Feature
Citizens United We Stand
The ruling that restored free speech to politics has the left in an uproar. But it will also test corporate mettle.
March 24, 2009, was a turning point in the long-running battle to restrict political speech, aka “campaign finance reform.” On that day, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the conservative activist group Citizens United challenged the provisions of the McCain-Feingold law that had prohibited it from airing a documentary film, Hillary: The Movie, through video on demand within 30 days of any 2008 Democratic presidential primary.
In the course of the argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, an experienced Supreme Court litigator, argued that a 1990 precedent, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, gave the government the power to limit any political communication funded by a corporation, even a nonprofit such as Citizens United. Justice Samuel Alito asked Stewart if that power would extend to censoring political books published by corporations. Stewart responded — consistent with the government’s position at all stages of the case — that yes, it would. There was an audible hush — if such a thing is possible — in the court. Then Justice Alito, appearing to speak for the room, merely said, “I find that pretty incredible.”
Incredible or not, that was, and had been for many years, the position of the U.S. government. But until that moment, it seemed to have never quite sunken in with the justices. Americans are willing to accept far more abridgements of free speech than we sometimes like to believe, but the idea of banning books strikes an emotional chord that something described simply as “prohibitions and limits on campaign spending” does not. Americans may not always live up to the Bill of Rights, but Americans do not ban books. A stunned Court eventually asked the parties to reargue the case, to consider whether Austin should be overruled.
On reargument last September, Solicitor General Elena Kagan tried to control the damage, arguing that the government never actually had tried to censor books, even as she reaffirmed its claimed authority to do just that. She also stated that “pamphlets,” unlike books, were clearly fair game for government censorship. (Former Federal Election Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky has noted that in fact the FEC has conducted lengthy investigations into whether certain books violated campaign finance laws, though it has not yet held that a book publisher violated the law through publication. And the FEC has attempted to penalize publishers of magazines and financial newsletters, only to be frustrated by the courts.) With the endgame of “campaign finance reform” finally laid out plainly, the Supreme Court’s decision seemed a foregone conclusion. Sure enough, in January, the Court ruled that corporations, as associations of natural persons, have a right to spend funds from their general treasuries to support or oppose political candidates and causes — including through the publication or distribution of books and movies.
Though this ruling is obviously a correct interpretation of the First Amendment, reaction to the Court’s decision in Citizens United has been loud, often disingenuous, and in some cases nearly hysterical. President Obama used his State of the Union address to publicly scold the Court, in the process so mischaracterizing the Court’s decision that he prompted Justice Alito’s now famous, spontaneous rejoinder, “Not true.”
Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress and the states have been working overtime to come up with “fixes,” ranging from the absurd (a Vermont legislator proposed forcing corporate sponsors to be identified every five seconds during any broadcast ad), to the merely pernicious (such as proposals that seek toimmobilize corporate speech by forcing corporations to hold a majority vote of shareholders before each and every expenditure). The fact that virtually all of these proposed “fixes” have been sponsored by Democrats, with the aim of silencing what they perceive to be the pro-Republican voices of the business community, merely illustrates once again the basic problem with campaign finance reform that Citizens United sought to alleviate: the desire to manipulate the law for partisan purposes.
CITIZENS UNITED IS AT ONCE both a potential game-changer and a decision whose “radicalism” has been wildly overstated. Why overstated? Well, to start, one would never guess from the left’s hysteria that even prior to Citizens United, 28 states, representing roughly 60 percent of the U.S. population, already allowed corporations and unions to make expenditures promoting or opposing candidates for office in state elections; in 26 states, such corporate and union expenditures were unlimited. Moreover, while the first bans on corporate spending were enacted more than a century ago, prior to the 1990 Austin decision, the Supreme Court had never upheld a ban, or even a limitation, on independent expenditures supporting or opposing a political candidate. It was the misleading contention that the decision overturned “100 years of law and precedent,” that appears to have evoked Justice Alito’s “not true” response to the president’s State of the Union comments.
The president also stated, again misleadingly, that the decision would open the door for foreign corporations to spend unlimited sums in American elections. In fact, another provision of federal law, not at issue in the case, already prohibits any foreign national, including foreign corporations, from spending money in any federal campaign. FEC regulations, which have the force of law, further prohibit any foreign national from playing any role in the political spending decisions of any U.S. corporation, political action committee, or association. And the Court specifically stated that Citizens United was not addressing these laws at all. So while some states may tweak their state rules in the wake of Citizens United to limit the ability of U.S. incorporated and head-quartered subsidiaries of foreign corporations to spend money in campaigns, the “foreign corporation” bogeyman is little more than leftist demagoguery.
What is much more alarming than the prospect of U.S. corporations with some foreign ownership participating in campaigns is the fact that the four most liberal justices on the Supreme Court would have upheld the Austin precedent, and with it the authority of the federal government to censor books and movies published, produced, or distributed by U.S. corporations. But by affirming the rights of citizens to speak out on political issues, even when organized through the corporate form, the Supreme Court quite rightly put political speech back at the core of the First Amendment.
After four decades in which the Court had given greater First Amendment protection to such activities as topless dancing, simulated child pornography, Internet porn, flag burning, and the transfer of stolen information than to political speech, Citizens United is a wonderful reaffirmation of the primacy of political speech in First Amendment jurisprudence. In that respect, the case has already been a constitutional game-changer. Future litigation is sure to follow, building on the success of Citizens United to free up the political system and strike down the still extensive web of regulation that envelops political speech.
Some of these challenges are already well under way. For example, under current federal law, an individual such as George Soros is free to spend $20 million to promote his favored candidates, but if two or more individuals get together to do the same thing, neither can contribute more than $5,000 to the effort. It is hard to see what anti-corruption purpose such a dichotomy serves, and in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in January, plaintiffs argue that if it is not corrupting for one person to spend unlimited sums on independent expenditures, it is not corrupting if two or more people combine their resources to promote the candidates of their choice. A decision is expected soon. Expect, too, legal challenges to the federal prohibition on contributions by corporations directly to candidates — if a $2,300 contribution from a corporate CEO or PAC is not corrupting, it is hard to see how a $2,300 contribution directly from a corporate treasury is corrupting.
