Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 160 of 160

Thread: Justices strike down political donor limits

  1. #151
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I don't know how one would even begin to quantify the naivete of this statement. Are you aware of the purpose that money raised is used for?
    Perhaps instead of obsessing with a law that is irrelevant to the issue (as demonstrated by its utter failure to prevent the practice when in place), focus on the people actually engaging in the activity by refusing to vote for them?

    I would start with every main party candidate in the country.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

  2. #152
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,670

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Heebie Jeebie View Post
    Then if you can sue it, it has to have the same rights as a person, correct?
    You're also going to be sued because it's your speech. Businesses are not an infinite liability shield. Nor are they an infinite microphone.

    I can form as many businesses as I want. I can seed them with as much capital as I have. Can I use this to evade campaign contribution limits?

    A company acting as a company is one thing; a company acting as a mouthpiece for their owners political views is another.

  3. #153
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    You're also going to be sued because it's your speech.
    I agree because a corporation has the same rights to free speech as a person.

    They have to be treated the same if they can hauled into court for making false claims. They don't haul in the marketing director to personally answer for questionable advertisements do they?
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

  4. #154
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,670

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Heebie Jeebie View Post
    I agree because a corporation has the same rights to free speech as a person.

    They have to be treated the same if they can hauled into court for making false claims. They don't haul in the marketing director to personally answer for questionable advertisements do they?
    Let me back up and clarify.

    Corporations are entities created by the state. In such they exist as a contract between the state and their owners and all rights are derived from that contract. There is no constitutional right to incorporate. Before 1800 there were fewer than 300 corporations in the US and only 8 that manufactured any goods. Each of these corporations were formed by individual statutes passed by state legislatures. Of the 27 amendments, exactly none deal with corporations. So where exactly do corporations get first amendment rights? They effectively didn't exist when the first amendment was passed.

    To say that a legal construct invented by a legislature can't be regulated by that legislature is a rather dubious position. Could a state create a different class of corporation that received special tax privileges but wasn't allowed to advertise? Of course they could! No one forced anyone to incorporate.

  5. #155
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    So where exactly do corporations get first amendment rights?
    They get it the moment the Corporation is named as a defendant in a lawsuit.
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

  6. #156
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    There's an old saying that goes, "Money Talks", which is a nice way of saying "money buys you influence".

    This notion that limitless political campaign contributions somehow equates to free speech is foolish. It's not free speech. It IS using one's economic resources to buy advertising space - directly or indirectly - under the guise of "I should be allowed to put my financial support behind any candidate I want". On the surface, this is true. As an open and free society, people should be allowed to donate to any political candidate or political party they wish. The problem comes in where reasonable limits are removed to the extent that there really are no limits and the checks and balances once classified as "disclosure" are all but removed.

    Those who argue for limitless campaign contributions are in all actuality seeking to ensure a representative government of their choice, if not, their design. This can have far reaching consequences for our political system because it will cancel out the voices of those with lessor means the ability to affectively have their voices heard. To put it in perspective, if one man is able to contribute $1 millions dollars to ten candidates, it would take 10 million people donating $1 each to candidates of opposing views to counter the prevailing ideology behind the paid "free speech" made possible by one man. How is this fair or even reasonable in today's political climate?

    We saw this happen again and again during the 2012 GOP presidential primaries where, for example, Mitt Romney was able to buy ad space that essentially knocked off Newt Gingrich and these were two titans of political and economic clout. I can't imagine what happened to candidates of lessor means. But here I'm talking about just the candidates themselves. What about the people?

    Staying with the truism that individuals can make financial contributions to any candidate or candidates of their choosing without limit is essentially saying you can "spread the wealth around" to as many candidates as you wish. But that goes back to my previous argument that those with little means can't possibly be on the same level playing field as those with more. Nonetheless, when it comes right down to it it's about getting out the message (i.e., "talking points and narratives") of a particular political candidate or a specific political party that holds a specific political ideology that is "bought and paid for" by those with the most financial means to be the broader "influences". One man making a single $10M campaign contribution to run ad space on a regional market can have a far greater impact than 10 people combining their financial resources to do the same thing. Why? Because of another old saying, towit: "Time is money." Thus, if I can write one $10M check or wire a large sum of money to a political campaign faster than I can collect 10 million individual donations, whose ad do you think will hit the airwaves first? And who do you think will be able to "influence" the larger segment of the population? The single $10M donor or the 10 million individuals?

    I'm not against individuals exercising their right to participate in the election process whether it's to support a candidate or political party of their choice, nor would I advocate against anyone being able to exercise their constitutional right to vote, but to think that our political system has not been co-opted or otherwise won't be corrupted by the vast amounts of money that is now being poured into political campaigns (as if it isn't already by crony capitalism) is just foolish.

    Campaign contributions is not free speech. It is paid political influence under the guise of liberty.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  7. #157
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,728

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Heebie Jeebie View Post
    I agree because a corporation has the same rights to free speech as a person.

    They have to be treated the same if they can hauled into court for making false claims. They don't haul in the marketing director to personally answer for questionable advertisements do they?
    I'll grant that corporations should be treated equally the moment a corporation goes to jail for committing a crime.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #158
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,513

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Heebie Jeebie View Post
    Then if you can sue it, it has to have the same rights as a person, correct?
    It has the right to be sued at any rate.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    02-10-15 @ 09:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    171

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Heebie Jeebie View Post
    Then if you can sue it, it has to have the same rights as a person, correct?
    Can it be drafted? When does it go to jail unlike "normal" people do when they commit serious crimes?

  10. #160
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I'll grant that corporations should be treated equally the moment a corporation goes to jail for committing a crime.
    Or can get sick, die, or have kids, etc.

    It's ridiculous to consider a transnational corporation with no allegiance or duty to the country, which can and does relocate to foreign countries for tax purposes, cost savings, to exploit other markets, etc. and which is a sociopath when it comes to the U.S. These entities have no real interest in the affairs, health or long term prosperity of the country - they're only duty is to maximize profits, and if that means undermining the U.S. economy, and getting in bed with the Chinese, or Russians, or any other of our competitors, they'll do it without blinking. Kill 10,000 U.S. jobs to move production to Taiwan? Of course, if EPS goes up a nickel, what's there to think about. They're not Americans - they're global entities that happen to have a parent company that is located here.

    Heck, just take trade deals. Their interest isn't the U.S., it's maximizing GLOBAL corporate profits, and any company's profit interests often do directly conflict with the long term interests of the U.S. Why should we allow corporate assets to be used to influence the political process to craft trade deals in a manner harmful to the actual living, breathing citizens of the U.S.?

    From all I can tell, the Founders would roll over in their graves knowing those that followed them gave political 'rights' to the equivalent of "EITC USA, Inc.," the Boston based wholly owned subsidiary of the East India Tea Company. When that company used its influence to obtain crony capitalism deals in the U.S., undercutting local U.S. businesses, protesters destroyed a million dollars of their inventory and dumped it in the sea. Now we have conservatives arguing that "EITC USA, Inc." has some 'right' to spend unlimited sums, in secret, to influence local elections. It's absurd.

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516

Posting Permissions

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