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

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
12:18 pm

Road Schalar,

You forget the rich have little to no Income. They have inherited wealth that is only TAXED as Capital Gains, 15%, when withdrawn and 0% is re-invested. If they receive Dividends ($800 billin) it is also taxed at 15%. Not bad for most of the wealth in a given year or all years. But that distributes the wealth no where and keeps it in the hands of a few

Treez

January 22nd, 2010
12:27 pm

Ridgerunner:

you make little sense…

“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.”

1) it’s funny how you think you just said something significant. On average it takes 8 years for a case to reach the SC so someone tell the ACLU to file their brief now.

2) Republicans gave foreign corporations the ability to infiltrate US corporations. So what exactly are you talking about?

“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.”

No one is disputing the legality of the decision, the issue is the fact that, in an effort to score some sort of political victory, conservative justices have failed to take into account the actual consequences of this decision.

Additionally, it’s the duty of rational citizens to point out faulty decisions of the judiciary. This decision goes against 100 yrs of established judicial precident. And what makes this decision even more thinkable is that the court did not even address this established law. Moreover they didn’t even address our founding fathers, who were completely against this type of influence, so much for those strict construstionist principles these justices claim to believe in. What your partisan blindness prevents you fro seeing is that this decision goes against everything these conservatives justices claim to be for.

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.”

Ok this paragraph doesn’t make a damn bit of sense. But for SnG, what freedoms are our own death warrant? Civil liberities, free speech, what exactly are you talking about. If you rant you must do it coherently….I think you should take a good solid look at what you believe in because you sound truely confused.

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
12:29 pm

Dave R.

I agree with everything, BUT “Business don’t pay taxes. They are charge taxes, but pass those ta costs onto their customer in the form of consumer goods. UNTRUE

You are listening to the NEWS too much. Accounting 101 would teach ASSETS – LIABILITIES = OWNER EQUIT AND INCOME – EXPENSES = NET PROFT.

If a business raise the cost of goods to cover TAX Expense it Raise INCOME and TAX both a CATCH22. That does not work. If you raise TAXES businesses can spend more and SAVE TAX (ONLY WAY. Therefore they must create jobs or spend campital to ACTUALLY CUT TAXES. It grows the economy.

My guess is they want the average American Worker to compete with the lowest waged nomadic tribe memeber in the lowest nation. No other explanation for the Media, Corporation and Admin acting so stupid

It is a FANCY phrase or word game to keep the people stupid when the truth is distorted for more profit (Owners Equity)

Ridgerunner

January 22nd, 2010
12:30 pm

Come, come people ………………….

The Federal government is a “corporation” for crying out load. They even ride in “corporate” jets. We’re just stockholders.

This is much ado about nothing.

MrLiberty

January 22nd, 2010
12:32 pm

As someone who works everyday investigating product and parts failures, I understand the importance of identifying root causes of problems. Without identifying the root cause, one can never successfully fix the problem (except maybe by random chance).

Not bothering to identify the root cause of problems seems to be the way everything gets done in Washington however. McCain-Feingold, like the major election reforms in response to the Nixon administration corruption, never hope to address the root cause. Money for campaigns is never the problem. The american electorate needs to be informed about candidates, and unless the content of advertising is fraudulent (the response to which should be civil and criminal penalties), the amount of advertising or its cost should be irrelevant to everyone. Plans like these should be seen by everyone as just another government scam to make it seem like something is getting done, while the real plan is to restrict entry of opponents into the political process – they didn’t call this the “Incumbent Protection Act” for nothing.

The problem is now and has always been the ability of government to steal our money through taxation, inflation (via the Federal Reserve and its printing presses) and the like and give it to their friends (whether as corporations or as special interest parasite groups). Further, the governments ability and propensity for regulations (read controls and economic attacks) are yet another form of payoff to special groups. The problem is not in the money going into the front side of the campaign, but rather the money coming out of the back side of the elected officials.

