Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

Menu

Subscriptions

Drudge Retort RSS feed RSS Feed

Links

Recent Comments

Recent comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

#119 Care to show us on this doll where the horrible Jews hurt you, little boi

"All Roads lead To Jewrusalem." - #116 | Posted by little boi at 2026-05-22 12:26 PM

#111 little boi says, "The Entire System is Depraved."

Yeah. Ya think, little boi ? ? ? ?

But, you don't care, little boi:

"I'm not Participating in the Elections.

Nobody in either party represents me.

If that helps the Republicans, I don't give a ----.

I'm not voting for people who help Killers.

It's that simple.

#33 | Posted by little boi at 2026-05-03 04:43 PM

#105 little boi barks out, "Wars of Obvious Aggression and Expansionist Aims are Nazi Acts. Genocide is a Nazi Behavior."

Why, you are 100% correct, little boi.

That's why you love you some good Nazis so much.

And you hate, hate, hate the Jews.

Isn't that right, little boi.

#105 Yeah, yeah, yeah, little boi.

You hate, hate, hate the Jews.

That's your thing, little boi.

Gotcha.

#100 little boi says, "AIPAC and other Jewish Supremacy groups Use this Political Landscape to BUY Policy"

Yeah?

Bring back McCain-Feingold and, magically, problem solved.

You're welcome, little boi

#95 No it doesn't little boi.

In the landmark 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

The court found that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.

Key Details of the Ruling

Unlimited Independent Spending: Corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on political advocacy (such as television ads or mailers) as long as the spending is "independent" and not directly coordinated with a candidate's campaign.

The First Amendment Argument: The majority concluded that the identity of the speaker (a corporation vs. an individual) does not strip away First Amendment protections, and that independent spending does not inherently corrupt the political process.

Direct Contributions Remain Banned: The ruling did not overturn existing laws that prevent corporations and unions from giving money directly to individual candidate campaigns.

Long-term Impact

Rise of Super PACs: The ruling paved the way for the creation of Super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to influence elections.

Increase in "Dark Money": While the court upheld transparency and disclosure requirements for donors, it enabled organizations to funnel money through certain non-profit groups that are not required to publicly disclose their contributors, leading to a surge in undisclosed campaign spending.

You're welcome, little boi

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy