King Bloomberg and his media mob!

[shoots-straight]

Shoots'

Do you think this is an example of "dark money people", or hardball politics in the last election?

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_44197da9-b6d2-5e8a-ae05-7442aef0a45d.html

I think it's some of both.

Sounds like you do not favor spending limits on individuals. What about corporations? What about unions?

Ellie Hill (know her?) was on the radio last week. She strongly supports spending limits on individuals and corporations.

My position is full disclosure of who is contributing the money, but no limits on what they can spend. And yes corporations are people. Agree?

Of course that classifies as dark money. The very thing the repubs embrace helped cause Denny's demise. It's funny that it was used very successfully against an R here.

I believe in limitations on political spending. You take away the people with small incomes of having a chance at donating the same amounts to a given candidate.

Corporations are not people, and neither are unions. Full disclosure with limits is what most all native Montanan's believe in. It's rooted deep in our heritage. My middle name being Shane, and having a lot of relatives living in Butte give you a little taste of why I feel that way. We learned the dangers of letting corporations buy elections almost a hundred years ago, and passed laws to stop that sort of thing. It makes a huge difference in peoples lives, economically, and socially.

Yea, I met Ellie Hill, she was the legislator that sponsored the corner crossing bill. I did not see you at the rally in Helena. Did you not support corner crossing from public, to public lands?

 

[Big Fin]

My position is full disclosure of who is contributing the money, but no limits on what they can spend.

Agreed. Spend all you want, it just has to be discolsed.

And yes corporations are people. Agree?

Disagree, strongly. I have yet to read in the US Consitution where corporations are granted any of the rights given to individuals. But, if the courts agree, I guess it doesn't matter whether or not I agree.

The preamble of the Constitution does not start out ..... We the Corporations of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, .......

Under the Corporation = Citizens doctrine, the Bill of Rights would read like this. Strange stuff.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the CORPORATIONS peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the CORPORATIONS to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No SHAREHOLDER shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the CORPORATIONS to be secure in their offices, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the CORPORATIONS or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No CORPORATIONS shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any CORPORATIONS subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against the CORPORATIONS ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for the CORPORATIONS defence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the CORPORATIONS.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the CORPORATIONS

In my opinion, the recognition of corporations to have standing, as citizens or otherwise, similar to the rights vested in citizens, is a very perveted extension of our founding documents and a doctrine I struggle to understand.

 

[sweetnectar]

Seems like corperations are organized groups of people.
If corperations aren't people then...unions aren't people, the boy scouts aren't people, catholics, babtists and mormons aren't people, hunt talkers aren't people, etc. Otherwise who knows......my head hurts.

I agree that full disclosure of political donations are a good idea. Sometimes I'd rather donate to a radio station to not play a political ad and keep the music rolling.

 

[spook12]

Seems like corperations are organized groups of people.
If corperations aren't people then...unions aren't people, the boy scouts aren't people, catholics, babtists and mormons aren't people, hunt talkers aren't people, etc. Otherwise who knows......my head hurts.

I agree that full disclosure of political donations are a good idea. Sometimes I'd rather donate to a radio station to not play a political ad and keep the music rolling.

Do you think there's a chance that boy scouts are people but the Boy Scouts Of America is not? Maybe Catholics, Mormons and Baptists are people but the Catholic Church,Mormon Church and Baptist Church are not.

Pretty sure ''Hunt talkers'' are people but ''Hunt talk'' is a website that I spend way too much time on.
JMHO.

 

[BigHornRam]

Shoot's,

I didn't support your bill. Ellie admitted in the paper that she really didn't know what she was sponsoring. So it didn't go very far. I read your editorial as well. Access to bird watching? Are you kidding?

So Sturm Ruger INCORPORATED , a gun manufacturer should not be able to donate to pro gun candidates (according to some of you) but Bloomberg can use his dollars to bury them. Some strange thinking there

Funny thing about the Baucus group helping out Tester on the down low..........Tester buckled to Obama/Reid and kept his job. Baucus stood up to them and was told to step down. Didn't you endorse Tester?

 

[shoots-straight]

Shoot's,

I didn't support your bill. Ellie admitted in the paper that she really didn't know what she was sponsoring. So it didn't go very far. I read your editorial as well. Access to bird watching? Are you kidding?

So Sturm Ruger INCORPORATED , a gun manufacturer should not be able to donate to pro gun candidates (according to some of you) but Bloomberg can use his dollars to bury them. Some strange thinking there

Funny thing about the Baucus group helping out Tester on the down low..........Tester buckled to Obama/Reid and kept his job. Baucus stood up to them and was told to step down. Didn't you endorse Tester?

I could have guessed you wouldn't support access to public lands from public lands. Tea Partiers don't.

Maybe you could post a link where Ellie said those words for me. I never read that. If she didn't know what she was sponsoring when she submitted it, she certainly did shortly thereafter. Thousands of sportsman across this state sent her messages supporting her efforts. We never knew she was going to do this until her bill was submitted for processing. We did however rally around her.

The reason it went no where was because the Tea Baggers in charge sent the word down not to vote for it or else. Many legislators will be held accountable for their actions on this bill.

So why would it be funny for other recreationists to utilize state or federal lands that they haven't had legal access too? Maybe you haven't been paying attention but bird watchers are one of the fastest growing segments of outdoor activities. They spend a healthy amount of bucks to go and witness a rare bird.


330 + sportsman showed up in Helena to support a blast motion on Ellie's bill. The repubs held fast on the motion and we were defeated. It won't be the last word however.

You sound out of touch. Have you been hibernating this whole time?

The owners, and all of the employees of Sturm Ruger have the rights to donate as much money as the law allows. I have no problem with that. Bloomberg shouldn't be able to donate to his prefered candidates any more.

BTW, I got my first wolf this year. How did you do? Did you go, or do you still believe that we will ever have a wolf season.

Yes I supported Tester, and if he was up against Rehberg again, I would do the same.
There would have to be a more sportsman friendly candidate than John to interest me.

Sorry your still sore over Tester's wolf rider bill, you lost a bet on that one.

 

[BigHornRam]

Shoots,

Your approach is going to net you less access, not more.

 

[shoots-straight]

Shoots,

Your approach is going to net you less access, not more.

We want a ruling on it. One way or the other. If it is legal, then we should be able to access our lands that way.

If not, then the landowners have proof and know the law. What's wrong with that?