Page 29 of 105 FirstFirst ... 1927282930313979 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 1049

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

  1. #281
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
    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.

    the federalist papers are there to show the intent of the founders, tell me what part of those papers shows that the founders were in favor of government control through excessive taxation? Seems to me that is the exact thing they were fighting against.....


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

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #282
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    What is it that you expect Goldman Sachs to do?
    Buy congressmen. What about my question, do you have an answer for it?
    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."

  3. #283
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Buy congressmen. What about my question, do you have an answer for it?
    But that's not "speech," and it's illegal.

    Would it pass? Depends what it is. No idea. History is replete with things going against the moneyed interests. Brown just won in MA with much less money, from far fewer "money people," than Coakley.
    “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

  4. #284
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Not one far-right partisan hack on DP has been able to give a logical explanation why corporations, an artificial legal entity should be entitled to the same free speech protections as individuals.
    But this libertarian has already explained that since the First Amendment forbids the government from denying the individual the freedom to assemble and petition the government, and since corporations are nothing except voluntary assemblies of people, then corporations can, as the accepted representative of the people assembled to own the corporation, petition the government.

    It's not complicated.

  5. #285
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    That point is the issue. Because at that point the emphesis changes from what is good for the people (who the government represents) and starts being about what is good for the business. Those things aren't always the same.
    They are when the "people" you're referring to are the "people" that own the business.

    Ergo, there is no logical limit.

    Cite the clause in the constitution that allows the federal government the power to control how people spend their own money.

    The mere idea that the government can control campaign contributions is anti-freedom.

  6. #286
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm not a big fan of restrictive campaign finance laws...but there are bigger issues at stake here. Anyone who agrees with this ruling has no basis to ever complain about "judicial activism."
    Sure we do.

    It's not judicial activism when the court affirms the Constitution and rejects 100 years of bad law and precedent.

    The ownership of property is one of the most important freedoms an American has. The court has just ruled that said ownership can't be restricted by congress attempting to protect incumbents.

    You are aware that the sole purpose of McCain-Feingold was incumbent protection, aren't you?

  7. #287
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i don't believe our founding fathers were referring to anyone but people.
    Yes.

    People form corporations.

    There has not been one corporation ever formed by dolphins.

  8. #288
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    The founding fathers would not have agreed with that sentiment. The Boston Tea Party was an anti-corporate sentiment as much as anything.
    How can the Tea Party be anti-something-that-didn't-exist? That is, corporate personhood?
    Last edited by Ethereal; 01-22-10 at 04:01 PM.

  9. #289
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    depends. sometimes one or two people, sometimes thousands. the point is, a board of directors is not in place to represent the employees interests, they are put in place to further profits.
    So you're arguing that it's not in the employees interests to see their employers remain in business.

  10. #290
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

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

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Not one far-right partisan hack on DP has been able to give a logical explanation why corporations, an artificial legal entity should be entitled to the same free speech protections as individuals.
    No, it's been explained numerous times; that you don't acknowledge it doesn't mean it hasn't been.

    And the idea of you calling anyone a "partisan hack" will keep me laughing through the weekend.
    “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

Page 29 of 105 FirstFirst ... 1927282930313979 ... 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
  •