• 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

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...

But, money =/= speech, as far as the Constitution is concerned, at least until the activist judges on the Roberts Court overturned a century of precedent.
 
Thunder said:
Time to amend the Constitution.

Corporations and Unions are NOT people...
Click to expand...

Why do libtards keep uttering that stupid line? I guess lib-tards figure that if enough people utter a lie then it becomes true. Corporations and unions are an assembly of persons. There is no one at a time clause in the 1st amendment. The supreme court did not declare walmart,sears, kmart, Bank of America or any other corporation a person.The SC ruling basically stated that just because corporations are a group of people that they can not have their rights denied.

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.
 
Somerville said:
The first paragraph says it all - corporations rule this country now and will continue to do so as long as they are allowed to spend whatever they wish on politics
Click to expand...
Amazing how people are more troubled by how much a peaceful assembly of people can spend on a campaign than the fact that someone who can be easily swayed by advertising is allowed to vote.
 
Last edited:
the makeout hobo said:
But, money =/= speech, as far as the Constitution is concerned, at least until the activist judges on the Roberts Court overturned a century of precedent.
Click to expand...

Money buys ads.Ads are speech. There is no limit on how much speech someone can have.
 
jamesrage said:
Amazing how people are more troubled by how much a peaceful assembly of people can spend on a campaign than the fact that someone who can be easily swayed by advertising is allowed to vote.
Click to expand...


It is amazing to me how so many are denying the historic reality of political corruption in Montana that was the original reason for passing the corporate contribution limits.


Do you understand what you have written? "easily swayed"? How about the reality that the more times a lie is heard by a person the result is often belief in the lie lie? Simple result backed up by years of psychological studies on the effectiveness of advertising. Yet you would seem to be saying that "some of us" are too smart to believe any ad when the reality is just the opposite. You are a human being, I'm assuming that you are not a Turing device, and like all of us humans you can be swayed by emotional appeals, by charismatic speakers and by beliefs inculcated by the society you have chosen, all without understanding just how much those non-rational factors can be affecting your supposed 'rational' decisions.
 
Somerville said:
It is amazing to me how so many are denying the historic reality of political corruption in Montana that was the original reason for passing the corporate contribution limits.
Click to expand...

Political corruption exists everywhere.So you are not really saying anything new.Want to reduce corruption then implement term limits.


Do you understand what you have written? "easily swayed"?
Click to expand...

A lot of people are easily swayed. A lot of people are morons who believe what ever ads tell them instead of actually researching the candidates they are going to vote for.

How about the reality that the more times a lie is heard by a person the result is often belief in the lie lie?
Click to expand...

Kind of like when a lib tard basically utters the line - "That thar Sou Preme Court just said walmart is a person, are day freaken stupid, der der der dee,cor porat America is going to rule us all"

Simple result backed up by years of psychological studies on the effectiveness of advertising. Yet you would seem to be saying that "some of us" are too smart to believe any ad when the reality is just the opposite.
Click to expand...
If you are stupid enough to base your vote only on a political ad then your an idiot.Smart people look up the candidate's past and current votes to make sure that candidate is not just uttering a line of BS.So really this whining about corporations spending money is just people wanting to keep idiots from voting for the other guy.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Political corruption exists everywhere.So you are not really saying anything new.Want to reduce corruption then implement term limits.




A lot of people are easily swayed. A lot of people are morons who believe what ever ads tell them instead of actually researching the candidates they are going to vote for.



Kind of like when a lib tard basically utters the line - "That thar Sou Preme Court just said walmart is a person, are day freaken stupid, der der der dee,cor porat America is going to rule us all" Somerville says: In my opinion this is a racist statement, you don't need to agree.


If you are stupid enough to base your vote only on a political ad then your an idiot.Smart people look up the candidate's past and current votes to make sure that candidate is not just uttering a line of BS.So really this whining about corporations spending money is just people wanting to keep idiots from voting for the other guy.
Click to expand...

and for you to attempt to deny that corporate spending is only on political ads is a denial of reality. We also have astroturf front groups providing fallacious "information", we have magazine and newspaper articles, we have well-paid shills babbling on the TV, the politician/lobbyist merry-go-round and we have politicians accepting legislation proposals from corporate sources (ALEC), promoting corporate causes and passing bills that benefit corporations at the expense of the public. (sugar subsidies while food stamps are cut)
 
you have to have a very compelling reason to limit free speech.... especially political speech.

sorry , but " omg omg omg the corporations are taking over" is not a compelling argument.
 
Somerville said:
and for you to attempt to deny that corporate spending is only on political ads is a denial of reality. We also have astroturf front groups providing fallacious "information", we have magazine and newspaper articles, we have well-paid shills babbling on the TV, the politician/lobbyist merry-go-round and we have politicians accepting legislation proposals from corporate sources (ALEC), promoting corporate causes and passing bills that benefit corporations at the expense of the public. (sugar subsidies while food stamps are cut)
Click to expand...
While these pieces try to make it seem as though it is greedy republicans the fact is these republicans can't do squat without the president's John Hancock. So essentially these articles are saying that he president himself is bought and paid for by special interests despite the liberal claim that corporations are buying republicans.

Kind of like when a lib tard basically utters the line - "That thar Sou Preme Court just said walmart is a person, are day freaken stupid, der der der dee,cor porat America is going to rule us all" Somerville says: In my opinion this is a racist statement, you don't need to agree.
Click to expand...

How is that racist statement? Please explain to all of us how you think it is racist.
 
Thrilla said:
you have to have a very compelling reason to limit free speech.... especially political speech.

sorry , but " omg omg omg the corporations are taking over" is not a compelling argument.
Click to expand...

There is a compelling reason. The Court has said that contributions can be limited if they create even the appearance of corruption. And then they insanely concluded that there is no appearance of corruption created by $100 million contributions from a single individual! Is anyone in his right mind not at least suspicious that there will be quid pro quo for such massive contributions?
 
Two points to make: First of all, Citizens United vs. FEC is one of the clearest examples of judicial activism ever issued from the Supreme Court. First of all, the case overturned several precedents. Some, like Burroughs vs. US, had been established law since the 1930s. Relevant cases that weren't overturned were misread or misapplied, such as Buckley v. Valeo. Overturning long-standing precedents flies in the face of Stare Decisis. While there may be times when it is necessary, it is still intrinsically an activist move. The court also ruled on issues not in front of the bench. Neither side in Citizens United was arguing that restrictions on corporate spending should be removed. The case was a fairly narrow one on the issue of selling videos before an election. The Roberts Court decided to issue this ruling, even though it wasn't what they were being asked to rule on. That is another thing I consider to be "judicial activism." This is the most activist court in living memory. Which is ironic, given how the majority on Citizens United have all rambled on about "judicial restraint," and that Republicans always levy the charge at their opponents.
 
Second point: I'm going to walk through a few basic ideas here.

There is a clear, if not absolute, correlation between spending and election results. Candidates who are vastly outspent almost never win. Does anyone really doubt that if Bob McHobo donated 50 million dollars to the Libertarian Party that they could double their vote margin many times over? You can argue whether or not people have a herd instinct, but point is that money helps win elections.

Second, politicians want to get reelected. They know that they need money to get reelected. For a lot of smaller races, fundraising is the main thing a candidate does. Money is the lifeblood of politics, and the politicians need it.

Third, politicians will act in office in such a way to get reelected, or get elected to their next office. Since this means they need money, they will act in whatever way makes sure they get the money when they need it. This, to some extent, extends past the particular candidate. Even someone who is retiring knows that their actions affect their party as a whole.

If someone donates a considerable sum to a politician(or spends the money on the candidate's behalf in a SuperPac), then the politician will act in such a way to keep the donor donating. The more a donor spends, the more the politician will enact policies that help the donor.

Does anyone disagree with any of the steps my logic took? Because if you connect the dots, it says that politicians need money to win elections so they will let their policies be influenced by those that give them the most money. That, my friends, is corruption, and isn't how America should work.
 
AdamT said:
The unions don't have near enough money to counter unliminted corporate donations.
Click to expand...

Really? Here are some facts for you to take in:



* The largest corporate contributor since 89' is AT&T, who's responsible for just under $49 million in political funding, 55% of which went to republicans and 43% went to the democrats.

* On the union side, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees has contributed a nearly equal amount, to the tune of over $48 million. For every $1,000 of that money contributed to republicans, $92,000 would be contributed to democrats.

* Of the top 20 political contributors since 1989, 12 are labor unions, 4 are trade organizations, 3 are private corporations and 1 is a democratic PAC.

