Yep. Your first time here.

But I’ve listened to the same nonsense from your dozen-odd clones already here. Y’all got different handlres, but sound the same. As far as I know, you’re JeninCT, or Oskar’s new tag.

You might be new here, but we’ve all met.

“Did it? Or did the justices completely avoid that aspect? What makes a company foreign, anyway? BP gets more revenue from the US than any other source, are they now a US company?”

No, is this a serious question?

“What about companies that have a majority of American stockholders, are they a US company?”

Yes.

“Or conversely, what about US companies with a majority of stockholders (owners) overseas? If Chinese citizens were able to buy a 51% stake in MSFT (and elect their own board members), would *that* be a domestic or foreign company?”

Well, my understanding is that if a company is majority owned by Chinese investors, then it is a Chinese company, and it will be prohibited from spending on American elections, as it has been for quite some time.

“How *anyone* could be against full disclosure (FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE) is beyond me. The GOP is making a huge mistake here, and you can bet that they’ve only ensured that this bill is going to come up repeatedly throughout Sept and Oct and the Democrats pound this issue over, and over, and over again.”

Because the disclosure requirements were rigged to benefit Democratic causes and candidates. Again, the very fact that large and powerful interest groups were able to buy their way out of the regulations suggest that they found those regulations onerous, and that smaller interests would then have to labor under those regulations that the NRA were able to buy off. So the NRA and the Sierra Club would be able to spend without disclosing anything, while smaller entities would not. I could just as easily turn this question around. Why do you and other supporting this bill think there should be a two-tiered system of political speech that allows behemoths like the NRA to purchase their way out of regulations they find burdensome?

“Gotta say, you sound a little hysterical.”

Really? This from the guy who wrote:

“The GOP has got one crackerjack strategic vision. It takes a true visionary to run on the “Muslim hating, Hispanic distrusting, Black antagonizing, Job Benefit blocking, Healthcare Reform repealing, Reality questioning, Hyper-Conservative, Census fearing, Revolution calling, Wall Street favoring, Big buisness Party. I certainly would never have thought of it.”

You have nothing constructive to say about the issue at hand, and then issue a wild rant about Republicans that has absolutely nothing to do with this post, and then accuse me of hysteria? That takes some chutzpah.

“Come to think of it, you always sound hysterical . About everything.”

Um, given that this is the first time I have posted on this site for months, I really doubt you are going to be able to back up that assertion. But by all means, do try to back it up. Otherwise, go troll somewhere else.

I called them trolls, not loons. You actually make a reasonable point, but of course the bill was written behind closed doors, without any input from Republicans, without a conference report, and then rammed through the House on a mostly party-line vote. Having been blocked out of the bill-shaping process, blocking the bill was the only tactic the Republicans had left. So the Democratic Party went after groups that tend to favor Republicans while leaving their own untouched (save for the incredibly powerful NRA that even Democrats dare not cross). In the months leading up to midterms, they were trying to tilt the playing field in favor of union-dominated groups spending without restraint while large corporations had to play by their rules. The fact that various groups were able to win carve outs shows how cynical the entire gambit was. Free speech for everyone, not just those who fund Democrats. Disclosure for everyone, not just for those who fund Republicans.

Foreign companies and countries are already prohibited from spending money to influence our elections and the Citizens v. United decision did nothing to alter that.

Did it? Or did the justices completely avoid that aspect? What makes a company foreign, anyway? BP gets more revenue from the US than any other source, are they now a US company? What about companies that have a majority of American stockholders, are they a US company? Or conversely, what about US companies with a majority of stockholders (owners) overseas? If Chinese citizens were able to buy a 51% stake in MSFT (and elect their own board members), would *that* be a domestic or foreign company?

How *anyone* could be against full disclosure (FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE) is beyond me. The GOP is making a huge mistake here, and you can bet that they’ve only ensured that this bill is going to come up repeatedly throughout Sept and Oct and the Democrats pound this issue over, and over, and over again.

“I’m curious if one of the die hard GOP defenders who post here frequently would like to explain what possible public good can come from protecting the privacy of corporations that wish to run ads for politicians. I’m genuinely curious.”

Agreed. I mean, I understand as a sitting-around-BSing point of discussion that coorporations are people too, and privacy rocks. But that’s so threatened that leaving in loopholes than endanger the entire system of representative government is safer? This is worth drawing a line in the sand? Doesn’t have quite the same kick like “defending marriage” or “protecting grandma”. “Saving unlimited secret funding of political campaigns by special interests” just seems like a poor choice, artistically and thematically speaking.

Its a “monstrosity? Really? Not just “I don’t like it” . . . but an actual abomination, a crime against God and Man?

I’m not quite as pee-myself terrified as you appear to be. Are you sure you just don’t disagree on policy issues? You’re sure this is the most horrendous crime against sanity since Pol Pot? Gotta say, you sound a little hysterical.

Come to think of it, you always sound hysterical . About everything.

There’s too much of that as it is.

Thanks for calling us leftist loons, we really appreciate. Actually, the light of day will clean all; the fact that the 527 groups can hide their intention is reprehensible.

If the UAW wants to advertise for a specific candidate I want to know that it is the UAW that takes that position, and not a 527 “America Freedom” secrete grouping. It therefore behooves the republican to make sure that all are treated equal. Just saying no is not acceptable