• 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!

Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits

Thrilla said:
welll.... good.

it's good that neither States nor the Federal Government can limit independent political expenditures ( key word is independent)..... I know it's not popular, but I can't help siding with the 1st amendment on this one.
Click to expand...

The problem with your statement is that you assume that the people who disagree with you are siding against the first amendment. I am very much against Citizens United, and I see my views on campaign spending entirely in sync with the First Amendment.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Every person who works for HoboCorp has a vote, and everyone who is affected by HoboCorp has a vote. That is how they represent their interest: at the ballot box. I walk over bridges, I have an interest in the hobo-bridge ratio too. HoboCorp shouldn't get more say than me because they have more money. That leads to a plutocracy.

Though to be fair, HoboCorp has a pretty laudable goal.
Click to expand...

The votes of HoboCorp employees, their friends and families make up .00003% of the population, but $3 million buys some very impressive media ads, connecting HoboCorps interests to candidate Smiley, who was trailing slightly in the polls, just behind candidate Grumpy, the rich, incumbent opponent of Smiley. But once Grumpy got exposed in the HoboCorp ads, as an agent for the society for the elimination of hobos, the election turned on that ONE pressing issue, giving Smiley the upset win, even though the MSM loved old Grumpy and thus refused to report it. ;-)
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
The votes of HoboCorp employees, their friends and families make up .00003% of the population, but $3 million buys some very impressive media ads, connecting HoboCorps interests to candidate Smiley, who was trailing slightly in the polls, just behind candidate Grumpy, the rich, incumbent opponent of Smiley. But once Grumpy got exposed in the HoboCorp ads, as an agent for the society for the elimination of hobos, the election turned on that ONE pressing issue, giving Smiley the upset win, even though the MSM loved old Grumpy and thus refused to report it. ;-)
Click to expand...

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.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Can you expand what you're trying to say here, please?
Click to expand...
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.

You can switch the word "profit" with "benefit" if you choose, same dif.
There will always be the exception to the rule, but in general, the above holds true.
 
the makeout hobo said:
The problem with your statement is that you assume that the people who disagree with you are siding against the first amendment. I am very much against Citizens United, and I see my views on campaign spending entirely in sync with the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AdamT said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


AdamT said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
AdamT said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't consider hyberbole an argument.
 
AdamT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Henrin said:
I don't consider hyberbole an argument.
Click to expand...

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?
 
With Obama's brilliant denunciation of a SCOTUS decision at the State of the Union address, is anyone really surprised?
 
Meathead said:
With Obama's brilliant denunciation of a SCOTUS decision at the State of the Union address, is anyone really surprised?
Click to expand...

So you are saying the judges are vindictive?
 
Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Meathead said:
With Obama's brilliant denunciation of a SCOTUS decision at the State of the Union address, is anyone really surprised?
Click to expand...

It certainly was prophetic.
 
Meathead said:
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!
Click to expand...

Republicans have been whining about "activist judges" for decades. St. Reagan called out judges in his SOTU speeches. Unless I'm mistaken, both Bushes did it. How is this any different?
 
Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...

You really don't think that might drown it out? It's simple economics. Lets say that I want to buy a single ad spot on a show. You buy 10 ad spots on the show. I might not be able to get my voice out because you can pay more and buy all the ad spots. At the very least, you drive the price up so that I can't get my voice out there without the money you have.
 
the makeout hobo said:
You really don't think that might drown it out? It's simple economics. Lets say that I want to buy a single ad spot on a show. You buy 10 ad spots on the show. I might not be able to get my voice out because you can pay more and buy all the ad spots. At the very least, you drive the price up so that I can't get my voice out there without the money you have.
Click to expand...
Has it happened yet?
 
the makeout hobo said:
Republicans have been whining about "activist judges" for decades. St. Reagan called out judges in his SOTU speeches. Unless I'm mistaken, both Bushes did it. How is this any different?
Click to expand...
All presidents have criticized SCOTUS, but certainly not when they were in attendance at the state of the union. Neither Reagan not either of the Bushes were that stupid nor incompetent.

Yeah, but we know. Obama's a genius.
 
I really feel that if we continue down this road where money = speech that we are in for some big problems.
 
Sarcogito said:
I really feel that if we continue down this road where money = speech that we are in for some big problems.
Click to expand...
We already have big problems, money = speech is and has been a fact of life since media was created and the private sector is not "doing just fine"!

Sheesh!
 
Meathead said:
We already have big problems, money = speech is and has been a fact of life since media was created and the private sector is not "doing just fine"!

Sheesh!
Click to expand...

Then even bigger problems than we already have. As corporations acquire larger and larger sums of capital, the disparity between their control and our control will be magnified even further.
 
Meathead said:
All presidents have criticized SCOTUS, but certainly not when they were in attendance at the state of the union. Neither Reagan not either of the Bushes were that stupid nor incompetent.

Yeah, but we know. Obama's a genius.
Click to expand...

Would you like to wager a $20 donation to the site that neither Reagan nor either Bush criticized the Supreme Court in any of their SOTU speeches?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom