Supreme Court rules corporate citizens are equal to common citizens, with regard to campaign contributions?

Are corporate citizens equal to a common citizens, with regard to campaign contributions? In Concerned Citizens v. FEC. 558 US_ 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled that a corporate citizen is equal to a common citizen. In Brayall v. Dart Ind. Inc. (aka Tupperware-Kraft) 520 U.S. 979 (1987-1994); and Brayall v. United States et al., CA 94-1165-NG-USDC Mass. (1994-1998) 34 federal agents-judges were served as defendants for co-conspiracy to racketeering etc. The federal judges and agents covered up for Dart Ind. (aka Dart & Kraft-Tupperware's) money laundering, stealing state sales taxes-without remittance numbers, filing false tax returns for over 40 years. Dart and others then funded the Nixon, Reagan and Bush presidential elections in exchange for the above cover up. These cases are a matter of public record, although most are covered up or erased.

For if the American Public found out about the above, there probally wouldn't have been a George Bush-Dick Cheney election ... 2000...2004... 2008... or two wars later and a financial colasped economy! Signed: Richard M. Brayall, 401-849-6077.

Liked this question? Tell your friends about it

2 Answers

Order by
Oldest to Newest
Newest to Oldest
Votes

Why do "you people" always try to conceal your political attacks and smears in a question ???

Without General General Electric, NBC and Jeffrey R. Immelt, there probably wouldn't have been a Barack Huessein Obama-Joe Biden in 2008.

 

And you are correct about the (2) Wars.  Because if Gore had been elected, he would have been a pacifist regarding Saddam Huessein just as the United Nations was.  He would have allowed multiple attacks from al-Qaeda (Like Clinton Did) with zero or little response.

 

Liberals tried to imply that Bush was saying Saddam was involved in Sept. 11th.  That was a lie.  Bush never stated such.  What he state was what Democrats were stating back in 1998 ... Let's take a stroll down memory lane ....

 

 

 

How Soon We Forget ....

 

Now ... Let's address other facts about Iraq.

CNN reported and Marines confirmed that Saddam possessed mobile chemical labs:  CNN.com - U.S.: Mobile labs found in Iraq - Apr. 15, 2003

 

There were several accounts of where Sept. 11th Terrorists trained @ Salman Pak, a training facility about miles from Baghdad.  Saddam, Al-Ani, Atta, Salam

 

In fact, documentation and witnesses confirmed that Mohammad Atta had trained at that very facility back in the mid to late 90's.   IRAQI LINKS TO TERRORISM AGAINST AMERICA

 

There was even Intelligence from the British and other agencies that suspected that the Anthrax attack after Sept. 11th originated in Iraq.

 

Now the Financial Collapse of the Economy.  Americans now know that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac played a major role in helping this occur.  A Democrat Heavy housing committee led by Barney Frank ignored concerns and suggested regulations that were proposed by President Bush and Sen. John McCain.  We Remember the Speeches from Democrats:

 

 

 

 

I'm not claiming that George W. Bush doesn't share responsibility, however, he certainly is not alone in this responsibility as Democrats try to imply.

When the economy started to fall, Democrats ran and hid.  Then hey returned to blame Bush and Bush alone.  Americans now know the truth regarding this demise.

You see, the truth is out there if you set your bias, hate, or whatever it is, aside to recognize it.

"Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem.” Semper Fi Philippians 4:13 "I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength."

Video Answers That You Might Find Interesting

United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas just passed his fifth anniversary of silence during oral argument before the Court. During that time, he has not asked a single question of a single lawyer in a single case. And no one may force him to do so.

But there is growing political and legal pressure on the justice, and the high court itself, to end a different kind of official silence; about conflicts of interest and the reasons why the justices recuse themselves (or, more pointedly, don't) from certain cases.

