Page 33 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2331323334354383 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 1049

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

  1. #321
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    How does one ensure the Chinese Army doesn't set up a corporation and contribute more money to Hillary's campaign?
    That is still illegal. This decision did not change that.

    A corporation cannot contribute to a campaign using corporate funds. Nor can any foreigner.

    This decision is about corporations spending money to speak, or buy ads to speak. They buy ads all the time, now they can do it to talk about politics again.

  2. #322
    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
    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. .
    They could demand to be notified. Shareholders hold the real power, they've got the purse strings... It all just boils down to the problem of some people not holding those who work for them accountable when they should. All shareholders should demand to be notified.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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.
    They should, but they don't.
    And the NY times is no less influential than a corporation during a campaign.

    ... how is a corporation really any different than any other form of the press?

    No direct force is being applied upon any voter, it is only dissemination of information (true or otherwise) and this is protected by the 1st. The issue becomes "what is the 'Press'?" and I don't want government officials deciding who can and can't spend money to disseminate information, that's a slippery slope. It's up to people to be informed enough to vote the right way, hold politicians and corporations accountable, and for the politicians to actually do their jobs and follow the constitution.
    Last edited by other; 01-22-10 at 05:30 PM.

  3. #323
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    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
    Actually, the ban applied to unions before. This decision frees them from the restrictions too.

  4. #324
    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 Taylor View Post
    I don't disagree. My post was in response to the inane argument that corporations don't have rights because they can't talk.
    Corporations don't have rights because only individuals have rights. The individual people working in a corporation have rights. The corporate entity itself does not.
    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. #325
    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
    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.
    Which is neither here nor there.

    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.
    They "made it easier" in the sense that they removed a stupid procedural hurdle that forced companies to funnel money through other organizations in order to have a say.

    Before this decision, if GM wanted to speak out on a particular bill or support a candidate during election season, they had to create or join a PAC or 527 (usually with a name like "The Council of American Manufacturers"), fund that organization, and then the organization had to speak in code words, urging the public to "keep issues in mind," to "support American manufacturing," and to "oppose efforts to send manufacturing overseas," while showing their displeasure "with officials who support this bill." Depending on the structure of that organization, it may not have been required to release the sources of its funding.

    Now, rather than doing all of that, GM can create an ad that says "We at GM believe that X bill harms American manufacturing and will result in a loss of jobs for Y reason. We ask you to support this congressman who is opposed to the bill." GM's funding for that ad is a matter of public record.

    Of those two methods, which one sounds more shady and likely to result in a corruption of the electoral process?

    The ironic part is that because corporations don't want to be identified as publicly supporting or opposing particular candidates, even after this decision, most of them will still continue to use the former method. We're going to see just as much corporate involvement in future elections, only now the papers and public will blame it all on the SC decision overturning BRCA, when in reality, the problem comes from BRCA itself.

    It would be funny if it weren't so infuriating.


    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.
    That's a problem intrinsic to the corporate form.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 01-22-10 at 05:40 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #326
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Corporations don't have rights because only individuals have rights. The individual people working in a corporation have rights. The corporate entity itself does not.
    Sure it does. If you sue a corporation, for instance, it has the same legal rights an individual would.

  7. #327
    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 misterman View Post
    Sure it does. If you sue a corporation, for instance, it has the same legal rights an individual would.
    Incorporation can still work in matters of lawsuit without claiming the corporation itself has rights. We can grant certain privileges. But a corporation itself is not an entity which innately possesses rights, only individuals can posses rights.
    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."

  8. #328
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    They "made it easier" in the sense that they removed a stupid procedural hurdle that forced companies to funnel money through other organizations in order to have a say.

    Before this decision, if GM wanted to speak out on a particular bill or support a candidate during election season, they had to create or join a PAC or 527 (usually with a name like "The Council of American Manufacturers"), fund that organization, and then the organization had to speak in code words, urging the public to "keep issues in mind," to "support American manufacturing," and to "oppose efforts to send manufacturing overseas," while showing their displeasure "with officials who support this bill." Depending on the structure of that organization, it may not have been required to release the sources of its funding.

    Now, rather than doing all of that, GM can create an ad that says "We at GM believe that X bill harms American manufacturing and will result in a loss of jobs for Y reason. We ask you to support this congressman who is opposed to the bill." GM's funding for that ad is a matter of public record.
    Exactly.

    People, you know those goofy ads where they say things like "call Congressman X and tell him you don't want this or that?" Those are just campaign ads that can't come out and say "vote for or against congressman X." They have to say something else to get their message across without triggering the stupid law that assumed that corporations are somehow automatically corrupt when they talk about elections.

  9. #329
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    They overturned a case less than 20 years old.
    The Supreme Court essentially declared that corporations, unions, and nonprofits have all the same rights as human beings...which goes against precedent established when Teddy Roosevelt was president. Corporate personhood has traditionally been viewed as a gift government bestows on businesses, and which they therefore have the right to limit.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #330
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    As much as the people at dailykos would like to pretend that that was the issue in question in this case, it wasn't. It is, however, a useful tool for distracting people from the fact that the claims of "an end to democracy" are horribly overblown.
    i don't read the dailykos. and i'm certainly not trying to distract anyone. it's my belief that all campaigns should be funded by taxpayers, equally.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


Page 33 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2331323334354383 ... 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
  •