General Discussion

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

55. Yup, Bonnie dumanis is republican

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 01:28 PM

Feb 2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_Dumanis

Realize all are high level offices. Also the excuses from Bonnie, how was she supposed to know it was illegal, was the height of funny. We have not had a DA who is a dem that I can remember since I have lived in San Diego. Ever since this started she has been running adds to show what she is doing. She is up for election this coming cycle.

The objective was to develop downtown to inzunza's liking. So as I wrote somewhere else, the Filner scandal was about real estate after all, he just made it easy.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This is How Citizens United Dies-Feds: Mexican tycoon exploited super PACs to influence US elections [View all] kpete Feb 2014 OP

If we were smart that would rile people up of all ideologies Armstead Feb 2014 #1

well, Armstead kpete Feb 2014 #2

I try in my own little ways Armstead Feb 2014 #4

just found this: kpete Feb 2014 #7

I like your spirit -- Refreshing counterbalance to my "discouraged old fart" tendencies these days Armstead Feb 2014 #8

"Liberalism means tolerance, but it doesn't mean silence." navarth Feb 2014 #72

Democrats in San Diego received the money . . . aggiesal Feb 2014 #28

drip drip drip kpete Feb 2014 #32

I don't particularly care which party he supported. Bucky Feb 2014 #46

I don't care either . . . aggiesal Feb 2014 #53

And so did Republicans. nadinbrzezinski Feb 2014 #48

Do you have a link that shows that? . . . aggiesal Feb 2014 #54

Yup, Bonnie dumanis is republican nadinbrzezinski Feb 2014 #55

Citizens United: U.S. Politics with Chinese Characteristics jsr Feb 2014 #3

To say nothing of the trend in certain countries for people to come to the US specifically JDPriestly Feb 2014 #41

Actually, the Citizens United Ruling explicitly states Vattel Feb 2014 #5

With this court? Armstead Feb 2014 #9

I am confident this court would say no to corporate speech where foreign nationals are the source Vattel Feb 2014 #12

I wish I shared your optimism....Time will tell I guess Armstead Feb 2014 #13

Even a successful lawsuit won't stop this. All the foreign corps will do is form Nay Feb 2014 #29

The relevant court remedy would not be a fine but an order that stops the message Vattel Feb 2014 #31

I looked at the filing that was entered in CA and saw that the Mexican corp. was Nay Feb 2014 #47

I see your point. If you can't find out about it until the election is over, Vattel Feb 2014 #59

CU also did not do anything to change the existing laws skepticscott Feb 2014 #40

Not sure why this post is addressed to me. Vattel Feb 2014 #60

You know, I hate to say it but sometimes you have to use people's irrational fears against okaawhatever Feb 2014 #6

Well Adelson tried to buy a justice dpt gwheezie Feb 2014 #10

So what? Why would US based corps. have more of a right to buy election than foreign ones? Romulox Feb 2014 #11

The Supreme Court already ruled against foreign corporate donations starroute Feb 2014 #18

That ruling is not consistent with either Citizens or previous Free Speech jurisprudence. Romulox Feb 2014 #20

Non-US persons (and companies) do not have constitutional rights. jeff47 Feb 2014 #30

People present in the US have virtually all the rights of citizens. Certainly 1st Amendment rights. Romulox Feb 2014 #35

They don't have the right to vote. Flying Squirrel Feb 2014 #61

In the US, anyone with a green card can legally donate to candidates, hughee99 Feb 2014 #75

Sure. Flying Squirrel Feb 2014 #77

And corporations are "anyone" ('persons'). nt Romulox Feb 2014 #80

That's why I said "Located outside US jurisdiction". jeff47 Feb 2014 #74

Then form a "straw man" US subsidiary. Problem solved. nt Romulox Feb 2014 #79

There's also this FEC case starroute Feb 2014 #33

I appreciate the feedback. Wasn't Citizens United about making a movie, though? nt Romulox Feb 2014 #38

Yes, produced by the fine folks of the Lincoln Club of Orange County nadinbrzezinski Feb 2014 #50

So it seems anyone legally present in the US can spend unlimited money on such activity. nt Romulox Feb 2014 #81

I would also add that it is trivial for a foreign corporation to form a subsidiary in the US. nt Romulox Feb 2014 #21

Let's see- between Citizens United enabling corporations worldwide to buy our djean111 Feb 2014 #14

This is when we all send telegrams to Ilsa Feb 2014 #15

"That's not true" ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2014 #16

Actually... Liberal_Dog Feb 2014 #36

No ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2014 #58

According to this article, it was Alito. This article reflects Roberts' reaction to the issue. Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2014 #62

Your are correct ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2014 #64

That's OK. I thought I was wrong once but I was wrong. Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2014 #65

Trading votes for gold... NorthCarolina Feb 2014 #17

Inconceivable! blackspade Feb 2014 #19

Proving Chief 'Justice' Roberts to be wrong yet again. Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #22

Is it bad because Mexicans are doing it? UncleMuscles Feb 2014 #23

The Tea Party will be outraged no doubt, and feel vindicated Tom Rinaldo Feb 2014 #24

Let's see: Mexican money is welcome to enter the US... KansDem Feb 2014 #25

KansDem kpete Feb 2014 #37

He should do it like Carlos Slim AngryAmish Feb 2014 #26

Cons and the tea party type believe it is fine to hide your sources of campaign funding and Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #27

We all knew this was going on, it's nice to see the truth rolling out. K & R Firebrand Gary Feb 2014 #34

Remember Alito shaking his head and mouthing no when the president brought this up in the sotu kimbutgar Feb 2014 #39

Hello Harry Reid, where are you? lark Feb 2014 #42

See, corporations really are people. Coyotl Feb 2014 #43

K&R. (nt) Kurovski Feb 2014 #44

Kick Hekate Feb 2014 #45

This Could Be The Tip Of The Iceberg DallasNE Feb 2014 #49

Corporations are associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment Vox Moi Feb 2014 #51

I'm kinda of flip-flopping here... Wounded Bear Feb 2014 #52

I'm surprised Nadin didn't post about this Pretzel_Warrior Feb 2014 #56

I await the Greenwald column on this. nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #57

palast has done the work for justice dept on kochs/christy questionseverything Feb 2014 #63

Surely the felonious ones could never have dreamed their majority decision opened indepat Feb 2014 #66

HUGE K & R !!! WillyT Feb 2014 #67

Aren't they all foreign corporations now, headquartered in the Bahamas or Caymans? tclambert Feb 2014 #68

DEMS won't let it die...they benefit, too. blkmusclmachine Feb 2014 #69

K&R emsimon33 Feb 2014 #70

Sheldon Adelson yellowwoodII Feb 2014 #71

K&R drm604 Feb 2014 #73

+1 uponit7771 Feb 2014 #76

I thought that this was part of the arguement put to SCOTUS. idendoit Feb 2014 #78