• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
22 states join campaign finance fight

HELENA, Mont.—Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia are backing Montana in its fight to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision from being used to strike down state laws restricting corporate campaign spending.

The states led by New York are asking the high court to preserve Montana's state-level regulations on corporate political expenditures, according to a copy of a brief written by New York's attorney general's office and obtained by The Associated Press. The brief will be publicly released Monday.

This is a bi-partisan issue, here is a list of the states participating:
New York, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.
 
This is a bi-partisan issue, here is a list of the states participating:
New York, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

Since SCOTUS ruled that campaign contributions are a form of free speech, it appears as though such efforts at campaign finance reform will be doomed at the state level as well.

Step by step, we are becoming more and more fascist.
 
We already are fascist. You think any reform has a chance of passing when the wealth of the nation is held in private hands? Not a chance.
 
That SCOTUS ruling is on a par with the Dred Scott ruling. What a bad idea.

If enough states join the fight, there is hope of reconsideration. I'm proud that they are paying attention and I wish my state were on that list.
 
Since SCOTUS ruled that campaign contributions are a form of free speech, it appears as though such efforts at campaign finance reform will be doomed at the state level as well.

Step by step, we are becoming more and more fascist.
Free speech is not fascism.
 
That SCOTUS ruling is on a par with the Dred Scott ruling. What a bad idea.
Just like it is not fascism, free speech is also not a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
This is a bi-partisan issue, here is a list of the states participating:
New York, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

If money is considered speech then these states have absolutly no busniss trying to restrict the 'speech' of anyone. Corporations just like NRA,GOA, planned parenthood, churches,unions, GLAAD and other group are an assembly of persons.That assembly of people are entitled to their other constitutional rights ,just like a church, unions, GLAAD, NRA, GOA, or any other group of people are entitled to exercise their other constitutional rights. Last I checked there is no one at a time clause in the first amendment or in the bill rights. Lib-tards seem to fail to understand that fact and the fact that corporations are groups of individuals and as a group of individuals they don't lose their rights.

The SC never said WalMart is a person, nor did they say banks are people. That is stupid BS invited by lib-tards because they can no longer restrict the rights that group.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that since the First Amendment (and the Court) do not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.[2]

snip..

The majority argued that the First Amendment must protect speakers with equal vigor and that the First Amendment does not tolerate prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Because corporations are groups of individuals, the corporate form must receive the same free speech privileges as individual citizens.
Likewise, the majority argued that independent expenditures are a form of speech, and limiting a corporation's ability to spend money also limits its ability to speak.
 
If money is considered speech then these states have absolutly no busniss trying to restrict the 'speech' of anyone. Corporations just like NRA,GOA, planned parenthood, churches,unions, GLAAD and other group are an assembly of persons.That assembly of people are entitled to their other constitutional rights ,just like a church, unions, GLAAD, NRA, GOA, or any other group of people are entitled to exercise their other constitutional rights. Last I checked there is no one at a time clause in the first amendment or in the bill rights. Lib-tards seem to fail to understand that fact and the fact that corporations are groups of individuals and as a group of individuals they don't lose their rights.

The SC never said WalMart is a person, nor did they say banks are people. That is stupid BS invited by lib-tards because they can no longer restrict the rights that group.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that since the First Amendment (and the Court) do not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.[2]

snip..

The majority argued that the First Amendment must protect speakers with equal vigor and that the First Amendment does not tolerate prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Because corporations are groups of individuals, the corporate form must receive the same free speech privileges as individual citizens.
Likewise, the majority argued that independent expenditures are a form of speech, and limiting a corporation's ability to spend money also limits its ability to speak.


The first word you use in your comment is the problem: - "IF money is considered speech"

How has money become equivalent to speech? To accept this premise is to accept that the billionaires and the corporations they control have more 'speech' than ordinary citizens. This fits the definition of oligarchy quite well. The right to free speech counts for nothing if no one can hear what you say.

