Page 30 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 1049

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

  1. #291
    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 Ikari View Post
    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.
    A fair enough issue.

    How does one ensure the Chinese Army doesn't set up a corporation and contribute more money to Hillary's campaign?

    However, establishing a blanket ban on corporate contributions is not the correct answer. Eliminating the freedom of the citizens is never the correct answer.

    I would think the correct answer would be based on percent of US citizen ownership and control and location of facilities as well as headquarters.

  2. #292
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    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. And when in conflict the government is supposed to represent the citizens.

    Or you don't have a democrasy. You have a corporitocracy(sp?)

    And secondly this was about corporate financing wasn't it?
    You didn't answer his question. You just went off on a tangent about something entirely unrelated.

    A corporation is nothing more than the legal vehicle for individuals to pool their resources and mitigate liability. At its heart, a corporation is still a group of individuals. The reasons they form this group are irrelevant to the fact that they have free speech rights.

  3. #293
    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 Ethereal View Post
    How can the Tea Party be anti-something-that-didn't-exist? That is, corporate personhood?
    The Boston Tea Party was in protest to the Tea Tax that in part benefitted the East India Company that had a government monopoly on tea imports to the colonies.

    The correct solution to that particular problem is to reduce the size, scope, and power of government so it cannot facilitate the creation of coercive monopolies.

    The nation has spent a century trembling in its boots over the thought that good businessmen might get a monopoly and giving the government ever more power to prevent this...when in fact the existence of government power is what makes coercive monopolies possible.

  4. #294
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    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.
    And what constitutes a corporation? That would be people...

  5. #295
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The Boston Tea Party was in protest to the Tea Tax that in part benefitted the East India Company that had a government monopoly on tea imports to the colonies.

    The correct solution to that particular problem is to reduce the size, scope, and power of government so it cannot facilitate the creation of coercive monopolies.

    The nation has spent a century trembling in its boots over the thought that good businessmen might get a monopoly and giving the government ever more power to prevent this...when in fact the existence of government power is what makes coercive monopolies possible.
    Right, and they actually had the guts to fix their government.

  6. #296
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,072

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post

    Those are organizations of the people. ACORN is non-profit so it subsists on subsidies and donations from private individuals; therefore their existence is more democratic. If people felt they served no purpose, they'd get no money.

    Corporations exist to rake in profits and their influence on government does not help to balance democracy. They are the business sector gone wild and they don't give a toss about individuals.
    So why should the liberal media be given an exemption. They are corporations - in fact some of the biggest corporations in existence - and they can spew their political ideas ad nauseum every day right up to the minute of an election.

    Unions can do the same. ACORN is just a wing of the liberal party.

    All this ruling did was level the playing field and re-establish the right to free speech, in this case for individuals who have formed a group in the interest of doing business

  7. #297
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Let's just admit that we live in a Corporatocracy. That way we are not shocked, surprised or saddened when we get a broadside, unabashed look at the workings of our Corporate Government.
    Yes, our system is corporatist, but it's not the corporations' fault. It's the fact that certain people keep insisting on expanding the size and scope of government far beyond its Constitutional mandate. If the government wasn't so powerful, there'd be no incentive for corporations to curry favor with our representatives.

  8. #298
    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 Ethereal View Post
    Right, and they actually had the guts to fix their government.
    Right.

    Ending government restrictions on the freedom of the people to assemble and petition their government is a step in the right direction.

    Eliminating the goonions' monopoly on violence would be a good next step, and allowing the employers the freedom to replace workers who refuse to work is another.

  9. #299
    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 Grim17 View Post
    Does a corporation itself invest money in political advertising, or do the people who own and control the corporation do so?

    Are they somehow not deserving of first amendment protection on political speech, simply because of their occupation?

    And Soylent Green is people dammit!

    btw, did you listen to the interview?


    When they start putting corporations to jail and giving them death sentences then I will be for it.

  10. #300
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    A fair enough issue.

    How does one ensure the Chinese Army doesn't set up a corporation and contribute more money to Hillary's campaign?

    However, establishing a blanket ban on corporate contributions is not the correct answer. Eliminating the freedom of the citizens is never the correct answer.

    I would think the correct answer would be based on percent of US citizen ownership and control and location of facilities as well as headquarters.
    But this is why I say there is some legitimate claim to regulation on Congress. A corporation is not a person, hence it doesn't have rights. The People are still restricted, but we've removed the restriction on corporations. I think it needed to go the other way. I will agree that you cannot eliminate the freedom of the citizen; but that's still infringed upon even with throwing this clause out the window. The only thing we've added now is to exacerbate the current corruption and to allow possible influence from foreign agents.
    Last edited by Ikari; 01-22-10 at 04:18 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."

Page 30 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080 ... 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
  •