Page 37 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2735363738394787 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 1049

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

  1. #361
    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 Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    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.
    The actual issues are:

    Arrogation of unconstitutional power by government.

    Opposition to same.

    Those issues aren't hard to see.

    what is hard to figure out is when both candidates want to usurp power, but one wants some here, some wants some there.

    How about if we stop electing candidates who usurp power in the first place?

  2. #362
    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 Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    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.
    That's what libel laws are for.

  3. #363
    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 Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    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.
    You write as if the trustees are all victims--and that's nonsense. If they don't bother to keep track of their paticular portfolio, that's not a corporation's fault. If they are concerned with the way their money is being used, they certainly do have a say--- They can invest elsewhere or not at all.
    Last edited by other; 01-22-10 at 07:33 PM.

  4. #364
    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 repeter View Post
    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.
    For the 40th or 50th time, can you explain why that problem will be any more substantial under this decision than it was before this decision?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #365
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
    Disagreed. The McCain-Feingold bill was an atrocity that richly deserves to be tossed in the trash.

    A much better approach is to promptly (like within 24 hours) report on the internet where the money is coming from. Sunshine is a much better disinfectant than regulation because there are always lawyers who can figure out how to game the system.

    Just my opinion.
    We already have similar systems in place... donations are tracked and recorded. The issue isn't who they're getting money from, it is how much they're getting and how much they need to compete.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  6. #366
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Fine.

    Stop giving government so much power business feels it has to play a role in government out of self-defense.
    This is bull****.

    The government governs because that is what it is supposed to do. Corporations are buying off politicians because they do not want to follow the rules set up by the government.

    This is not self-defence. This is a means of avoiding responsibility for their actions.

  7. #367
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    01-25-10 @ 10:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    For the 40th or 50th time, can you explain why that problem will be any more substantial under this decision than it was before this decision?
    money buys lots and lots of ads and TV time, corps have deep pockets and a handful of corps own the media

    it is also in the best interests of corporations to get what they want from the govt despite what may be good for the country or citizens

    now corporations have an open mic to advertise as they wish in politics where before they did not

    they don't have to vote, all they have to do is get voters to vote how they want them to and advertise against some candidates while promoting others, this is very easy when you can use corporate cash directly

    when you can literally throw a few billion at a campaign while the actual candidates are using a few million what do you think happens?

    these dots are not hard to connect

  8. #368
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    [QUOTE=RightinNYC;1058503673]
    And as I noted before, this isn't about funding campaigns, it's about speech during campaign season. [QUOTE]

    That is where you are wrong. Now corporations can legally buy off politicians to push their personal corporate agendas.

    This has ZERO to do with speech and EVERYTHING to do with allowing corporations to own politicians.

    This is very bad for the people who are not members of the Reiche-wing.

  9. #369
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    We already have similar systems in place... donations are tracked and recorded. The issue isn't who they're getting money from, it is how much they're getting and how much they need to compete.
    And the donations are reported much too late. Part of gaming the system is to have large donors commit to large sums donated in the last few weeks before the election; that way the donations don't have to be reported until after the election is over. If Soros or one of his front organizations is putting up the money for a candidate, I want to know about it before I vote.

  10. #370
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    This is bull****.

    The government governs because that is what it is supposed to do. Corporations are buying off politicians because they do not want to follow the rules set up by the government.

    This is not self-defence. This is a means of avoiding responsibility for their actions.
    Let's not forget the labor unions that have collected tens of billions for their investment on Obama.

    Corporations should have bought shares in the unions after the election.

Page 37 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2735363738394787 ... 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
  •