• 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!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

After all, what is Obama going to do when companies start running ads about the projected impact of cap and trade?

Corporations have always had the right to run ads about the projected impact of cap and trade.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

Corporations have always had the right to run ads about the projected impact of cap and trade.

But not tie it to a specific candidate. And with the unconstitutional power that Obama is wielding, I would be nervous about running ads against his policies without tying it to him. Especially when so many Obama voters were ignorant of what he actually stood for and didn't know much beyond him being smart, well-spoken, and potentially the first black president.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

But not tie it to a specific candidate.

Well, yes, they have, they just had to pretend not to be by not mentioning the wrods "vote" or "election" in the ad.

But so what?

And with the unconstitutional power that Obama is wielding, I would be nervous about running ads against his policies without tying it to him. Especially when so many Obama voters were ignorant of what he actually stood for and didn't know much beyond him being smart, well-spoken, and potentially the first black president.

Blah blah Obama blah unconstitutional blah blah teleprompter blah Messiah.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

After Obama refused public financing, breaking his promise, in the 2008 election and then spent billions of dollars in online donations from foreigners, I think I know why he is so upset about people in corporations being given their free speech rights back.

After all, what is Obama going to do when companies start running ads about the projected impact of cap and trade?

It's interesting that you criticize Obama for spending campaign contributions from foreigners when the SCOTUS decision may allow influence of the U.S. government by corporations owned by foreign investors.

SCOTUS Decision Allows Foreign Influence of U.S. Elections | Progressive Nation
 
For ****'s sake, have you read anything that has been posted in this thread?

This decision will not have a substantial impact on the amount of money that corporations throw at politics.

Sure, that is true, though not a particularly persuasive argument for making a bad situation, worse.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

After Obama refused public financing, breaking his promise, in the 2008 election and then spent billions of dollars in online donations from foreigners, I think I know why he is so upset about people in corporations being given their free speech rights back.

After all, what is Obama going to do when companies start running ads about the projected impact of cap and trade?
WHY? ?? Corporations devised Cap & Trade
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

It's interesting that you criticize Obama for spending campaign contributions from foreigners when the SCOTUS decision may allow influence of the U.S. government by corporations owned by foreign investors.

Many support full disclosure of contributions as well so as voters can determine who is actually contributing and where the money is coming from. And I believe most Republicans criticized the Left's lack of interest....whatsoever. Campaign finance criticism went Left out the door, ACORN was ignored, corporate contributions ignored, a community organizer with a billion dollars is nominated...and no one cared where his funds came from, foreign or domestic.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that allows massive sums to be spent to influence future elections.

The 5-4 ruling split the high court along conservative and liberal lines. It was a defeat for the Obama administration and supporters of campaign finance laws who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system.

This is the greatest case of SCOTUS incompetence I have ever seen.

Lets all give the cluess assholes who voted to alllow the corporate buyoff of the government a big hand. The justices responsible for voting "yes" on this issue (probably republicans) needs to be removed from office.

This country just lost key liberty and no longer has free and fair elections.

The SCOTUS ... what a bunch of ****ing imbeciles.
I think it puts corporations on equal footing with unions.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

I think it puts corporations on equal footing with unions.

Exactly. It puts everyone on equal footing. I know a few industries like insurance, banking, financial, automobile, oil, energy, and defense that are going to pour monies in to throw Obama and these Congressional socialists from office.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

I think it puts corporations on equal footing with unions.

With all due respect, it's comforting to know that you are an egalitarian.:roll:
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

Many support full disclosure of contributions as well so as voters can determine who is actually contributing and where the money is coming from.

I'm not so sure if I even like this though. What if I want to give $10 to a political candidate that my family hates? I'd want to keep it secret so that I don't have to hear about it from them. Is that such a bad thing?
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

I think it puts corporations on equal footing with unions.

The only issue is that it's easier for businesses to form than it is for unions to form in this country. I once read a news article about the difficulty for workers to form a union in a shop. I'll see if I can hunt it down. The reason why it's important is that if a union is more difficult to form than a business, then it will lead to a de facto overwhelming advantage to businesses and managers than to unions and workers.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

The only issue is that it's easier for businesses to form than it is for unions to form in this country. I once read a news article about the difficulty for workers to form a union in a shop. I'll see if I can hunt it down. The reason why it's important is that if a union is more difficult to form than a business, then it will lead to a de facto overwhelming advantage to businesses and managers than to unions and workers.

There is no competition between unions. There is competition between businesses though. This is all that is necessary for workers to get their due pay.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

I'm not so sure if I even like this though. What if I want to give $10 to a political candidate that my family hates? I'd want to keep it secret so that I don't have to hear about it from them. Is that such a bad thing?

let's look at your example magnified
say a mob boss wants to "contribute" $5 million to a judge's campaign, but wants to keep it a secret so the FBI does not learn of it. is that so bad

just wanted to illustrate that sometimes the perfect really is an enemy of the good
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

There is no competition between unions. There is competition between businesses though. This is all that is necessary for workers to get their due pay.

No it isn't, and neither is that all that is necessary for workers to get their due rights in politics and law.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

let's look at your example magnified
say a mob boss wants to "contribute" $5 million to a judge's campaign, but wants to keep it a secret so the FBI does not learn of it. is that so bad

just wanted to illustrate that sometimes the perfect really is an enemy of the good

Well, you don't understand. A mob boss isn't really a criminal, he's just a business-oriented man who is unduly prohibited from making a profit because of tyrannical government regulations on the industries he is interested in. He has a voice in the goings-on of government as well, and therefore should be able to spend his money for his views on politics however he deems fit as well.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

There is no competition between unions. There is competition between businesses though. This is all that is necessary for workers to get their due pay.


There is plenty of competition in unions, not as much in the craft unions (Carpenters, Electricians, et al) but even in some of the Crafts there are mergers of like crafts; Pipefitters in some areas merging with plumbers locals.


Then you have The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET merged with the Teamsters (IBT). Plus you have conference levels of mergers; some would, and have called that shrinkage, where local unions have combined with other locals to save on overhead.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

I think it puts corporations on equal footing with unions.

I don't like it when the unions do it and I dislike the ID of corporate scumbags being allowed to do it.

A law needs to be made to outlaw it completely.
 
That's pretty much the way it is now, at least for campaign money.

As for personal funds, even politicians have some level of a right to privacy and being considered innocent until proven guilty.

I don't agree.

Politicians are by design public figures. In terms of receiving money from corporations, wealthy donors, ect... they are not entitled to privacy.

Forcing them to be completely transparent is the only way to ensure they are not being bought off by big oil, big drug, big whatever.

They want privacy they can resign from their post.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

I don't like it when the unions do it and I dislike the ID of corporate scumbags being allowed to do it.

A law needs to be made to outlaw it completely.

What is it that you think Unions are doing? They're not giving politicians money the same way corporations are, it's not possible...they're Unions...

What Unions offer that politicians actually want are votes, not large sums of money. Hence putting the corporations on the same level as the Unions. That's probably what American meant.
 
It's interesting that you criticize Obama for spending campaign contributions from foreigners when the SCOTUS decision may allow influence of the U.S. government by corporations owned by foreign investors.

SCOTUS Decision Allows Foreign Influence of U.S. Elections | Progressive Nation

This is why I hate dealing with prominent SC cases - "journalists" who don't know the first thing about the law perpetually miss the point.

That article is correct in saying that this decision could mean that foreign companies could spend to influence our government. What it neglects to mention is that foreign companies already spend to influence our government. The article bemoans the possibility of Citgo spending billions on advertising as a way to subvert our democracy, but ignores the fact that Citgo already spends millions lobbying Congress via its American subsidiaries.

Which one of those seems more likely to "subvert democracy"?

Also:

Several other analysts, however, cautioned that the fear was being overblown and that foreign companies would be reluctant to dabble in U.S. politics for the same reason some American companies steer clear, to avoid angering consumers.

“It is a plausible inference from the court’s opinion that [foreign] money can’t be restricted,” said Michael Dorf, a Cornell law professor who has backed giving foreigners the right to contribute to U.S. campaigns. “For me, that’s not such a terrible thing.”

Dorf said it was unlikely that large multinational companies would want to weigh in in most elections. “If I’m the CEO of a major corporation, I’m going to be very leery of directly supporting or opposing a candidate. ... It’s just not good business to alienate potential customers,” he said.

Decision may mean more foreign cash - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com


Sure, that is true, though not a particularly persuasive argument for making a bad situation, worse.

Again, I don't see how anything is made worse. We had an unworkable system that violated the first amendment and restricted the speech of small corporations while letting big corporations do whatever they wanted. Now we have a workable system that is constitutional and lets everyone speak freely.
 
This is why I hate dealing with prominent SC cases - "journalists" who don't know the first thing about the law perpetually miss the point.

That article is correct in saying that this decision could mean that foreign companies could spend to influence our government. What it neglects to mention is that foreign companies already spend to influence our government. The article bemoans the possibility of Citgo spending billions on advertising as a way to subvert our democracy, but ignores the fact that Citgo already spends millions lobbying Congress via its American subsidiaries.

Which one of those seems more likely to "subvert democracy"?

Also:



Decision may mean more foreign cash - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com




Again, I don't see how anything is made worse. We had an unworkable system that violated the first amendment and restricted the speech of small corporations while letting big corporations do whatever they wanted. Now we have a workable system that is constitutional and lets everyone speak freely.


This was never about speech. It was about John Roberts and his Reich-wing cronies removing the barriers preventing their big business special interests from buying out Politicians wholesale.
 
Last edited:
This was never about speech. It was about John Roberts and his Reich-wing cronies remove the barriers preventing their big business special interests from buying out Politicians wholesale.

How'd he get Anthony Kennedy to come on board?

:Oopsie
 
Good question. I have been wondering that myself.

Allow me to end your wonder. The 5 ayes were dead on balls Constitutionally correct...is the answer.
 
Back
Top Bottom