Dane Allen wrote on 05/17/13 at 17:10:22:



No one is calling you a TEA bagger dane. What part of that do you not understand.
Really I dont care all the obscenities you like, all yours dane. It's just a reflection of how you were raised.

I know I also did that, I should be and am ashamed to have done so.

Cool.
Srinath.

And here is more twists on citizens united.

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC  on Jan. 21, 2010, is having a profound effect on the laws governing corporate political activity in nearly half the states. The court ruled that the federal government may not prohibit direct corporate and union spending on advertising for candidates' elections. While the ruling does not directly affect state laws, there are 24 states that currently prohibit or restrict corporate and/or union spending on candidate elections. Many of these states are looking at repealing or re-writing these laws to avoid legal challenges under the new standard set by Citizens United.  Furthermore, it is likely that states will choose not to enforce these laws, which has the potential to radically change the political landscape as we head into the 2010 elections. It is important to note that the Citizens United decision does not strike down bans on corporate contributions to candidates, which currently exist in 23 states. Only the ban on direct corporate and union spending on campaign advertising is addressed by this decision.

There is 10 pages of it on the 23 states that individually had to change their laws to not contradict CU. I dont want to post it here its a big table of sorts.

Its sorta like this.
Alabama
     

Corporations cannot fund ads directly under their own name, but must pay for them thru a PAC; corporations cannot contribute to a PAC (NOTE: this opinion applied specifically to spending on ads for/against referenda; not entirely clear that it applies to ads for/against candidates too)

(AG Opinion 82-088; conversation with SOS staff on 1/25/10) (§10-2A-70 and 10-2A-70.1)
     

None.

So CU went into effect at an un even dates across the country.

Cool.
Srinath.

...it's their job to targer fraud.

WebsterMark wrote on 05/18/13 at 20:22:22:



501c4 is a social welfare organization. Its not supposed to have enemies. I am the enemy of my neighborhood soup kitchen and all their donors. I want the list of restaurants and stores that give their food to the soup kitchen so I can go an picket them or throw rocks @ them. D-uh ...

Cool.
Srinath.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 05/19/13 at 09:26:15:



Whaaaat ? I thought he was kenya's crackhead ... or Obama has a another brother ?

Cool.
Srinath.

WebsterMark wrote on 05/20/13 at 05:50:08:



What garbage question - when was it proved that the donor list to that 501c4 was released to any "enemy" ...

You do know that a 501c4 - a social welfare organisation wont have any enemies right ?

Ergo - your question is lassoed upon its own feet.
501c4 has no enemies.
Donor list released to enemies = its not 501c4.
If it has enemies - its a 527, not a 501c4.

Dude you are shooting @ a soup kitchen's donor store and restaurant.

I'll put it in terms of the savage.
Why wont you savage fools not answer the question - How much fuel pressure I should set the fuel pump to run at and at what radiator pressure should my radiator cap open.

Why wont you answer the question ... yea ...

Cool.
Srinath.

What garbage question

figured  you'd dodge it; coward.