I think each person and corporation should have donations capped at something like $1000. That way, no one person/corporation would get preferential treatment.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> wrote: > > It would seem that the current conservative wing is closely following > in Judge Taney's footsteps when it comes to reality checking. > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Free for all would be exactly the opposite of the result of this decision. >> >> I'm not surprised by the decision, sadly, but oy. Corporations have >> every right that individuals do because they are people. That is the >> most brain dead notion I've heard from the Supreme Court in a long >> time. And I pay attention to Scalia, so that's saying something. >> >> Judah >> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Corporate limits on campaign spending have been eliminated. Hold onto your >>> hats boys and girls, this campaign season is going to be a free-for-all. >>> >>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-01-21-campaign-law_N.htm >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:310989 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
