Company A starts up a subsidiary, which starts a subsidiary “Co B”, which starts a subsidiary “WorkAtHome.com”, which then buys ads backing a politician.
The ads say “Brought to you by WorkAtHome.com”.
Makes it hard for joe public to connect the dots when 6 months later Company A gets a big no-bid government contract.

Now last time I checked, a corporation is made up of stockholders and employees, all of whom get a vote if they are an American citizen, and all of whom can chip in money to support a politician…but that was not enough. Now a corporation can spend all its money to get the right judges elected so that someday corporations can be allowed to marry, just like hetrosexuals. Divorce lawyers are already smiling over the idea.

Uh, the Court ruled that corporations can run ads whenever they want and as often as they want. That’s it. They still can’t give more than the allotted amount of money in donations to a campaign. Besides, you don’t think cover organizations weren’t already currently being used to funnel money to political campaigns?

How long was Obama taking completely anonymous online ‘credit card’ donations? Oh, this is ok but if a corporation actually exercises it’s right to SPEEK then democracy is in shambles?

Feldstein: What’s wrong with the economy?
Rick Moran is rational on campaign finance and the Court
Who made money on the swine flu hysteria?
Pold seem oblivious to all of the IPCC scandals which, to me, discredit the entire IPCC. Senators pers…

Now last time I checked, a corporation is made up of stockholders and employees, all of whom get a vote if they are an American citizen, and all of whom can chip in money to support a politician…but that was not enough. Now a corporation can spend all its money to get the right judges elected so that someday corporations can be allowed to marry, just like hetrosexuals. Divorce lawyers are already smiling over the idea.

(1) Voters are idiots. If they see an ad (which also declares who paid for it) they will believe it.
(2) Given point (1), voters must be sheltered from speech by groups liberals deem to be nefarious or corrupt - therefor free speech is only ‘given’ to those liberals feel are worthy of it.

Someone should let Microsoft in on this too - making the Zune more popular than the iPod is apparently only a matter of purchasing enough advertising.

Do you liberals realize that in the court brought before the Supreme Court that the lawyer defending the status quo admitted that the status quo could be used to ban books if that book had a political point of view and was paid for by a corporation?

Liberals and the liberal perspective dominate media and news corporations - I find it amusing that now that corporations can now actually defend themselves in the court of public opinion against a government (which regulates them) and news media that stoke populist rage against them we’ve somehow seen the death of democracy.

All the advertisements that can be bought up by corporations will still not even come close to surmounting the air time of liberal views that are the day-in-day-out fare of most news and media programs.

Got it…. 10-4

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,

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,