View Single Post
Old 01-18-2013, 01:35 PM   #34
Mr. Kotter Mr. Kotter is offline
Lookin' for the answers...
Mr. Kotter's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Somewhere else
Casino cash: $12056
Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
I don't have a problem with that except the bolded part. It looks like the "SuperPACs" were created by the court of appeals for the DC circuit. I'd like to see that issue bumped to the Supreme Court rather than be addressed by amendment.

Citizens United vs. the FEC was a 2009/2010 US Supreme Court case that did precisely what you are suggesting. They addressed it, and in a 5-4 decision....the conservative justices on the court became the very judicial "activists" they so often demonize and criticize by creating a new interpretation (SHAZAAM!) of the first amendment that says, in essence, that unlimited amounts of money donated from secret and nefarious sources to support or defeat certain political candidates/ballot issues in, now, considered "speech." (As long as it is spent by "third parties/special interest groups/PACs" and not the directly by the parties or candidates themselves.)

It leaves open the practice of candidates selling themselves to the highest bidders (highly partisan Super-PACS, masquerading as special interest groups, or third parties.) Hence, you have groups like and the Koch Bros-backed "SuperPacs" whoring themselves publicly....hiding behind thinly-veiled claims they are merely exercising their first amendment accord with the Citizens United decision.

Ain't partisan politics that ensure plutocrats, corporations, and the wealthy continue to OWN our government grand???

The court was given an opportunity to revisit the issue last summer, but declined.
Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel...

Last edited by Mr. Kotter; 01-18-2013 at 02:10 PM..
Posts: 40,518
Mr. Kotter has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote