[Vision2020] Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Corporate Election

[Donovan Arnold]

Sue says I blame the wrong folks, I disagree, I blame the lawyers, and the ones that did this are all lawyers. The proof is in the pudding. 
 
Why is it that everyone, including Sue, that gives the example of a good work by a lawyer it involves stopping or thwarting off the deeds of another lawyer? Their examples only further provide evidence the world is a better place with less or none of them. 
 
Lawyers, politicians, and the like are worthless in a natural environment and do not create any wealth, they just divide it and take it from others. Real professions produce wealth and value. Lawyers do not. 
 
Many lawyers hide behind a false cloak of justice. But no person is serving justice at $200 an hour and billing for endless hours. 
 
No other profession provides so little at such a high cost to society. Our justice system is a joke, run by a system so corrupt it wouldn't know justice if it bit them on the ass. When a man has to mortgage his house and sell his car to prove his is innocent, get a divorce, or pay off medical bills, we have a crappy legal system. 
 
Lawyers use to be a noble. But now they have brought this country's legal system and economy almost to its knees, all for their personal profit.
 
 
Your Friend,
 
Donovan Arnold 
 
 
 
 
 


--- On Sat, 1/23/10, Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com> wrote:


From: Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Corporate Election
To: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com, "John Pool" <jpool at moscow.com>
Date: Saturday, January 23, 2010, 4:29 AM



It seems to me Donovan's opinion is shared by a goodly number who just want to berate lawyers for any and everything that happens in the world of politics, malpractice suits, legal opinions and legislation.    This is NOT about the legal system.  It's about 5 members of the U. S. Supreme Court who do not care about the dangers inherent in overturning this precedent of many years' standing.  They have been shills for corporate America for all their professional lives.  There is little reason to have expected them to make a philosophical turn to the left and protect American citizens rather than Dow Chemical, Halliburton, etc.  I continue to be grateful for those members of the legal profession who serve American citizens through their efforts to protect us..  Their numbers are legion. They work in the city and state court system, in private practice,  for entities such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, and yes, thank god, for the ACLU. 
  They did not make this decision, nor did they support its outcome.  They will,  as will the rest of us, suffer, as more elections are determined by corporate greed, and with fewer winners who are committed to protecting the civil rights of common citizens.  This really is a sad outcome, but Donovan blames the wrong folks.  
 
Sue Hovey




From: Donovan Arnold 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 3:53 AM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com ; John Pool 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Corporate Election






I would say that this ruling reduces my opinion of our legal system and the lawyers and politicians that run it, but sadly it doesn't because it is something that I would except a legal system that is joke as are the self important lawyers in it.
 
Your Friend,
 
Donovan Arnold
 


--- On Fri, 1/22/10, John Pool <jpool at moscow.com> wrote:


From: John Pool <jpool at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Corporate Election
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 6:13 AM








Did the Supreme Court decision on the ban suggest how the expense of supporting or opposing a candidate shall be treated for tax purposes? It’s one thing to allow corporations (and presumably unions) to spend money directly for this purpose, but the money has to come from somewhere. Is it to be a legitimate expense, deducted from taxes, or taken from profit after taxes, or what? What will, and will not, the IRS allow? And what of shareholders? If XYZ Corp supports Sarah Palin for Congress from Alaska, and a sizeable number (or even a handful) of the shareholders are opposed to her, is this a legitimate basis for a stockholder suit? I suspect this decision by the Supreme Court, while seemingly favorable to big business, is not as cut and dried as it first appears. 
 
And if corporations have the same rights as individuals to spend money directly, do corporations have the same limits imposed on their expenditures as are exerted on individuals? What of non-profit corporations such as churches? Can they now openly support or oppose an individual or group at election time?  This seems like a subject made for the Viz—opinions will fly fast and furious and facts will be slow to develop. Oh boy! Watch the mud being slung! 



John Pool 



-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================




=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100122/b8a2065b/attachment.html