Libertarians have correctly and consistently argued that a massively diminished government whose hands are tied by the explicit restrictions of the constitution (with some obviously needed clarifications) would lack the ability to spread riches and priviledges upon the parasites that feed at the federal trough. With the money supply cut off by this means, the incentive for tit-for-tat campaign contributions would dry up, and contributions would be made, as they should be, in support of candidates who maintain the protections of rights and liberty.

Ron Paul does not receive support from PACs. He is not in the pocket of defense contractors, parasitic farmers (as opposed to the ones that make it on their own), labor unions, and the like. His list of donors reads like a who’s who of liberty and freedom-minded individuals who care about having a candidate that will support their rights to be left on their own with their freedom intact. Good luck finding anyone else in the house or senate that can say that.

Too many americans resign themselves to the largesse that government delivers to too many special interests. The single act of eliminating the federal income tax would dry up the flow of money so significantly that the biggest parasites would starve. Serious restoration of the free market and sound money would deliver another solid blow. But too many are more interested in maintaining their own special interest than realizing the problem is inherent in government and must be corrected there, not by restricting the financial mechanisms that are critical to maintaining the information flow that puts people into office.

EC

January 22nd, 2010
12:33 pm

See how ACORN used its influence to buy ad time to condemn John McCain at election time in 2008

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/29/new-acorn-ad-tell-mccain-the-gop-not-this-time/

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
12:33 pm

Ridgerunner,

OK so BUSH could have spent our Treasury dollar on McCain’s campain in your words

Swede Atlanta

January 22nd, 2010
12:40 pm

Ref EC @ 12:11

Thanks. I needed a good laugh today.

1. Network bias
I completely agree that this is a major problem. It is because we have allowed the creation of media giants. The DOJ and the FCC have done a miserable job in minding the henhouse. Allowing media concentration not only harms competition but it is a particular type of competition – the role the media plays in controlling the messages that are communicated in print and broadcast media.

2. ACORN
I’ll let someone else comment on your point of view because I really don’t have an opinion.

3. SEIU
This is a union. And yes several people, including myself, have commented on the problems with unions. Personally I expect union membership and influence to wane over the long-term unless we see a significant resurgence in the union movement. That could happen as more and more companies are limiting employees to part-time hours, cutting benefits, etc.

But your assertion that SEIU is fascist is laughable. Do you know what fascism is? SEIU, as with any union, are seeking to promote the interests of their members. Your assertion they are part of some vast fascist conspiracy is absurd and baseless.

I am not concerned about this because I feel that liberal ideology alone is threatened. The reality is with this ruling more and more political influence will be exerted by monied interests. Unions and grass root action committees cannot possibly compete with the corporate coffers of ExxonMobil, Kraft Foods or Northrup-Grumman.

Indeed these entities that have a single focus, to make money, will be able to effectively drown out the voices of the American people. Some have commented that corporations don’t vote, only people do. That is true. But when the corporation can effectively fund 30 second ads that run ever 15 minutes on all the major tv and radio networks, no other voice or opinion can be heard.

The internet’s competing news media, social networking and blogs can help but a concentrated, repetitive campaign in traditional media backed by an almost limitless amount of money will win every time.

EC

January 22nd, 2010
12:41 pm

See on example of how the SEIU bought air time to slam McCain on healthcare with their donated monies.
SEhttp://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/04/seiu_slams_mcca.php

Also there are endless examples of the mindnumbing liberal propaganda perpetuated by NBC CBS ABC MSNBC etc. to influence elections.

Dave R.

January 22nd, 2010
12:42 pm

Bill, you may be great at accounting, but you fail Business 101.

Do corporations generate money out of thin air? No, they don’t. They get money by providing a service to a consumer of their product. That consumer pays the corporation for that service or product. Within the price of the product is built in the cost of taxes. Completely and totally. Plus the cost to comply with our tax code. Plus the cost of the raw materials. Everything.

