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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (186050)	2/1/2010 6:58:59 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362947

I think what the court struck down was a 2002 statute and two relatively recent cases ... I think people are getting confused with the law prohibiting corps from making campaign contributions ... that law has in fact been around for ever, but it is still in full force and effect.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (186050)	2/1/2010 7:05:22 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Respond to of 362947

This is were the confusion is: The Tillman Act (1907) Roosevelt used his Presidential stature to influence public opinion and to persuade Congress. The NPLA and other grassroots organizations also pushed for reform. The result of their efforts was the enactment of the Tillman Act of 1907. The act specifically prohibited direct contributions from corporations and businesses to political parties and election committees. It was the first law on the books to specifically address campaign funding on the federal level. A lot of commentators are referring to that as the "100 year law," but that wasn't really at issue in Citizens United, the issue was whether corps could make their OWN political statements, not whether they could fund a party or campaign. They still can't make direct contributions, though they can contribute to a PAC which itself makes direct contributions ... that has nothing to do with the Citizens United case.