What was your impression of the Obama SOU speech ?

McCain-Feingold was not the only precedent struck down by the High Court’s 5-4 ruling. A 1990 Supreme Court ruling required corporations to set up political action committees (PACs) if they wanted to contribute to political campaigns. The PAC acts as a kind of middleman with its own set of regulations and limitations on contributions. With the court’s recent ruling corporations can now use funds out of their general treasuries to contribute towards political campaigns,unhampered by the limitations of a PAC or election cycle time frames.

Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is already driving policy making in Washington, state capitals and city halls. The Supreme Court told these corporate giants they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy.

This is a horrible ruling driven by greed and partisan politics…the ‘corporate 5’ did quite a number and the President was correct to adress this.

In a truly momentous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States this week ‘upheld the principles of freedom of speech’ in the face of a Congressional attempt to regulate political advertising:

Politcal advertising should be regulated. If it isn’t then the one with the most money wins. That is not democracy.

Can a coporation vote or run for office?

Tha only stories I hear about the GOP being shut out comes from the GOP itself, along with FOX and rightwing radio.

Political advertising IS regulated.

In a truly momentous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States this week ‘upheld the principles of freedom of speech’ in the face of a Congressional attempt to regulate political advertising: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/lift-gag-on-political-advertising-83137482.html …numerous channels means: CNN, CBS, HLN, and FOX. (more than one)

Over all it was a good speech. Remember that President Obama is a constitutional scholar himself. It isn’t as if he doesn’t have the right to have an opinion. The Supreme Court has been very activist lately. In Columbia vs. Heller the SCOTUS reversed 70 years of jurisprudence that held that the right to bare arms was a collective and state right not an individual one. Now they hold that corporations have a constitutional right to free speech and that political contributions are a form of speech. While nobody is ever going to agree with every decision of the court it does seem to be going in a very radical direction lately.

Jamahl, respectfully, it surprised me he would publicly ‘admonish’ the Supreme Court Justices with the Lawyer education/resumes/experience they have - I read the major issue in the ruling was ‘freedom of speech’ - the Christmas day bomber was clearly a terrorist act…yet not a threat to our National security ? - in the Ft Hood murders, he jumped up firing and shouting the ‘Allah’ phrase and other evidence (business cards, etc)…so it appears terrorist - I’ve read and seen on numerous channels reports of back-room and GOP being shut out of working out the details of the HC bill, so I don’t know…just wish they would work together for the people.

I thought it was a very good speech. I was extremely pleased that he admonished the SC Justices. They deserved it for probably one of the worst decisions ever made. And it was great to see the chamber stand up all around them and let them know how they feel. They looked very uncomfortable. The christmas day bombing attempt was serious, but it was not a real threat to our national security. And the fort hood shooting definately was not. It was the act of a singel twisted individual and was not an orchastrated attack or conspiracy. If he was mad, he should be. The GOP are being obstructionists.

The Mass Senate election had more to do with voter unrest over the economic mess and unemployment, none of which was Obama’s doing.

Well I haven’t heard it yet, I’ll look it up some time later.

But based on what your telling me it doesn’t sound that impressive. Failing to point out certain aspects that NEED improvement is almost like throwing in the towel. If his mood seemed angry then it suggests he is disappointed about the progress that the government is making so I think his mood fit him well in the situation.

I think though that he might have missed some key points in his speech, and needs to better evaluate it the next time he does something like that.

Not anymore with this ruling…

Can a corporation vote or run for office?