High Court blasts hole through McCain-Feingold campaign law

In a clear, straight-forward and constitutionally-based opinion , the US Supreme Court yesterday struck down a major portion of the 2002 “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act” (more commonly referred to by the names of its two primary sponsors in the Senate, “McCain-Feingold”).  The 5-4 majority opinion, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, voided the law’s ban on corporations paying for “electioneering communications,” such as movies, newspaper ads, and the like, that support or oppose candidates. 

The plaintiff in this historic case was the Washington, DC-based, grass-roots advocacy organization, Citizens United, which in early 2008 was prepared to spend its corporate money to advertise and distribute a movie critical of then-primary presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (Hillary:  The Movie).  Because it feared the government would bring criminal charges against it if it actually spent money for this purpose (which the government is empowered to do under McCain-Feingold), Citizens United sought to have the federal district court declare the law to be an unconstitutional restraint on the exercise of its First Amendment rights.

Yesterday’s High Court opinion began where such a constitutional analysis ought to begin, by declaring the obvious – that political speech and money spent in furtherance of promoting and disseminating political speech is in fact protected by the First Amendment.  The Court then correctly noted that historically and legally, corporations do enjoy First Amendment rights to free speech; and that the federal campaign law criminalizing the corporate act of simply using its lawful monies to disseminate lawful political speech, is in fact an unlawful restraint of protected speech.

The Court also struck down the notion embedded in previous decisions empowering the government to restict corporate speech, that simply because a corporation funds political speech, it is necessarily “corrupt” or provides the “appearance of corruption” of the political process.

There are other, odious provisions contained in the McCain-Feingold law that need to be striken down, but which were not presented to the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case.  Hopefully, the Court will so invalidate them in the near future.  But for now, we should all — regardless of where we stand on the political spectrum — rejoice in the fact that at least part of the muzzle placed on Americans by McCain-Feingold (which former President George W. Bush signed into law), has been removed.

163 comments Add your comment

Chris Broe

January 22nd, 2010
7:10 am

The Willie Horton attack ad “golden age” is upon us, my friends. Now we are no better than the people who produce army training films, sir.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 22nd, 2010
7:16 am

Our leftist friends offer a “parade of horribles” to justify bureaucrat censorship of formerly free Americans. However, the best exhibit contradicting the babbling is the recent Massachusetts senatorial election. Those with memories longer than 38 seconds will recall that the loser in that election engaged in the conventional invective of the left, and the winner declined to take the low road. Both used campaign funds to get their messages out, and the populace was able to distinguish fact from slander. No bureaucrats needed, and indeed none attempted to rein in the falsity. The market works better than the bureaucracy.

Whacks Eloquent

January 22nd, 2010
7:31 am

Bob, your thoughts on the demise of Air America?

I thought they went bankrupt a couple of years ago. Let’s see if they can pull off another zombie move. But I doubt it. People just don’t want to listen to them anymore…

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bob Barr and Legal Lawyer, Sydney Law. Sydney Law said: High Court blasts hole through McCain-Feingold campaign law http://bit.ly/5vyI4Q [...]


January 22nd, 2010
7:58 am

If funny how libs. want “people” to mean a group (militia) in the 2nd Amendment but they don’t like the idea of “people” being a corporation.


January 22nd, 2010
8:09 am

I don’t understand… The bill of rights protects individuals. Full Stop. I don’t see where corporations enter into this picture. I don’t see how any corporation is protected, in full, by “free speech”, esp regarding political campaigns.

This ruling seems filled with fail and certainly didn’t begin from a constitutional viewpoint.

That said, I could be misunderstanding something here, so, if I’m not “getting it” please someone explain this a bit more in-depth from a constitutional perspective.

Why would corporations qualify for free speech?

I don’t understand where Bob Barr is coming from here.


January 22nd, 2010
8:24 am


I have heard that as high as 40-50% of Americans do not pay any income taxes. In other words, we are close to a point when those who pay no income taxes can outvote those who do. To me that is close to “taxation without representation”!

What this ruling really does is give more clout/power (in a round about way) to those who do.

That’s fine with me !


January 22nd, 2010
8:26 am

Bob Barr is a sorry excuse for a human being. Wonder how much $$$ his corporate overlords are paying him to sell out like a cheap hooker.
Corporations are not people, so they should not have constitutionally protected rights, or since they are simply a legally created entity, those rights should indeed be subject to limitations. They do not vote. They do not marry and have children. They don’t get sent to jail when they commit felony crimes like private citizen normally are. They are not living entities.
On the other hand, all individual members of the corporation, most especially if they citizens of this country, from the CEO to the janitor do have full constitutional rights. No one is stopping a corporate CEO from exercising his right, as a private citizen, to donate money or support a candidate as he chooses. But when that CEO uses corporate money to influence elections, he can afford to spend much more money than most private individuals can realistically hope to do, thus drowning out the rights of free speech of actual, breathing, living, voting beings. And are not the rights of individual members of that corporation, or union, being trampled on when this legal association takes a political stance in the public arena, in such a way that these members feel represents the opposite of their own views.
And why would a corporation give money to a candidate in an election? A private citizen may do so for many reasons. Reasons that which may include a sense of shared common values with the candidate or issue being considered in an election. To a small extent, I suppose an individual donating money to a candidate or cause could be accused of acting in a self serving manner, if you mean they believe that it will be best for the community that they live in, if what they support passes.
But for a corporation, there is only one reason to partake in elections, to influence the legislative process for their own ends, with absolutely no concern for the impact that such laws will have on the community at large. So what if some chemical discharges wind up killing more people, if according to new guidelines, that the company’s well financed campaigns got put into law, the companies actions are now perfectly legal.
Like Mr Barr, corporations don’t have moral consciences. They’re only motive is to make profits. Since such profits can be used to improve the quality of life of many people, I’m willing to live with the trade-offs that corporations provide, but only if they are regulated to ensure that their negative impact is kept in check. so that their harm doesn’t outweigh the good.
A less generous person may refer to the manner in which corporations inject massive amounts of cash into the political process as being tantamount to bribery. Mr. Barr knows full well that as a result of this ruling, there will be nothing less than an all out attempt by large corporations in upcoming elections, to massively influence the election process. Corporations will swarm the airwaves with massive amounts of misinformation, designed to distort the truth and confuse voters so as to tilt election results in their favor.
Mr. Barr is a man who claims to be protecting First Amendment Rights, but who is fact supporting the rights of non living entities at the expense of living ones. For a man with no scruples or moral compass, I guess the rights of a so called citizen hinges less on whether they are actually real human beings, but rather on the size of their bank accounts. I must admit, unlike a corporation, I can’t afford to buy Mr. Barr off, so therefore, obviously, my interests are of no concern to him, nor are those of my less than wealthy neighbors.
As a big booster of non-human rights, I’m guessing if Mr. Barr has ever seen a “Terminator” movie, that he finds himself siding with the machines over humanity.


January 22nd, 2010
8:32 am

@LSmith: “Corporations … do not vote. They do not marry and have children. They don’t get sent to jail when they commit felony crimes like private citizen normally are. They are not living entities.”

But, they DO pay taxes. Lots and lots of taxes.


January 22nd, 2010
8:34 am


it’s clear you miss the point entirely, b/c you can’t get past the liberal vs conservative thing. It’s not that liberals don’t want corporations to be considered people. For a host of other reasons, such as taxation, corporations are considered people. The issues are that with this rulling the court overturned 100 yrs of precident, when conservatives claim they are not judicial activists (that claim is a crock-o-siht now). Additionally, when a more narrow rulling can be given, SC tradition dictates that the court rule as narrowly as possible, the court had a more narrow ruling to issue but chose to be judicial activists. More importantly, this law puts corporations on par with actual people. The constitution makes no mention of corporations, let alone corporations having free speech rights on par with actual people. Even if you believe the constitution has provisions for corporate speech, the gov’t is allowed to put conditions on said speech (they do it to living humans all the time), but in this sense the supreme cout has in effect made corporate speech more protected than human speech, which is a complete farce. Additionally, our founding fathers (who conservatives claim to revere) spoke extensively about not letting corporations overwhelm the political process. Last year a record 2 billion dollars was spent on the presidential elections, Exxon had profits of 45 billion, almost half of US corporations are owned by foreign corps….if you can see how foolish it is to have unlimited corporate speech, you deserve the hell that will be visited upon you. You need to realize it’s not about tit for tat with conservative vs liberal. It’s about right and wrong, and this rulling gives no thought to the consequences of this rulling.


January 22nd, 2010
8:54 am


“I have heard that as high as 40-50% of Americans do not pay any income taxes. In other words, we are close to a point when those who pay no income taxes can outvote those who do. To me that is close to “taxation without representation”!

What this ruling really does is give more clout/power (in a round about way) to those who do.

That’s fine with me !”

WTF are you talking about…what you mean to say is representation without taxation…did your mother drop you on your head as a child or did you just eat lead paint chips?

When the constitution says we the people they are not talking about wal mart! Please explain how this ruling gives more power to tax payers other than corporations…crickets…this rulling only allows corporations to flood a market and exert undue influence on the poltitcal process.

Your line of thinking is exactly what’s wrong with this country, you drape yourself in the American flag and call yourself a patriot, yet have absolutely no clue what our founding fathers actually stood for and don’t even bother to actually read the constitution to see how this rulling makes absolutely no sense what so ever. I truely feel sorry for you b/c you operate your life thinking that you are educating yourself by watching faux news or some other pundit yet you really have no clue! Lord help us!


January 22nd, 2010
9:03 am

I’m kinda with Jacob on this. I don’t understand why anyone would think that allowing corporations (and unions) to have equal say in elections is good for individual liberty, hence good for America. I’m not anti-business or anti-capitalist…far from it. The way I see it, we should strive to have individual citizens have the loudest voice in our republic and not organizations whose collective voice drowns out all others. We already have that in our legislative process with all the lobbiests, why make give the big guys more say?

I wonder also if it’s much ado over nothing. Maybe compare this to decriminalizing pot; we know you do it, we can’t make you stop, so let’s just legalize it.

Robert Littel

January 22nd, 2010
9:08 am

The Supreme Court today, surrendered the last vestiges of what was left of the Potemkin like facade that our government has become, by handing it over to the corporations. We are now all just pawns in the corporate state that has been declared into existence by the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott. We are no longer citizens with citizen rights, we are merely consumers with consumer rights and the Constitution covers that, NOT AT ALL. Were are screwed and we know who did it, and why – GREED. AMERICA – KILLED BY THE CORPORATE OWNED COURT.

People's Voice

January 22nd, 2010
9:10 am

Corporations are machines that enable hedonistic consumer culture.

They are not people, they are business structures and hierarchy formats.

Those with “old money” can simply buy out industries and create monopolies both in material and intellect. It is sickening.


January 22nd, 2010
9:30 am

Perhaps the most overlooked danger here is that the corporation is not limited geographically, allowing it to focus its efforts wherever it thinks will benefit them most. This will allow them to “buy” municipalities and even states where they can overturn environmental laws, zoning restrictions, labor laws, etc., to build their own little paradises. The same greed that caused the current economic crisis will pale in comparison to what may happen in the future.


January 22nd, 2010
9:44 am

Whomever wrote this article clearly is a biased, corporate pig!!! Corporate interests are not American peoples interests. As if presidential candidates didnt raise enough money, Obama raised around 300 million, now corporations can help “buy” elections. The supreme court needs to be disbanded ASAP

Robert Littel

January 22nd, 2010
9:44 am

Corporations can even be controlled by people from outside of our borders. We (as in the corporate owned court) have given super-person-hood and extraordinary ultra-citizenship to people who would, could and probably will, do us harm in support of their nation’s imperatives. This is the first step in a one world autocracy of the rich and our Right-wing trolls are going to stupidly eat it up.


January 22nd, 2010
9:48 am


Sorry, but you lost ! What the Supreme Court says is Constitutional and Holy Ground ! Right ?

You know, Dread Scott and Roe vs. Wade.

Get on board ……. the train is leaving the station !!


January 22nd, 2010
9:58 am

Welcome to the United States LLC.

[...] Slow news day. The Supreme Court said yesterday that the government lacks the authority to restrict campaign expenditures by companies, scrapping major portions of McCain-Feingold campaign law. This is sure to get Democrat knickers in [...]


January 22nd, 2010
10:04 am

The First Amendment protects “speech” not “speakers”. It makes no difference who the speaker is.

Hard Right Hook

January 22nd, 2010
10:10 am


January 22nd, 2010
8:09 am
“I don’t understand… The bill of rights protects individuals. Full Stop. I don’t see where corporations enter into this picture. I don’t see how any corporation is protected, in full, by “free speech”, esp regarding political campaigns.”

