impeach sc justice roberts

[Jack_Berry]

he lied during senate nomination hearings.
he stated that he would not change past supreme court decisions. with the passing of the ruling that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of funds on campaign advertising he has helped change 100 years of law.

corporate money has paid off the supreme court. welcome to the new corporate america.

 

[greg334]

Jack,
The issue at hand was truly a first amendment issue, preventing a film to be viewed that the FEC considered campaign material based on McCain-Finegold which stepped all over the first amendment and the FEC used as a tool to suppress opinions. This opens the door for removing some internet restrictions that the FEC has deemed needed which also stepped on first amendment rights. It was a narrow decision, not as broad as many make it out to be and before McCain-Finegold, it was common practice.

It is also good to see parity between unions and companies, unions had the upper hand - I don't think unions should be allowed to be part of the political process for any reason but that's me.
It is good that they are willing to revisit past decisions and if they now get somehting to overturn Kelo v. New London, then the court is actually a good one for the people.

The real issue at hand is the use of outside the district funding for candidates, like what Levin has used to cement his seat regardless who ran against him.

 

[layoutshooter]

The same with our beloved John Dingell(berry). 98% of his funds come from outside the district. Kinda make ya wonder who he really represents, his district or those who pay the freight bill for him?

 

[Shadowpanda]

on the other hand, today a large group of current and past CEO's of large companies sent a letter to the congresscritters telling them to layoff calling them for donations all the time.

Personally I think the basically unlimited campaign funding available coupled with lack of term limits are the two fatal flaws in our system that are slowly destroying the process and institutions of American government. I still don't see how spending money constitutes speech anyway.

 

[layoutshooter]

Money buys TV, radio and newspaper adds which allows the speech to be heard. That is the current argument. All of them have term limits, 2 years for the congress, 6 for the senate and 4 for the president. That is why I keep saying that this is 100% the fault of the people, we just keep right on electing them. You cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Money buys TV, radio and newspaper adds which allows the speech to be heard. That is the current argument. All of them have term limits, 2 years for the congress, 6 for the senate and 4 for the president. That is why I keep saying that this is 100% the fault of the people, we just keep right on electing them. You cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result.

Campaign limits should be set so guys like us and the regular folk could run...not just the elite...corp limits should be equal to or less then private donations...

 

[layoutshooter]

How can you set limits? Is the cost of tv or radio time somehow less for political adds? I don't know the answer. You can't have "free" adds, who would pay the air time? Running those stations is not cheap.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

In Canada they set limits...and each TV/radio station has to allot so much time for each party...The radio/Tv ad part can only be a %age of the whole campaign...

 

[layoutshooter]

Who pays for the air time? How do you decide who gets to put on a commercial? What happens if you have 200 candidates for one office? Who pays for newspaper adds? Billboards? Signs?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Who pays for the air time? How do you decide who gets to put on a commercial? What happens if you have 200 candidates for one office? Who pays for newspaper adds? Billboards? Signs?

Just radio and TV each candidate gets so many hours of free air time....each station as set by their transmission license... this lets the small guy have somewhat equal access.

The rest is up to the candidate....

 

[layoutshooter]

Who pays for the air time? It costs just as much to air a political add as it does a show. How do they decide which candidate gets air time? I could see it in this country, only Obama would have recieved the freebies on the 3 networks and McCain could have only got on Fox. At least during prime time.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

The station MUST provide the airtime as required in their license. the cost of doing business lets say...

To any qualified candidate in the district they broadcast in...

 

[layoutshooter]

How can they stay in business? They would have to charge much higher rates for normal commercials to cover the cost. Electricity costs the same for every add. I am confused. Nothing new.

 

[greg334]

I think you all missed something, there are limits to what contributions can be made to a candidate directly, but these have to do with speech and restriction issues by corporations.

The bigger issue is why do labor organizations are allowed to have a say in a campaign? This is worst than corporations by a long shot.

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't believe that the labor unions or corporations should be allowed to contribute to any candidate or issue. Having said that, you must allow the corps to if you are going to allow the unions.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Thats where the 3 or more parties come in...

NDP..primarily the Union Party...original roots is the Communist Party of Canada...supported by Unions of course..

Conservatives..White collar...supported by big business

Liberals....center....fence sitters...supported by both when the platform suits them.

Canadian elections are governed by the Chief Electoral Officer who reports to Parliament and is not allowed to vote in federal elections.
Elections are run from a independent agency called Elections Canada which responsible for ensuring that all voters have access to the electoral system, maintaining the voter registry and registering the political parties and monitors spending by the candidates and parties.
Since 2007 corporations and unions are banned from donating to political parties or candidates and individuals are limited to donating no more than $1,100 in total per year to any party or candidate. (and only $20 in cash donation)
In addition to individual donations, political parties receive government funds which are paid to the party after the election based on the percentage of votes. A party must get at least 2% nationally to receive general funding, and parties are reimbursed approx. $1.75 per vote every year after the election.
Regardless of how much money the party collection there is a 70c limit on spending on each voter of each candidates's district/riding.
There is a $3,000 limit on "third party" spending in each constituency and $150,000 limit on national campaigns (indexed to inflation).
Anyone spending more than $500 to "influence" an elector must register with Elections Canada.


This is it...
Election Broadcasting

The media play a crucial role in election campaigns and they are covered by Broadcasters Guidelines and CRTC rules. Each broadcaster must make available up to 396 minutes for political parties to purchase for advertising during the 2008 election campaign. The following table shows the allocated broadcast minutes available for purchase to the various registered parties during the 2000 to 2008 erlections.

 

[layoutshooter]

I like and understand the part about no union or corporate support. I don't understand the rest. I am not good at that kind of stuff. Not that I believe for one minute that in this country, or Canada for that matter, that the unions and corporations don't find a way to "sneak" money for candidates. They are just a bit more "creative" about it.

I also don't trust the government to administer elections like that. Kinda a conflict of interest. This is over my head I think

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Thats why Election Canada is an at arms length away organization....yeah right...

 

[layoutshooter]

That's what I thought. Maybe it is better to just allow it, then at least you would know, sort of, who is paying the bill for who.

Like all those health care lobists paying the freight for the Dumb-O-Crat in MA. 17 of the 22 that were at her fundraiser were from health care companies. So much for the corporations only backing the ReBumLiCans, eh?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

That's what I thought. Maybe it is better to just allow it, then at least you would know, sort of, who is paying the bill for who.

Like all those health care lobists paying the freight for the Dumb-O-Crat in MA. 17 of the 22 that were at her fundraiser were from health care companies. So much for the corporations only backing the ReBumLiCans, eh?

17 out of 22? holy smokes Batman...ya think they had some interest..or they just liked her bubbly personality!..*L*