Page 36 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2634353637384686 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 1049

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

  1. #351
    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
    your trust is misplaced given the current state of affairs in this nation methinks
    Sure beats totalitarianism though.

  2. #352
    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 Winnb View Post
    First, this is a great thread and a great discussion. But I do have to point out that the central issue is about speech and funding. They're being treated as the same thing. Money = Speech is an argument that many conservatives have been making for quite awhile. George Will probably makes the best case for it I've ever read.

    This ruling from SCOTUS affirms that imo. Whether that's what they intended or not.
    "Money = speech" isn't "an argument that many conservatives have been making," it is a well established principle that was explicitly affirmed by the Supreme Court almost 35 years ago in Buckley v. Valeo. The court knows that they were affirming that because they were the ones who came up with it.

    I'm distinguishing speech from funding campaigns here to clarify that this decision did not remove limitations on direct donations to candidates.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #353
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,026

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

    Basically, there was ONE corporation that was allowed to spend unlimited money on political "advertising".

    That was the media.

    I watched Olberman virtually come unglued over this the other night, and I was thinking, "Hey Keith, you work for a CORPORATION and you're doing EXACTLY what you're saying corporations shouldn't be allowed to do RIGHT NOW!"

    The monopoly on this is now gone for the media, and they no likey.

  4. #354
    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
    So what's it called when it's the willingness to overturn precedent when one agrees with the precedent?
    I've never heard of a Supreme Court doing that in the history of this country, so I don't think it has a name.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Since we're exploring this brand new definition of judicial activism that never existed before, and since you're opposed to it, what's you're opinion of the Brown vs Board of Education ruling?
    Most definitely an example of judicial activism. But see, unlike you I don't use that phrase as a pejorative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    No, it's a textbook example of the court doing it's job and correcting mistakes made by other courts, just like Brown vs Board of Education was.
    That doesn't change the fact it's judicial activism. Every activist court believes that it's correcting previous mistakes. And sometimes they're right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Your defense of it is a good clue.
    Well then to clarify: I do not support the McCain-Feingold Act.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #355
    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
    Most definitely an example of judicial activism. But see, unlike you I don't use that phrase as a pejorative.
    Hmmm...

    ....what was the Plessy v Fergusson case?

    Anchovies on Rye?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That doesn't change the fact it's judicial activism. Every activist court believes that it's correcting previous mistakes. And sometimes they're right.
    You're right. Since it isn't judicial activism it can't change the fact that it's judicial activism because that fact doesn't exist.

    The court's obeying the Constitution is not judicial activism. Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Well then to clarify: I do not support the McCain-Feingold Act.
    Then you need to untangle your panties from the huge wad you have them in and drop out of this thread, because this court just hacked out a huge portion of an unconstitutional law you claim you don't support anyway.

    Good thing Bush Appointed Alito and Roberts, eh?

  6. #356
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,026

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I've never heard of a Supreme Court doing that in the history of this country, so I don't think it has a name.



    Most definitely an example of judicial activism. But see, unlike you I don't use that phrase as a pejorative.



    That doesn't change the fact it's judicial activism. Every activist court believes that it's correcting previous mistakes. And sometimes they're right.



    Well then to clarify: I do not support the McCain-Feingold Act.
    It's not judicial activism. It's a ruling based on the Consitition, and undoing an unconstitional bill concocted by Congress.

  7. #357
    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 misterman View Post
    We own it because it's a public resource and it is limited. If we just let anyone broadcast, there would be nothing but static.

    Fine - you can have maroon. Happy?
    I can agree that in general terms where we have broadcasters there is some oversight necessary to essentially enforce property rights. Company A buys the rights to use a certain piece of the E&M spectrum and to ensure that they are able to use it for the designated area, there's some oversight to protect against piracy. But it's far from "public resource", right? Because you can't just tap into the spectrum. You have to have some mechanism to couple into that radiation. Meh, this is actually a different subject than the OP.
    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. #358
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    "Money = speech" isn't "an argument that many conservatives have been making," it is a well established principle that was explicitly affirmed by the Supreme Court almost 35 years ago in Buckley v. Valeo. The court knows that they were affirming that because they were the ones who came up with it.

    I'm distinguishing speech from funding campaigns here to clarify that this decision did not remove limitations on direct donations to candidates.
    I can't help but notice you said, "this decision did not remove limitations on direct donations to candidates."

    I think the biggest problem with this, is the tremendous amount of misinformation that is going to come out of this decision. If people couldn't see past the mud in the past, there is no way the average American will understand what the actual issues are in the future. Furthermore, there will be no restriction on what the private groups say, because, as far as I understand it, the ad's and what not count as entertainment, and therefore don't have to be the least bit true. And if groups make movies like the one about Hilary Clinton, then they can be lying through their teeth, and people would believe them, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  9. #359
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Anyone who is materially involved with the company's finances or operations.

    And since all of them are individual people, it makes no sense why they cannot pool their resources and endorse a political candidate. You're using their business model as excuse to suppress their free speech rights.
    That strikes me as rhetorical nonsense. Large numbers of investors do not even know exactly what is in their portfolio from one week to the next; they certainly haven't a voice in the way the corporation uses its money.

  10. #360
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    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.
    corporations pay taxes, for arguments sake.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

Page 36 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2634353637384686 ... 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
  •