JerryS and michael reynolds,
I heard someone say that over 20 states have NO limitation on corporate expenditures in state elections (I cannot verify that easily), but if true, why haven't we heard of all the horror stories of corporations owning various states?
Regards,Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 16:51
She IS currently limited, she CANNOT give all she wants,easily.
She's limited to @$2,400 IF she donates to an opponent of her Congressman, in 1st primary and an equal amount to opponent in General Election.
She can contribute to a PAC(s) which probably do not address her specific objections. I think, but am not sure, if PAC contributions are also limited.
She could also set-up a 527, I guess, at I expect heavy costs, before spending dime one on message.
On the other side, the Washington Post can write suck-up articles every day for months for the Congressman (Whom they happen to love), electioneering masquerading as news.
NOTE: You can substitute Fox, The NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. for the Washington Post, the effect is the same. ALL corporations by the way, but apparently sacred.
I AM NOT about restricting media Corporations, just allowing EVERYONE to express themselves with the only restriction...disclosure.
I find it insulting you think the electoral process needs the reduction of Free Speech to function properly.
Regards,Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 16:43
I guess you don't get it.
I believe MORE rather than LESS Speech is the answer.
Also, you didn't tell me why my client should be muzzled.
Regards,Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 15:57
michael reynolds said:"Now, I don’t know just what ideology Republicans believe they are serving here. I thought Republicans opposed foreign influence in US elections. But apparently not, so long as they think they can achieve an electoral advantage."
michael, what scares you about FREE SPEECH which you have to stiffle?
Is it that like a good Liberal, you have to control the lives of the citizenry?
Regards,Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 15:39
Why do you hate business?
I expect soon there will be a drive to Prohibit Corporations employing individuals. God Forbid some small number of Foreign Corporations might hire individuals and brainwash them. We MUST protect potential employees from being brainwashed.
Is this next?
ps: this corporate hate is so much bs! bs= genderic opposite of cow pies.Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 15:34
Last post should say Liberals rather than Democrats.
Regards,Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 15:30
Nice take...Democrats are not so hot on Free Speech. To Democrats, Free Speech=Agree with us or we will shut you up.
Regards,Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 15:27
Actually, IF there is disclosure, I don't care if Hugo Chavez or George Soros spend billions. AND both are very likely to be against my point of view.
They already get plenty of favorable free press.
Regards,Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 15:04
Michael Reynolds & JerryS,
It seems that you are worried about the Large Corporations, There's the Fortune 500, I suspect there are 500 "Corporations" within 3 miles of where I type.
I have a client which is a Temp Agency, surrently a LLC, so not sure these rules apply, but for concepts sake, I'll presume they do.
The Local Congressman is strongly pro-Obamacare. The owner of the temp agency is actually a heavy Democrat, but due to the nature of the Temp Agency business, has had pre-2009 a $2 mil payroll, this year @$1.3 mil. The proposed payroll tax of 8% of those businesses who do not offer health care to employees, would have been @$160,000 in previous years, and @100,000 in 2009. In a business which has had a net profit of @125,000 in previous years, and will be @$50,000 in 2009, this puts them out of business. AND, being an EVIL Corporation you folks despise, they would be prohibited from challenging the Congressmen. Makes sense to me.
Of Course there is a Foreign connection, the owner celebrates her Irish heritage, even though she was born in Upstate NY.
Regards,Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 13:17
Michael Reynolds said:"Dragon:...This is nonsense and you know it. We have more than two centuries of a free press. Those rights could not be dependent on a finding that corporations are persons because corporate personhood came after, not before."
There was a time 233 years ago when we ALSO had Freedom of Speech. I do realize that Freedom of the Press paramount, freedom of speech you disagree with...not so much.
Regards,Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 13:06