Corporations are made up of people. When the Government legislates censorship by denying people the right to free speech, as a group or as individuals, we become no better than Adolph H, Mao and Unlce Joe Stalin, who made a living this way.

More free speech, not less.


January 22nd, 2010
10:10 am

So, if it is all about taxation without representation, then either the permanent residents, H1, L1 J1 F1 vis aholders and illegals should stop paying taxes or they should get a right to vote.
What is your take on this


January 22nd, 2010
10:16 am

This case was brought to the high court by Citizens United a political group not a corporation.


January 22nd, 2010
10:24 am

Again, the right wing corporate elitists win, the individual average citizen loses.

Welcome to the Corporatists States of America.


January 22nd, 2010
10:25 am

I can’t afford a full page ad in AJC or Wall Street Journal to protest some legislation I don’t like. But I can send money to an organization, or be a customer or employee of a corporation that CAN afford such an ad. So they should be able to speak for me, with a bigger pulpit, than I could do on my own. Good call, Supremes.


January 22nd, 2010
10:28 am

@Hard Right Hook

No one stops people working at /for these corporations from making their opinios heard. Nothing stops them from joining/forming groups/collectives either.So I dont know how your point is valid.
As per the ruling Now Microsoft, Exxon, Google, Bank of America are now all considered the same as Mr Joe Smith, or Mrs Jane Smith. How is that fair and right

George Dance

January 22nd, 2010
10:31 am

The comparison to the Willy Horton ad is unfair. The Horton ad was put out by a political party, and McCain-Feingold did nothing about political parties’ advertising except give them a monopoly during an election.


January 22nd, 2010
10:33 am

@ ridgerunner

You prove my point exactly…as predicted you treat this as a partisan issue when this is an American liberty issue. Let’s see how smug you are when a Chinese corporation that owns a majority stake in a us company comes into your local election and out spends everyone to make sure only their interests are represented. You are a sad sheep, faux and this tool told you this was good for republicans and you jump right on with out so much as a question. If you are mainstream america we’re in trouble. This isn’t about wins and losses toolbag, it’s about what’s best for our country in the face of a global assult on our way of life. Americans barely control 50% of US corps, yet you want to give them unfettered control of our democracy…yeah that makes a lot of sense.


January 22nd, 2010
10:38 am

The concept of corporate “personhood” is absurd on its face. A corporation is NOT a person, nor is it an organization of persons. It is in almost all cases a legal entity created for the purposes of making money. Its members are there to make money, and its every action is governed by the responsibility to make money. A corporation is not the same thing as a club, a fraternity, a political party or a political action committee. And it is certainly not the same as a human being! For the Supreme Court to conclude that corporations have a right to free speech is very, very twisted logic, and is the most activist decision of the court in 40 years.

Hard Right Hook

January 22nd, 2010
10:49 am


Microsoft (and others) regularly take out political ads in newspapers, magazines, etc. to voice a position.

Why is it OK for Microsoft to take a full page ad in the AJC, but not a 30 second spot on channel 2?

Seems fair a right to me.


January 22nd, 2010
10:57 am

Good riddance to a bad Law. The First Amendment is very clear and protects freedom of speech. To exercise your freedom of speech dont you
need money to publish your speech, thought or ideas depending on the medium you want to use. Corporations are not exempt either. Mccain-Feingold never made sense. You cannot tell people or corporations how to use their money. By the way, the stupidity of this bad piece of legislation is that when people or corporations use money to promote or support an idea or a candidate the pay taxes that goes into the government coffers.


January 22nd, 2010
11:01 am

For those of you saying corporations should not have freedom of speech see NAACP v Button 1963 & First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti 1978.
This is not a new concept for the court. It has been upheld by both liberal & conservative majorities.

Here is a quote from Kenedy’s majority opinion – “The Court returns to the principle established in Buckley and Bellotti that the Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”….” There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.”

Do you folks really want to ask the government what you can say before you say it?

The problem is not the spending by “big money” to buy an election. The problem is the braindeads that actually let a political ad influence their vote.

David Smith

January 22nd, 2010
11:08 am

Is your position the official position of the Atlantic Journal-Constitution?
Thank you.


