Union Yes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 05:25 AM
Original message |
Enact and levy a 5000% tax on all corporate campaign spending. |
|
Or whatever it takes to stop these fascist tyrants.
Tax them enough and this USSC decision won't be as bad as we all think.
Otherwise it'll take a constitutional amendmant or USSC reversal to undo this horrid unAmerican decision.
|
KharmaTrain
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 05:27 AM
Response to Original message |
|
You pass this tax...the corporates sue...it goes back to the SCOTUS. Game Set Match. And that would assume, wrongly, that any such tax could ever pass out of the House and especially the Senate.
Back to the drawing board...
|
Union Yes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. This doesn't prevent free speech, it only taxes campaign spending. nt |
KharmaTrain
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. That Was The Argument Used To Save McCain-Feingold |
|
According to Anthony Kennedy, this would be a tax on speech...and even more unfair considering this court thinks of corporations as individuals.
This ruling is that broad...
|
Union Yes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. M-F prevented certain corporate campaign spending, hence their arguement was that the law.. |
|
prevented their right to free speech.
They can still spend and express there views under my proposal, it'll cost them dearly to do so but noone is preventing them.
|
KharmaTrain
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
A tax impedes a person's "liberty"...just as a poll tax doesn't prevent a black person from voting, the fact they couldn't pay the tax was used to disenfranchise them. The court ruled against the tax due to its violation of a person's "equal protection" under the law...and the same prescedence could be used here.
The way to cost them dearly is not to allow our votes to be bought. It's to defeat these machines with organization and at the ballot box where it becomes too expensive or waste their money. It's educating people to the tactics when they arise and to make it backfire on them. My vote will never be for sale.
|
TheKentuckian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 05:38 AM
Response to Original message |
4. We are unlikely to win playing their game by their rules |
|
Working the system has few chances for success. My best guess at the moment would be to create another global crash by massive defaults and minimal purchasing.
In my opinion, this is war and in war when the chips are down you go for the win by any means necessary.
|
Union Yes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. I agree. This is an 'any means necessary' proposal. nt |
NecklyTyler
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 06:33 AM
Response to Original message |
8. Make all political donors prove citizenship of the United States |
|
I don't think Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics are citizens
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 11:09 PM
Response to Original message |