Who would want to be in Congress?

[merrylander]

Our common law was pretty much modeled after British Common Law but they do not have lobbyists nor are corporations considered citizens. Once again the Supreme Court has displayed a complete ignorance of English, perhaps if we were to send Roberts, Alito and Scalia a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary they might someday display at least a familiarity with the language, if they cannot acquire a competency.

Repeat after me - corporations and foreign countries are not citizens,

a one hundered dollar bill is not a petition,

redress is a post facto function.

Do you think we could actually get those simple concepts through their thick skulls?

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Repeat after me - corporations and foreign countries are not citizens,

a one hundered dollar bill is not a petition,

If money is "speech" than speech is not free.

[finnbow]

While I fully understand the consternation and disgust with the Court's ruling, I'm a bit more ambivalent about it. For better or worse, it has long since been decided that "money = speech" in contemporary politics. No matter what is done in the area of campaign finance law, ways to circumvent these laws are discovered before the ink dries on the legislation. Rather than this being the death blow to our country, it seems to me to be a codification of business as usual (i.e., removing well-meaning but ineffective campaign finance restrictions). The Golden Rule still applies.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by finnbow

While I fully understand the consternation and disgust with the Court's ruling, I'm a bit more ambivalent about it. For better or worse, it has long since been decided that "money = speech" in contemporary politics. No matter what is done in the area of campaign finance law, ways to circumvent these laws are discovered before the ink dries on the legislation. Rather than this being the death blow to our country, it seems to me to be a codification of business as usual (i.e., removing well-meaning but ineffective campaign finance restrictions). The Golden Rule still applies.

Right, them as has the money gets to make the rules.

Not quite what Rabbi Hillel had in mind.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

For better or worse, it has long since been decided that "money = speech" in contemporary politics.

The camel's nose.

QUOTE]No matter what is done in the area of campaign finance law, ways to circumvent these laws are discovered before the ink dries on the legislation.[/QUOTE]

"What the hell, they were doing it anyway. Might as well make it legal?" Tighter control of corporate influence is preferable to codification of the status quo.

The Golden Rule still applies.

Yes, the other golden rule.

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Right, them as has the money gets to make the rules.

Not quite what Rabbi Hillel had in mind.

I think Hillel's version of the Golden Rule has long since been discarded in modern American politics, or probably never did exist. It probably didn't even exist in the politics of his day 2000 years ago.