* The 12 labor unions account for more than half ($410 million) of the nearly $800 millon raised by the top 20 political contributors since 89', with less than 3% of those union's contributions going to republicans.

* The 3 corporate contributors in the top 20 (AT&T, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup) were only responsible for $118 million, or 15% of the total, which was divided almost equally between democrats (48.5%) and republicans (47.9%).

* The 4 trade organizations in the top 20 that contributed were responsible for $136 million, or 17% of the total, in which 53% went to democrats and 43% went to republicans.

* The largest single source of political cash comes from ActBlue, a democratic PAC that in just 8 short years, has funneled more than $134 million in political contributions, exclusively for democrats and democratic candidates.


You were saying?
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
And here I foolishly had hope that the court would fix their mistake. What a silly thing to think...
Click to expand...

Looks like you're another liberal who hasn't realized that corporations are people.
 
Grim17 said:
Really? Here are some facts for you to take in:



* The largest corporate contributor since 89' is AT&T, who's responsible for just under $49 million in political funding, 55% of which went to republicans and 43% went to the democrats.

* On the union side, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees has contributed a nearly equal amount, to the tune of over $48 million. For every $1,000 of that money contributed to republicans, $92,000 would be contributed to democrats....

You were saying?
Click to expand...

Yes, I was saying that in this election cycle it appears that ONE MAN is going to contribute to Republicans more than DOUBLE what AFSCME has contributed to Democrats over the last 13 years.

You were saying?

See, unions actually could keep up before Citizens United. After Citizens United they can't remotely counter contributions by wealthy individuals and corporations. That's kind of the point. :roll:
 
Last edited:
the makeout hobo said:
Second point: I'm going to walk through a few basic ideas here.

There is a clear, if not absolute, correlation between spending and election results. Candidates who are vastly outspent almost never win. Does anyone really doubt that if Bob McHobo donated 50 million dollars to the Libertarian Party that they could double their vote margin many times over? You can argue whether or not people have a herd instinct, but point is that money helps win elections.

Second, politicians want to get reelected. They know that they need money to get reelected. For a lot of smaller races, fundraising is the main thing a candidate does. Money is the lifeblood of politics, and the politicians need it.

Third, politicians will act in office in such a way to get reelected, or get elected to their next office. Since this means they need money, they will act in whatever way makes sure they get the money when they need it. This, to some extent, extends past the particular candidate. Even someone who is retiring knows that their actions affect their party as a whole.

If someone donates a considerable sum to a politician(or spends the money on the candidate's behalf in a SuperPac), then the politician will act in such a way to keep the donor donating. The more a donor spends, the more the politician will enact policies that help the donor.

Does anyone disagree with any of the steps my logic took? Because if you connect the dots, it says that politicians need money to win elections so they will let their policies be influenced by those that give them the most money. That, my friends, is corruption, and isn't how America should work.
Click to expand...


Not bad logic, and I will presume that you would make the same argument about union donations in both money and people's time. You will also probably agree that the comic, who as an individual, not a corporation gave Obama $1 million. I am not sure who people get around the law we have on individuals but both the President and Romney attend dinners etc where people may pay 40K or 50K.

You are correct about the person with the most money often winning. Obama swamped McCain in 2008, perhaps that had an impact, not sure.

I also understand that most of the superpac money has been given by individuals, not corporations so it is not clear to me how citizens united impacted those donations. You sound like a lawyer, perhaps you know.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, I was saying that in this election cycle it appears that ONE MAN is going to contribute to Republicans more than DOUBLE what AFSCME has contributed to Democrats over the last 13 years.

You were saying?

See, unions actually could keep up before Citizens United. After Citizens United they can't remotely counter contributions by wealthy individuals and corporations. That's kind of the point. :roll:
Click to expand...

