Unlimited Corporate Election Spending to be Revisited?

[Ed~]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-s...b_1286029.html

Looks like Montana's Supreme Court's decision NOT to allow unlimited Corporate donations for campaign financing may lead to a revisiting of the Supreme Court's "Citizen's United" ruling two years ago.

-Are Corporations really People?
-Is money really Free Speech?

In my opinion, Citizen's United was the clearest example of our country being ruled by an Oligarchy... sham elections for one of two sham presidential candidates each time.

I truly hope this case gets enough press to spawn an outcry to force the Supreme Court to change their tune on this one.

[Ed~]

If this issue isn't in your sights, then maybe this number is:

$7,000,000,000.00

That's the projected 2012 election campaign for President and Congress campaign contributions: upwards of 7 Billiion Dollars!

And the folks giving all that money isn't expecting a bumper sticker in return.

You think Democracy is Free? Indeed, it was paid for by the blood of our fathers and forefathers and passed down to us. But it's being stolen right now as we speak.

Stolen... along with the blood of our son's and daughters sent into wars to protect their interests -not ours.

http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-...llion3276.html

[hstout1143]

They aren't looking for a handshake and a steak dinner for that kind of money, nor do they have the best interest of the American people in mind either.

[armoredman]

All for a job that pays $400,000 a year...

[Eddie N]

Originally Posted by armoredman

All for a job that pays $400,000 a year...

Somebody's being overpaid.

[45Auto]

Ed, you are right on the money.

(Though I did not intend that as a pun, it came out that way.)

[56Python]

Originally Posted by Ed~

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-s...b_1286029.html

Looks like Montana's Supreme Court's decision NOT to allow unlimited Corporate donations for campaign financing may lead to a revisiting of the Supreme Court's "Citizen's United" ruling two years ago.

Am I reading this wrong or are they implying that the Montana Supreme Court can force the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling. I don't believe the author of this editorial has studied our constitution.
The way I read the article, the MSCourt rule in opposition to the USSCourt , who then blocked Montana from implementing their ruling.


Direct quote from the article:

“On Friday night, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Montana Supreme Court's December, 2011 decision upholding the state's century-old ban on corporate political spending.”