Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« The Morning Wrap | Main | DynCorp Lawyers Accuse Farmers of Playing Loose With Facts »

January 28, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20120a81d0d95970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Leahy Lashes Out at Citizens United Ruling:

Comments

thedoctor2001

Seems that no poster decrys allowing unions to use dues to espouse political positions. Or for "big" "news" corporations to espouse opinion. It's just those "evil" "big" corporations. Grow up people. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

edmundburke113

It is amusing to watch Liberal/Progressive politician beat their chests and rend their clothing over the Supreme court's decision on corporate electoral spending. First they appealed to the ballot box, then when that did not work they turned to the courts. Now they are turning on the courts. Is "packing" the Supreme Court next?

If the Liberal/Progressives are serious about reform, why not move to amend the Constitution? (1) Make it illegal for any corporation or union to give direct payments or gifts to politicians and political parties. 2) Make it illegal for any politician or political party to receive direct payments or gifts from corporations and unions. (3) Allow corporations and unions to express their views during politcal campains, so long as full financial disclosure is given to the public in a timely manner, and only if the majority of their stockholders or members vote to do so annually. (4) Make public funding of the Presidential election mandatory.
edmundburke113

Bryan

The ignorant or deliberate falsehood of the President's utterance concerning Citizens United v. FEC is only exacerbated by the press' willful refusal to call him out on it.

If the President needs to call out the Supreme Court, perhaps he should find a more reasonable venue, rather than the Constitutionally mandated State of the Union address.

Unfortunately, the President could not resist taking aim at every popular bad guy in order to shift the view of his first year of failure away from himself.

Zooni

In a simple corporation of 10,000 paying taxpayers there is only one owner. To give that one owner the power to sway political process is a travesty to the 10,000 employees.

Polititions will be less accountable to taxpayers. The colapse of big banks was due to bad laws influenced by big banks. The banks were saved by the empoverished tax payers who were victums to unregulated credit card fees and rates. Giving more power to these large corporations will be the decline of the American empire.

94134gamesmith

"increasingly expensive and negative campaigns for judicial office erode both the impartiality of the judiciary and the public perception of them." It is all stirred but not mixed that suits the public instead of the hands of the legislators. It is a shoot out. It is O.K. Corral.
The decision is not right for the judiciary or publics but the Justices have no choice because the rules are neither logical nor transparent as can be. Justice Kennedy’s did open the gate for the funds from the corporations and institutions and his action could shift the burden toward the voters choosing their candidates rather than depend on the legislators who desire on their favors.
How many time the justices are to redefine the law on the contributions; and how many time can the FBI catch the villain in action to purchase the seat of the public offices? A Restaurant owner with his cooks gave thousands to the Congressman Goodneed and his family stays in his fan’s vacation home for weeks for no charge. It’s all circumstantial and most find it incredible.
As the increasingly expensive and negative campaigns exploded, it works because the legislators change the rules on the contribution and judiciary office and the public are influenced by the expensive and negative campaigns. Why not judiciary offices? Legislators would not satisfy with the result, some even think of themselves are the owners to the Justices. 7-11 shops of litigations are planted orthogonally to gain to best interest.
Now, the joke is on the Justices, and Justice Alito shook his head and murmured “not truth”, we might not know what he mean. But, I recall the case I and Dr. Armand Hammer both laughed out loud after Professor Richards gave me the book “The invasion of the body snatcher”. I guess he can turn his grave and laugh again. Is it possible that Cold shoulder for justice or Justice Alito is true? Orthogonally, yes. It is because he is not fit for the program on the 7-11 shop for litigation. I would suggest him to move to Florida; but who is to stop them? After all, I lost my job in San Francisco, and Oklahoma retired in Florida; but eventually I return to San Francisco.
Dear Justice Alito, it might not be true to you and it is true to other. I did not afraid of the body snatcher anymore. I am reborn myself. So will you too orthogonally or not.

Bob

We're used to getting our bums made raw by the USA government. Why would we expect any different. I have a college degree and haven't been able to find work in over two years. Yes, I am older than the "average bear" but I do want to work. I can't see a doctor for less than $100.00, so I can't go, I can't afford it. Gee isn't America great, NOT! My dad dies for this country in the War and I'm embarrassed about what it turned into. This government wasted my father's life.

The Supremes have made it so we are truly NOT a UNITED country. I want this country to die, now. Let the crappy $$$ mongers have it. China will be in town to take it back soon anyway. We have nothing to fight for, maybe the BANKERS will fight for a few minutes but they'll die fast.

Commonsense_joe

I think they are upset because unions can give money to democrats which is ok but corporations can not promote their interest or even interest of their employee. Most corporations believe in America and they are not any worst than socialist unions which are bent on destroying the free economy society. At least they will support their candidate in full view of society ( it may not show up on C-SPAN) but it still will be better than backroom deals like Louisiana purchase, cornhusker deal and exemption of Cadillac tax for support of the ruling party.

Democracy is a luxury and at least we can afford it after the price paid for in more than two hundred years of sacrifice.

I now know that constitution framers were right for having forethought that there will always be possibility of one branch or two branches of government could force their will on the third branch of government and people forcibly to change the society drastically to the determent of the republic.

D.A. Truth

This ruling was bought and paid for by corporate America.The simple truth is we are all created equal,but some are more equal than others.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements