Page 24 of 105 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 1049

Thread: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

  1. #231
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,067

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Corporations can be prosecuted but the punishment is always monetary damages or restraining orders.

    Unlike other "people" you can't put a corporation in jail.
    Enron, Worldcom, Tyco. People within the corporation can be jailed.

    On another point, government can't create jobs. Corporations can. Liberals see the word "corporation" as some evil entity that does no good, but corporations produce things that solve problems and employ people. They are ultimately the only answer to the economic mess we're in.

  2. #232
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    So, are you then saying that demo politicians are "beholden" to say Geo. Soros? By you logic they should be, No?

    j-mac
    First, he's a person, not a corporation.

    Second, as I said previously, I believe in the part of the decision that says that people should be able to spend whatever they want because of the 1st amendment. My disagreement is in considering corporations as people (for the reasons I already gave.)

    Third, yes, to an extent, whenever huge amounts of money are being spent, politicians will be "beholden". I think that's obvious. Soros will be able to have access to a politician I will never get.

  3. #233
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,430

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Corporations can be prosecuted but the punishment is always monetary damages or restraining orders.

    Unlike other "people" you can't put a corporation in jail.
    So, does that mean you're just as opposed to 527 orginizations being able to make political donations?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #234
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Enron, Worldcom, Tyco. People within the corporation can be jailed.
    Yes, if they commit real crimes as individuals.

    I'm not anti-corporation. I am a stockholder in a small corporation myself.

    What I disagree with is the fiction that a piece of paper is a potentially immortal "person" entitled to the exact same rights as a living breathing human being.

  5. #235
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    So, does that mean you're just as opposed to 527 orginizations being able to make political donations?
    I'm not against donations and never said so. I am against the idea that organizations and corporations have 1st amendment rights to the point where they cannot be regulated.

    I believe that people should be able to spend all they want. See? I am FOR the first amendment. What I am against is the fiction that groups, unions, organizations, corporations, and soylent green are "people."

  6. #236
    Sage
    Gibberish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,339

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Coronado View Post
    Arthur Andersen received what amounted to capital punishment. That's a bit more than 5% of their liquidity.
    I'm not complete familiar but from quick research it looks like they were convicted of Obstruction of Justice, which resulted in the firm giving up their CPA licensees. The firms branches were then acquired by local firms.

    The Supreme Court later overturned the conviction.

    I can't seem to find anything about capital punishment. Please share.
    Last edited by Gibberish; 01-22-10 at 01:14 PM.
    "Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."
    - Warren Buffett

  7. #237
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,550

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    I'm not against donations and never said so. I am against the idea that organizations and corporations have 1st amendment rights to the point where they cannot be regulated.

    I believe that people should be able to spend all they want. See? I am FOR the first amendment. What I am against is the fiction that groups, unions, organizations, corporations, and soylent green are "people."
    They are unquestionably groups of people.

    And people don't give up their rights simply because they've formed a group.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #238
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,430

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    I'm not against donations and never said so. I am against the idea that organizations and corporations have 1st amendment rights to the point where they cannot be regulated.

    I believe that people should be able to spend all they want. See? I am FOR the first amendment. What I am against is the fiction that groups, unions, organizations, corporations, and soylent green are "people."
    The question still stands: you oppose the formation of 527 orgs in order to influence political campaigns?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #239
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,136
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    I think this excerpt from an op-ed in todays USA Today, sums this decision up rather nicely:

    First, the case does not alter the current ban in federal law, and the laws of just under half the states, that prohibit corporations and unions from contributing directly to candidates. All this means is that they can spend money to speak directly to voters.

    Second, 28 states, holding 60% of the nation's population, already allow corporate and union independent expenditures in state races. Yet none of these states is swamped with corporate and union spending, or dominated by special interests in some way that other states have escaped. Indeed, these 28 states, which include such relatively strong economies as Utah and Virginia, are over-represented in the rankings by Governing magazine as among the best governed in the country. Others, such as Oregon, hardly have a reputation as hotbeds of corruption.

    Today's decision is good not only for what it does, but also for what it didn't do.

    Remember, the government's position in the case was that it had the power, under the Constitution, to ban the distribution of political books over Amazon's Kindle, to prohibit political movies from being shown by video-on-demand, to forbid a union from paying a writer to author a political book, and to prohibit a corporation from publishing a 500-page book with even one sentence of political advocacy.

    The Supreme Court said, "No, you don't have that authority," and we are all the better for it.


    http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/...e-fiction.html

  10. #240
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    First, he's a person, not a corporation.

    Second, as I said previously, I believe in the part of the decision that says that people should be able to spend whatever they want because of the 1st amendment. My disagreement is in considering corporations as people (for the reasons I already gave.)

    Third, yes, to an extent, whenever huge amounts of money are being spent, politicians will be "beholden". I think that's obvious. Soros will be able to have access to a politician I will never get.

    Maybe so, maybe not. It seems to depend on what the politicians think of their constituents. I believe that many of them today think that we are sheep, too stupid to understand what is being offered as governance on our behalf. Right now the demo's are displaying that. The GOP displayed it before 2006 and got their wake up call.

    But the fact is that direct sponsorship of one candidate through direct donation is still prohibited, and whether or not you believe that a Corporation is a person or not, they are to an extent by law. That is settled. Look, I may not like Roe, but I have to accept it as settled law don't I? What makes demo's faux outrage over this any different?


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 24 of 105 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474 ... 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
  •