Where Do YOUR Representative and Senators Stand on Supreme Court Ruling?

It does not matter what they can say.. it is how they have acted. What people need to know is how much money they taken in and from who. THey can SAY whatever they want...they are good at paying lip service to things. What matters is who and how much money they have taken and from who. That usually is a good indecator how they voted and why.

I have not been able to find aything one this subect from my Savannah politicians. I did come across this from Florida Rep. Alan Grayson (D) and it is IMO very good! Responding to the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday to overturn corporate spending limits in federal elections, progressive firebrand Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) immediately highlighted a series of moves to "avoid the terrible consequences of the decision." "If we do nothing then I think you can kiss your country goodbye," Grayson told Raw Story in an interview just hours after the decision was announced. "You won't have any more senators from Kansas or Oregon, you'll have senators from Cheekies and Exxon. Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos like Nascar drivers." Grayson said the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling -- which removes decades of campaign spending limits on corporations -- "opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law." Story continues below... "It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell elected officials through the campaign process," he said. "It allows them to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected officials who actually try to do what's right for the people." Fearing this decision before it became official, Grayson last week filed five campaign finance bills and a sixth one on Thursday. Grayson said the bills are important to securing the people's "right to clean government. : http://rawstory.com/2010/01/grayson/

I'm torn on the ruling to begin with. I've heard it discussed from different sides of the aisle. For example, Olbermann broke into a 12-minute rant--I'm sure you seen it--about how it's the end of life as we know it. Judge Napolitano, on the other hand, sees this as abiding the Constitution. As I understand it, the ruling simply allows industry to make campaign donations up to and on the day of election. I can't see how this aides one party more than the next, or even allows corporations and big industry to decide our fate. To steal a line from Napolitano, "It's good for the NRA and it's good for Planned Parenthood." Is it bad for us? I haven't mulled over the long-term ramifications. The way I see it, they were still giving money -- just under the table. This ruling just puts it above board. Does is stifle progress by silencing people? I don't know. Maybe someone can explain to me--minus the hyperbole and doomsday scenarios and outright lies--what some of the negative sides are.