MUCH LESS CLEAR is whether Citizens United will be a game-changer in electoral politics. The general consensus is that Citizens United favors Republicans, based on the widely held perception that corporations are more likely to support Republicans than Democrats. But this perception may not be true. Even before Citizens United, the federal government and most states also allowed corporations to operate political action committees (PACs), which could then solicit the corporation’s managers and shareholders for voluntary contributions to the PAC, which in turn could contribute limited amounts to candidates or make independent expenditures to support candidates. But whereas corporate PACs typically gave about two-thirds of their contributions to Republicans during the 1990s and the first part of the last decade, peaking in the 2004 cycle at nearly 10 to 1 for the GOP, over the past three years corporate PACs have devoted a slim majority of their contributions to Democrats.
More importantly, there is good reason to doubt that Fortune 500 companies are going to start making large expenditures in political campaigns. As noted, even before Citizens United, 28 states allowed corporate and union spending on state and local political races, yet large-scale corporate spending was very rare in those states. Another sign that corporations are not eager to jump headfirst into political spending comes from the relatively low level of activity by corporate PACs. Among the Fortune 500 — huge corporations that are all heavily regulated by the government — only about 60 percent actually maintained PACs.
These PACs are subject to extensive regulation, which runs up operating costs to the point that the operating costs of PACs often total more than half of their total revenue. Corporations can, however, pay these operating costs directly from their corporate treasuries. Yet roughly half of these PACs’ operating expenses were paid not by the corporations that established them, but out of funds donated to the PACs. In other words, even before Citizens United, corporate America could have roughly doubled the amount of money available in their PACs to use for political expenditures simply by paying the administrative and legal costs of operating the PAC from their general treasuries. Yet they did not. And only about 10 percent of PACs contributed the maximum legal amount in any election. All this suggests a lack of interest in political participation.
The truth is, the Fortune 500 prefer lobbying to campaigning. Even prior to McCain-Feingold, when corporations could support parties with “soft money,” the Fortune 500 spent roughly 10 times as much money on lobbying as on political expenditures. As Edward Kangas, former chairman of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and of the Committee for Economic Development, said in the New York Times, explaining his support for McCain-Feingold, “We have lobbyists.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (168) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/07/citizens-united-we-stand
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
martin j smith| 5.7.10 @ 7:50AM
The Supreme court case in question favor free speech for both Unions and Big and small business. Lets not forget this means lot of Democrat Party supporters in this mix. Yet the problem really is that Conservative and Repulicans aslso get free speech rights and this the Democrat Party cannot abide. Coincidentalloy in yesterday's WSJ there was a letter from an ACLU represntative defending their position opposing the Citizen's United decsion. In that letter the ACLU representative said they are all for "reasonable" free speech but there must be controls. On this I say, they reveal once again who the ACLU really is and I say to that : Stop public funding the the ACLU.
It is view that it is ironic that the Party famous for "teach-ins " and Free Speech is now the party of " Shut Up and sit down" . How sad. But I( think it is up to Conservatives,Republicans and Tea Party People to tell the Democrat Party: Too bad, get used to the First Amendment.
GW| 5.7.10 @ 1:31PM
This and the fact the ACLU takes no position on the 2nd amendment shows how truly concerned the ACLU actually is with regard to "civil liberties."
Alan Brooks| 5.7.10 @ 9:36PM
"Both McCain (R-AZ) and Feingold (D-WI) should be thrown out of office in November." Hurts, doesn't it? the GOP ran McCain for POTUS in '08 and we are supposed to respect them? who are they kidding?
Themselves.
Just you watch, the GOP will run another fool in '12.
Purpleguy| 5.7.10 @ 9:45PM
I'm counting on it. The herd is pretty thin Alan, when Sarah, Newt, Haley "What Oil Spill in the Gulf" Barbour, Mitt, and Tim "I'm a Pander Bear" Pawlenty is all they got. The GOP is a joke waiting to die ... Teabagging is the last gasp of a losing breed. Reaganism is dead thank God, buried with him.
Alan Brooks| 5.7.10 @ 10:32PM
Reagan did accelerate the end of the Cold War, it makes a difference that the war (and it wasn't a cold war in third world countries) ended in '89 and not in '97, say.
What I detest is the GOP saying because Reagan was good (he looks better as time goes on and Doles and McCains crank out failed campaigns like meat processing factories cranking out sausages) I am supposed to vote for their farty old candidates; and vote for Dubya who only got to be president because his dad was vice president under... guess who?
To goddamn hell with the GOP-- they think we are chumps, suckers. Why don't they just bend us over and stick their weiners in our rear ends?
societyis2blame| 5.8.10 @ 2:06AM
Holy "Party of No." Batman....
While I agree with the fact that McCain and Feingold were fools (or accomplices) on the First-Amendment-raping cause of "campaign finance reform" I'm passing back the Kool-Aid on the rest of your screeds.
Assuming you aren't simply trolling/Paul-botting and genuinely support the Right in any meaningful way, who or what do you stand for ? Do you think in the two years running up to 2012 we won't have other (and much better) candidates than those you've trotted out based on either name-recognition or (more likely) your lefty or Paulbot preference of candidates to run against ?
W won because he won the primaries, not because HW called in favors - do you honestly think Bush Sr. had the political clout to move any significant numbers of 2000 Republican primary voters ?
And what right-winger would even use the term "tea-bagging" ?
Alan/Purple - sock puppet somewhere else - even Paul's droids promote their own candidate rather than just playing wedge issues.
If you don't care to disclose who you support, I won't even assume you're merely part of the problem - you're likely the enemy.
Alan Brooks| 5.8.10 @ 2:30AM
1) Bush was elected in '88 because he had been vice president under Reagan.
2) Who would have heard of Dubya if his father had not been Reagan's vice president?
BTW, Purpleguy never wrote he is a rightwinger; one infers from 'purple' the mixture of blue and red:
i.e. blue & red state ideology combined.
Alan Brooks| 5.8.10 @ 2:36AM
"If you don't care to disclose who you support."
I voted GOP in the eighties. In the '90s I did not vote. In 2000 and 2004 I voted Democratic, as I resented Bush coming in on Reagan's coattails-- I didn't even read Gore's or Kerry's positions because such minutiae is dull if one is not enthusiastic.
Alan Brooks| 5.8.10 @ 2:38AM
PPS:
I did not vote in 2008, but will vote for Obama in 2012.
JimE| 5.9.10 @ 6:01PM
"Why don't they just bend us over and stick their weiners in our rear ends?" You are purpletard dig that don't you.
Alan Brooks| 5.9.10 @ 10:38PM
Ah, but you did not respond to the message on GOP mediocrities, JimE.
Alan Brooks| 5.9.10 @ 10:57PM
In 1996 I did vote but it was a wasted vote as it was for Ted Gunderson, who was a conspiracy nut, he thought Sonny Bono was murdered! the lyrics to 'I Got You Babe' are a cryptic message to the Jesuits, right?:
"In 1990, Gunderson, along with archeologist Gary Sickel, excavated the site of the McMartin Preschool, Manhattan Beach, California and claimed to have uncovered filled in tunnels. The children claimed they were taken through tunnels under the school and out in the community for prostitution and subjected to ritualistic torture involving animal sacrifice. Officials claimed they could not find the tunnels.
Following the Oklahoma City bombing, Gunderson promoted Michael Riconosciuto's claims that the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was destroyed not by a truck bomb, but by a highly classified government pineapple-sized "barometric bomb" that was developed by Hercules Manufacturing in Silicon Valley, California, under a government contract. Gunderson also claimed four undetonated bombs were removed.
In 1996, Gunderson ran against House Republican John Ensign as the candidate of the Independent American Party (the Nevada affiliate of the Constitution Party). He garnered 2.65% of the vote, leading the third-party field
In April 2008, Gunderson revealed his belief that Sonny Bono was murdered, rather than killed in a collision with a tree while skiing, based on the extensive investigation by his close friend and associate Bob Fletcher, another criminal investigator. He claims that Bono was killed by covert operatives in order to prevent disclosure of government involvement in drug trafficking into the United States by rogue operatives within the CIA.
Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 11:23PM
Corporate mettle? who hires illegals because of not wanting to automate the positions?
Jim O'Brien| 5.7.10 @ 9:15AM
McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. Both McCain (R-AZ) and Feingold (D-WI) should be thrown out of office in November.
MOS was 71331| 5.7.10 @ 9:27PM
Amen.
Alan Brooks| 5.9.10 @ 10:39PM
seconded
Yosemeti Sam| 5.7.10 @ 9:38AM
" ... President Obama used his State of the Union address to publicly scold the Court, in the process so mischaracterizing the Court's decision that he prompted Justice Alito's now famous, spontaneous rejoinder, "Not true." ...."
Most grinding amongst sane SCOTUS justices
was to be lectured by a flimsy Harvard Law
screwll graduate whose diploma came right out
of a CrackerJack box!
canuckistani| 5.7.10 @ 3:04PM
Is your preference to do nothing about influence on the electorate and elected officials?
At the very least approve of disclosing donors and forcing reps to call out conflicts of interest on bills before the house.
Most voters, rightly or wrongly, are not as focused on current affairs and the like as we are on these sites and blogs. Most make their decisions either on or near election day, with very little knowledge of who or what is influencing their candidates intentions. With so much at stake each election, can we agree transparency is required?
Clinton nee Publius| 5.7.10 @ 4:23PM
The reality is that free-speech is free-speech and that your position seeks to stymie the very basis of our republic. This reality is further complicated by the fact the liberal-progressive movement has demonized Corporate America for its own political benefit and at the sole cost to Corporate America for almost 100 years - certainly over the course of the modern era and the advent of the entire failed social welfare policy network that liberal-progressives have sought to sustain at the cost of Corporate America.
Truly your argument is to allow that against which we spilled so much blood to sustain - the right of being represented, the right to rejoinder and relief for taxation, the right to curry favor with those who might oppose policies we find not to our liking.
This is the actual case and these "fixes" are for only one purpose; to sustain the corruption introduced into our government by the modern liberal-progressive movement by eliminating those who would oppose these policies by any means necessary. The fact the liberal-progressive movement is actually advocating muzzling anyone and the fact the liberal-progressive movement is perfectly happy with the idea of banning books is too close to the liberal socialist policies that evolved out of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Red China for anyone to draw any conclusions other than the stage is being set for a similar attempt by the modern liberal-progressive movement to sustain its power and the social welfare state in America regardless of the consequences these tactics and policies would create.
I'm sorry, it is indeed time to pay the piper. You have beat on Corporate America for far too long and now Corporate America is no longer the mat, they are going to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into destroying the modern liberal-progressive movement and that is what is really at stake here. We're not talking about free-speech, we are talking about life and death for the Democratic Party and for my part, I will choose to put it to the death it should have suffered more than 135 years ago as it is far too corrupt, far too destructive and far too cruel for us to sustain for even a single day.
Purpleguy| 5.7.10 @ 9:51PM
Oh please, spare us your psychobabble bull. The Grand Old Pedophiles and the party of Wall Street, Abramoff, Cunningham and Delay are a rich crowd to lecture anyone else about scandal and corruption.
Don't tell me you think when the Founders said "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" they were talking about the Corporation, a made up legal entity who's sole function is to sell a product and transfer money? Tell me you're not that ignorant?
The Democrats will get their share of Corporate money with this, but the Democrats will get what the Reps won't - Union money. Y'all didn't think about that one, did ya?
Watch what you wish for, you may get it - and backfire right in your ignorant face. LOL
Nick| 5.8.10 @ 1:23AM
Pay no attention to PurpleJackass folks.
He doesn't even know that Virginia governors don't run for re-election because they can only serve one term, then have to wait 4 years to run again.
He also likes to berate others for spelling "hypocrisy" wrong, and in the same post he wrote "hypocrit", like a moron.
He is not worthy of debate with grown-ups.
FTM| 5.8.10 @ 5:03AM
Purpleguy,
Are you serious? Do you really believe the drivel that you speak? Who is it that creates the wealth that you advocate stealing? When you and your kind have finally managed to drive the wealth generating sector of the economy out of the country or out of business who are you going to force at gunpoint to pay for your free bread and circuses? Who are you going to pillage when there's nobody else to pillage? Who is going to pay you to sit on your useless ass and watch ophra or some other leftist idiot and procreate?
Has what has happened in Greece and what is getting ready to happen in Portugal and Ireland and Italy and Spain and England not to mention Michigan and Illinois and California and Massechusetts and so on and so on not made any sense at all to you?
I hope that we all get through this mess OK. If not I want to take this opportunity to thank you and all the other idiots of the liberal left for destroying western civilization. Congratulations! It only took seventy years to destroy what it took a little over a thousand to build. It just shows the awe inspiring, unrestrained power of human greed, blind hatred and stupidity and envy. All I hope is that I get to sit and watch while people like you start whining about being cold and sick and hungry, my guess is that the whining will start about twenty minutes after the lights go out.
Based on the slim assumption that you're still reading please consider. The Flavian Coliseum in Rome was built from pre-cast concrete. After the fall of the Roman Empire, after the dark ages and the beginning of the enlightment after all the wars and plagues and the like, we here in America didn't start to build with precast concrete until well into the first third of the twenteth century. I tell you this to make a point, first that more than likely you're totally ignorant of just what it takes to create not to mention maintain the civilization that you take for granted and apparently hate to the very core of your meaningless being. Bottom line, it's more than likely that you've never once in the course of your miserable life done anything other than turn perfectly nutritious food into manure.
Look stupid, this is easy, in the absence of the evil "Big Pharma" who is it that's going to manufacture, meaning Mass Produce, the vaccines that keeps your useless, uneducated, half-wit ass alive? Thought about that yet? Perhaps you think that your god obama will speak these vaccines into creation. Guess what stupid, big macks don't just fall off of the back of the magic tractor-trailor truck.
Who is going to build the cars that you drive? Who is going to mass produce/manufacture the clothing that you wear? Who is going to generate the power that cooks your food and heats your water and the zillion and one other applications that you depend upon from day to day not to mention provide the imbicillic whatever passes for entertainment that filters through your thicker than average skull.
You're pitiful. You're like a half-wit little kid that's found daddy's gun. People like you, all the touchy-feelie, holier than thou folks that "care" have made your bed for you and like it or not Purpleguy 'ol son, you're going to lay in it. Enjoy!
Purpleguy| 5.9.10 @ 9:25AM
First of all, you don't know anything about me or my motivations... but I'll leave that aside.
No one is talking about disbanding Corporations, or limiting wealth-building. But I would point out that most innovation and progress in this country come from the Entrepreneurial spirit of having an idea and taking the risk of starting one's own business and nurturing it as it grows.
Corporations have their place, but they are not persons. Why would you want an entity with near unlimited funds, compared to the average voter, to be able to use that power of money to affect elections? Do you really think that ONLY Republicans will benefit from that. OMG - just look at the Wall Street regulation and the Financial Reform package. The Republican shills in Congress are against it, siding with the Corporations, since they are bought and paid for. And, yes, there are Democrats in the same boat, as far as paid for. Do you really want Corporations running the country through the invisible hand of money and the power of the purse?
The single most effective strategy for Greater Democracy would be to eliminate all participation by corporations in the American political process. As this was the case prior to 1886, this plan is ultimately very conservative, as it tends to restore American politics to the plan and structure envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Given this is a strong case of reverting to "Original Intent", one might suppose the Heritage Foundation and its ilk would find it very appealing.
BTW - Drop the name-calling, it's not useful, and very unattractive.
Anthony| 5.9.10 @ 5:23PM
A corporation has been defined (black letter law)by numerous U.S. Supreme Court cases as an artificial person or legal entity created under the authority of the laws of a state or a nation, composed of a single person or an association of numerous individuals".
Corporations can sue and be sued. Corporations can be indicted and face criminal and civil penalites. Corporations are entities that are taxed. Corporations must function under the restraints imposed upon them by local, state and federal governments. Furthermore, corporations can vote on limited issues such as town budget referendums and other tax related issues.
The idea that small, medium, and large corporations cannot affect the political decisions that effect them as entities, by participation in the political process, through advocacy political ads, is absurd.
Only a paranoid leftist, such as Purpleguy, see corporations as evil, rich, "invisible hands", yet, 501(c)(3)'s are seen as perfectly benign.
Leftist advocacy groups such as "Media Matters" have done far more to undermine our society than Exxon-Mobil ever could or would.
JimE| 5.9.10 @ 6:04PM
Purpletard,
We know all about you troll. Name calling? Go read your own post shithead.
FTM| 5.10.10 @ 12:16AM
Pretty slick sidestep there Purpleguy.
My appologies for the name calling, really. I'm sorry.
I've been building cars since 1986. Durning this time I've been through three plant closings and have been "downsized" twice. It really pisses me off when armchair experts start experimenting with an economy that is frankly beyone the albility of any single person to understand.
Case in point, we pay the Japanese to build cars in the US via tax breaks and the like and then tell Chrysler, Ford and GM that they need to learn how to compete. The only place in the world that a car manufactured in the US by a US manufacturer is Canada. Half or better of Toyota's production is imported and seventy percent or better of Honda, Nissan, Subaru and Mitsubishi is imported. A US manufacturer can't sell squat in Japan and we are limited to 6000 units per year in China.
Now, GM has the number one car in China and South America. Ford has the number one car in Europe. Caviat being that the cars sold in that country have to be manufactured in that country. Ford has three assembly plants in England.
This idiotic leftist idea that free trade is a one way street has got to stop. perhaps the Japanese make a better car than we do and if that's the case then snhame on us but I will tell you that if GM were selling cars in Tokyo there wouldn't be a Toyota. based on the assumption that the Japanese make a better car than we do why can't American farmers sell rice in Japan? Why can't California wine producers sell wine in France?
By the bye, I was up in the observation tower at Nagoya port one time, nice restaurant up there, just in time to see the paint slick coming out of the Mitsubishi plant at Nagoya. Worked for Mitsubishi at the time. Saw the smoke plume coming out of the Nippon Steel plant south of Nagoya too. That crap flat ain't allowed in the US but we look the other way when the Japanese do it and tell American manufacturers that they need to leartn to ccompete.
Back to these hideous, horrible corporations, please, please explain to me the mechanism by which any corporation can control what you do in the voting booth? What possible difference does it make what a corporation does?
