Unlimited Corporate Election Spending to be Revisited?

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Ed~, Feb 21, 2012.

  1. Ed~

    Ed~ New Member

    Jan 24, 2012

    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.
  2. Ed~

    Ed~ New Member

    Jan 24, 2012
    If this issue isn't in your sights, then maybe this number is:


    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.


  3. hstout1143

    hstout1143 Well-Known Member

    Jan 3, 2012
    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.
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2012
  4. armoredman

    armoredman Active Member

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

    Eddie N New Member

    Apr 23, 2009
    Somebody's being overpaid.
  6. 45Auto

    45Auto Well-Known Member

    Apr 9, 2008
    Ed, you are right on the money.

    (Though I did not intend that as a pun, it came out that way.)
  7. 56Python

    56Python New Member

    Mar 21, 2012
    Missouri Ozarks
    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.”
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 2nd Amendment incorporated to states Apr 20, 2009