Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 76

Thread: Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

  1. #31
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    If a Corporation is acting in it's interest to make a profit, then it is also acting in the interests of it's share holders to make a profit.

    If a Union is acting in it's interests to make a profit, it is also acting in the interest of it's members to make a profit.
    The assumption being that the shareholders only care about that particular company making a profit, which in many cases is not what the shareholder would want. Believe it or not, there are people who put the good of the country ahead of the profits of Acme Corp. Even if they don't, they may own shares in companies that have opposite priorities, e.g. an oil company and a solar manufacturer. Personally I would rather the corporation pay the money in dividends so I can decide for myself who and what to support. I don't want the corporation making those decisions with my money.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  2. #32
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    You can't possibly be siding with the first amendment and at the same time want to limit certain people from speech in the matter you are doing.
    I'd say just the opposite. You can't possibly be siding with the first amendment if you want to allow one man's $100 million donation to effectively drown out the speech of millions of other Americans.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  3. #33
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    The assumption being that the shareholders only care about that particular company making a profit, which in many cases is not what the shareholder would want. Believe it or not, there are people who put the good of the country ahead of the profits of Acme Corp. Even if they don't, they may own shares in companies that have opposite priorities, e.g. an oil company and a solar manufacturer. Personally I would rather the corporation pay the money in dividends so I can decide for myself who and what to support. I don't want the corporation making those decisions with my money.
    Like I said. There is always an exception.

    But a Union or a Corporation acting in it's interest to achieve it's stated goals are in the interest of the members/stock holders.

    Unless you are trying to say that the Person or Position they are supporting is going to be against the Union's or Corporation's interests.
    Which I seriously doubt happens unless the person changed their mind, after the fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    You can't possibly be siding with the first amendment if you want to allow one man's $100 million donation to effectively drown out the speech of millions of other Americans.
    That is hyperbole.
    Nothing is drowned out.

    If I want to spend 100 million advocating an idea or position or candidate, that is my choice and my right to do so under free speech.



    Just like the guy up on a soap box, you do not have to listen.

    And no one says you do.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I'd say just the opposite. You can't possibly be siding with the first amendment if you want to allow one man's $100 million donation to effectively drown out the speech of millions of other Americans.
    I don't consider hyberbole an argument.

  5. #35
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:25 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,884

    Re: Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    So what you're saying is that Hobocorp should have the right to exercise MORE influence than would be justified based upon its employees, shareholders, and customers? I guess that explains why you would support $100 million in donations from a guy like Sheldon Adelson who makes most of his money from casinos in Macau and Singapore.
    Sounds like he just brought 100 million into the country, rather than out. Good for him.

    We should all go overseas, make some moula, and bring it back.

  6. #36
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I don't consider hyberbole an argument.
    You realize that Sheldon Adelson has said he will contribute up to $100 million this campaign, right? Or do you not know what hyperbole means?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Prague, Czech Rep.
    Last Seen
    10-10-12 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,880

    Re: Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

    With Obama's brilliant denunciation of a SCOTUS decision at the State of the Union address, is anyone really surprised?

  8. #38
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Meathead View Post
    With Obama's brilliant denunciation of a SCOTUS decision at the State of the Union address, is anyone really surprised?
    So you are saying the judges are vindictive?

  9. #39
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Like I said. There is always an exception.

    But a Union or a Corporation acting in it's interest to achieve it's stated goals are in the interest of the members/stock holders.
    And as I said, that's only the case if the corporation or union's political goals are perfectly in line with those of the shareholder or union, which is often not the case. I don't want corporations using my money to campaign for someone I don't like.

    That is hyperbole.
    Nothing is drowned out.

    If I want to spend 100 million advocating an idea or position or candidate, that is my choice and my right to do so under free speech.
    It isn't hyperbole. Sheldon Adelson Willing to Spend $100 Million to Beat Obama - US News and World Report

    And what it means his that his "free" speech is worth about 20,000 times more than an average American's free speech.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Prague, Czech Rep.
    Last Seen
    10-10-12 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,880

    Re: Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    So you are saying the judges are vindictive?
    I am saying that taking a dispute with Supreme Court judges public to that degree is decidedly stupid.

    But yeah, we know Obama is brilliant!

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •