Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
Buckman...
I don't have a problem banning unions either. individual donors only, except both corps and unions would find away around it.
They passed it as guidelines. and it's problem still not enough.
As far as lines like 'the climate changes.. welcome to reality'
I would argue that few on this board have read and know more about the changes our climate goes through on geologic time than I do. I'm not a climate scientist per say, but when you work on sediment deposited during the last ice age, you have to read a bit about climate.
but welcome to reality. I'll meet you there.
|
I imagine the Supremes know a bit more about this subject and the Constitution
"I like that he called out the courts for the recent idiotic decision on campaign financing."
than a sediment scientist....but we're all entitled to our opinions
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...20court&st=cse
"
Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”
The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries "
Threaded Mode