General Discussion

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

62. Halliburton, Bushco, Carlyle Group!

Reply to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 06:43 PM

Jan 2015

Rand Corporation, Raytheon...

The Intel community and the military contractors too?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

129 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rumors Swirl: Obama To Kneecap The Koch Brothers With Citizens United Executive Order [View all] herding cats Jan 2015 OP

That would be a master stroke. nt stevenleser Jan 2015 #1

The idea of such an EO has been discussed off and on for a few years now. herding cats Jan 2015 #6

What is to stop any company that submits a bid JimDandy Jan 2015 #46

I'll bet they thought of that. Betcha that'll be the part that is exposed, too... CTyankee Jan 2015 #59

I'm hoping so. JimDandy Jan 2015 #60

How can it not be? It's their favorite gambit, so to speak. CTyankee Jan 2015 #61

What's stopping them from ... aggiesal Jan 2015 #65

This is exactly what would be covered if an EO were to be issued. herding cats Jan 2015 #68

Obama said nothing about this in his speech, unfortunately. n/t JimDandy Jan 2015 #91

I would have been extremely surprised if he had. BeanMusical Jan 2015 #108

Couldn't this be overridden by the TPP? grahamhgreen Jan 2015 #117

No. nt stevenleser Jan 2015 #118

They could sue saying the rule impacts their profits. grahamhgreen Jan 2015 #119

No, they can't. nt stevenleser Jan 2015 #120

Of course they can. They got the money. The courts are in their favour if we sign the TPP. grahamhgreen Jan 2015 #125

Wow! HappyMe Jan 2015 #2

Agree this would be amazing, if true leftynyc Jan 2015 #3

I won't bet on it olddots Jan 2015 #4

I support Citizens United for free speech reasons, but I would have no problem with this. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #5

Money is not speech and corporations upaloopa Jan 2015 #7

If the decision had gone the other way, Congress would be able to ban books Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #10

"Strongly Supports" is a stretch IMO Lochloosa Jan 2015 #13

Not only "supports", they filed an amicus brief with the court in the case. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #14

Ban books? Nonsense. Books are books, and money is money. Maineman Jan 2015 #21

The government actually argued to the court that it should be possible to ban books. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #23

Books are speech. Money is not. Orsino Jan 2015 #103

Money, as donations, is association Act_of_Reparation Jan 2015 #114

Money isn't speech. Orsino Jan 2015 #115

I'll repeat: it is association Act_of_Reparation Jan 2015 #121

And movies are movies... PosterChild Jan 2015 #82

What I said upaloopa Jan 2015 #22

Well-said. AzDar Jan 2015 #90

Yeesh MFrohike Jan 2015 #72

Again, the government argued before the justices that it had the power to ban books. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #73

Oh? MFrohike Jan 2015 #74

The exact phrase he used was "prohibit the publication of the book" (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #77

Within the statutory period MFrohike Jan 2015 #80

Supporting Citizens United to prevent the banning of books is a silly non sequitur. n/t Orsino Jan 2015 #104

I think a big reason why the ACLU supports the decision so strongly Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #105

I wish I could rec this. we can do it Jan 2015 #20

I stand with the ACLU on this issue (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #36

Me, too. n/t Duval Jan 2015 #43

Citizens United did not say that "money is speech" skepticscott Jan 2015 #38

Where do you suppose those ideas came from? upaloopa Jan 2015 #48

They came from a misunderstanding or a deliberate twisting skepticscott Jan 2015 #70

I think that is pure bull shit upaloopa Jan 2015 #89

Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #106

Actually, it was pretty much pulled out of someone's ass. Flatulo Jan 2015 #100

Citizens United squelches free speech. It makes it impossible for individual's voices to be heard Takket Jan 2015 #9

On the contrary, you can band together with other like-minded individuals, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #11

How the hell are people who don't have time for their kids LawDeeDah Jan 2015 #17

Much of Obama's support came from small contributions from individuals. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #26

Get real OK ? upaloopa Jan 2015 #29

WTF, indeed. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #92

How do you make your "collective voice heard" if you are hiding in a corner? A Simple Game Jan 2015 #24

Joining a union would be one example (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #30

because unions are so strong in the US today neverforget Jan 2015 #49

+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #93

You can ban with other working class people upaloopa Jan 2015 #27

I support the right of unions to speak for their members. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #32

What percent of people are in unions? upaloopa Jan 2015 #47

11.3%, or 14.5 million people Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #50

Unions have that right already. And it isn't working out well for my side. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #94

Funny how corporations use their money, sorry "free speech", to buy politicians while us little guys neverforget Jan 2015 #86

