Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (120528)	9/7/2009 3:33:11 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541957

Need to keep an eye on this. ------------------------------- September 7, 2009 CU V. FEC.... On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear an important case. You've probably heard about the litigation, but you may not have heard about the potential consequences. E.J. Dionne Jr. argues today that it "could surrender control of our democracy to corporate interests." This sounds melodramatic. It's not. The court is considering eviscerating laws that have been on the books since 1907 and 1947 -- in two separate cases -- banning direct contributions and spending by corporations in federal election campaigns. Doing so would obliterate precedents that go back two and three decades. The full impact of what the court could do in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has only begun to receive the attention it deserves. Even the word "radical" does not capture the extent to which the justices could turn our political system upside down. Will it use a case originally brought on a narrow issue to bring our politics back to the corruption of the Gilded Age? Citizens United, a conservative group, brought suit arguing that it should be exempt from the restrictions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law for a movie it made that was sharply critical of Hillary Clinton. The organization said it should not have to disclose who financed the film. Instead of deciding the case before it, the court engaged in a remarkable act of overreach. On June 29, it postponed a decision and called for new briefs and a highly unusual new hearing, which is Wednesday's big event. The court chose to consider an issue only tangentially raised by the case. It threatens to overrule a 1990 decision that upheld the long-standing ban on corporate money in campaigns. Needless to say, it's an important case, which deserves more attention than it's received. Expect to hear a lot more about it. —Steve Benen 12:15 PM washingtonmonthly.com

To: JohnM who wrote (120528)	9/7/2009 4:33:48 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541957

john; The farthest Friedman is willing to go is to suggest that the war in Afghanistan ought to be "debated anew." Sheesh. I think all thinking Americans are rethinking this issue. Changing your position 180 is not an easy admit. I am more and more thinking our opportunity in Afghanistan was lost. Bush neglect in this war may be more significant in the long run than his mistake to go into Iraq. ......But now that responsibility is moving to Obama - how much of this Bush mistake should he take on? Its a debate America needs to have and it is not black and white. steve