Inauguration Funding

[kalm]

Gee, I wonder why Obamacare was written the way it was?

Funny thing is, you cash worshipping conks can't get off your "money is speech" high horse either. 'democracy will end when people figure out they can vote themselves raises...47%...generational dependency...takers vs. producers...Obamacare will ruin small businesses...blah, blah, blah ' ...

But, but, but healthcare executives must be producers, right? I mean they make billions! And they paid Obama to pass a bill which guaranteed them another 40 million insurance customers and big pharma favors! And now he gets a really cool party out of it!

I'll say it again, if you think corporations are people and money is speech your a moron who deserves Obamacare and having to foot the bill for the parasites. If you voted for Obama more than once, still believing in "change"...

Obama Inauguration Planners Looking For Million Dollar Donors
By JACK GILLUM, NEDRA PICKLER and STEPHEN BRAUN 01/08/13 09:07 PM ET EST

WASHINGTON — Planners of President Barack Obama's second inauguration are soliciting high-dollar contributions up to $1 million to help pay for the celebration in exchange for special access.

The changes are part of a continuing erosion of Obama's pledge to keep donors and special interests at arm's length of his presidency. He has abandoned the policy from his first inauguration to accept donations up to only $50,000 from individuals, announcing last month that he would take unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations.

A fundraising appeal obtained by The Associated Press shows the Presidential Inaugural Committee is going far beyond Obama's previous self-imposed limits and is looking to blow away modern American presidential inauguration fundraising records by offering donors four VIP packages named after the country's founding fathers.

Event organizers are hoping the packages will pay for expensive events surrounding Obama's inaugural on Jan. 21. Obama raised $53 million in private money for his first inauguration, when a record 1.8 million people packed the National Mall to see the nation's first black president take the oath of office. The celebration has been scaled down this year, with less than half the crowd expected and a cut from 10 inauguration-night balls to two.

But the pressure is high to pay for the festivities after donors already contributed to the most expensive political race in U.S. history, a campaign that exceeded $2 billion. So far, health care executives and major Democratic Party donors – including those who've taken private meetings with Obama or his senior staff – are among those paying for the party.

The shifts underscore Obama's evolving stance on changing how business is conducted in Washington. He criticized pay-for-access privileges during his first campaign, and after coming into office he pledged to have the most transparent administration in history. The president once shunned lobbyists but later gave some waivers to work for his administration. Once a vocal opponent of super political action committees – which can spend as much money as they can raise to help candidates – Obama later embraced them when faced with the mountain of cash spent by allies of his Republican campaign challengers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/0 ... 35234.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Baldy]

I'll say it again, if you think corporations are people and money is speech your a moron who deserves Obamacare and having to foot the bill for the parasites. If you voted for Obama more than once, still believing in "change"...

[HI54UNI]

I'll say it again, if you think corporations are people and money is speech your a moron who deserves Obamacare and having to foot the bill for the parasites. If you voted for Obama more than once, still believing in "change"...

Only a fucking moron believed his "change" shit the first time and voted for him.

[grizzaholic]

Only a fucking moron believed his "change" shit the first time and voted for him.

You mean, he really didn't want "change", he actually wanted change, as in money from all of us?

[kalm]

Only a fucking moron believed his "change" shit the first time and voted for him.

You're a bigger dope for voting either McCain or Romney.

[grizzaholic]

Only a fucking moron believed his "change" shit the first time and voted for him.

You're a bigger dope for voting either McCain or Romney.

Ron Paul?

[kalm]

You're a bigger dope for voting either McCain or Romney.

Ron Paul?

I have no problem with someone who voted Paul. BTW, at you're "change" comment. Saw an Onion headline recently that read "Nation's worse job given to Black Man."

[HI54UNI]

Only a fucking moron believed his "change" shit the first time and voted for him.

You're a bigger dope for voting either McCain or Romney.

Did I strike a nerve? You're the one that brought up Obama. I voted for the libertarian the last two elections.

I'll say it again. Anybody that voted for Obama in 08 because they believed his "change" bullshit is a fucking moron.

[kalm]

You're a bigger dope for voting either McCain or Romney.

Did I strike a nerve? You're the one that brought up Obama. I voted for the libertarian the last two elections.

I'll say it again. Anybody that voted for Obama in 08 because they believed his "change" bullshit is a fucking moron.

OK, ok. Guilty as charged. And you're off the hook for your voting record. Was it Paul and Johnson?

Now, back to the topic at hand. Thank you corporate personhood for saddling healthcare costs on to small businesses.

[JohnStOnge]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Everybody knows what it says. It does not say "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech unless it's speech by a corporation." My understanding is that the Supreme Court did not rule that corporations are people. It ruled that corporations have the same rights as people when it comes to expressing themselves during political campaigns.

And the whole thing of limiting in any way what people can spend to get their message out is obviously abridging freedom of speech. Money is not speech. But money is used to facilitate speech. It's used to get your message out. If Congress makes a law limiting how much a person, a corporation, or anything else can spend to speak to everyone they want to speak to Congress makes a law abridging freedom of speech.

Congress should not be in the business of making laws designed to restrict what people say in terms of political speech nor restricting how many people they can try to say it to.

[kalm]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Everybody knows what it says. It does not say "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech unless it's speech by a corporation." My understanding is that the Supreme Court did not rule that corporations are people. It ruled that corporations have the same rights as people when it comes to expressing themselves during political campaigns.

And the whole thing of limiting in any way what people can spend to get their message out is obviously abridging freedom of speech. Money is not speech. But money is used to facilitate speech. It's used to get your message out. If Congress makes a law limiting how much a person, a corporation, or anything else can spend to speak to everyone they want to speak to Congress makes a law abridging freedom of speech.

Congress should not be in the business of making laws designed to restrict what people say in terms of political speech nor restricting how many people they can try to say it to.

It also does not say a corporation is a person.

A corporation is not a person, it's a group of people which may or may not be controlled by the same amount of people that make it up. Regardless, there does exist limits to constitutional rights. And if you limited corporate speech, the individual's right to speech would still be intact.

The founders would not be on your side in this.

[Bronco]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJWNbBKOJBc[/youtube]

[JohnStOnge]

It also does not say a corporation is a person.

A corporation is not a person, it's a group of people which may or may not be controlled by the same amount of people that make it up. Regardless, there does exist limits to constitutional rights. And if you limited corporate speech, the individual's right to speech would still be intact.

The founders would not be on your side in this.

No the Constitution does not say that corporations are persons but neither did the Supreme Court in its "Citizens United" ruling. Of course I would not think the government truly has authority under the Constitution to regulate how much people, corporations, or anything else spend in an effort to get their candidates of choice elected regardless of what the Supreme Court said. But in this case whether corporations are persons or not was not the issue. See the editorial at http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012 ... tional-law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for a discussion of the error of the perception that it was.

Also, you can look at the decision itself at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . I'm not going to claim to have read the whole thing but I read some of it and I did "find's" on "person" as well as "individual." Didn't see anything remotely suggesting that the Court was arguing that corporations are persons.

Of course to me the Court could've had a one paragraph rational saying something like "The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from abridging speech. A law restricting an entity from spending its own resources in order to speak to a lot of people abridges speech. Case closed. " That's all they needed to say.

I hate it when they get into that "compelling governmental interest" stuff. To me that's just an excuse for doing something other than what the Constitution says. And deciding what a "compelling government interest" is shouldn't be a Judge's role. Decisions about what a "compelling government interest" is should be made by the People through their elected representatives. If it's obvious that there's a compelling government interest in doing other than what the Constitution says it can do somebody can propose and Amendment. If it's so obvious there should be no problem in getting the Amendment ratified. Then the People will have spoken through the process provided.

[kalm]

It also does not say a corporation is a person.

A corporation is not a person, it's a group of people which may or may not be controlled by the same amount of people that make it up. Regardless, there does exist limits to constitutional rights. And if you limited corporate speech, the individual's right to speech would still be intact.

The founders would not be on your side in this.

No the Constitution does not say that corporations are persons but neither did the Supreme Court in its "Citizens United" ruling. Of course I would not think the government truly has authority under the Constitution to regulate how much people, corporations, or anything else spend in an effort to get their candidates of choice elected regardless of what the Supreme Court said. But in this case whether corporations are persons or not was not the issue. See the editorial at http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012 ... tional-law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for a discussion of the error of the perception that it was.

Also, you can look at the decision itself at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . I'm not going to claim to have read the whole thing but I read some of it and I did "find's" on "person" as well as "individual." Didn't see anything remotely suggesting that the Court was arguing that corporations are persons.

Of course to me the Court could've had a one paragraph rational saying something like "The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from abridging speech. A law restricting an entity from spending its own resources in order to speak to a lot of people abridges speech. Case closed. " That's all they needed to say.

I hate it when they get into that "compelling governmental interest" stuff. To me that's just an excuse for doing something other than what the Constitution says. And deciding what a "compelling government interest" is shouldn't be a Judge's role. Decisions about what a "compelling government interest" is should be made by the People through their elected representatives. If it's obvious that there's a compelling government interest in doing other than what the Constitution says it can do somebody can propose and Amendment. If it's so obvious there should be no problem in getting the Amendment ratified. Then the People will have spoken through the process provided.

I agree that the amendment process is the best path. Still, a corporation is not a person, either according to the framers intent or to common sense. So you're wrong.

[JohnStOnge]

I agree that the amendment process is the best path. Still, a corporation is not a person, either according to the framers intent or to common sense. So you're wrong.

Kalm, again, nobody ever said a corporation is a person. The Supreme Court didn't say it. I didn't say it. That is not the issue.

[kalm]

I agree that the amendment process is the best path. Still, a corporation is not a person, either according to the framers intent or to common sense. So you're wrong.

Kalm, again, nobody ever said a corporation is a person. The Supreme Court didn't say it. I didn't say it. That is not the issue.

And the constitution established rights for people. Glad you agree with me!