Soft money is back! This means independent organizations can spent any amount right up to election day on a candidate running for office! We ain't seen anything yet...
2007-06-27 01:37:56 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
2007-06-27 01:48:19 · update #1
In that it's a victory for free speech, I think it's great. I mean, I understand why some people might want it limited, but this campaign finance thing is really constrictive for the average person. Do you know that it would be illegal for you or I to just make a sign and put it out there supporting some issue? That's just wrong, and that's why I oppose McCain-Feingold, even though I think it had the best intentions. So, basically, yes, I'm thrilled that its been overturned. I hadn't heard about it.
2007-06-27 01:54:35 · answer #1 · answered by skip742 6 · 0⤊ 5⤋
It all goes back to the flawed acceptance of Corporations as people and deserving Free Speech rights.
This decision will open the floodgates to more Corporate influence over politicians in an already corrupt Plutacracy-a form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes. (It is barely worth noting the Union contributions because they are miniscule in comparison to Corporate capital.)
2007-06-27 09:03:56 · answer #2 · answered by Richard V 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wow! And just in time for the 08 elections. What a coincidence.
2007-06-27 09:15:53 · answer #3 · answered by Perplexed Bob 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the cost of running a political ad on TV just skyrocketed, and the amount of factual information the voters will receive just plummeted..
2007-06-27 09:00:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No it's just the OPPOSITE of what we need. More corporate money, more corporate influence over elected officials, less accountability of elected officials to the electorate.
It's ludicrous. Expect more of the same from this supreme court...
2007-06-27 08:45:42 · answer #5 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yes, I read that also and no, it's not a good decision. Once again, money and not integrity will end up winning.
Another wonderful slam against the voters.
2007-06-27 08:46:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
It's a good decision for big business, bad for the American people.
2007-06-27 08:53:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, it is not a good decision. Read the majority and dissenting opinions.
2007-06-27 08:42:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
it's up to Congress to be accountable..I wonder if this impacts Wm.Jefferson's trial?
they haven't been doing anything any differently..my company
just solicited individuals to give in their names..
2007-06-27 08:48:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
no
2007-06-27 08:40:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