Eighth Circuit Upholds Corporate Contribution Restriction, Strong Disclosure Requirements
LINK TO OPINION HERE
Topic requested...
Topic requested...
DISCUSSIONS ON POLITICS, CIVIL RIGHTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND ANYTHING THAT TICKLES OUR FANCY "HOST BOB JOHNSON" CONTACT Us at A_DEMOCRACY@YAHOO.COM Please stay on topic and no personal attacks.
posted by Bob at Monday, May 16, 2011
On A Truth Seeking Mission A Democracy
The Black Background Represents The Dark Subjects We Debate - The White Print Represents The Pure And Simple Truth
*****YA ALL COME BACK NOW YA HEAR*****
9 Comments:
The payoffs and bribes from public corporations to politicians usually get to the politician either through his or her spouse.
Like this case is going to stop illegal campaign contributions give me a break !!!!
Umm, what illegal contributions? The 'Citizens United' ruling saw to it that corporations no longer have limits.
How an individual person is supposed to compete with a corporation is beyond me - yet the five conservatives on the court believe that corporations have the same rights as people and gave them the right to donate as much as they want to campaigns. Oh, they also forgot to list the restrictions on individuals giving.
So, currently I can give up to $4500 to a congressional campaign but Best Buy can give $100,000. So, when Best Buy wants to build a warehouse and ask for taxpayers dollars and tax breaks, but I suggest that since they are a private company and that the taxpayer would see an increase to make up for that revenue- who do you think will get their way?
It cost at least 1.5 million dollars for a House campaign, as long as politicians have to raise money to be elected, those who donate will always have more 'speech' than those who don't.
You want to end this legal corruption? Public financing of campaigns. Everyone gets the same amount and the only interest group is the taxpayers. So, instead of raising an average of $2055 per day (to get to the 1.5 million), they could be focusing on legislation that's best for the people and meeting with constituents.
Eric
Hey Eric, were your DemoRATS in any way responcible for voting against the bill to slash the
2 billion in tax breaks to BIG OIL ?
Shame Shame !!!!!
Three democrats are all that voted against the bill.
But having said that, the GOP that voted it down should pay at the polls and they will, mark my word .
12:40
No. The Democrats wrote and sponsored the bill. Not one Republican voted for it. I'm sure you'll find two or three Democrats from oil producing states voting against it.
Republicans voted to support the billions of tax dollars going to the oil companies, even though the oil companies were making billions in profits. As a matter of fact, they made more in profits than any other industry in American history.
But, it leads back to what I said about campaigns in my first post. Most of those republicans would be on the hook for finding lots of money to campaign with if they vote against the oil companies. They support the Republicans with cold hard cash to their campaigns (and the three Democrats that voted against it).
So, who wins? Oil companies. Who looses? American taxpayers. Why? Exxon which posted some of the biggest profits in history (19 billion dollars!!!) of any company paid about ZERO in federal dollars. They actually received a 150 million dollar refund check!!!
So, if they didn't pay any federal taxes, where did that refund come from? Us.
They got together with Chevron, Conoco, the Koch brothers and funded the tea party and many of their events and candidates. So, we get a guy like Scott Walker in Wisconsin who is the best example of the corporations over the people.
So, how many of you got a refund but paid nothing in taxes, besides Bill Dahn?
Eric
12:40 am aka Bill Dahn
What happens in Georgia great site at least members of the public who are not attorneys are fighting back
Why don't you just shut this blog down ? You take care of it like some of the landlords take care of their properties.
They ignore it .
And here is Eric all concerned about corruption! What a hypocrite.
Post a Comment
<< Home