can see this for what it is (a free speech issue), then we, as Democrats, have to do the same.


A Free Speech Landmark

Campaign-finance reform meets the Constitution

The Wall Street Journal

Freedom has had its best week in many years. On Tuesday, Massachusetts put a Senate check on a reckless Congress, and yesterday the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision supporting free political speech by overturning some of Congress's more intrusive limits on election spending.

In a season of marauding government, the Constitution rides to the rescue one more time.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote yesterday's 5-4 majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which considered whether the government could ban a 90-minute documentary called "Hillary: the Movie" that was set to run on cable channels during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Because it was funded by an incorporated group and was less than complimentary of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, the film became a target of campaign-finance limits.

The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, aka McCain-Feingold, banned corporations and unions from "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Yesterday, the Justices rejected that limit on corporate spending as unconstitutional. Corporations are entitled to the same right that individuals have to spend money on political speech for or against a candidate.

Justice Kennedy emphasized that laws designed to control money in politics often bleed into censorship, and that this violates core First Amendment principles. "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," he wrote. The ban on corporate expenditures had a "substantial, nationwide chilling effect" on political speech, he added.

In last year's oral argument for Citizen's United, the Court got a preview of how far a ban on corporate-funded speech could reach. Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart explained that, under McCain-Feingold, the government had the authority to "prohibit the publication" of corporate-funded books that called for the election or defeat of a candidate.

That was a shock and awe moment at the Court, as it also should have been to a Washington press corps that has too often been a cheerleader for campaign-spending limits. Mr. Stewart was telling a truth already familiar to campaign-finance lawyers and the speech police at the Federal Election Commission. Former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky recalled yesterday that in 2004 the agency investigated whether a book written by George Soros critical of George W. Bush violated campaign laws. Liberals as much as conservatives should worry about laws that allow such investigations.

The Court's opinion is especially effective in dismantling McCain-Feingold's arbitrary exemption for media corporations. Thus a corporation that owns a newspaper—News Corp. or the New York Times—retains its First Amendment right to speak freely. "At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue," wrote Justice Kennedy. "This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment."

For instruction and sheer entertainment, we also recommend Justice Antonin Scalia's concurring opinion that demolishes Justice John Paul Stevens's argument in dissent that corporations lack free speech rights because the Founding Fathers disliked them. "If so, how came there to be so many of them?" Mr. Scalia writes, in one of his gentler lines.

The landmark decision—which overturned two Supreme Court precedents—has already sent the censoring political class into orbit. President Obama was especially un-Presidential yesterday, putting on his new populist facade to call it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies" and other "special interests." Mr. Obama didn't mention his union friends as one of those interests, but their political spending will also be protected by the logic of this ruling. The reality is that free speech is no one's special interest.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer vowed to hold hearings, and the Naderite Public Citizen lobby is already calling for a constitutional amendment that bans free speech for "for-profit corporations." Liberalism's bullying tendencies are never more on display than when its denizens are at war with the speech rights of its opponents.

Perhaps one day the Court will go even further and overturn Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 decision that was its original sin in tolerating limits on campaign spending. The Court did yesterday uphold disclosure rules, so a sensible step now would be for Congress to remove all campaign-finance limits subject only to immediate disclosure on the Internet. Citizens United is in any event a bracing declaration that Congress's long and misbegotten campaign-finance crusade has reached a Constitutional dead end.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A18

Ok, so I'm trying to understand how this is good. So it's not true then that the company/persons who has more money to pour into an election will NOT have an unfair advantage over whomever the other party is????? Or, to put it another way then, you all are saying that the right to spend money on an election trumps any idea of fair play to.

Btw, I'm not saying I am against this, but I am saying I don't understand it which is why I bought it up.


TIS

It's not a right to spend money. There is no such right embodied in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. However, there is a right to speech embodied therein and when composing and ratifying the First amendment it was political speech that was foremost in mind.

But it was right for him to f**k this woman for 8 1/2 years while he was married??

I believe in full unfettered political speech for people. I don't think that corporations are people or that money is speech.

I agree.

And Geoff, not taking pain meds because you wanna drink? Uhhh.

Geoff, sorry to hear about all of your pain and trouble with the dentist, but I hope you're doing better.

[quote=olivant
In any case, I support the ruling since it is consistent with the First amendment of the US Constitution which was, if anything, drafted and ratified to safeguard political speech. [/quote]

I support this ruling as well, before the SCOTUS rendered it's decision first amendment rights were being violated. And people saw nothing wrong with that.

Court documents in Alaska show Bristol Palin, daughter of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is seeking child support from her ex-boyfriend Levi Johnston. CNN said Friday that Bristol Palin, 19, is seeking child support payments from Johnston in the amount of $1,750 a month for the care of their 1-year-old son Tripp.

He should've already been paying child support after all it's his kid as well. But going by what olivant posted it would seem to me that he's a dead beat dad.

But then again I do not know all the details.

Alcohol is a pain med


Thanks, GG!

I haven't needed any meds the past couple days, thankfully. It doesn't really hurt any more, but I still cannot chew on it.

Iceman, it seems that this child has become a bargaining chip between Levi and the Palins. They say he's an irresponsible dad that won't pay for the child's support. He says that he won't pay because they won't allow him to see his son. This is very much turning into a "he said/she said" kind of thing.

Oh no, he's a piece of shit for sure. I just think it's healthier to let go and move on when you're in such a toxic relationship. Revenge doesn't benefit anyone in a case like this.

I don't know. It might make me feel a teensy bit better.

Okay, just a little .

Ooh, top of the page for Miss Babe.

Wal-Mart cutting 11,200 jobs at Sam’s Club. Amount is about ten percent of the staff at warehouse club retailer

NEW YORK - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Sunday it is cutting about 11,200 jobs at its Sam's Club warehouse division as it outsources in-store product sampling to marketing company Shopper Events in an effort to win more customers and boost lagging sales.

The terminations represent about 10 percent of the warehouse club operator's 110,000 staffers across its 600 stores. About 10,000 members of the demonstration department, most part-time workers, were let go. The company also cut its new business membership representative positions, affecting about 2 staffers per store, or about 1,200 staffers in total.

I wonder how she came at that dollar amount?

I don't know how it works in Alaska, but here in CA there's a formula they use taking into account both parties wages, children and the length of the marriage. Of course Levi and Bristol were never married, but for sure he'll still owe child support.

He was on Entertainment tonight or one of those shows just last week, and claims he's paid her about 40,000 all together so far. I don't know if it's true or not, but that's what he said. I do know he made something like 100,000 for posing in playboy. I'm sure he'll have to share profit.

TIS

If anyone wants to seem me in a bra, which I'm sure none of you do except maybe J Geoff, there will be pictures of me on Facebook for one week after the Super Bowl IF the Saints lose. I have a bet with my stepdaughters boyfriend. It will be entertaining for family and friends no matter who wins. I just hope the Saints win

Yeah, you've got someone completely out of the loop with football willing to root for the Colts now. (Me.)

And I'm sure Geoff will be, too.

Why limit the photo to Facebook? Post it here o the BB. I hear Victoria Secrets is having a great sale on lace bras.


TIS

How'd I get this rep?? What, flash a penis around a few times and all of a sudden I wanna see Blib's boobs??? lol

I was just predicting you'd also be going for the Colts...and that, uh, it'd happen to work out you'd get to see BL in a bra?

Yeahh, that sounds good.