Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Howdy, Y'all,

More info Here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... _US_News_5

While this ruling probably has little practical effect on the business of political campaigning, I'm heartened by the knowledge that SCOTUS finally saw fit to do the right thing regarding such a blatantly unconstitutional law. Hope this ruling is a harbinger of a positive outcome in McDonald v. Chicago.

Maybe a year from now some common sense will return to another branch of the Federal gubmint, unless the smarmy senator from New York has his way:

"This is poisonous to our democracy," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.). Mr. Schumer said the Senate Rules Committee, of which he is chairman, will hold hearings in the next several weeks aimed at crafting legislation to respond to the ruling. He said he hoped to have a law in place in time for congressional elections this November.

Regards,

George

Well, this one can cut both ways. On one hand you have the rich corporations many of who will cut to the right. And, on the left you got the unions who will no doubt - again - pour truck loads of money into this. Also, let us not forget the rich socialist gazillionaires like bloomberg the twit and soros the idiot.

IMHO this country needs campaign reform bad. Many times elections fall to the party that spends the most and thats not right. Goes back to the premise that you cant get elected unless you're a rich rock star. Maybe thats changing a little but the jury is still out. Our Founders intended house and senate seats to be held by us (we the people) - not just richie rich kids.

zephyp wrote:Well, this one can cut both ways. On one hand you have the rich corporations many of who will cut to the right. And, on the left you got the unions who will no doubt - again - pour truck loads of money into this. Also, let us not forget the rich socialist gazillionaires like bloomberg the twit and soros the idiot.

IMHO this country needs campaign reform bad. Many times elections fall to the party that spends the most and thats not right. Goes back to the premise that you cant get elected unless you're a rich rock star. Maybe thats changing a little but the jury is still out. Our Founders intended house and senate seats to be held by us (we the people) - not just richie rich kids.

As we have seen, money os just like water in politics, it will find its own level. Example; Bloomberg, Soros.... this ruling will only change one thing, that the unions and super rich will now, not be the only ones buying positions. Well it will also make it easier for both parties, in that they will no longer have to spread their money around and invent all those 501c groups to hide donations. I really don't think we as a nation will ever be able to 'un-ring that bell' of only the super rich "rock stars" being the elite class of "electable" people. While I agree the founders never intended for it to be this way, evidence the fact that campaign finance ever passed to begin with? they never envisioned that either....

Start looking for "Votes for Sale" signs to pop up all over town

Schumer is an Obama lacky who can't stand it now that the corporations can send their $$ towards the Republicans,, Being the hyprocrite that he is anything he and his committee come up with will be one sided towards the Democrats and should never even be considered for a vote.

VBshooter wrote:Schumer is an Obama lacky who can't stand it now that the corporations can send their $$ towards the Republicans,, Being the hyprocrite that he is anything he and his committee come up with will be one sided towards the Democrats and should never even be considered for a vote.

Schummer reminds me of a cartoon character, an egg sucking weasel.... I mean it, the next time you see him sneaking up behind harry reid, imagine him as a weasel.....it'll kill ya....

It;s true~~~He has that weasel look like the rat that ya always want to smack up side the head

GS78 wrote:Schumer reminds me of a cartoon character, an egg sucking weasel.... I mean it, the next time you see him sneaking up behind harry reid, imagine him as a weasel.....it'll kill ya....

Like this?

EGGZACTLY!! come to think of it, harry reid kinda looks like the skinny little hen from those foghorn leghorn cartoons, you know the one the rooster had to always protect from the weasel?......and dick durbin seems to be thinking, this can't be good for my career....

Check out Schumer working the "white boy overbite"...
He must be trying to dance back there...

GS78 wrote:EGGZACTLY!! come to think of it, harry reid kinda looks like the skinny little hen from those foghorn leghorn cartoons, you know the one the rooster had to always protect from the weasel?......and dick durbin seems to be thinking, this can't be good for my career....

zephyp wrote:Well, this one can cut both ways. On one hand you have the rich corporations many of who will cut to the right. And, on the left you got the unions who will no doubt - again - pour truck loads of money into this. Also, let us not forget the rich socialist gazillionaires like bloomberg the twit and soros the idiot.

IMHO this country needs campaign reform bad. Many times elections fall to the party that spends the most and thats not right. Goes back to the premise that you cant get elected unless you're a rich rock star. Maybe thats changing a little but the jury is still out. Our Founders intended house and senate seats to be held by us (we the people) - not just richie rich kids.

Howdy, DK,

McCain-Feingold didn't do diddly to change the influence of big money on political campaigning. The controls it put in place on soft money were circumvented before the ink was dry on the rough draft. They would have been cutting their own throats had they enacted any meaningful reforms.

The ban on "electioneering communications", aimed at issue advocacy groups (the National Rifle Association in particular), was the only reform that had any teeth. Why? It was the only thing that both sides could agree on because neither side had any control over the political speech of these groups.

On a side note, I'm not sure the Founding Fathers shared your disdain for the political influence of the wealthy. In the early days of the republic, the "right" to vote extended mainly to property owners and other men of means. It didn't start trickling down to the common man (and woman) until the twentieth century.

Regards,

George

All those lefty socialist look like weasels and their women and downright ugly. Someone please show me one elected or appointed leftist politician that is good looking...