January 22nd, 2010
11:08 am

Has it also occurred to anyone (most of all Bob Barr, the right-wing SCOTUS, etc.) that many US corporations have foreign ownership? Therefore, why the hell should, for example, Citibank (owned by a Saudi conglomerate) be considered a virtual person with the right to dump millions into US Federal, state and local campaigns via slanted advertising for the candidate of their choice…er, I mean purchase.

This ruling by the high court is not only abysmal, but completely undermines the spirit of the First Amendment for ordinary citizens (who don’t have billion dollar war chests their disposal).

Swede Atlanta

January 22nd, 2010
11:20 am

Ref: Kaipo @ 10:57

You are correct that the First Amendment protects “free speech”. But your analysis starts in the middle and not at the beginning.

If the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights, to whom were the bill of rights to apply? All we have to do is look back to the Preamble that sets out the purpose for the Constitution, “We the People”….and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity….”

The philosophy of Natural Law that informed the thinking of the Founding Fathers focused on the “rights of man”. This body of thought was very clear they were talking about live human beings.

Corporations and other businesses are legal fictions that are only given legal recognition by operation of law. We the people have agreed to recognize them and, in exchange for that recognition and the accompanying rights, impose controls on how they conduct themselves.

I’m not suggesting these legal fictions shouldn’t have certain rights, but those rights should be defined by the same law that gives them legal recognition.


January 22nd, 2010
11:27 am

Some great POV expressed here. I’m still trying to figure out why I feel uneasy about this decision. The notion of granting corporations the same right as individuals makes economic sense to me; politically I don’t think it works out the same…the possibility of rampant corruption appears very real IMO. I guess for me it’s one thing to allow a corporation to participate in the free-market and profit from it, but to use the exact same logic when it comes to affairs of state; that corporate participation in our govt improves the govt as it would the marketplace is a false assumption.

One thing that I do find interesting in this whole discussion is the rather blind hatred of corporations by some of the posters. I would ask them, what is your answer to the corporate model? It can’t be private ownership alone, as not many ‘uber-wealthy’ individuals are out there to finance a factory to produce goods. State ownership has never worked; and over-regulation puts roadblocks in the way of profit and progress. There’s a nobel prize out there for you if you can think of a better way to run a modern society.


January 22nd, 2010
11:31 am


Again …………. you miss my point. I’m not totally sure where I fall on this one. Maybe there should be another case omitting foreign owned corporations but that probably won’t fly since we give foreign terrorists here the same rights as Americans.

My real point is that if the SCOTUS says it ………. that’s it …………. absent an Amendment to the Constitution or a revolution (i.e., Dread Scott and Roe vs. Wade). You can’t have it both ways. Once the SCOTUS broke from the “orginialist” postion (i.e., 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause) the cat was out of the bag.

For example, I just heard a female conservative talk show host that I really respect say, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact”. I’m afraid, I have to disagree. Our Constitution/government is set up to eventually allow is own self-destruction. Why? Because we don’t have the sense (especially our liberal wing) to know when certain “freedoms” are our own death warrant.


January 22nd, 2010
11:35 am

The corporate model itself is not the issue, it’s their vast wealth which allows them superior influence with elected officials – far more than any ordinary voter could possibly muster without bribing them with huge contributions.

Why do you think Bush was so favorable toward corporate interests during his administration? It was all about political payback and special favors for the millions his pals in Big Oil and mining invested in Bush during 2000 and 2004.

IMO, corporations should not be allowed to contribute a dime to any campaign. Nothing good can come of it.

Hillbilly Deluxe

January 22nd, 2010
11:37 am

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a
trial of strength and bid
defiance to the laws of our country.”

Thomas Jefferson, 1812


January 22nd, 2010
11:46 am

as with the recent election in Massachusetts, sometimes the system works. the problems I have with this issue are not Constitutional, and as Mr. Barr points out, when considering such issues, it is REQUIRED that the SCOTUS come down on the side of “freedom” (Bill of Rights – mythical as it may be). at the end of the day, political campaigns and those who produce campaign ads are “free” to produce whatever they choose to produce. it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the electorate (in a perfect world, critical thinkers who analyze data, separate fact from fiction) to form his/her own opinion. I am a second amendment advocate, but not an NRA supporter or memeber. I am a lower case “l” libertarian, but not a dues-paying memeber of the Libertarian Party. This ruling is actually a landmark in the battle for true freedom, but as stated, sadly enough, I am not sure those who prefer (seek) the false security of the herd, value (true) freedom. Yes Virginia, sometimes judges get it right.


