From the New York Times (via Townhall)
The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election.
Let me ask: what’s the difference (beyond the semantics) of a company giving straight or using a PAC? Perhaps I’m missing something.
Anyhow, I guess it is no big deal, because Obama was apparently not rude for demeaning the SCOTUS, whipping up a frenzy of Democrat hyenas, and trying to intimidate the SCOTUS, but, Alito is a bad boy – no biscuit! – for shaking his head and silently mouth “not true.” Liberal World is truly FUBAR.
PAC=small amounts from individual donors, bundled together.
direct=large sums of money taken directly from corporation’s profits.
And you do realize, that at some point, you will have to explain what FUBAR means to some troll that hits your blog. The Old
Retired Petty Officer has known this one since childhood. Dad was a SGT in the Army Reserve/Guard and a Green Beret.
But the PAC is getting the money from people who work for that same company. So, it seems to be almost the same thing, Reasic. I’m trying, in all seriousness, to understand why companies being able to give is an issue. They still have to follow the same donation caps that individuals do, don’t they? And both parties will get the donations.