Truthfully from what I've seen locking corporations out of political speech prevents the NRA and GM from participating in the political process. The NEA and SEIU are unrestrained. Kind of like giving school teachers and public employees a day off for election day and people that work for a living have to figure out how to vote between all the other activities. Why doesn't the political left in this country just up and ban conservitism?
My appologies Purpleguy buy from the position that you advocate you're unplugged from reality. My guess is that you're an educator or a government employee. Not a smear or an attempt to degrade but there are very few people that make it for very long in the private sector talking like you do.
FTM| 5.10.10 @ 1:27AM
Sorry, I screwed that all up. should read that the only place that a car manufactured in the US by a US automaler can be exported to is Canada. Sorry folks, rented fingers.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.9.10 @ 11:18AM
FTM,
Thank you for that. It is pretty obvious that purplebutt didn't even read the article. One of the main themes is that "small" corporations are going to be the ones to get their voices heard again.
Purplebutt also despairs in the fact that an "incorporation" is the most brilliant vehicle ever invented to scrape together some "working capital" by average income individuals working together to build a wealth/goods/services producing company.
One of my construction superintendents founded Home Depot. Six ordinary computer geeks guys in my fishing club worked in a two car garage. I invested twenty thousand dollars...
five years later their Compaq Computer went public.
I have founded two small corporations that have gone public and succeeded and grown nicely.
I and several dozen thousand small companies look forward to participating more fully getting good candidates known.
JMS| 5.11.10 @ 11:12AM
No, we can not agree on that. That thinking suggests that you address a symptom to cure a disease rather than the addressing the disease. The problem of corruption is not money, it's ethics. If a candidate or office-holder has no ethics, you don't shut off the stream of money to him, you don't elect him or oust him from office.
One of the biggest problems we face is the restriction of liberties or punishments to law-abiding citizens in response to the actions of criminals. We need to punish and interdict those who misbehave rather than punishing everyone.
Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 11:36PM
Can't get over it: conspiracy theorizing is almost a folk art genre; Gunderson thought Sonny Bono was assassinated!
Hilarious.
So when Cher dies at the age of 100, the nuts will say "she was poisoned by the CIA."
mames| 5.7.10 @ 10:08AM
Now if the court would just find that use of share holder's monies cannot be used for anything outside of making more profit we would be in a great situation. Having any publicly traded company use share holder monies to fund campaign ads or charities should be outlawed forever. Let those who lose or gain from thier investment decide where to spend thier own money. Having some corporate weenie decide where the profits of the corporation should be spent outside of company business should be immoral and illegal.
Purpleguy| 5.7.10 @ 9:52PM
Excellent point!
FTM| 5.8.10 @ 5:13AM
Another knucklehead heard from.
It's just a scandal how all those corporations come and drag people out of their homes and force them to push the button next to the little etta-fink every other year.
Let's pass a law about the criminals in Chicago and Detroit and New York and Los Angeles and New Orleans that have been stealing elections for the past hundred years. The legendary Daily machine, the bowery and so on. Criminal left wing political machines. Remember the advice from the Daily Machine operative to algore, keep counting till you win. Remember that? 800 votes in Minnesota aren't enough votes for the republican candidate to win by but less than 600 are enough for that half-wit Frankin to win by.
Do you people pay any attention at all to the sewage that comes out of your mouths? Are you really that gullible? Are you really so easily manipulated?
Clinton nee Publius| 5.10.10 @ 8:15PM
Too bad that won't pass. You'd like that. It's okay for unions to use the member dues to finance political campaigns - screwing their members and leaving them without the resources to fund their pensions, but don't let those corporations have the same rights.
We certainly wouldn't want to change the status quo. I mean, why would we want real fairness in free speech.
I've always said that liberals will defend free speech to the death - provided I am the one defending it for them and it is speech they agree with - everything else is hate speech.
Then again, if I supported a liberal platform, then I would be concerned that Corporate America would use its financial resources to draw attention to the fact that 45 years of liberal social welfare policies have been a complete failure.
1FreeMan| 5.7.10 @ 10:11AM
Free speech is the enemy of tyrants.
Control what you can say, where you can say it and you control the population. The MSM knows this and has filtered their dialogue to manage and control us. Only through free expression of thoughts and ideas can we expose tyrany, socialism and opression to the light of day. The internet, talk radio and published works of investigative writers are under attack by the Obama administration for this very reason.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER !
Purpleguy| 5.7.10 @ 9:55PM
Nobody's talking about your freedom for cripe's sake. It's a stupid frickin' Corporation - not a person. Good Lord, do y'all have to always parrot Rush Loudmouth and Sean Insanity?
BTW - if you want to talk about a tyrant, how about "It's my way or the highway" Cheney. He was the only reason I was glad that BoyBush was his boss.
1FreeMan| 5.7.10 @ 11:44PM
Hey stupid little purple liberal,
Sup troll?
They are, in fact, talking about the freedom of speech as regulated by political activists and supported by stupid little people like you who will whine "I don't get it" when you get caught. Laws designed to refuse my right to expose corruption and graft in a candidate because of my "tax status" or wether I am a "corporation" or not. The swift boat veterans for turth exposed Kerry for the lying racist bigot he was through free speech. Little purple dude, this is about control of speech... ultimately the control of ideas contrary to liberal plans... Thus, it must have a law against it.
Please pay attention next time and try and catch up.
Purpleguy| 5.8.10 @ 12:19AM
First of all Einstein, the fact that spending money is free speech is questionable at best. The fact that a non-person is granted personhood is ridiculous. And, then on top of that the non-person is able to spend any money (I mean free speech) for anything it likes is a tortuous journey into Alice and Wonderland. I hope the D's and R's in Congress and the States wake up and create an Amendment to the Constitution to remove money from the category of Free Speech protections, and to remove all non-persons from the right of personhood period. And, yes, I know Unions go right with the Corporation as non-persons. What are we going to do next, induct a Corporation into the Armed Forces? Are we going to elect a Corporation to Congress. Why can't we put the Corporation GoldmanSachs in jail? Or Enron? Or WorldCom? If they have personhood status, shouldn't we be able to? Think about the absurdity of these things. If we can teach our pets to vote, shouldn't they be granted personhood and free speech? This isn't right or left, it's common sense, apparently an item lacking on the SCOTUS.
Nick| 5.8.10 @ 1:24AM
Pay no attention to PurpleJackass folks.
He doesn't even know that Virginia governors don't run for re-election because they can only serve one term, then have to wait 4 years to run again.
He also likes to berate others for spelling "hypocrisy" wrong, and in the same post he wrote "hypocrit", like a moron.
He is not worthy of debate with grown-ups.
FTM| 5.8.10 @ 5:26AM
Purpleguy,
Try, try, try to think critically here for just a seccond. A corporation, say microsoft, can spend millions of ddollars on a political campaign. How is it that they can follow you into the voting booth and force you to vote as they please?
Is what you're really trying to say is that people are too stupid to pay much attention at all to your brand of wisdom and need to be under your constant supervision? Is that it? "OHMYGOD, GE just hypnotized everybody west of the Mississippi."
By the bye, what's the difference between GM and george soros? Why is it that you distrust GM and trust soros? How can either force you to viote "the right way?" Do you think that george soros got to be a multi-billionaire because he cares about people like you? Or did george soros get to be a multi-billionaire because just like Boone Pickens and his windmills he thought that he could make a lot of money by manipulating people like you.
Go look in the mirror Purpleguy, do a system check. Reflect long and hard, why do you do what you do? Why do you advocate for what you advocate for? Are you really deep down inside that afraid that I might do something that you don't approve of? What is it that makes you so cock-sure that you're right?
Purpleguy| 5.9.10 @ 9:01AM
No one is talking about a Corporation forcing you to do anything, let alone tell you how to vote. They do, however, have the money to drown out all competing opinions, which I assume you all know is the goal of campaigning?
I am talking about the personhood of a Corporation. You don't think that's absurd? If a Corporation was not considered a person, not only would they not have free speech, they wouldn't be able to redress the Government either, in which case the billions spent on lobbying would dry up. Would you support lobbyists like Jack Abramoff and hundreds of other unnamed, shady characters?
The problem our democracy has today is that it is too much beholden to money in all it's forms. The Founders warned us about the insidious nature of money and factions (parties).
The single most effective strategy for Greater Democracy would be to eliminate all participation by corporations in the American political process. As this was the case prior to 1886, this plan is ultimately very conservative, as it tends to restore American politics to the plan and structure envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Given this is a strong case of reverting to "Original Intent", one might suppose the Heritage Foundation and its ilk would find it very appealing.
Instead SCOTUS has put us on a path of Fascist, Corporatist takeover of the political process and therefore the Government. And, if you don't like the Government now, wait until the Billions the Corporations can spend dictate to the Government what can and cannot be done.
Your freedoms are at stake here. And, you will sit blithely by and let it happen? Where is your outrage?
FTM| 5.10.10 @ 12:32AM
Actually, in a legal sense the only difference between a corporation and a person is that corporations don't have the right to vote. That's why they are called corporations from the Latin "Corpus" meaning "body."
As far as competing voice if you lock out thye corporations then what is the check against all the government and private sector labor unions and the tree-huggers and all the other anti-American elements? What's in place to stop ACORN? (maybe not stop but to counterweight)
Once again not to be derogatory but it seems to me that you're making a lot of noise over a contrived emergency. Typical left-wing, knee-jerk reaction to a situation that places leftist politics on something akin to an even par with any percieved competition.
What differeence does it make? The NEA can not dictate to me what I do in a voting booth. Both of my kids are in the NEA, sorry. My son is in the Teamsters too to boot. ACORN and SEIU can't control me in a voting booth. GE, GM and General Thank God Dynamics can't control you in the voting booth either. basically what it all cooks down to is that you have no arguement other to kick and pout like a little kid because the big people are making you play fair. Let's play fair, let's give the NRA public service announcent air time on Brodcast TV stations same as we do the tree huggers and all the other whiners. Let's publically finance an ACLU or an ACORN for conservitive oriented public advocacy issues. Let's have a public school voucher system and let the people decide where to educate their kids rather than at an NEA controlled state mandated baby sitting/indoctrination center.
This could go on all day, the issue of political parity. As it stands though you've got a long way to go before you satart making sense.
FTM| 5.10.10 @ 12:45AM
Purpleguy,
Seriously, do you not sense (see and hear) the barrage of leftist advocacy that people are confronted with in a days time? Every media outlet, brodcast as well as print. Did you see "Avatar?" I call Avatar "Dances with Robots." If you've seen Dances with Wolves you've seen Avatar. Ever watch an episode of MASH? I don't know the Genisis on Avatar but the good folks down to the Sierra Club have to be in the pile someplace. They barely stop the enviro-mental whining long enough to have a movie.
By the bye, I want one of them powered combat suits and especially the gun. I betcha I ccould kill a deer with one of those.
Where is the American media outlet that has anything critical to say about President Obama? Fox aside. Even considering Fox, Fox is outnumbered three to one.
Compared to the full broadside fullisade of leftist drivel that the average person is exposed to at fire hose pressures I honestly can't see how a corporation can compete.
FTM| 5.10.10 @ 1:41AM
Purpleguy,
Take a look at Billy Joel's video, "Goodnight Saigon" on youtube. There's a guy that has "God Bless the Dow Chemical Corporation and Napalm" on his helmet cover. I don't think that it's a sentiment that you would or could identify with. It's a concept that only people that live on the very dirtiest end of the stick could even begin to understand.
Same with politics and corporate participation. You've got to see and hear the constant barrage of lies, misinformation and deciet pumped out of every media outlet on a daily basis to even begin to understand.
Take for example the concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming. The entire concept has been exposed as a hoax. Freeman Dyson says that carbon dioxide is plant food and the guy that wrote the first paper on AGW back in the seventies, a Frenchman named Claude (Jean) Allègre says that the entire concept of man made atmospheric carbon dioxide causing significant global temperatire rise has been deliberately misstated for political, economic and social gain.
Not to start an arguement on global warming or climate change or whatever it's being called this week but the political left in this world rarely allows facts to interfere with their social and political goals.