So, basically, if your side has the funding advantage that is just and fair, however when the tables turn it is time for a new system. Let that hollywood crowd pony up some cash, that they are SO eager to ask others for. When the teleprompter in chief is calling for ever more federal spending and more "fair" taxation (meaning that the rich should pay WAY more) then some just may decide that they HOPE for a CHANGE. The 2010 congressional shift was just the warm-up for this year. The OWS loons got tired and took the summer off, but the TP is just getting its act together. The more voter ID laws we get, the less vote manufacturing that can be done and the more that each vote means. In 2008 the economy was in a mess and the incumbent got the boot, guess what will happen in 2012?
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
There is a compelling reason. The Court has said that contributions can be limited if they create even the appearance of corruption. And then they insanely concluded that there is no appearance of corruption created by $100 million contributions from a single individual! Is anyone in his right mind not at least suspicious that there will be quid pro quo for such massive contributions?
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with you. States should be able to regulate the amount donated by individuals or groups for state and local elections and the congress should be able to decide for federal elections. Personally I'd like to see the same max allowed for any federal donation (to party or to candidate, by individual or group) - $50. That would make federal elections far more interesting. Maybe we'd have a better selection of goobers then.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So, basically, if your side has the funding advantage that is just and fair, however when the tables turn it is time for a new system.
Click to expand...

No, it's not fair either way. I have always advocated for 100% public funding of elections, with both sides getting an equal amount. Unlimited campaign contributions are nothing but legalized bribery.
 
clownboy said:
I 100% agree with you. States should be able to regulate the amount donated by individuals or groups for state and local elections and the congress should be able to decide for federal elections. Personally I'd like to see the same max allowed for any federal donation (to party or to candidate, by individual or group) - $50. That would make federal elections far more interesting. Maybe we'd have a better selection of goobers then.
Click to expand...

That essentailly limits NOTHING, as donations to PACs or civic organizations or even running direct ad campaigns can not be stopped as it is free speach. The power of certain senior members of congress, committee chairs and such, is MASSIVE since they can prevent biils from even comming to the floor for a vote. If that DC "bad guy" or "good guy" (it matters little which) happens to be up for re-election, then why not try to influence that election? It is not illegal or immoral to speak for or against any candidate running for public office. ALL funding limits, by definition, will favor the incumbent, as they have virtually unlimitted travel and press access just by currently holding public office, as Obama has shown us. The campaign may get hit for the "cost equivalent" of the commercial airfare, but the rest is public tax money as long as some "open to the public" event is included, even for a five minute "press conference". All Obama has to do is, say the word, and the secret service will shut nearly half a city down, just to get him in and out for an "offical" event. Yes he can!
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
See, unions actually could keep up before Citizens United. After Citizens United they can't remotely counter contributions by wealthy individuals and corporations. That's kind of the point. :roll:
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is, it was unfair to unions until 2002, when McCain Feingold was signed into law and leveled the playing field. So everything was fine and dandy until last year, when the scotus decision on the Citizens United case, struck down parts of McCain feingold and returned things to the way they were prior to 2002, screwing the unions.... Is that correct?
 
AdamT said:
No, it's not fair either way. I have always advocated for 100% public funding of elections, with both sides getting an equal amount. Unlimited campaign contributions are nothing but legalized bribery.
Click to expand...

Cry me a river. You KNOW that the incumbent has a HUGE advantage, so NOW you want it to be "fair". How much is an Obama press conference, picked up "free" and shown in prime time, as news, worth in opposition campaign funds? WHERE is this "public funding" comming from? Hmm...
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
That essentailly limits NOTHING, as donations to PACs or civic organizations or even running direct ad campaigns can not be stopped as it is free speach. The power of certain senior members of congress, committee chairs and such, is MASSIVE since they can prevent biils from even comming to the floor for a vote. If that DC "bad guy" or "good guy" (it matters little which) happens to be up for re-election, then why not try to influence that election? It is not illegal or immoral to speak for or against any candidate running for public office. ALL funding limits, by definition, will favor the incumbent, as they have virtually unlimitted travel and press access just by currently holding public office, as Obama has shown us. The campaign may get hit for the "cost equivalent" of the commercial airfare, but the rest is public tax money as long as some "open to the public" event is included, even for a five minute "press conference". All Obama has to do is, say the word, and the secret service will shut nearly half a city down, just to get him in and out for an "offical" event. Yes he can!
Click to expand...

ttwtt, what steps do you think would be reasonable to limit whatever corrupting influence that money might have in politics? Where would you draw the line?
 
AdamT said:
No, it's not fair either way. I have always advocated for 100% public funding of elections, with both sides getting an equal amount. Unlimited campaign contributions are nothing but legalized bribery.
Click to expand...

I personally would like a system where all donations are completely anonymous, but that's never going to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom