Subscribe via RSS Feed

Giving Away the Show

[ 8 ] January 10, 2012 |

The Supreme Court was right yesterday; campaign expenditures are not the equivalent of other kinds of political speech.   Now. if it would only apply this logic to other campaign finance cases…

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. c u n d gulag says:

    Oh, goody!

    The SCOTUS was just like Ron Paul is on a couple of issues like dope and war – right, but for the wrong reason.

    Oh, and does the SCOTUS seriously think that resident aliens, and foreign individuals and corporations can’t, or won’t, launder their money before contributing to some candidates Super-PAC?

    I know that 5 of them are stupid and heartless, I just never realized that they were this naive, as well.

  2. marc sobel says:

    Citizen’s United is like term limits, a money saving cost control to make it cheaper to control elected officials.

    I mean if they tried to restrict foreign corporations, that would be a problem.

  3. L2P says:

    Couldn’t a foreigner just incorporate in the state and start donating away through their corporation? Wasn’t that the whole point of Citizen’s United?

  4. Matt says:

    Shorter Supremes: No, you can’t just give foreign money to candidates. Do we need to write down the Chamber of Commerce’s number for you?

  5. LosGatosCA says:

    I think the obvious point is that resident aliens could be the wrong color or political persuasion, contributing to unpatriotic Democratic candidates while resident aliens with the means to incorporate have earned corporate citizenship rights and are also more likely to contribute to self-proclamed patriotically superior Republicans.

    It’s the type of money and where it’s likely headed that makes the difference.

  6. Precisely acceptable stuff! here and I just wanted to give you a quick heads up.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site