Page 27 of 105 FirstFirst ... 1725262728293777 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 1049

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

  1. #261
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,139
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
    I don't understand the part about the head of the FEC would have banned "his" book. Who is "his". Just curious.
    I don't remember the mans name, be he is the one who sued the government because the FEC wouldn't allow him to distribute his documentary film about Hillary Clinton, based on McCain/Feingold. That is the case SCOTUS just ruled on, and what we are discussing.

    .

  2. #262
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,139
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    I heard an interview yesterday with the guy that brought this case to the courts. He said that in oral arguments, one of the justices (I believe it was Antonin Scalia) asked the head of the FEC, that if his documentary on Hillary Clinton, that they had refused to allow him to distribute, was put into book form, would they still have banned it. The director reluctantly said "Yes".

    According to the film maker, that admission turned everyones heads, and in his opinion, was the nail in the coffin of McCain/Feingold.

    What he found incredible, and I have to agree with him, was the fact that the 4 liberal justices went against the first amendment guarantee of free speech, and voted to allow the government to ban books based on their content.
    I found the interview if anyone is interested. Skip to the 18 minute mark and that's where it begins.

    Mark Levin Show Audio Rewind

    .

  3. #263
    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
    Had the conviction been upheld, and the CPA licenses remained revoked, would you agree or disagree that they would have been executed by the government?
    They wouldn't have been able to do business in which required a CPA license, yes. The company could have still have existed.

    If as a person I committed these same crimes would I have simply had my license revoked?
    "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

  4. #264
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    They wouldn't have been able to do business in which required a CPA license, yes. The company could have still have existed.

    If as a person I committed these same crimes would I have simply had my license revoked?
    For obstruction of justice, probably you would be imprisoned. As far as I recall, that happened to a good number of the top brass at AA though, so to imply that the company "simply had [its] license revoked" is not an accurate statement.

  5. #265
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantom View Post
    You didn't give anyone much time to reply before you double posted. I agree with the supreme court on just about everything, including this. Conservatives on the other hand seem to attack the supreme court every chance they get as if they are more qualified to interpret the constitution...
    I find it odd that you would agree with the SCOTUS on this issue because it hurts democrats and helps republicans.........as far as conservatives attacking the supreme curt can you provide and example....I can give you one against lbs Gore/Bush 2000........
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  6. #266
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    I thought I was clear.

    NO I do not oppose 527s. I just believe that, because they are not PEOPLE, that it is not unconstitutional to place limits on their political spending for particular candidates.

    I know, it's very much a lawyerly way of looking at it, but there it is. Four Supreme Court justices agree with me.
    Five disagree.

    If you want to get lawyerly, the First Amendment does not speak, as other Amendments do, of rights "of the People." The first Amendment is a blanket prohibition against abridging the rights listed.

    Now, consistent with a philosophy, as I have, that the Bill of Rights should be read as expansively as possible in what the Amendments protect, the argument that corporations aren't "people" doesn't mean their speech and association may be abridged.

    Besides, no one has yet answered the question -- the New York Times is a corporation. Do you suggest that it is not covered by the First Amendment?
    “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

  7. #267
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    how many corporations do you know of which have been extended the right to vote?
    None.

    The comparison isn't a good one - I hope we can both agree that it makes sense to give one person one vote (i.e. can vote individually but not collectively). Why do you think we should limit (collective) free speech?

  8. #268
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,151

    Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    None.

    The comparison isn't a good one - I hope we can both agree that it makes sense to give one person one vote (i.e. can vote individually but not collectively). Why do you think we should limit (collective) free speech?
    i have yet to see a corporation speak
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  9. #269
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Much of this has opened us up to interference by foriegn countries. Basically, any company can set up a "headquarters" in America and once they do, they can contribute all they want. Any company from any country can do it. So great. Furthermore, the People are still restricted while the corporations have become unrestricted for all practical purposes. I think that's a fundamental problem. Corporations are not people, only individuals have rights. I think this fell well into proper realm of Congress to control, at least maybe this part of it.

    In the end, all we did was open up our doors and boarders of our political process to any corporation with large sums of money. Ask yourself this question, if there is a bill now which is overall great for the country and the People at large and well within the proper power of the government, but devastating to Goldman Sachs would it pass? If your answer is no, then you must admit that the system is breaking down. The Republic is at risk. The founders passed down this Republic to us and it's ours to keep or ours to loose....we are definitely on the path to loosing it.
    Last edited by Ikari; 01-22-10 at 02:26 PM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #270
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Five disagree.

    If you want to get lawyerly, the First Amendment does not speak, as other Amendments do, of rights "of the People." The first Amendment is a blanket prohibition against abridging the rights listed.

    Now, consistent with a philosophy, as I have, that the Bill of Rights should be read as expansively as possible in what the Amendments protect, the argument that corporations aren't "people" doesn't mean their speech and association may be abridged.

    Besides, no one has yet answered the question -- the New York Times is a corporation. Do you suggest that it is not covered by the First Amendment?
    Wrong.

    Read the federalists papers. Better yet, read the Preamble, the first three words are "we the people" "Not We the people and entities"

    Next thing you will be claiming is that Soylent Green is people.

Page 27 of 105 FirstFirst ... 1725262728293777 ... 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
  •