BC-US–Supreme Court-Campaign Finance-Montana,1st Ld-Writethru (Source: AP ) Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits in Montana caswe
June 25, 2012 at 4:32 am in West Central Tribune
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed its 2-year-old decision allowing corporations to spend freely to influence elections. The justices struck down a Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending. Continue Reading
Unions have loaded the system with billions of dollars(all from dues from members allowing them to work, paid direct to the UNION BOSS) in order to win elections. They got the Dough, I should know. The UNION I joined in late 40′s now has a monthly dues payment of $120.00 a Month. DFLer Gov Dayton, and presz b o can just about buy any election they want with that kind of money.. ONly fair after all these years of UNIONS owning it all, that now others are let in the door. Course OTHERS will never have the money the unions have. There are a estimated 89,345.754 members,plus their thousands of UNION bosses.
Like or Dislike:
12 
12
I don’t think this is good. I’m not in favor of leveling the playing filed in this way. I’d rather see the field just leveled altogether. Remove the ability for anyone/anything other than an INDIVIDUAL to contribute to campaign funds. No corporations – no unions – no businesses – no organizations – no clubs – no groups… Give the political process back to the people, exclusively.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
Why not take it a step further Ms Belle and disallow all campaign contributions completely and have the government allocate dollars to both candidates. The only descrepancy in amounts given would be giving a challenger 10% more due to the lack of the bully pulpet and name recognition. It couldn’t get much fairer then that could it?
Before anyone starts bringing up freedom of speach and other issues with this idea I ask that people please think about it first then come up with at least one way that it could be made to work as well as all the reasons it wouldn’t. Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
I do agree with losing all outside donations to any political campain, but I can’t see the reason for giving anyone an edge if the money is coming from the taxpayer.
Getting rid of all outside dollars would certainly take away the corporate influence, especially if in the same stroke, all lobbyists were banned.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
If all lobbyists are banned (not just corporate) I could agree with that since both sides seem to have their favorites get rid of them all.
I would not want to give anyone the edge either and that is why I proposed we do the same as Minnesota does for their Senate and House candidates, give them about 10% more money because they start at a disadvantage.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2