This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

"They hope their new pressure campaign could help reverse public opinion about who is to blame for gridlock over spending."

Dont expect any help with that from the Obama-poodle Washington Post....anyway, the state-run media needs a few more weeks to stop blubbering over the "Gettysburg Address-like" Inaugural Speech  delivered by their Messiah......

This post has been removed.

Very popular in deed.

 

The HoR did attach a caveat that should be popular with all voters; No Budget, No Pay for both chambers of Congress.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

Um, which radical wingnuts are proposing to repeal the First Amendment, to muzzle their opposition? Why, it's Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, calling  free speech "corporate speech"...

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

To borrow a line from your "strict constructionist" psychophants, show me where the constitution says that corporations are people.

Doesnt the bil say if the house and senate do not pass a budget for 2013 all congressional pay stops until they do?

I say hear hear great job HoR!

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

Change the credit card to an unlimited spending limit.  What could possibly go wrong?

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

I see you don't understand the concept of free speech.

 

BTW: I vote at corporations all the time, shareholder meetings, but I don't wait in line. 

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

The constitution is NOT the sole source of US law.  I could start rifling the US Code, but this was quicker:

Significant U.S. Court Cases in the Evolution of Corporate Personhood / Commercial Free Speech

1. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) - Corporate charters are ruled to have constitutional protection.
2. Munn v. State of Illinois (1876) - Property cannot be used to unduly expropriate wealth from a community (later reversed).
3. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) - The substance of this case (a tax dispute) is of little significance, but this fateful case subsequently was cited as precedent for granting corporations constitutional rights. Several articles linked above detail how this happened.
4. Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company (1893) - A corporation first successfully claims Bill of Rights protection (5th Amendment)
5. Lochner v. New York (1905) - States cannot interfere with “private contracts” between workers and corporation — marks the ascension of “substantive due process” (later mitigated after President Roosevelt threatend to add Justices to the Court).
6. Liggett v. Lee (1933) - Chain store taxes prohibited as violation of corporations’ “due process” rights.
7. Ross v. Bernhard (1970) - 7th Amendment right (jury trial) granted to corporations.
8. U.S. v. Martin Linen Supply (1976) - A corporation successfully claims 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy.
9. Marshall v. Barlow (1978) - The Court creates 4th Amendment protection for corporations — federal inspectors must obtain a search warrant for a safety inspection on corporate property.
10. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) - Struck down a Massachusetts law that banned corporate spending to influence state ballot initiatives, even spending by corporate political action committees. Spending money to influence politics is now a corporate “right.” Justice Rehnquist’s dissent is a recommended read. Related articles: Ballot Initiatives Hijacked / Behind the Powell Memo
11. Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Comm. of NY (1980) - This oft-cited decision concerns a state ban on ads promoting electricity consumption.
12. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) - Upheld limits on corporate spending in elections.
13. Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)
14. Nike v Kasky (2002) - Nike claims California cannot require factual accuracy of the corporation in its PR campaigns. California’s Supreme Court disagreed. The U.S. Supreme Court took up the case on appeal, then issued a non-ruling in 2003. See our comprehensive archive on this case.
15. Randall v Sorrell (2006) While this case dealt with the legality of Vermont’s contribution limits, not corporations directly, it carried important implications for corporate political influence, as Daniel Greenwood detailed in our amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.
16. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010). In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overrules Austin and a century of federal legislative precedent to proclaim broad electioneering rights for corporations.
17. Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana The U.S. Supreme Court overruled Montana’s Supreme Court ruling, which had upheld a challenge to the state’s century-old ban on corporate electioneering.

 

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Typically, you completely missed the point in your rush to zap me. I said:

"To borrow a line from your "strict constructionist" psychophants,"

 

 

 

re: O'Donnell and "where does it say separation of church and state?"....    

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

You really have a problem mate.  There was no "zap" other than in your dark paranoia.  They make drugs for that.  I wish you well.

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

hehe

Doesnt the bil say if the house and senate do not pass a budget for 2013 all congressional pay stops until they do?

I say hear hear great job HoR!

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

 

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Significant U.S. Court Cases

 

Typically, you completely missed the point in your rush to zap me. I said:

"To borrow a line from your "strict constructionist" psychophants,"

 

 

 

re: O'Donnell and "where does it say separation of church and state?"....    

 

Gregin cites supreme court cases, you cite a letter.

 

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

What on Earth are you talking about? 

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

Is anyone suppressing the 1st amendment here?  I didn't know disagreeing with someone meant you were suppressing their 1st amendment rights.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Consider the source and dont waste your time.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Consider the source and dont waste your time.