Over the next several weeks i will be working on smoothing this layout and style but until then it is still important for me to continue bloging:
Since Laws are Public domain - will be quoting a large section of a Law Voted on today and decided in the Supreme Court. here is the full link: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010
As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election,§434(f)(3)(A), and that is “publicly distributed,” 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2),which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President . . . means” that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election . . . is being held within 30 days,” §100.29(b)(3)(ii). Corporations and unions may establish apolitical action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneer-ing communications purposes. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2). In McConnell
v.
Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209, this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494
U.
S. 652, that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
Where did our candidates stand on this issue in 2008? John McCain one of the writers of the bill had actually back tracked a little and made a compromise saying he would not vote on his bill in its form. Ok? Barack Obama on the other hand took a firm stance along with the 2008 Democrat Platform to reduce such funding. Ok?
Well then: So this new Law as it have been passed today, and can only be reversed in a future vote in the supreme court, makes it legal for corporations and unions to spend as much money they want on elections. What is interesting is that many Unions have the power to increase dues at any time, now could you imagine how many unions are going to increase dues just to aid candidates and political parties? ALOT. How the Supreme Court could have ever voted such a thing, especially after what happened in 2008: were many corporations donated the max amount of money to Obama's aid, as well as money prior to his official nomination were they were not so limited - later to file bankruptcy.
But this isn't a normal Supreme Court, a court full of wise non-partisan judges, it is a court mostly filled with liberal judges who are looking to advance the Democrat-Liberal Agenda in Washington to your home.
