Where Do YOUR Representative and Senators Stand on Supreme Court Ruling?

@anniepa (26304)
United States
January 24, 2010 9:40am CST
It seems from the discussions on this subject here on myLot the majority of us, both liberals and conservatives, are not happy about the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding campaign finance. Since I learned of the ruling a couple days ago I've been paying very close attention to what's being said about it by our elected officials and I've also done several online searches to see what, if anything, those whose statements on this issue I may have missed have said. I'm pleased to say that all of my lawmakers are on what I consider to be the right side of this issue and are in favor of at least trying to do something about it. Do you know what your Senators and Representative think about this? There are three high-profile, vocal Republicans I've seen defending this ruling as a win for free speech. They are Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner and South Carolina Senator Jim Demint of "It will break him" fame. Do you think they're being true to their beliefs or do they simply know which side their bread is buttered on? Annie
2 people like this
3 responses
• United States
24 Jan 10
It does not matter what they can say.. it is how they have acted. What people need to know is how much money they taken in and from who. THey can SAY whatever they want...they are good at paying lip service to things. What matters is who and how much money they have taken and from who. That usually is a good indecator how they voted and why.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (26304)
• United States
24 Jan 10
I'm not saying we should just take their word for it if they say they're against the ruling. However, those who have openly admitted to agreeing with it should be gone with the wind, in my opinion. I think that proves without a doubt that they consider corporations to be more important than the citizens of the United States. Annie
• United States
25 Jan 10
Oh I agree. Any politican who opening supports this ruling needs to go...NOW. I have heard there are a few that are stupid enough to openingly support it. They should be run out of office. PEople should be calling for them to resign NOW. And all the others need to be kept a close eye one and anyone taking money from corporations, or lobbyists should be publicly outed and run out of office too.
• United States
24 Jan 10
I have not been able to find aything one this subect from my Savannah politicians. I did come across this from Florida Rep. Alan Grayson (D) and it is IMO very good! Responding to the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday to overturn corporate spending limits in federal elections, progressive firebrand Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) immediately highlighted a series of moves to "avoid the terrible consequences of the decision." "If we do nothing then I think you can kiss your country goodbye," Grayson told Raw Story in an interview just hours after the decision was announced. "You won't have any more senators from Kansas or Oregon, you'll have senators from Cheekies and Exxon. Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos like Nascar drivers." Grayson said the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling -- which removes decades of campaign spending limits on corporations -- "opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law." Story continues below... "It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell elected officials through the campaign process," he said. "It allows them to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected officials who actually try to do what's right for the people." Fearing this decision before it became official, Grayson last week filed five campaign finance bills and a sixth one on Thursday. Grayson said the bills are important to securing the people's "right to clean government. : http://rawstory.com/2010/01/grayson/
1 person likes this
@anniepa (26304)
• United States
24 Jan 10
Thank you for reminding me of this! Rep. Grayson has an online petition you can sign at: http://www.savedemocracy.net
• United States
24 Jan 10
Done! I also sent it to some friends to sign...thanks
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
24 Jan 10
I'm torn on the ruling to begin with. I've heard it discussed from different sides of the aisle. For example, Olbermann broke into a 12-minute rant--I'm sure you seen it--about how it's the end of life as we know it. Judge Napolitano, on the other hand, sees this as abiding the Constitution. As I understand it, the ruling simply allows industry to make campaign donations up to and on the day of election. I can't see how this aides one party more than the next, or even allows corporations and big industry to decide our fate. To steal a line from Napolitano, "It's good for the NRA and it's good for Planned Parenthood." Is it bad for us? I haven't mulled over the long-term ramifications. The way I see it, they were still giving money -- just under the table. This ruling just puts it above board. Does is stifle progress by silencing people? I don't know. Maybe someone can explain to me--minus the hyperbole and doomsday scenarios and outright lies--what some of the negative sides are.
@anniepa (26304)
• United States
24 Jan 10
Thank you, EofE, I already read your article and responded to your discussion and I agree with you completely. Annie