Last month, the public accountability group Common Cause asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia should have recused themselves from last year's landmark Citizens United campaign finance case because of perceived ties to conservative groups. And next week, a Democratic lawmaker plans to introduce federal legislation that seeks to require the justices to be more transparent about their decisions to sit, or not sit, on a particular case.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/2011/02/thomas-scalia-427bn021711.jpgThis means that representatives of both of the other branches of government will be poking their collective noses into the business of the judiciary, and the Supreme Court itself, over ethical protocols that have traditionally been left to the justices to self-regulate. The Justice Department theoretically has the power to "enforce" (exactly how is unclear) a federal statute that requires judges to disqualify themselves from any proceeding in which their impartiality "might reasonably be questioned." And Congress holds the power of the judiciary's purse, a point Chief Justice John Roberts made clear he understood in his last "state of the judiciary" remarks seven weeks ago.

The issue continues to roil through legal and political circles, in Washington especially, largely as a result of the work of Common Cause. Last month, an investigation by the group revealed that Thomas had improperly filled out his financial disclosure forms for decades by leaving out significant income earned from political advocacy work by his wife, Virginia, the conservative activist. Thomas and Scalia also have been linked to David and Charles Koch, the conservative billionaire brothers, who have been forceful partisans on the political scene. Last week, reported the Washington Post, 74 Democratic members of the House of Representatives called for Thomas to recuse himself from any Supreme Court review of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.

If Thomas is chastened by the growing questions about his impartiality and the appearance of conflicts of interest, he's surely not showing it. Earlier this week, Common Cause pressed the Court for more consistent answers about Thomas' ties to the Federalist Society, a conservative group that evidently hosted him at one of its retreats in 2008. Also this week, the justice agreed to speak next week to the Federalist Society Student Symposium at the University of Virginia. It is unclear whether this event will be open to the media. Such speeches to student groups are common during the course of a Supreme Court term.

The topic of conflicts at the Court is not new. The last time it came up with this force was in 2004 after Scalia's famous duck hunting trip with then-Vice President Dick Cheney. At the time, questions were raised about whether Scalia should subsequently consider an appeal from Cheney's office of a court order requiring him to release information about his energy policy task force. Scalia did hear that case (and voted in Cheney's favor) -- but only after issuing an unusual and lengthy "response" to his critics. Scalia wrote bluntly: "Even so, recusal is the course I must take -- and will take -- when, on the basis of established principles and practices, I have said or done something which requires that course."

At the time, Chief Justice William Rehnquist essentially ended the political debate on the topic by defending both the integrity of his colleague and the need for a measure of judicial independence from endless partisan questions about the impartiality of the court's decision-making. "There is no formal procedure for court review of the decision of a justice in an individual case," Rehnquist wrote to Senate leaders. "That is so because it has long been settled that each justice must decide such a question for himself." Seven years later, that's a question the justices, and especially Justice Clarence Thomas, may be forced to confront again.

Related Questions

Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:

Asked: Are political party's considered business's?

Are political party's considered business's? Asked less than a minute ago - Washington, DC Business Income Tax Intellectual Property Name Change Tax Trademark — more ...

Asked: Democrats elect Republicans.

1952 election: 67% registered Democtrats, 88% voted for Eisenhower. 1956 election: 54% registerd Democrats, 91% voted for Eisenhower. 1960 election: 44 million more votes cast than there were living ...

Asked: Do you know who owns the political party before ...

14-cv-00295 hickman vs federal election commission and internal revenue service are the political party's finances public record and the owners other finances separate trade marks cost about 350 ...

Ask a Question... We'll forward it to people who know

More Questions

Supreme court question

Dems to GOP Nominee: Will the Defendant Please Rise? Every time a Democrat senator has talked during the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week, I felt lousy about my country. Not for the usual reasons when a Democrat talks, but because Democrats revel in telling us what ...

What is the logic of the Supreme Court's decision?

In my opinion, the logic in that decision is that makers of generic drugs will not be held responsible for the warnings they put on their drugs. This opens the door for them to conveniently leave off warnings that should be included. The decision is clearly to protect the drug makers.

What to do if a US citizen dies in Frieburg, Germany

I don't know what other option you have other than shipping the body back home. Unless you bury the deceased in Germany.

Supreme Court Justices

Actually, conserve may mean save or it may mean preserve - as in keep the same - for some people, no matter what. Synonyms are also jam - as in to jam up any progress. Or go easy on - as in go easy on the rich and forget everyone else. Liberal means open-minded, moderate, tolerant, generous ...