Thus, ultimately, only the consumer ever pays taxes. The corporation merely passes the cost of that tax onto the consumer, and pays the government the taxes they have collected from the consumer through the purchase of their product.

Business 101, Bill.

Aquagirl

January 22nd, 2010
12:45 pm

The SCOTUS asked for a case to be re-argued on even broader grounds, so they could make a broader decision. Bob (and many so-called conservatives) think judicial activism is fine as long as you approve of the outcome.

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
12:47 pm

Mr Liberty,

Hard to dissargue with most of your comments. I too like Paul, but I also like Kochinuch.

But it is extreeme to say Government, which is only a vehicle, it is the laws and the current Administration. Use very well by Corporations, and wealthy to buy what they want for themselves. In fact this article is about lowering my RIGHTS as an individual. The very VIBER of you Liberty. Living on the backs of one person is depriving him of his right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The poor and incompetent do little to limit my ability in these pursuits. But unfair laws and unscrupulous Corporations and Wealthy can greatly effect my rights and freedoms. Exactly what the constitution wished to protect, not take away or take for granite.

So when my rights have to compete with the wealth of corporations it is not Unequal, it is lost. That loss is your Liberty TOO. The Constitution is all about individual rights and the protection of them all for the good of the all, not a GROUP, FOUNDATION, TRUSTS or Corporation and the like

Ridgerunner

January 22nd, 2010
12:48 pm

Bill:

Come on !!! He did !

They all do when they go out and campaign (staff, jets, Secret Service, military support) for someone in their party. It’s the real world !

Ridgerunner

January 22nd, 2010
12:49 pm

P.S. to Bill:

What do you think Obama just did when it went to Massachusetts ?

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
12:55 pm

Kitty, nice comments

Too bad the greedy are drunk with the addiction of it all. Otherwise they would understand we have a lack of Aggregate Demand. Because of all that they have done and this interpretation does more.

Eventually the dumb will realize if the people do not have money the cannot buy the goods. So it is like a big POKER GAME they can only reshuffle their money back and forth and not sell 1 damn think

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
1:00 pm

Ridgerunner,

Is it not different for an Admin to support it party and 9 dumb people saying our Fore Father were thinking of Corporaction when Jefferson in the Declaration said, “all men are created equal”

You surely do not think the were bad in Grammer LAW or incompentent. That they really meant to say “all men and corporations”?

Sunshine and Thunder

January 22nd, 2010
1:04 pm

The first amendment is clear: “congress shall MAKE NO LAW…prohibiting the freedom of speech”. Congress DID make such a law and the SCOTUS struck it down. Nowhere in the First amendment does it say only people have free speech. It say CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW!

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
1:04 pm

Yah, but should I beleive that Jefferson meant “all men and corporations are created equal”.

Was he incommpetent or had no knowledge of LAW or Grammer. I do not think so. The greed is out weighing the value of truth here.

My dogs could figure this one out, right?

Dan

January 22nd, 2010
1:07 pm

A couple of points
-Corporations are taxed (of course they simply pass it to their customers…) so they should have say in the political process
it’s really a no brainer, as a matter of fact if anyone is wrong in the situation so many are afraid of, its the politician, if they can be bought then they are in the wrong, not the corp.(and btw Dems are far biggger recipients of business dollars than Reps)
-Those who wrongly declare that conservatives are ok with judicial activism still don’t understand that activism is changing the constitution via a ruling by arguing for a broader meaning. Conservatives more often interpret it more literally so you would be more correct to label it protectionist if you choose to disparage, calling it conservative activism only shows more clearly your lack of understanding.

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
1:14 pm

Sunshine,

Do you really think the founders of the Constitution did not know the difference between an Individual and a Corporation. Do you really think by men, they did not mean INDIVIDUAL. They all were lawyers do you not think they would use CORPORATION is they meant to.

“All laws not granted the Federal Government belong to the STATE and INDIVIDUAL” NOT CORPORATION

deathportal

January 22nd, 2010
1:23 pm

Ummm…all you people who say “Corporations are not people” DO realize that corporations are RUN by PEOPLE, right? Just checking. The shareholders in the corporations are also people. Stop trying to make a double standard.

Sunshine and Thunder

January 22nd, 2010
1:24 pm

Bill,

Of course they did. The whole idea is that we are born with natural rights. So why did they simply say “congress shall make no law” instead of “‘the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed”?

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
1:25 pm

Dan R,

Econ 101 if you want to create jobs and your business 101 is not working because you are TAXING the corporation too little and they are passing all the 90% profit in the form of dividents to the secondary Stock Traders.

There is only one thing to do right now. RAISE TAXES. That forces the corporation to invest in capital or hire more people. Otherwise they pay more TAXES right now and pass less in dividend or ownersequity.

YOU WERE TALKING about TAX 101, not that corporation sell commodoties overe time and consumer purchase them. We are talking Tax policy and rate and this is how it works if you wnat to create change to effect your economy right. Corporation will normaly spend more on capital and jobs rather than hand the Govrnment tax dallars. That is the theory.

You are trying to effect the economy, Not that those $ came from a customer some where some time ago or in the future. As long as you build building or hire more people in the economy

Your are

Sunshine and Thunder

January 22nd, 2010
1:28 pm

Bill,

How is it that the AJC can have an editorial board that speaks freely as a corporation but non media corporations don’t have that priviledge?

Byron Mathison Kerr

January 22nd, 2010
1:29 pm

To Dave R., January 22nd, 2010, 12:02 pm: I do not watch Keith Olbermann or MSNBC. But when I get over the shock of this Supreme Court decision, I may start crying, too.

The economic model of capitalism is outright taking over the governmental model of democracy — and the overall citizenry of this great country of ours seems unaware of its happening.

As a proud American who loves this country dearly, I cannot think of anything better to cry about.

Dave R.

January 22nd, 2010
1:30 pm

Yeah, Bill, in the WORST economy in almost a century, and you want to raise taxes?

Nope, not unless you want to kill jobs even more.

Sunshine and Thunder

January 22nd, 2010
1:30 pm

Bill,

Brilliant. In the middle of a fragile recovery you want to raise taxes on the jobs producers.

“Corporation will normaly spend more on capital and jobs rather than hand the Govrnment tax dallars. That is the theory. ”

This is a joke, right?

Swede Atlanta

January 22nd, 2010
1:32 pm

Ref: Sunshine and Thunder @ 1:04

The Preamble to the Constitution states “We the People (not we the people and legal fictions like corporations)….”

Corporations only exist at our discretion. We could strip them of their very right to exist if we had the political will. They are legal constructs that have an appropriate role in society.

The Theory of Natural Law that informed our founding fathers spoke of the rights of man, i.e. human beings.

And if you don’t believe that see HillBilly Deluxe @ 11:37

QUOTE
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

UNQUOTE

Ridgerunner

January 22nd, 2010
1:33 pm

Bill:

Two points. Try to follow these carefully.

1) By your logic, the 1st Amendment meant only quills and ink, the 2nd Amendment meant only flintlocks and the 4th Amendment has nothing to do with motorhomes.

2) “OK so BUSH could have spent our Treasury dollar on McCain’s campain in your words”

Why did you avoid my answer to your comment just above? They all do it ………. your “Treasury dollar” for their party campaigning ! Sometimes they even try to hide it by having a big political rally in a city but cover the enormous expenses for that trip by having a small “presidential event” (i.e., visiting the troops at a military base) earlier that afternoon in the same city. It’s the real world Bill ………….. our government ‘is” in effect a corporation.

The only problem I have is that those who pay more taxes (especially compared to those who pay none) should own more stock ……………. have their vote count more !

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
1:37 pm

Deathportal,

Bill of Right, were the awnser to incorporating the Individual Right of the Declaration of Independence into the Constitution. The right of the individual not the many against the 1. That is communism.

Individual Right is the oposite of a GROUP, Think Tank, Trust, Foundation. Where many individual pool money and votes to attack each persons individual right. Both the Left and the Right beleive in this. We disagree on how but not what. Allowing more than one against one is not what our government was founded. We went to war against the British for indivdual freedom, to protect free choice and equality.

Many does not equal 1 in my MATH 101

Fix-It

January 22nd, 2010
1:37 pm

Why does this piss off the liberals? They get their money for corporations?

DD

January 22nd, 2010
1:38 pm

The AJC, NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, all the media companies are……………corporations!!! And yet they were allowed to say anything they wanted about elections and politicians. As usual, seems a bit biased.

I’ll bet they all HOWL at this rulling, lol, cause there goes the monopoly (again)

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
1:45 pm

Ridgerunner,

So how can I not agree that my money get spent the way you say. But a President cannot write a check to McCain and say Campain contribuiton to be Obama. That was the point and discussion. I had to say that?

You say, “The only problem I have is that those who pay more taxes (especially compared to those who pay none) should own more stock ……………. have their vote count more !”

That is call Aristocracy not Demacracy. You are changing the subject here. I have one job I was offered a 2nd job if I worked both jobs they would have taken all of the first and $2000 of the second. And I am lower middle class worker.

So yes that is rediculus, but if I inherited the wealth and withdrew the same amount in the same year it would have only cost me 15 capital gains. Nothing on the appreciation of my inheritance.

We are talking Fareness and Taxation here not the constitution and the supreme courts decision saying our Found Father we dumb, no the Supreme Court 5 are dumber and motivated by self interest and it will cost you in the end more than unfair taxation which can be fixed with a tax code change and not the RATIFICATION of the Constitution.

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
1:46 pm

Ridgerunner, I meant disgree with you on the previous

Tracker

January 22nd, 2010
1:50 pm

ridgrunner you commented “this rulling only allows corporations to flood a market and exert undue influence on the poltitcal process”
Do you mean just like the mainstream media does??? What are all of you so afraid of anyway? Are you so stupid you can’t look at the canidates and decide for yourselves.

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
1:52 pm

Fix it,

Yes we get our money (10%) of corporate profit) from corporations, but secondary Stock Traders get 90% for no risk, no sweat, no genius.

Part of the reason America is a failure!

Why we are pissed

Kaipo

January 22nd, 2010
1:55 pm

Swede Atlanta:
“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”.

But in corporate law there is what you call piercing the veil- to get to the humans who run the companies. So by extension this natural Law ought to apply to companies as well.

Sunshine and Thunder

January 22nd, 2010
1:55 pm

Swede:

So where does the right of the people to freely assemble stop? If the people can freely assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, where does it prohibit those same people from making a profit?

Sunshine and Thunder

January 22nd, 2010
1:57 pm

Bill,

“secondary Stock Traders get 90% for no risk, no sweat, no genius.”

That isn’t true. I am one of those traders.

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
1:58 pm

Dave R,

Yes I would raise tax on the Corporation to create JOBs, I would tax the top 400 inherited Wealthy to pay for 60% of all corporate income for no sweat, genius, risk or the Primary Stock purchase.

I am not concerned for a few incompetent, misfortunate, or fools who want to live of a few food stamps. I am concerned the the rich have 97% of the wealth and 3% is left for all the technology creation that the nation and globe needs to attract the genius to make it all work.

We need genius not cleverness we need Exports not Money Market trading. That is if you really car for stabilized equillibrium of our economy. Otherwise hand on to your dollar which is worth a whole lot less that 10 years ago

Swede Atlanta

January 22nd, 2010
1:59 pm

Ref: Tracker @ 1:50

Why do people have to be rude and disrespectful on these blogs? This is part of the problem – people cannot simply express their views objectively without attacking someone else personally. I gave up name calling many years ago.

Print and broadcast media are a problem. That problem has become even more pronounced as decade after decade of regulators have allowed for more and more consolidation of the “press” (loosely construed).

