Page 32 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 1049

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

  1. #311
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It makes it much easier now to do so, and opens it up to influence from foreign agents.
    How? Every single thing that corporations can do now could have been achieved using other methods before this decision.


    It doesn't have to be limited to Goldman Sachs, that was just used in the example. Care to answer the question I previously posted?
    If a bill was indisputably beneficial to the nation but was bad for Goldman, I strongly believe it would pass. I don't know how we could prove this, but I think you're attributing them more influence than they actually have.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #312
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    i have yet to see a corporation speak
    Whether or not you wish to recognize it as such, you'll see a lot of corporations speaking out in the upcoming election season.

  3. #313
    Professor
    other's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    VA
    Last Seen
    01-22-14 @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,473

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The individuals who compose the company can use their personal money as they see fit. Corporations with corporate dollars (those don't always belong to the CEO, in fact a publicly traded company it doesn't, it's supposed to belong to the share holders) are different as a corporation itself is not an entity which has rights. As it stands, it's the individual who is restricted and the corporation which is unrestricted. It's exactly backwards.
    the shareholders are not forced to invest.

    Do you believe the NY Times should be allowed to endorse candidates?

  4. #314
    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 RightinNYC View Post
    If a bill was indisputably beneficial to the nation but was bad for Goldman, I strongly believe it would pass. I don't know how we could prove this, but I think you're attributing them more influence than they actually have.
    I don't know about that so much. I think the recent bailouts and such showed Congress already had a willingness to pander to banks and Wallstreet at the expense of the People. I think that by removing any restriction we had, that we'll just exacerbate the situation.
    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."

  5. #315
    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 Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by other View Post
    the shareholders are not forced to invest.

    Do you believe the NY Times should be allowed to endorse candidates?
    No they're not. But at the same accord they aren't being notified or asked to consent if the company starts funding particular candidates. We can get into various aspects of the Press, but the Press is specifically protected; not so with corporations in general. I don't think the NY Times should endorse any candidate, they can, but I don't think it's proper for the press to do so. They should merely be reporting the history, platform, plans, etc. of the candidate to the People in an honest manner so that we can better make decisions over whom we wish to vote for.
    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."

  6. #316
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Whether or not you wish to recognize it as such, you'll see a lot of corporations speaking out in the upcoming election season.
    Just like they always do.

    The intellectual dishonesty on this point is absolutely infuriating, primarily because it's becoming so widely accepted with so little critical thought.

    Rather than reciting the party line about how this will lead to corporations buying elections, why don't you explain how it will do that? If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be claiming that it does.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #317
    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 Ethereal View Post
    I'm not sure what you're implying here. Do you think being in a corporation gives individuals permission to break the law or something?
    If you read corporate law it gives them a lot of priveliges and immunities that people don't have. That's why people who even incorporate because it relieves them from a lot of civil actions against them.

    My problem is with corporations too big to fail and corporate monopolies.

  8. #318
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I don't know about that so much. I think the recent bailouts and such showed Congress already had a willingness to pander to banks and Wallstreet at the expense of the People.
    But there was a strong argument (made by both parties) that the bailouts would benefit the public as well as the banks, which is different from your scenario. Despite the argument about how it would help the nation, there was nevertheless substantial public opposition.

    I think that by removing any restriction we had, that we'll just exacerbate the situation.
    To a minuscule degree at the margins, but it won't be big businesses who will see the expanded influence. Prior to this decision, corporations could essentially do whatever they wanted, provided that they created various PACs or 527s. The process of organizing these is somewhat complex, but is trivial for a corporation like Goldman Sachs or Pfizer. The only types of corporations that were deterred from speaking out were smaller ones that didn't have the resources to hire people to do this for them. It was a system chock full of perverse incentives, several of which have now been removed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No they're not. But at the same accord they aren't being notified or asked to consent if the company starts funding particular candidates.
    The court upheld disclosure requirements by a vote of 8-1, and shareholders are always free to express their pleasure or displeasure with a corporation's actions.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #319
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Rather than reciting the party line about how this will lead to corporations buying elections, why don't you explain how it will do that? If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be claiming that it does.
    I don't disagree. My post was in response to the inane argument that corporations don't have rights because they can't talk.

  10. #320
    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 Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    But there was a strong argument (made by both parties) that the bailouts would benefit the public as well as the banks, which is different from your scenario. Despite the argument about how it would help the nation, there was nevertheless substantial public opposition.
    They made the arguments alright, they weren't correct or even truthful, but they certainly made the arguments to try to justify taking our money and giving it to banks and other institutions who acted improperly and crashed the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    To a minuscule degree at the margins, but it won't be big businesses who will see the expanded influence. Prior to this decision, corporations could essentially do whatever they wanted, provided that they created various PACs or 527s. The process of organizing these is somewhat complex, but is trivial for a corporation like Goldman Sachs or Pfizer. The only types of corporations that were deterred from speaking out were smaller ones that didn't have the resources to hire people to do this for them. It was a system chock full of perverse incentives, several of which have now been removed.
    I don't see how anything was removed. It seems to me that they just made it easier to do for big corporations and to allow for foreign corporations to set up a shop in the US and then have influence on our system.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The court upheld disclosure requirements by a vote of 8-1, and shareholders are always free to express their pleasure or displeasure with a corporation's actions.
    Yes, but many mechanisms for control by shareholders is largely removed, so it's not like the corporation itself would feel much in the way of backlash should they improperly use other people's money.
    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 32 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282 ... 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
  •