Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

SCOTUS rules 5-4 that overall contribution limits violate the First Amendment.

But contributions to individual federal candidates remain fixed at $2,600 per election. Justice Thomas would have done away with those, too.

Discuss.

5 Conks voted to allow a flood of cash
4 Patriotic Democrats voted to keep the limits.




Republicans - can't win on ideas, have to steal.

The threat of quid pro quo is outweighed by the political meme that money is protected speech.

What a bunch of irrational douchebags. Not to go all JSO on the judiciary, but seriously, how can someone become a SCOTUS judge lacking this much common sense?

We might as well start handing out votes based on assets. It would be cheaper.

(And I know the last statement made it move a little for some of you conks, so simmer down, ya filthy, plutocrats!)

kalm wrote:The threat of quid pro quo is outweighed by the political meme that money is protected speech.

What a bunch of irrational douchebags. Not to go all JSO on the judiciary, but seriously, how can someone become a SCOTUS judge lacking this much common sense?

We might as well start handing out votes based on assets. It would be cheaper.

(And I know the last statement made it move a little for some of you conks, so simmer down, ya filthy, plutocrats!)

The majority did exactly what they were supposed to do. They made a legal evaluation, not a political calculation.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee liberty, not equal outcomes.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:The threat of quid pro quo is outweighed by the political meme that money is protected speech.

What a bunch of irrational douchebags. Not to go all JSO on the judiciary, but seriously, how can someone become a SCOTUS judge lacking this much common sense?

We might as well start handing out votes based on assets. It would be cheaper.

(And I know the last statement made it move a little for some of you conks, so simmer down, ya filthy, plutocrats!)

The majority did exactly what they were supposed to do. They made a legal evaluation, not a political calculation.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee liberty, not equal outcomes.

So can joe blow schedule an appointment with a congressman? You clearly haven't thought modern liberty through very much.

kalm wrote:We might as well start handing out votes based on assets. It would be cheaper.

I'd settle for property qualifications for voting.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:We might as well start handing out votes based on assets. It would be cheaper.

I'd settle for property qualifications for voting.

I'm sure you would.

dbackjon wrote:5 Conks voted to allow a flood of cash
4 Patriotic Democrats voted to keep the limits.




Republicans - can't win on ideas, have to steal.

And so CS.com's gay Chris Matthews weighs in...

kalm wrote: We might as well start handing out votes based on assets. It would be cheaper.

(And I know the last statement made it move a little for some of you conks, so simmer down, ya filthy, plutocrats!)

JSO got a little stiffy right there.

Ivytalk wrote:

dbackjon wrote:5 Conks voted to allow a flood of cash
4 Patriotic Democrats voted to keep the limits.




Republicans - can't win on ideas, have to steal.

And so CS.com's gay Chris Matthews weighs in...

Heck, let's overrule Buckley v. Valeo once and for all, and eliminate the per-candidate limits, too!

Ivytalk wrote:

dbackjon wrote:5 Conks voted to allow a flood of cash
4 Patriotic Democrats voted to keep the limits.




Republicans - can't win on ideas, have to steal.

And so CS.com's gay Chris Matthews weighs in...

Ivytalk wrote:Heck, let's overrule Buckley v. Valeo once and for all, and eliminate the per-candidate limits, too!

Thomas wanted that

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
The majority did exactly what they were supposed to do. They made a legal evaluation, not a political calculation.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee liberty, not equal outcomes.

So can joe blow schedule an appointment with a congressman? You clearly haven't thought modern liberty through very much.

It depends on the congressperson in question. Joe Blows meet with my congressman all the time. I seriously doubt that Pelosi has much time for the hoi polloi.

Anyway, I don't see anything in the Constitution that requires members of congress to keep a certain number of hours to meet with Joe Blow. If members of congress are not responsive to the constituents, they can be voted out of office. That's why most of them have sizable staffs in Washington and their districts to deal with constituent matters.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
So can joe blow schedule an appointment with a congressman? You clearly haven't thought modern liberty through very much.

It depends on the congressperson in question. Joe Blows meet with my congressman all the time. I seriously doubt that Pelosi has much time for the hoi polloi.

Anyway, I don't see anything in the Constitution that requires members of congress to keep a certain number of hours to meet with Joe Blow. If members of congress are not responsive to the constituents, they can be voted out of office. That's why most of them have sizable staffs in Washington and their districts to deal with constituent matters.

Nice deflection. You know what I'm talking about.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
It depends on the congressperson in question. Joe Blows meet with my congressman all the time. I seriously doubt that Pelosi has much time for the hoi polloi.

Anyway, I don't see anything in the Constitution that requires members of congress to keep a certain number of hours to meet with Joe Blow. If members of congress are not responsive to the constituents, they can be voted out of office. That's why most of them have sizable staffs in Washington and their districts to deal with constituent matters.

Nice deflection. You know what I'm talking about.

I think you need a better congressperson - I don't contribute a dime in terms of campaign funds and I can meet with my congressperson. I didn't realize politicians out west were so unapproachable.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Nice deflection. You know what I'm talking about.

I think you need a better congressperson - I don't contribute a dime in terms of campaign funds and I can meet with my congressperson. I didn't realize politicians out west were so unapproachable.

Yes, and I'm sure you can impact their vote.

kalm wrote:
We might as well start handing out votes based on assets.

Assets? Who needs assets to vote?

Cripes, you don't even need an ID to vote.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
It depends on the congressperson in question. Joe Blows meet with my congressman all the time. I seriously doubt that Pelosi has much time for the hoi polloi.

Anyway, I don't see anything in the Constitution that requires members of congress to keep a certain number of hours to meet with Joe Blow. If members of congress are not responsive to the constituents, they can be voted out of office. That's why most of them have sizable staffs in Washington and their districts to deal with constituent matters.

Nice deflection. You know what I'm talking about.

Like you, I rarely know what you are talking about.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
Nice deflection. You know what I'm talking about.

Like you, I rarely know what you are talking about.

Playing dumb fits you like a glove .

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
Nice deflection. You know what I'm talking about.

Like you, I rarely know what you are talking about.

Klam is never direct

only cryptic

it gives him backpedal-ability

Don't agree with decision, but it mitigates the unconstitutional advantage afforded the Dems through numerous institutionalized govt. entitlement handouts designed solely to support the liberal demographic.
Unions funnel foreign contributions via prepaid cc's distributed to anonymous members. And the voter fraud enchaptered by our nations largest criminal enterprise, Holders DOJ, well...

...in the end, it all balances out.

CID1990 wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Like you, I rarely know what you are talking about.

Klam is never direct

only cryptic

it gives him backpedal-ability

The more money you give the more you get to influence legislation.

You're welcome.

BTW, I wonder where JSO is on this one. Activist judges and all...

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Klam is never direct

only cryptic

it gives him backpedal-ability

The more money you give the more you get to influence legislation.

You're welcome.

Then you should gather together all the like minded voters who think like you do and, together, make the changes you want. Why do you not care enough to make a difference?