The problem with your statement that voters should be able to decide for themselves is that when you have monied interests that are either for or against a candidate and they can now flood money into individual campaigns, this means that whoever has the most money will be heard.

So if you have a candidate, for example, that takes a position that challenges certain business interests, those interests can use as much money as they want to buy up airtime to run negative ads, etc. It is very hard for individuals to combat that. I can’t afford to give $100,000 to a candidate.

So while yes it is up to the individual to assess the candidates or issues and vote accordingly, if one side can overpower the other with limitless amounts of cash to trash the other, the only thing voters will hear is the negative.

Welcome to America, of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

Dave R.

January 22nd, 2010
2:00 pm

If America is a failure, it is because of liberals trying to foist their way of thinking on freedom-loving individuals.

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
2:06 pm

Sunshine,

Primary Stock Trader (IPO) Initial Stock Purchases goes into the corporation)

Secondary Stock Trader (no cash goes back into the corporation NEVER. only trading among trader for appreciation of the stock value, but nothing is returned to the corporation.

So you risk is does the stock appreciate, but what does that do for the economy. It is a lotory for stock trader and personal gain only.

Many over 1 and 1 over many. Marx would love this education

Swede Atlanta

January 22nd, 2010
2:12 pm

Ref Kaipo @ 1:55

I would not mix enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights with policies of Corporate Law. The Founding Fathers didn’t create the theory of “piercing the corporate veil”. It evolved as part of corporate law.

The idea in business law to allow one to pierce the corporate veil relates to the abuse of corporate law by an individual(s).

But to suggest that because corporate law allows abuses of the corporate form to be remedied by piercing the veil and getting at the individual for that abuse somehow means the corporation is a person under natural law is hard to follow.

The theory of Natural Law as it was understood by the Founders related to people, human beings.

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
2:21 pm

Dave R.

Seeing the world Left or Right is Linear VIEW at best. Reality is too complex to look at this all left or right. I am more conservative than many with my money. I am libeeral when it comes to allow people to do what they want as long as it does not harm anyone else.

Now if i am missing the discussion and this is about those who can take what they want, then I am in hte wrong discussion.

We were born into life equally, not left or right. That is the issue here. To have an equal and fair playing field because that is how we all WIN/WIN. Otherwise we will continue to FAIL in economy, foreigh policy, social value, physical health, etc.

Free Choice is what it is about. You may want more money, I may want more friends, but we each can pursue either or both anyway we want as long as we do not stand on others to get it. Or group together to get an advantage over others or one.

Collusion, Anti-Trust, Price Fixing, etc. were all created in this light. Fare Trade and equality.

But the left/right b.s. now want us to allow our Pharmasutical Drugs to be sold back to us from Europe. After we paid to ship them there, now we get to pay toship them back here and buy them cheaper when they were made here in the first place. This is simple price fixing. No need to be dumb or dumber.

It is this lack of knowlege and logic that is the problem. Our history and laws are being used for self interest not protecting liberty, but I guess the higher price of gas, the great loss of resources will make it all RIGHT? WRONG

Fix-It

January 22nd, 2010
2:22 pm

FairTax.org , stop the bull and do it! Liberals should love the fairtax, because it IS fair to ALL people.

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
2:30 pm

Sweede Alanta

Well stated. I love the logic of John Locke

This Makes me think of what would happen if I had 6 corporations. Does that mean I get to vote 7 times?

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
2:37 pm

Fix it

I am for fair tax. I do not like group though

hatin' on the stupid

January 22nd, 2010
2:41 pm

Dave R:”If America is a failure, it is because of liberals trying to foist their way of thinking on freedom-loving individuals.”

Freedom from thinking perhaps. OMG

Bill

January 22nd, 2010
2:41 pm

Jacob it only make sense for the dumb and dumber or the greeder can never have enough to be happy because they do not realize happiness is a state of mind not a pile of cash