not at all!

Our posts can only be reproduced with permission. Our posts may be quoted at anytime, but please provide a link to the original article along with the quote.

we are unaware of any issues. If the problem persists and only occurs with our website please let us know!

All advertising is through Google Adsense, but we will host private ads per request. For more info on private ads email jthoburn [at] backyardpolitics(dot)org

Actually, its probably a good thing that they did 'overturn' those campaign finance laws, although it should be noted they really didn't overturn them they only took some really stupid parts of them out. In fact, Obama going off against the decision in his State of the Union Address just showed how ignorant he was of the decision's true effect.

What the supreme court did was to take away the media's control over election's in the month before an election. Corporations could already run advertisements for candidates up until then, but at that point all coverage became the domain of the MSM, which even when 'fair coverage time' rules are employed still manages to bias one candidate. For instance, all positive coverage for one and all negative coverage for the other stilll amounts to 'a fair distribution of time', right? This is the only major thing to change.

Furthermore, corporations still can't directly donate money to candidates, contrary to what so many people are running their heads off about. The supreme court was quite clear that direct contributions were still out. Individual contributions are in though, meaning that its no longer an issue for a lot of individuals from the same corporation or citizen's group to donate to the same candidate, a policy ostensibly put in place to prevent employers from coercing employees to donate to particular candidates, but which heavily restricted the rights of individuals who did want to donate.

Both of these changes help and hurt both sides of the aisle, so even if we were to see more involvement and spending from civic associations, corporations and labor unions, it stands to reason it will balance reasonably well.

sure, check the arras-theme forums i'll post it on your question, thanks!

never mind, check your email I decided that would be easier when I realized the length of my post and the probable repeat correspondence.

You know you're desperate when the Speaker of the House first claims that Wilson would be overlooked so that the focus could remain on Health-care, then calls for an unprecedented 'apologize to us too' house vote to rebuke him in an attempt to portray him as passive and beaten.

Thanks Vek!

I really have to hand it to you on this one Dennis, this has to be my favorite piece that you've written. I wrote an essay in high school once on this topic and I remain convinced that anyone who genuinely believes that our founding fathers were deists or agnostics has either drastically misinterpreted history or failed to read their complete original works.

I can't agree more. I don't like Obama but I sure couldn't see much of a difference between him and McCain. McCain even took time off from the campaign and skipped a debate to make sure the first Trillion in bailout money was spent!

I'm not tired of politics, I'm tired of PARTY politics (just see this story on the Democratic leadership's attempt to control their party http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22500.h...

Politics should be about doing what is right for the country, about respecting the constitution and freedom, about humility. Perhaps the real problem is that we've turned elections into popularity contests between egotistical power hungry pomps instead of seeking to elect individuals with a genuine concern and humility for the position.

Now, take a time out and enjoy the news, autotuned! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCCuOrRzoSc