Comments on: And The Insanity Continues

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:46:25 +0000

The case was US v Siegelman and the US Attorneys who prosecuted were employees of the DoJ, so they don’t need any outside help identifying the problem, they did it quickly enough for former Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican. The Obama administration has an anti-Democrat bias, that should be obvious. It is part of the “bipartisanship” disease that affects this Executive branch.

The call for a Constitutional amendment is good, but I would like for the Supreme Court to actually justify corporate personhood. I would like to see where it is found in the Constitution. There has been an assumption that it exists, but it has never actually been part of a Supreme Court decision.

By: Ame

Ame — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:32:50 +0000

Go Vermont!!
http://www.alternet.org/news/149620/vermont_is_gearing_up_to_strike_a_major_blow_to_corporate_personhood,_ban_it_statewide/

By: Ame

Ame — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:07:19 +0000

I agree 100%. I’ve wondered, on whom does the justice department rely on for information about cases in the individual states? Is it the Senators, the state AG, a division of the justice department in DC, who?

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:18:46 +0000

The prosecutorial misconduct in that case was open and obvious, but the Obama DoJ has refused to review it. I would prefer that that was used to overthrow the conviction, rather than a decision that “bribery” is legal when it involves campaign funding.

By: Ame

Ame — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:04:29 +0000

…

The Siegelman/Scrushy appeal is at the bench in Jacksonville, and it will be interesting to see how that case plays out with the relatively recent Citizens United ruling by SCOTUS. Those prosecutions were raw political corruption as only Alabama can get away with.

All hope for Siegelman and Scrushy, however, does not rest on the honest-services fraud issue. Also in play is the First Amendment, as recently examined in Citizens United. Schwartz reports that two of the judges seemed persuaded by arguments from the Siegelman/Scrushy team on the First Amendment:

Judge Edmondson said that political contributions were an essential part of participating in the political system, and that some benefit for the contributor was often implied, at the very least. “American politics does run, to a large degree, on money,” he said. “People have to ask for money, and people have to give money. America doesn’t want to chill that.”

Judge Hill agreed. The case, he said, “runs smack into the First Amendment.”
…

How about that? A judge saying such a thing.

from http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/will-siegelman-convictions-collapse.html

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 03:15:29 +0000

Ame, I firmly believe that campaigns should be funded by people – the same people who are qualified to vote in the election. Corporations aren’t people. The laws say that only citizens can donate money, and corporations don’t have citizenship – they can’t get a passport or even a drivers license.

The current rules are illogical. When you fine a candidate for accepting donations from foreigners, and then let multi-national corporations finance campaigns , you are entering the Twilight Zone.

By: Ame

Ame — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 00:21:02 +0000

But what about that personal responsibility they are always harping about? It’s my firmly held belief that if you believe in something enough to do it, then you should believe it it enough to own up to it instead of sneaking around like a thief in the night or lying. We need a political song about personal responsibility.

A couple of citizens’ interest organizations are gathering signatures to gauge public opinion on corporate funded campaigns, take a look if you are so inclined to do such things.

http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190

http://www.publicampaign.org/

and my favorite;
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4741359

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:58:57 +0000

This is all apparently about funding campaign chests and paranoia, and has nothing to do with the reality of this state. The NRA provides the money, and the whackoes like the Tea Party and Operation Rescue provide the paranoia.

Badtux, these guys would cringe in fear if people started wearing guns to their campaign events and carried signs critical of their decisions. Oh, the SHOT thing is about “firearms safety” and has nothing to do with fear of the people who go to these events … just ask them … they’ll tell you as they sell anti-aircraft missile launchers to “collectors”, and full-auto conversion kits to “enthusiasts” … accident prevention and nothing more … really … scout’s honor?

By: Badtux

Badtux — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:55:15 +0000

And why do I suspect that Mr. Brodeur is not going to remove the metal detectors at the doors of the Florida state capital building? :twisted:. Sort of like the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show that just concluded in Las Vegas. Amongst the rules of the show: No personal firearms within the premises, and all display firearms had to have the firing pins removed or disabled.

Gosh, don’t these people know that guns don’t kill people, people do? At least, that’s what they’re always telling us. Hypocrisy, much? 😈

– Badtux the Snarky Penguin

By: jams o donnell

jams o donnell — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:02:17 +0000

What bloody planet is Brodeur on? What the hell does this bill hope to achieve?