Legalized buying of candidates?

[YardleyLabs]

[quote=huntinman;554818]

I have not read the decision. Personally, I do not believe that corporations deserve the privileges afforded to "people" unless they also accept full personal responsibility for actions taken. QUOTE]

No, but you do believe that we should afford the rights of Americans to terrorists captured while trying to kill Americans. Right?

I believe in the rights granted by our Constitution. Among those is the right to due process when the justice system sorts the terrorists out from the rest of us. Personally, I do not trust the police or the lynch mob to make the judgment on their own.

[subroc]

If this is all a 183 page decision said, I would be surprised. McCain-Feingold was awful legislation. The reversing of this was a step in the right direction.

[K G]

You guys on the right are missing the point. The libs had unlimited "free speech" in the MSM. Especially during elections. They also had the unions, Acorn and every other type left wing group out there. This just evens the playing field a little. Why should someone lose their free speech rights, because of who they are or how much (or little) money they have? Money already controls the process, lets just open it up to both sides of the aisle.

We're talking "paid" advertising, Bill. It is media-blind. All it needs is a BIG checkbook. Who has lost their free speech rights? All that's happened here is that the guy (or organization) with the biggest pile of money gets the biggest voice. Are you saying that "evens the playing field?" I sure hope not...

k g

[Franco]

You guys on the right are missing the point. The libs had unlimited "free speech" in the MSM. Especially during elections. They also had the unions, Acorn and every other type left wing group out there. This just evens the playing field a little. Why should someone lose their free speech rights, because of who they are or how much (or little) money they have? Money already controls the process, lets just open it up to both sides of the aisle.

Bingo, we have a winner!

Why should the media be able to promote its agenda yet buisnesses can't? I would love to hear what Exxon Corp thinks about our energy cost and thier solutions to keeping cost to the consumer down. Same for a dozen other industries/corporations.

I hope they have huge radio budgets too!

[dnf777]

I would love to hear what Exxon Corp thinks about our energy cost and thier solutions to keeping cost to the consumer down.

WHAT?? Did I miss sarcasm or otherwise mis-read the above comment???

Do you think Exxon execs sit around board tables and brainstorm ways to keep costs to consumers down?? Do you think THAT is what they will spend campaign contributions on? I had to have missed your point, right?

[huntinman]

We're talking "paid" advertising, Bill. It is media-blind. All it needs is a BIG checkbook. Who has lost their free speech rights? All that's happened here is that the guy (or organization) with the biggest pile of money gets the biggest voice. Are you saying that "evens the playing field?" I sure hope not...

k g

KG, I understand your point, but paid or not you must see that 95% of all the press coverage is in favor of one party. That's why they wanted to keep the private business out of it (to maintain a huge advantage). Whether a business supports a lib or a conservative, it's their money. Why shouldn't they be able to spend it as they see fit? Both parties will have businesses that will support their issues. Let the chips fall where they may...

[K G]

I hope they have huge radio budgets too!

Yeah...that's exactly what you want....your regular advertisers pre-empted for political ads....

Issues advertisers will pay non-preemptible rates, forcing you to do one (or a combination) of three things: 1) gouge your regular advertisers with higher rates in order for their spots to clear, 2) let them be pre-empted and bear their wrath, or 3) add more units to the hour...and blow off listeners.

Lose-lose-lose situation regards,

kg

[K G]

KG, I understand your point, but paid or not you must see that 95% of all the press coverage is in favor of one party. That's why they wanted to keep the private business out of it (to maintain a huge advantage). Whether a business supports a lib or a conservative, it's their money. Why shouldn't they be able to spend it as they see fit? Both parties will have businesses that will support their issues. Let the chips fall where they may...

Bill, if you understand how advertising works, you'll know this is a HORRIBLE idea...'course, it's a moot point now...but just WAIT 'til the political and issues advertising starts. You'll wish you didn't own a TV or radio.

Manipulating the masses regards,

kg

[dnf777]

...but just WAIT 'til the political and issues advertising starts. You'll wish you didn't own a TV or radio.

kg

There's always the dogs and a field somewhere.....

I swear, we just bought a new tv, and I'm thinking, I could have gotten one heckuva pup instead!

Although I hear Obama's upcoming budget will ban ownership of dogs over 35 pounds by 2013....

[Fowlfeller1100]

YAAAAY! more SWAG for me, I can never get enough free pens.