JMS| 5.11.10 @ 11:26AM
I think you're all being a little myopic in responding to Purpleguy here. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know as Purple is separating PACs, ACORN, and similar groups from "Corporations". Wouldn't it be a great thing to remove them ALL from the mix? Take away the lobbying power from the ACLU, Teachers' Unions, Labor Unions, etcetera right along with the Fortune 500 and, I think, we'd be a good way down the road to restoring responsive government. As I said elsewhere, money isn't the problem, it's ethics, but that doesn't mean we can't address this too.
FTM| 5.11.10 @ 3:58PM
That would indeed be a fine idea except thats not the way that I've ever see the question settle. What typically happens is that the fiscal/social conservitive voice gets a "hate speech" label slapped on it and is religated to the bleacher seats while the voice advocating "anything goes/ifitfeelsgooddoit" voice is given preeminence. Case in point, how come you don't see the NRA making public service announcements on the radio and on the TV? Tell kids that if you find a gun, leave it alone and go tell an adult. That kind of message. Instead its the same 'ol tired leftist whining about the contrived emergency of the day. "The ice caps are melting and the polar bears are drowning" and we've got the photoshopped pictures to prove it.
I think that we've all got a pretty good bead on Purpleguy and Alan Brooks and the like.
1FreeMan| 5.8.10 @ 7:40PM
American Spectator staff,
This is another attempt by a paid shill to crash your site. Please ban Purple Guy.
Purpleguy| 5.9.10 @ 9:04AM
If you don't like my arguments, then don't read them. Why are you trying to limit my right to free speech? Are you not supposed to defend my right to free speech at all costs, even if you hate what I am saying? I would defend yours, in fact, I have earlier in my life.
You are really not f0llowing the Founder's principles here, so why should anyone listen to you?
Nick| 5.9.10 @ 12:31PM
You have a right to speak, not to be heard, moron.
If TAS were to ban you, they would be well within their rights.
I'm not a fan of banning people, except in extreme cases. I believe people should be able to see just how stupid and nonsensical liberals can be.
You do more to advance the conservative cause than you know, PurpleJackass!
FTM| 5.10.10 @ 12:34AM
I say let the Purpleguy speak his piece same as anybody else. Sometimes the guy kinda/sorta makes sense. Most of the time though he's the icon of the mentality that has landed the world in the mess that it's in and should be on public display.
bill| 5.9.10 @ 8:45PM
i assume then sir that you are also against labor unions, special interests such as planned parenthood, MoveOn.org, NOW, and other organizations that are made up of more than one person from contributing to politicans.
PineKnot| 5.7.10 @ 11:04AM
Why would any corporation spend huge sums of money on any one campaign? It's far cheaper to buy targeted Congresspersons off with campaign contributions, or other nefarious spending. See history of John Murtha for the perfect example.
FTM| 5.8.10 @ 6:02AM
PineKnot is wise.
By the bye, I know where pine Knot is. Used to work with some foks that lived in Pine Knot.
Pingback| 5.7.10 @ 11:41AM
Citizens United, Elena Kagan, and Banning Books - The Republican Lawyer Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.7.10 @ 2:16PM
Santos vs Dc United 1 | D.C. United MLS Announcer links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
martin j smith| 5.7.10 @ 3:27PM
Canukistani--you are right most voters have lives to live and do not have the luxury of being informed at their own peril of course. Yet I think the MSM should itself reveal who they are beholden to--and why--lets start with their contributions to the Democrat Party and name names of who is connected to who in the Democrat Party.
Any hones t person knows that political or even business have partial truths and a lot of distorion this is universal. But I think the issue is equalizing the message for all--if you want to say equal opportunity to lie that is fine --but free speech is the crucial element and all should be able to take part in this basic right of the United States. I hear Canada might benefit from this point view as well.
Flee| 5.7.10 @ 3:28PM
It's pretty clear why the Obama admin would want to reduce direct spending on campaigns by corps. They see their lobbying gravy train slowing down and they will do their best to not let it happen. If they can demonize corps in the process all the better despite the fine support shown them by many giant corps. I wish they could make up their minds whether they like corps or don't.
Petronius| 5.7.10 @ 3:47PM
For once the Supreme Court did something right. But so long as emotion trumps reason among our infantile electorate this decision will have little bearing on our polity. If I'm wrong, why do we have a president who is a vainglorious despot reflecting their sandbox mentality and governing to fulfill their desires and his own for vindication?
Purpleguy| 5.7.10 @ 9:58PM
I don't know, why did Bush do that? Tell us, please? Terry Schiavo anyone? Anyone?
JMS| 5.11.10 @ 11:31AM
What about Terry Schiavo? Is the President not allowed to voice his opinion, same as everyone else? Purple, what's your point? How is Bush opining to a current event the same as Obama enforcing his opinions via caveat or politcal theater and thuggery?
Pingback| 5.7.10 @ 5:39PM
The American Spectator : Citizens United We Stand links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.7.10 @ 7:00PM
Twitter Trackbacks for Citizens United We Stand [spectator.org] on Topsy.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.7.10 @ 11:05PM
The American Spectator : Citizens United We Stand Contact links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
cmblake6 | 5.7.10 @ 11:48PM
Those leftist Judges must go. Period. The law is a black and white thing. The Constitution is very easy to understand, be it the First Amendment, the Second, any of them. Quite simple, even a simple layman, such as myself, can easily understand the intent and language. The ultimate law of this nation is that horribly inconvenient truth.
Pingback| 5.8.10 @ 12:00AM
Australia Highlights United Nations Declaration On The Rights Of … | Educational Miss links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.8.10 @ 12:51AM
Rebellion News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.8.10 @ 4:21AM
The American Spectator : Citizens United We Stand | americantoday links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.8.10 @ 7:02PM
MLS WEEK 7 PREDICTIONS | Soccer Jones | Football and Soccer News … | Colorado Rapids links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.9.10 @ 4:22AM
Nightvision Goggles – Who currently manufactures the best … | Thermal Processing Mate links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.9.10 @ 12:42PM
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.9.10 @ 11:18AM
FTM,
Thank you for that. It is pretty obvious that purplebutt didn't even read the article. One of the main themes is that "small" corporations are going to be the ones to get their voices heard again.
Purplebutt also despairs in the fact that an "incorporation" is the most brilliant vehicle ever invented to scrape together some "working capital" by average income individuals working together to build a wealth/goods/services producing company.
One of my construction superintendents founded Home Depot. Six ordinary computer geeks guys in my fishing club worked in a two car garage. I invested twenty thousand dollars...
five years later their Compaq Computer went public.
I have founded two small corporations that have gone public and succeeded and grown nicely.
I and several dozen thousand small companies look forward to participating more fully getting good candidates known
Purpleguy| 5.9.10 @ 5:49PM
Yep, and I have founded a Corporation myself, but it isn't a person, and doesn't deserve personhood.
You can twist my words in your dittohead little minds all you want, but I never said there is anything wrong with a Corporation or Business. But they are not people and don't deserve the same rights and freedoms. Nothing more, nothing less. You pick on what you choose to pick on, elsewise you would have to agree that a Corporation is NOT a person.
Don't you want the people to be heard over the Corporations? I do. That is "Original Intent". Or are you just paying lip service to your support of the Founding Fathers and Documents?
This isn't right or left people - it's common sense, and it's a power grab. The Corporations thought they could control Hitler too. But they found out to their chagrin they couldn't. Let's stop the slippery slope to Fascism. Even the Tea Baggers out to want that !
JimE| 5.9.10 @ 6:08PM
What's with the name calling troll boy. Go lick obama's ass.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.9.10 @ 6:34PM
Purpleguy,
You and your communist, (pardon the shorthand) masters weave a wicked web of deceit, doncha'?
I notice you have no problem with the lamestream media giants (corporations) pandering every single day for the Left, both from their national headquarters, and their local affiliates.
No, it is the small business corporations across the country who have a hard time making our case to the voters. Heh, obviously your company profits come from we taxpayers. My corporation pays taxes...uh how about "no taxation without representation". Hmmmmm, I seem to recall words like that were in the "original intent".
As the article pointed out, now we small company guys can compete in political discourse with the George Soros' of the world....again.
Tough luck, Soros troll.
Purpleguy| 5.10.10 @ 2:18PM
The first half of your response doesn't make sense, but if you think "small company guys can compete" because of what the Supreme Court did, you're dreaming. What do you really think has changed for small business owners?
Let me know when you can amass a Billion dollars in influence money, which dozens of the big Corporations can now do, if they choose. Of course, they won't call it that, but that's what is really is.
If you can't amass that fortune, you will be drowned out of the discourse, just like the individual is.
Nick| 5.10.10 @ 1:57AM
"Yep, and I have founded a Corporation myself [...]."
Let me guess, "American Flag Burners, Inc.", right?
Curly Smith| 5.10.10 @ 12:24PM
Nyuk, nyuk.
Purpleguy| 5.10.10 @ 2:14PM
Nope - but I had 15 employees, paid their wages, paid their FICA and Medicare employer portion, paid Sales tax and Unemployment taxes, State and Federal, and paid Income taxes, State and Federal. Filed Monthly, Quarterly and Yearly statements for State and Federal.
What do you know about running a business? Do you have a clue?
Nick| 5.11.10 @ 12:09AM
Actually, I work in the family business.
My dad went into business in '73 with his brother, when I was 5. My mom helped do the book keeping. I grew up with small business.
So, I know all about that stuff.
You forgot workers' compensation insurance. Did you stiff your employees on this coverage to cut down on overhead, PurpleJackass?
Thanks to a bleeding heart liberal like yourself, Jenni-poo Granholm, business in the state of Michigan is in the toilet.
Purpleguy| 5.11.10 @ 10:49PM
All that means is you watched from the sidelines... you never had to make a payroll, worry about paying the bills, getting new customers, keeping the current customers, etc. You just hung around Daddy's business, as if it would just rub off on you? How dumb can you be. You therefore, have never run a business, so shut up when it comes to business - you know NOTHING. Did you go to college on Daddy's dime too? It didn't help...
Ya think the car business could be the reason Michigan is in the toilet? The market did that to Michigan, not a Governor.
Nick| 5.12.10 @ 12:39AM
You are projecting again, PurpleJackass. And, you are wrong on every count.
I served my country in Operation Desert Shield/Storm. What have you done, dope?
I'll assume you did skimp on the workers' comp, since you didn't deny it. Most liberals, who have businesses, are crooked. I've probably forgotten more about business than you'll ever know.
And, wrong again Einstein, Michigan has been in the dump since the middle of Jenni-poo's first term, the middle of '04.
It's the only thing liberals do well. Destroy economies.
Nathan Bickel | 5.9.10 @ 1:58PM
I find that it no surprise that the Obama Administration would be upset with the recent 1st Amendment [Corporation], Supreme Court decision. Isn't it the manipulative nature of the Spendthrift-in-Chief to desire to control the flow of wealth in this country? It's okay for Obama to spend the taxpayer's monies to further and feather his own fascist and socialist interests -- but woe be to any other entity to express their legitamate 1st Amendment right in a similar manner!
Oldefarte| 5.9.10 @ 2:20PM
This case will provide the political vehicle for the business community [large, medium and small companies] to defuse/defeat the liberal radicalism of what is seen in Washington DC currently. It will counter-balance the Democratic, partisaned political efforts of labor unions, lawyers and government/taxpayer financed organizations such as Acorn, the Greenlining Institute, NPR, Rainbow Push,etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pingback| 5.9.10 @ 6:32PM
Rooney aggravates groin injury month before WCup | Personal injury lawyer links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.11.10 @ 11:16AM
Obama, Rahm Already Selling Elena Kagan to Moderates – FOXNews (blog) | Phone Reviews links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.11.10 @ 7:43PM
What magazine’s do UN human resource department’s read? | Consult services links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
guo | 7.1.10 @ 4:25AM
www.wmvconverterformac.com
blog | 1.6.12 @ 7:58AM
Reagan does quicken the end of your Frosty Conflict, celebrate a change how the warfare (and it had not been a chilly war inside third world nations around the world) resulted in '89 and never throughout '97, point out. What I detest may be the GOP expressing because Reagan has been good (this individual seems far better as time goes on and Doles and also McCains crank out failed activities such as various meats digesting production facilities quality out and about sausages) I'm supposed to vote for his or her farty previous candidates; and also opt for Dubya whom only reached become us president due to the fact his / her dad has been vice president beneath... suppose who?