I am sure that the republicans would never do such a thing, would they? Get real, both political parties are bought and paid for by special interests. Special interests that buy both sides of the aisle so, no matter who wins, their butts are covered.
The FEC ruled in 2007 that corporations and nonprofits did not have to reveal the identities of those who financed such ads. That regulation came in response to a Supreme Court ruling that gave more latitude to nonprofit groups like the Karl Rove-backed Crossroads GPS and the President Barack Obama-leaning Priorities USA on pre-election ads.
One such high-profile case, known as Citizens United, gave a green light for corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited sums of their cash on campaign ads. That effectively led to the expansion of "super" political action committees, which have expended more than $50 million on the Republican primary elections and are largely funded by wealthy donors.
____________________________________________________________
I see that both sides are doing the same thing from the first paragraph. And The second paragraph shows that both sides can do it according to the law.
But, my question is why only disclose the amount spent by one side and not the other as shown in the second paragraph? Or is none spent on the other side?
What a surprise Judge Berman Jackson is a Obama appointee - but I am sure that she has no political agenda....come on people its all politics all the time on both sides. The reason the dems hate this law is that the conservatives are finally able to match the liberal special interests and in some cases exceed them. I guarantee you that if the liberals thought that this law was a win for them, they would not be sitting on their high horse crying for transparency. We didn't hear a thing when they had the upper hand with the Unions but now that there is a little parity, they cry foul. Give me a break!
Let me help you here. THe Citizens United Case said that the federal government cannot restrict the AMOUNT that corporations can contribute to a campaign. THIS case was about the FEC overiding the requirement in McCain/Feingold that requires DISCLOSURE the names of any groups contributing more than $10,000 to campaign. The judge ruled correctly. WHy ANYONE on either side doesn't think it is a good idea to know WHO is contributing to a campaign is beyond me. And don't worry the democrats will have PLENTY of money for the campaign this year.
The hidden money in politics is corupt money. Election information should be honest and above board not under the table. The Supreme Court proved that they are corupted by approving this so-called "Citizens United" scandal.
Not surprising. A recent Obama appointee and clearly demonstrating they are running scared. Its all politics folks, the Supreme court already decided this. Citizens United case Judge Jackson. Where did you get your law degrees? Sears and Roebuck or its lifelong competition Harvard. Another Fluke advocate, where's Russ when you need him?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
The Supreme Court owes America an apology.
______________________________________________
Only One?
One such high-profile case, known as Citizens United, gave a green light for corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited sums of their cash on campaign ads. That effectively led to the expansion of "super" political action committees, which have expended more than $50 million on the Republican primary elections and are largely funded by wealthy donors.
____________________________________________________________
I see that both sides are doing the same thing from the first paragraph. And The second paragraph shows that both sides can do it according to the law.
But, my question is why only disclose the amount spent by one side and not the other as shown in the second paragraph? Or is none spent on the other side?
The judge is a graduate of Harvard Law School. You?