Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Leftist Coup: The Best Midterms San Francisco & New York Could Buy San Francisco and New York billionaires buying elections in Pennsylvania and Nevada is not democracy. It’s oligarchy.


OldBrownsFan

Recommended Posts

Just now, tiamat63 said:

Jesus Christ,  Cal

Tiam this is a political comment board. That article makes an excellent point about the money in politics and how wrong it is. Is it one sided in that it is only talking about the dems money machine sure but that is where someone can post how the money machine  affects the republican side as well. The bottom line is that our elections have gotten way out of whack with too much money buying races.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh now we're going to complain about billionaires spending political dollars? right now? just now? 

shut right the fuk up. Wasnt there a supreme court ruling just a few years ago that set the table for this? and was it not certain liberals. like john stewart for example, that we posted his response here to that ruling where he correctly predicted this whorseshit? 

fuk i hate so many of u.....the seething hypocrisy is so utterly galling i question whether some of u are actual humans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark U.S. constitutional law, campaign finance, and corporate law case dealing with regulation of political campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010, that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.[2][3]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 24, 2009
Reargued September 9, 2009
Decided January 21, 2010
Full case name Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
Docket nos. 08-205
Citations 558 U.S. 310 (more)
130 S. Ct. 876; 175 L. Ed. 2d 753; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 766
Argument Oral argument
Reargument Reargument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Prior history Motion for preliminary injunction denied, 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008);[1]probable jurisdiction noted, 555 U.S. 1028 (2008).
Holding
The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

Tjomas, roberts, alito, scalia and kennedy......they voted for this shiit. This is the conservative courts doing......fuk u cal

This is from Vox which as you probably know already is not a right wing site:

Citizens United is not to blame for the money-in-politics problem - Vox

It’s time for liberals to get over Citizens United

Most widespread in liberal circles is the idea that Citizens opened the floodgates to massive amounts of corporate spending in politics. But as many legal scholars have argued, the floodgates were already open. Citizens is not responsible for the massive amounts of money showered on favored candidates. Nor is it responsible for the rise of so-called dark money in politics.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/7/17325486/citizens-united-money-politics-dark-money-vouchers-primaries

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...