+1 Enthusiast Jan 2015 #95

So you agree edhopper Jan 2015 #25

Corporations are not "people", but do have constitutional rights. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #28

Paying dues to a union edhopper Jan 2015 #33

It's one example of how people can have a collective voice. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #35

Yes, and avoiding responsibility is the reason businesses incorporate in the first place whathehell Jan 2015 #67

True that edhopper Jan 2015 #69

limited liability isn't avoidance.. PosterChild Jan 2015 #83

Limited liability should mean limited rights.. whathehell Jan 2015 #88

+1 You nailed it. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #97

Thanks. n/t whathehell Jan 2015 #101

I generally agree (nt) PosterChild Jan 2015 #128

+1 Enthusiast Jan 2015 #96

No, and if Citizens United had said either of those things skepticscott Jan 2015 #41

I think that is debatable edhopper Jan 2015 #52

Wikipedia articulates the decision accurately: Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #57

Jesus. WilliamPitt Jan 2015 #55

Was that also your reaction to the ACLU filing an amicus brief in the case? Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #56

Are you constitutionally guaranteed protection to pay a police officer not to give harun Jan 2015 #107

No, bribing a law enforcement officer is very different from making a movie or publishing a book Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #109

A bribe is what the law says it is. harun Jan 2015 #111

Should a publisher be allowed to publish whatever book they want? (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #112

Publisher yes, PAC no. A PAC being what is defined by the Federal Elections Campaign Act as a PAC. harun Jan 2015 #122

How would you codify in the Constitution that a publisher has First Amendment rights, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #123

As long as an individuals rights are not infringed upon I don't care if Congress screws them both. harun Jan 2015 #124

So you're OK with the constitution to allow Congress to ban publishers from publishing books, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #127

PAC's, not publishers harun Jan 2015 #129

BUT, BUT, BUT... Ykcutnek Jan 2015 #8

Be still my heart! LawDeeDah Jan 2015 #12

Good start. Half-Century Man Jan 2015 #15

I've had a Citizens United inspired sig line from an Obama SOTU from a few years ago. Renew Deal Jan 2015 #16

If I can't have the lottery, Lord, let me have this one rurallib Jan 2015 #18

Hey! LOL! Enthusiast Jan 2015 #102

I don't think the Citizens United decision included a provision for anyone to hide their... George II Jan 2015 #19

Always give the Koch Brothers the benefit of the doubt. tridim Jan 2015 #31

+1 Enthusiast Jan 2015 #98

It's actually due to a loophole which is being exploited to that effect after the CU ruling. herding cats Jan 2015 #40

WAIT! "to disclose political contributions after contracts have been awarded" Roland99 Jan 2015 #34

It's the only legal way this can be done after the SC ruling. herding cats Jan 2015 #42

Closing the barn door after the animals have left.... Roland99 Jan 2015 #78

Like the Koch brothers care any more if we peasants know what they are up to. Yawn. djean111 Jan 2015 #37

Man, let us pray! Duval Jan 2015 #39

That's a start... vkkv Jan 2015 #44

Whoopie. We can already connect the dots, but the media belongs to the crooks, so no one knows. Scuba Jan 2015 #45

I won't believe it until I see those names in print. WHEN CRABS ROAR Jan 2015 #51

Worst of all is Rush Limbaugh having a government contract to spew his vile lies and misinformation kelliekat44 Jan 2015 #53

+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #99

This comes rightt out of Teddy Roosevelt's book, and right when we need it. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #54

well I hardly call that "knee-capping" vlyons Jan 2015 #58

Halliburton, Bushco, Carlyle Group! grasswire Jan 2015 #62

Corporations are my kind of friends, my friend. kairos12 Jan 2015 #63

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! kpete Jan 2015 #64

Alito won't like this Enrique Jan 2015 #66

When pigs fly... blkmusclmachine Jan 2015 #71

Kneecapping? Hardly MFrohike Jan 2015 #75

I thought at first this may be an Onion type thing.. Cha Jan 2015 #76

Many Congressional Democrats will oppose such a thing madville Jan 2015 #79

Or else what? If you guessed or else nothing, you win, cuz that's how valerief Jan 2015 #81

Watched the entire speech, did I sleep through this part? George II Jan 2015 #84

Nope, I watched it, too. herding cats Jan 2015 #85

I say do it. LynneSin Jan 2015 #87

Terrible Supreme Court? Or the worst Supreme Court in history? world wide wally Jan 2015 #110

THat's great. Hope it's true - NOW WHAT ABOUT TPP? Ferd Berfel Jan 2015 #113

The only problem I see with this is that it would happen AFTER the contract has been awarded... DesertDiamond Jan 2015 #116

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! Anansi1171 Jan 2015 #126