January 22nd, 2010
11:53 am

Should we amend the Constitution to no longer say “We, the People” but “We, the Wal-Mart”? That is basically what happened with this ruling. Individuals can not outspend corporations and those with the most money win in our political world. Money is power and we just gave away the power of the individual. I don’t think that is what the founding fathers had in mind.


January 22nd, 2010
11:54 am

Jacob $ LSmith…..
Of course you are right,” Corporations are not people…………..” and BB has stood the constitution on its head in order to ‘concoct’ some dubious rationalization for what the Supreme Court has seen it fit to do ! Get ready for the steal in November. This time it will at least ‘appear ‘ to be legal!!


January 22nd, 2010
11:56 am


“Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”….

(1) the govt does not suppress political speech of corporations. The govt puts limits on political contributions as it does with individual real humans. The court has in essence given corporate speakers more free speech rights than actual human beings, which is an outright laughable premise.

There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.

Restrictions are placed on speech all the time! Individuals have to be approved for permits, individuals cannot incite others to violence, individuals can’t make threats. Free speech doesn’t mean unfettered speech. Corporations currently can make contributions through individuals in their corporate entity. Corporations are also allowed to lobby government officals. Corporations are also allowed to advertise their views in any media format they wish. Yes corporations have restrictions on their speech, but that is no different than actual people.

2) this decision goes against 100 yrs of judicial precident, so much for that activist judge racket…the governmet does have a valid interest in limiting corporate speech, it’s the same thing our founding fathers were concerned about, the overinfluence of one segment of society over the populace as a whole. As I previously said exxon mobile had profits of 45 billion. The presidential election cost 2 billion, and that was a record. Why would you want corporations to have this much inlfuence over our political system???

I never understand conservatives…it’s like destroying the federal government is your mission. But hey we deserve what we get.

[...] From the Atlanta Journal Constitution today: In a clear, straight-forward and constitutionally-based opinion , the US Supreme Court [...]

Dave R.

January 22nd, 2010
12:02 pm

This just upsets the left because liberals can’t think for themselves, and now big corporations are going to tell them what to do.

The best fun I had yesterday was watching Keith Olbermann meltdown on his lame show last night. That sour, pathetic elitist was almost on the verge of crying.

Road Scholar

January 22nd, 2010
12:03 pm

” For a host of other reasons, such as taxation, corporations are considered people.”
So why do businesses get all the tax breaks?

Also someone please expose the “myth” that 40-50% of people do not pay taxes. Why? Do they make so little that they lie below the poverty level- defined by both parties? What % of the real taxes do corporations pay? What % of real taxes do rich Americans duck since they have the means to get additional tax breaks beyond their mortgage? Let’s get real!


January 22nd, 2010
12:08 pm

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Oh yea! That means this group has more right the the smallest individual.

Overbread, overfed and ignorance. If you don’t like what it means change the meaning of the word. If you change the word you have to Ratify the Constitution and the people would have the say and that is only what the Fore Fathers wished. But who are they anyway. Surely not ar right wing Conservative that does the most LIBERAL action against the Constitution, ever. Oh, but how much money and power a few can achieve, RIGHT?


January 22nd, 2010
12:11 pm

Interesting that no one has even mentioned the network bias that goes on unabated and legal to influence our votes.
Interesting that no one has even mentioned ACORN and the “Corporate Government” money they amass to influence the election for their far left candidates.
Interesting that no one has mentioned the influence of the SEIU to amass millions of dollars to push their fascist agenda.
It seems the libs only protest when it seems they will be disadvantaged the most by the ruling.

Dave R.

January 22nd, 2010
12:12 pm

Road Scholar, the figure that almost 50% of Americans don’t pay INCOME taxes is true. A much higher percentage are charged payroll taxes, but they only fund Social Security and Medicare. The other 50% pay the bulk of the operating costs for this nation.

Technically, businesses don’t pay taxes. They are charged taxes, but pass those tax costs onto their customers in the form of consumer goods. Everyone who buys anything ultimately pays corporate business taxes.

Rich Americans duck a lot of taxes, but the top 25% of wage earners still end up paying well over 80% of the income taxes in this country.