Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 66

Thread: 22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

  1. #1
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,820

    22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

    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.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  2. #2
    Professor
    Sig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-13 @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,179

    Re: 22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    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.
    It's like you're dreaming of Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    14

    Re: 22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

    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.

  4. #4
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: 22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

    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.

  5. #5
    Student
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 05:18 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: 22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Student
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 05:18 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: 22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Professor
    Sig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-13 @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,179

    Re: 22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
    Free speech is not fascism.
    It is when you have to pay for it; and then of course, it's not really free at all.
    Last edited by Sig; 05-29-12 at 08:42 AM.
    It's like you're dreaming of Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

  8. #8
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: 22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    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.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #9
    Guru
    Aberration's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,699

    Re: 22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig View Post
    It is when you have to pay for it; and then of course, it's not really free at all.
    Let me know when you have to pay for it.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,820

    Re: 22 states, including Kentucky, join campaign finance fight

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    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.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •