Page 34 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2432333435364484 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 1049

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

  1. #331
    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
    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.
    Apparently not.

    In any event, the First Amendment says nothing about persons. It says there can be "no law" restricting freedom of speech. Nothing about rights, just a restriction on government power to restrict speech.

  2. #332
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Sure we do.

    It's not judicial activism when the court affirms the Constitution and rejects 100 years of bad law and precedent.
    A) Corporate personhood is not a doctrine enshrined anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
    B) Do you understand that "judicial activism" has an actual meaning other than "Supreme Court decisions I personally dislike"? Judicial activism is the willingness to overturn precedent if one disagrees with the precedent. So yes, "rejecting 100 years of bad law and precedent," as you describe it, is a textbook example of judicial activism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    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?
    How is that relevant to anything I wrote? What in the world gave you the impression I support the McCain-Feingold Act?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 01-22-10 at 05:49 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #333
    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
    Which is neither here nor there.
    Not quite. It was to highlight that those in charge knew what they were doing. They knew they were supporting their friends in the banking and Wallstreet sectors at the cost of the People; but wanted to pass it so they had to make something up to sell it to us. It shows that the government is already willing to bend to corporation and the aristocracy even at the cost of the People. I don't see how making it easier for corporations to do the same thing will behoove us especially when the individual is still heavily restricted.

    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.

    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.
    In some perfect world we'd maybe see that. But instead of coming out against a bill with public adds imploring us to call congress, I think we'll just see more greed and corruption. Instead, GM can not just funnel money to the pockets of the lawmakers that want it, even if the law could possibly harm the People themselves. The individual is still restricted

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    That's a problem intrinsic to the corporate form.
    Aye, that it is. We've allowed certain rules and regulations to come into place which isolate the CEO and board from the mandates of the true owner. That too should be changed.
    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."

  4. #334
    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
    Apparently not.

    In any event, the First Amendment says nothing about persons. It says there can be "no law" restricting freedom of speech. Nothing about rights, just a restriction on government power to restrict speech.
    The FCC is government law and regulation which restricts free speech. If we're defining through practice, then apparently so.
    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. #335
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    01-25-10 @ 10:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    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.
    foreign corporations and multi-national corporations can buy political ads which is the number one campaign expense, they do not have to participate directly, the indirect approach will work just fine

  6. #336
    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 Kandahar View Post
    A) Corporate personhood is not a doctrine enshrined anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
    Nor is freedom of speech only for persons.

    B) Do you understand that "judicial activism" has an actual meaning other than "Supreme Court decisions I personally dislike"? Judicial activism is the willingness to overturn precedent if one disagrees with the precedent. So yes, "rejecting 100 years of bad law and precedent," as you describe it, is a textbook example of judicial activism.
    Now that I agree with!

  7. #337
    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 elbatrop View Post
    foreign corporations and multi-national corporations can buy political ads which is the number one campaign expense, they do not have to participate directly, the indirect approach will work just fine
    As long as you don't confuse the two.

  8. #338
    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
    The FCC is government law and regulation which restricts free speech.
    But the people own the airwaves, not the broadcasters. We license them to use it. We can put conditions on that if we want to.

    What we ought to do is make TV stations give free time for political messages in the public interest so it won't cost so much in the first place and money won't matter as much.

  9. #339
    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

    How did we come in possession of pieces of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum? Can I own purple? I'll charge exorbitant prices for it and restrict what can be done with purple.
    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. #340
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    01-25-10 @ 10:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    As long as you don't confuse the two.
    as long as you fully understand the implications and end result......

Page 34 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2432333435364484 ... 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
  •