4 Dec 2014 6:40 pm
Attempting to limited WHOSE free speech, nanny state? The court said it was the CORPORATION which had the rights- INDEPENDENT FROM those actual, real-life people WHO WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE CASE, whom you lied were being denied their rights. The court did not find ONE HUMAN BEING whose rights were violated, you lying little huey coward.Str8tEdge » 04 Dec 2014 5:33 pm » wrote:
Attempting to limit their free speech VIOLATED their constitutional rights. See the Citizens United
decision. THAT is what I have argued in terms of incorporation. The rest of your argument is:
As a general rule, committed liar, court verdicts are awarded in favor of either PLAINTIFFS, or DEFENDANTS - not in favor of fucking bystanders, you lying little rat-mouth.
Huey clone, if you want to spew koolaid for corporations, SPEW it. But spew it like a goddamned man, you worthless little creep. Don't then try to cocksucker me with your ****-mouthing, you effeminate little insect. The court said the CORPORATION had the right , not the people.
And you cheered and huzzahed and picked your side - which is with the corporations. Trying to both-ways-weasel that you're still a man of the people is exactly what I'd expect from a sneaky, down-low restroom cruiser who runs from his wife's vadge while jeering at well-socialized, competent, honest-in-their-relationships gay people.
Citizens United
The CT legislature paid for a study of the court's ruling in CU to see if the state had existing compliance issues to fix. The motive for the study was apolitical, as were it's methodologies which are made available at the link. The study I am presenting is virtually identical to everything that every nonpartisan study has concluded. The issue was the rights of corporations, NOT the rights of people, as weasels lie who want to walk both sides of the field politically, as WELL as sexually - in an obvious signal of their inability to choose.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0124.htm
March 2, 2010
2010-R-0124
SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
By: Kristin Sullivan, Principal Analyst
Terrance Adams, Legislative Analyst II
You asked for (1) a summary of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2010) and (2) its impact on state law, including Connecticut
'
s.
This office is not authorized to provide legal opinions and this report should not be considered one.
SUMMARY
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. It found no compelling government interest for prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make election-related independent expenditures. Thus, it struck down a federal law banning this practice and also overruled two of its prior decisions. Additionally, in an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the disclaimer and disclosure requirements associated with electioneering communications are constitutional.
The Court
'
s decision in Citizens United likely calls into question laws in 24 states, including Connecticut, prohibiting corporations from making independent expenditures from their general treasury. While the ruling
'
s immediate effect is unclear, experts predict it is only a matter of time before these laws will be challenged in court or repealed by state legislatures. Experts also predict that, since the laws are vulnerable, they will be difficult for state election officials to enforce. In Connecticut, CGS §§ 9-613(a) and 9-614(a) prohibit independent expenditures by businesses and unions, respectively.
The decision
'
s impact on Connecticut
'
s lobbyist and contractor contribution and solicitation bans and the Citizens
'
Election Program (CEP) is less clear. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit asked the parties in Green Party of Connecticut, et al. v. Garfield, et al., 648 F. Supp. 2d 298 (D. Conn. 2009) to file supplemental briefs addressing these issues. The state contends there is little, if any, effect while the Green Party asserts the opposite.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?