Overwhelming Majority Opposes Supreme Court's Campaign Finance Decision
Posted:
02/17/10
Filed Under:Fundraising, Polls, Supreme Court, Poll Watch, Campaigns
140 Comments +


A vast majority of Americans -- 80 percent -- oppose last month's Supreme Court ruling that lifted restrictions on corporate and union spending in political elections, according to a Washington Post/ABC News conducted Feb. 4-8. Though most other areas of national politics may be paralyzed by partisanship, the opposition to the decision cuts across Republican, Democratic and independent lines.

Sixty-five percent of those polled said they "strongly" opposed the ruling. Only 17 percent strongly or somewhat favored it, with 6 percent in the "strongly" camp.

Seventy-two percent favor action by Congress to reinstate campaign spending limits on corporations and unions (with 52 percent "strongly" supporting such a move) while 24 percent oppose doing so.

Seventy-six percent of Republicans, 81 percent of independents and 85 percent of Democrats disagree with the high court. The same is true across ideological lines, with 73 percent of conservatives, 85 percent of moderates and 86 percent of liberals opposing the decision.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/17/overwhelming-majority-opposes-supreme-court-campaign-finance-dec/?icid=main|aim|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2010%2F02%2F17%2Foverwhelming-majority-opposes-supreme-court-campaign-finance-dec%2F

I guess the only ones who do support it are the corporations who don't want to lose the control they believe they have.

Nothing more than scare tactics..

76%(R)/81%(I)/85%(D)

A clear majority. One thing seems to stand out though. Why only 76%, Republicans? and 73% for conservatives?

I don't know that answer.

What in the blue @#%& were they thinking when they made this ruling? I don't think U.S. business should be allowed to contribute to campaigns or either party and foreign business definitely shouldn't be allowed.

I'd really like to hear someone's logical rationale about why they did too. I agree with you, boredinaz. Always two or more sides to an issue. Haven't heard the opposing side yet.

Does it really suprise you coming from a "Conservative" court!!!!! This ruling tells you just what the Conservative side stands for!!!!

why do conservatives fight so hard for the rights of corporations, while attempts to protect citizen's rights are seen as "socialist"?

the tea party movement for instance doesn't make any sense..its argument is based on nothing but ad hominen and pathos. Don't they realize that by being against health care reform,against environmental reforms they are effectively fighting FOR big oil and pharmaceutical companies?

Somewhere out there the CEOs are watching and laughing.

Plz explain????? Seems the majority dosnt agree with it....Hows that a scare tatic?????

Actually, I am sitting here and laughing.. We all know how liberals love fighting for citizens rights..

Why? Because they are either ignorant morons or con shills...it's unbelievable how they can ignore that they are being USED...the shills are just low lifes...some racists, some control freaks, just plain and simply really really bad humans.

They are fighting the wrong war.

"Become an internationalist and learn to respect all life. Make war on machines. And in particular the sterile machines of corporate death and the robots that guard them."
Abbie Hoffman

"The dumb bastards"
George S. Patton

that's pretty comical.. arrogant as hell, but funny.. I shouldn't expect anything less... haha

In part ( and I am in NO way agreeing with the Supreme Court decision ) because it's the corporations who EMPLOY PEOPLE!!!

I do think that allowing corporations to pour money into political campaigns is a bad idea.

But, I don't think it's going to be as bad as some may think.

After all...if a corporation ( for instance, one of the examples Olbermann used ) like Wal Mart decided to pour money into a certain candidates campaign, and that candidate wound up winning, but was EXTREMELY unpopular among the people...then that would wind up being bad for business because fewer people would shop there.

A company MAY be wiling to pump money into a campaign to get certain " protections " or considerations, but they would also have to be very careful about it because all corporations are concerned with the bottom line.

Losing money, and a lot of it, just because they wanted a certain candidate elected wouldn't be a smart business practice.

That's why they just contribute to both sides. Then they don't care who wins.

Perhaps. But they would still have to be careful not to go to extremes because it would wind up being bad for business.

Keep in mind...a business like Wal Mart doesn't give a rat's azz whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent.

They don't want one side or the other shopping at their stores. They want EVERYONE shopping there.

InvictusV,

How exactly do you know that i am a "liberal"? My point is that protection of corporate interests can not be equated with the protection of the general public.

Simply rebutting my argument by suggesting that liberalism is flawed, neither strengthens your position nor negates mine.

I agree that dismissing rebuttals to the current conservative movement as "racist" can be arrogant, at the same time dismissing rebuttals to opposition to the conservative movement as merely inspired by leftist ideology is just as arrogant.

What rights are the liberals attempting to protect? Our right to give the government money in forms of taxes and fees so they can bailout banks and buy car companies?


Where did anyone call you a liberal?

Your generalizations are inaccurate.

Because someone doesn't support government run health care means they support pharma? That's absurd. Because someone doesn't support the man made global warming hoax or cap and trade they support big oil? That's nonsense.

You didn't make an argument. You made comments that have no basis is reality. Random generalities that ooze from the bowels of the left wing...

I don't care what your political persuasion may or may not be. However, when you post accusatory generalities I'm going to respond.

"What rights are the liberals attempting to protect? Our right to give the government money in forms of taxes and fees so they can bailout banks and buy car companies?"

G.W.Bush started the bail outs a year before he left the White House. He got 700 billion from congress in 2008.