I wish one of the key Democrats had the spine to mention that Alito and Roberts assured the American people that the type of judicial activism we witnessed in the atrocious ruling still being discussed would never happen. We were misled by these men. I suppose, Axelrod at least provided us a gentle reminder of this grand deception.

Bull. Axelrod got it wrong and he is trying to cover it up. That’s all it is.

Sorry The president got it wrong and axelrod is trying to cover it up.

Even the NYTimes printed that Obama got it wrong; Did the host of MTP ask Axelrod why Obama misrepresented the SCOTUS decision? Did David Gregory even mention that Obama got it wrong?

Fidoohki, you don’t seem to offer any evidence of your conclusions.

The ruling of the Supreme court in this case only extends to US companies. Not Foriegn ones. That ban is still in place. Subsidiaries of a foreign company cannot donate as a company due to federal regulations.

Here’s the link:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/27/barack-obama/obama-says-supreme-court-ruling-allows-foreign-com/

Fidoohki, save your breath, people like The Real Royal _____ couldn’t care less about facts or rights that are perceived to help their opponents. You can list facts all day long and it will not matter, he and his ilk are completely blinded by ideology only. It’s a common trait among progressives, no common sense whatsoever.

It’s not exactly rocket science, before the ruling, corporations or unions had to write checks to 527′s, an obvious sidestep to funnel the money to candidates. After the ruling they can basically write checks to the candidate directly. Anybody see a fundamental difference there?

Why in the fark would/should this be a big deal to anyone????

As an after thought, does anybody else find it pathetic that a Professor of Constitutional Law and the Editor of The Harvard Law Review doesn’t really know sh&t about the law or the constitution?

I suspected that is what you meant, Fidoohki, and I appreciate your clarification. I don’t have the same problem as you do with the formulation. I am sure you understand that “US companies” are owned in significant measure by foreign investors and entities. I acknowledge François y Françoise’s Fromages Françaises, SNC, cannot make a contribution to the campaign of Ron Paul, but Nina’s Nutty Chewies, Inc., which recently acquired Paul’s Pralines, SA for a 35% stock issuance can. The point is that campaign reform was gutted by an activist rightist Court. I will ping President Obama for glossing over the niceties.

I will say, Timzank, your gratuitous nastiness, most importantly to our President, but also to me, notwithstanding, the campaign finance law gutted by the rightist activist Court was rather gutless to begin with, and your point regarding the 527′s is not without merit.

Gutted my ass, all the decision really accomplished is transparency, (a concept this administration is obviously unfamiliar with) the money still flows from the same donors, you can simply track it now without auditing six layers of “bundlers” and pacs….

heckle
–verb (used with object)
.
To harass (a public speaker, performer, etc.) with impertinent questions, gibes, or the like; badger.

Yep…that was some heckle…practically stopped the president in his tracks….no wonder Glynnis is writing those blaring headlines again. I share her faux outrage!!!

The Real Royal King says:
February 1, 2010 at 9:47 am

I disagree. The law as written didn’t seem to even begin to pay so much as lip service to
our garunteed freedoms.I believe transparency would correct this without violating
the first amendment. which is what our esteemed indiocy that is congress should
have written in the first place!

timzank says:
February 1, 2010 at 9:43 am

*shrugs* he asked an honest question. I’m not afraid of that at all. If I feel he made
an good point, an honest error, or just annoys the crap out of me I’ll reply otherwise he
is entitled to his opinion just like others are entiled to say he’s wrong or right … but they need to
prove it.