Lib-tards seem to fail to understand that fact and the fact that corporations are groups of individuals and as a group of individuals they don't lose their rights.
Often used by those who call themselves "conservative", while more rational folks call them radicals, this conflation of a corporation with its employees misses the point that the individual worker, one who never enters the boardroom, has little to no voice in what the company is blasting out in their name. The messages being paid for by the corporation are those that tend to benefit the corporation and its owners and not necessarily its employees. If corporations and their boards and executives had the same ideas, opinions, beliefs, etc as the salaried employees then there would never be any argument over compensation and benefits for those working folk - right? Why should a company be able to pay for political ads which promote ideas that could be seen as causing harm to the individual worker and yet at the same time claim they are "speaking for our workers"


The concept of "corporate personhood" may be traced to a comment found in the SCOTUS ruling on Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) which stated that corporations are 'persons' under the 14th Amendment. This opinion was in direct conflict with the thoughts of John Bingham, the Congressman who is given credit for the language in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, who stated that his intention had been specifically to protect the rights of those Americans who had once been enslaved and their descendents.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The conservative majority in the Roberts-led SCOTUS has often voiced their belief in precedent (following earlier decisions to make new ones) and originalism when deciding cases, yet in the Citizens United decision they overturned a ruling from 1990, AUSTIN v. MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 494 U.S. 652 (1990)
(a) Although 54(1)'s requirements burden the Chamber's exercise of political expression, see FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 252 (MCFL), they are justified by a compelling state interest: preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption in the political arena by reducing the threat that huge corporate treasuries, which are amassed with the aid of favorable state laws and have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas, will be used to influence unfairly election outcomes. Pp. 657-660.

(b) Section 54(1) is sufficiently narrowly tailored to achieve its goal, because it is precisely targeted to eliminate the distortion caused by corporate spending while also allowing corporations to express their political views by making expenditures through separate segregated funds. Because persons who contribute to segregated funds understand that their money will be used solely for political purposes, the speech generated accurately reflects contributors' support for the corporation's political views.
A corporation using corporate funds to pay for political speech does not necessarily allow for the views of individuals working for the same corporation.
 
"A corporation using corporate funds to pay for political speech does not necessarily allow for the views of individuals working for the same corporation."

True enough. When I worked in city government I had to join the union. I had to pay union dues. The union, in turn, gave vast sums of money to political campaigns that I strongly disagreed with. Is that the same? Or is that different?

Americans must pay taxes (well, half of us must). A significant portion of those taxes must go to public employees. Public employees must pay union dues. Unions must use that money to support liberal politics. Following the money, that means all taxpayers must provide financial support to liberal causes. Is that fair?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for election finance reform. Our political system shouldn't be up for grabs to the highest bidder. My problem is with the folks who only want to reform one side of the equation.
 
"A corporation using corporate funds to pay for political speech does not necessarily allow for the views of individuals working for the same corporation."

True enough. When I worked in city government I had to join the union. I had to pay union dues. The union, in turn, gave vast sums of money to political campaigns that I strongly disagreed with. Is that the same? Or is that different?

Americans must pay taxes (well, half of us must). A significant portion of those taxes must go to public employees. Public employees must pay union dues. Unions must use that money to support liberal politics. Following the money, that means all taxpayers must provide financial support to liberal causes. Is that fair?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for election finance reform. Our political system shouldn't be up for grabs to the highest bidder. My problem is with the folks who only want to reform one side of the equation.

That makes little sense since any restrictions or limits give an advantage to only the incumbent who is free, as Obama now is, to campaign on the public dime, since their time as well as travel expenses are covered. Also what they say is 'news', by defintion, and they get much more free press. The challenger always has the greater 'non-public' expense.
 
Our political system is set up to keep rich rich and those in power in power. The sad reality is in the majority of elections the person who spends the most wins. So in order to get the money they need to win the spending war to stay in office they have to cater to the rich and corporations who can put up the money to keep them there. The way our system is set up is not for the betterment of our country or of our people it is set up to keep getting elected. That leaves us with this.

that the billionaires and the corporations they control have more 'speech' than ordinary citizens.

Given the options to work with the interest of a billionaire or 1000 people who cant afford to donate, a politician is going to do what the billionaire wants. He knows that with the billionaires money he can run a few ads and get those 1000 others to fall in line.
 
The first word you use in your comment is the problem: - "IF money is considered speech"

How has money become equivalent to speech?

Money pays for faxes,letters, signs,phone calls, ads, and many other things which are speech. To limit money therefore cash would to limit speech.

To accept this premise is to accept that the billionaires and the corporations they control have more 'speech' than ordinary citizens. This fits the definition of oligarchy quite well. The right to free speech counts for nothing if no one can hear what you say.

There is no limit to how much you can exercise your first amendment rights nor is there a one at a time clause in the first amendment.
 
I'll care when they manage to find some way to iron out the blatant biases in the media coverage and make sure to apply any restrictions on corporations equally to labor unions.

'Till then, do I really give a rat's ass that some corporations can spend a bunch of money on ads or whatever when currently most of the media(which corporations also own) is a 24-7 propaganda outfit for the democrats?
 
Corporations just like NRA,GOA, planned parenthood, churches,unions, GLAAD and other group are an assembly of persons.That assembly of people are entitled to their other constitutional rights ,just like a church, unions, GLAAD, NRA, GOA, or any other group of people are entitled to exercise their other constitutional rights.

Is that right? So, for example, I can vote, and I can form a politics club with a couple friends, and our club can also vote. And of course my company can vote. And then I can form a couple of associations and those associations can all vote....

Is that how it works?
 
Is that right? So, for example, I can vote, and I can form a politics club with a couple friends, and our club can also vote. And of course my company can vote. And then I can form a couple of associations and those associations can all vote....

Is that how it works?
Is voting a unlimited right? Its mentioned specifically as a right 5 times in the bill of rights but every time its to practically list what you can not use as a restriction.



14th Amendment (1868): Regarding apportionment of Representatives.

15th Amendment (1870): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

19th Amendment (1920): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

23rd Amendment (1961): provides that residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President.

24th Amendment (1964): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

26th Amendment (1971): "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
 
I'll care when they manage to find some way to iron out the blatant biases in the media coverage and make sure to apply any restrictions on corporations equally to labor unions.

'Till then, do I really give a rat's ass that some corporations can spend a bunch of money on ads or whatever when currently most of the media(which corporations also own) is a 24-7 propaganda outfit for the democrats?

those 'restrictions' on corporations DO apply to unions.

The perception of "blatant bias in the media" is more often in the brain of the reader/viewer than in it is in the real world. A Pew study found more negative coverage of the President than on the GOP in this election cycle.
 
those 'restrictions' on corporations DO apply to unions.

The perception of "blatant bias in the media" is more often in the brain of the reader/viewer than in it is in the real world. A Pew study found more negative coverage of the President than on the GOP in this election cycle.

Oh, it's much more profound than just hard news. Still, the hard news is that Obama is a terrible president, essentially. You can only candy coat things so much.. You can dip it in some chocolate and put some whip cream on top with some sprinkles, but a turd is still a turd. It could also be the left is as disappointed in him as anyone else. He basically has been the third term of GWB, including his penchant for passing unconstitutional laws.
 
Oh, it's much more profound than just hard news. Still, the hard news is that Obama is a terrible president, essentially. You can only candy coat things so much.. You can dip it in some chocolate and put some whip cream on top with some sprinkles, but a turd is still a turd. It could also be the left is as disappointed in him as anyone else. He basically has been the third term of GWB, including his penchant for passing unconstitutional laws.


Interesting ... first you claim "blatant bias in the media" and then you seem to be admitting that this bias is found in sources other than "hard news"

A "terrible president" - I don't think so but then I'm biased :roll: You are correct is saying the "left is as disappointed in him" but that would be primarily due to his acceptance of so much of the Republican agenda - which I see as harmful to the future of the nation - but that's just my opinion, some anonymous guy on the internets.

My own knowledge of history and the actions and the words of the modern American right lead me to believe that if the radical right, the Ron Paul libertarian types, gain control of all three branches of the federal government it will accelerate the decline of this mighty country - and that could lead to some really bad consequences. The moderate middle won't have a chance even though they may deny their losses at first and folks like me will be thrown out of the country.
 
Is voting a unlimited right? Its mentioned specifically as a right 5 times in the bill of rights but every time its to practically list what you can not use as a restriction.



14th Amendment (1868): Regarding apportionment of Representatives.

15th Amendment (1870): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

19th Amendment (1920): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

23rd Amendment (1961): provides that residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President.

24th Amendment (1964): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

26th Amendment (1971): "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people? Or that the enumerated rights apply to organizations, as opposed to individuals?

Doesn't it seem odd to you that a corporation would have the right to spend tens of millions of dollars to influence many thousands of votes, but not have the right to vote itself?

We're in one of the places where you have to stand back and say, "wait a minute ... this **** doesn't make sense."
 
Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people? Or that the enumerated rights apply to organizations, as opposed to individuals?

Doesn't it seem odd to you that a corporation would have the right to spend tens of millions of dollars to influence many thousands of votes, but not have the right to vote itself?

We're in one of the places where you have to stand back and say, "wait a minute ... this **** doesn't make sense."

A group of people can't vote, they can only vote as individual persons. A group of people can freely associate and pool their money for a shared cause, be it to build the biggest pizza in the world or to elect a jackass who lies real good I fail to understand your confusion.
 
Back
Top Bottom