WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court appears poised to wipe away limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions in time for next year's congressional elections in a case that began as a dispute over a movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The justices return to the bench Wednesday — nearly a month early — to consider whether to overrule two earlier decisions that restrict how and when corporations and unions can take part in federal campaigns. Laws that impose similar limits in 24 states also are threatened.
I believe limits need to be cast in stone. The opportunity for corruption to permeate is too great--if we as American people must learn (and are doing a find job, BTW) adapting to less, so should those seeking political office.
This post is not about who voted for whom or who is or is not currently in office. It is about this one specific issue.
Answer by sweet-a-kins at 7:27 PM on Sep. 5, 2009
Answer by PsWifey at 7:06 PM on Sep. 5, 2009
Answer by tyme4me2day at 7:08 PM on Sep. 5, 2009
Answer by PsWifey at 7:10 PM on Sep. 5, 2009
She owns HARPO productions is that not a corporation?
Answer by tyme4me2day at 7:16 PM on Sep. 5, 2009
Answer by PsWifey at 7:22 PM on Sep. 5, 2009
Answer by 21stCenturyMom at 7:26 PM on Sep. 5, 2009
Answer by yourspecialkid at 7:28 PM on Sep. 5, 2009
Yes I think there should be a cap limit and I think the Government should give each presidential running mate $10,000.00 each to keep the campaign equal so no gets bought in to Washington from corporations, unions and personal contributions. Personal contributions can be just as misleading.
Answer by tyme4me2day at 7:29 PM on Sep. 5, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 8:23 PM on Sep. 5, 2009