Page 41 of 105 FirstFirst ... 3139404142435191 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 1049

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

  1. #401
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    University of San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-14-11 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    672
    Blog Entries
    3

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

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    You're kidding, right?

    The problem with this decision, is that the political ads that are now going to be allowed are going t be complete bull, lying every which way about the candidates. Then, the people will have to decide what they see is true, and what they see is false. Given that people are pretty freaking stupid, I doubt they will see through all the misinformation heading their way.

    What will end up happening, is the stupidest part of America will decide what the entire country has to put up with for the term limit of whatever office.

    People are going to switch on the tv, see some stupid commerical for candidate X, against candidate Y, and are going to see some total bull, and they are goign to buy it, and vote for X because of the ad. No intelligent person wants that.
    In effect, you've quietly accepted the constitutionality of it. But maintain that the American "stupid" voter does not know what's best for him. Thus, government regulation.

    The same feelings were expressed by both the majority and minority opinions. Thankfully, the majority decided that Constitutional rights aren't revoked even if certain ideological minorities disagree with their ends.

  2. #402
    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
    The entire point of this decision is that it expands the ability to do it. And since the corporations are doing this, they operate under slightly different legal standards, which allows them to deliver a lot more misinformation then before.
    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    You're kidding, right?

    The problem with this decision, is that the political ads that are now going to be allowed are going t be complete bull, lying every which way about the candidates. Then, the people will have to decide what they see is true, and what they see is false. Given that people are pretty freaking stupid, I doubt they will see through all the misinformation heading their way.

    What will end up happening, is the stupidest part of America will decide what the entire country has to put up with for the term limit of whatever office.

    People are going to switch on the tv, see some stupid commerical for candidate X, against candidate Y, and are going to see some total bull, and they are goign to buy it, and vote for X because of the ad. No intelligent person wants that.
    Think this through more carefully rather than going off half cocked.

    Why do you think that this parade of horribles will come to pass now, but did not come to pass under the previous system. What will be different under the new system? Simply saying that it "expands the ability" of corporations to act doesn't actually get at what has changed. If you don't understand what was permissible before and how that differs from what is permissible now, then how can you pretend to know the impact of the ruling?

    Again, if you actually look at what could be done under the old system and compare it to the new, you'll see that none of what you're saying makes sense. Corporations had an almost identical ability to mislead under the old system, they simply had to do it in more shady ways.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #403
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

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

    So, how do we determine if by contributing towards a campaign they are working to make a profit for their shareholders? Isn't that a requirement of corporations?

    I guess if you don't like their canidate, you can sue them as a shareholder.

  4. #404
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    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...
    What?

    ...they certainly haven't a voice in the way the corporation uses its money.
    Totally false. Shareholders have a great deal of influence in the way a corporation operates. The rights of a shareholder:

    The right to vote on matters such as elections to the board of directors. Usually, stockholders have one vote per share owned, but sometimes this is not the case.

    The right to propose shareholder resolutions.

    The right to share in distributions of the company's income.

    The right to purchase new shares issued by the company.

    The right to a company's assets during, a liquidation of the company.

    Shareholder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  5. #405
    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

    Day after: SCOTUS ruling not so bad?

    New money will flow into campaigns this year as a result of Thursday’s Supreme Court decision, but will the impact be as dramatic as all the hyperventilating in Washington suggests? Experts say probably not. “It’s time for everybody to calm down,” said Ken Gross, a campaign finance expert at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who, like other lawyers in the field, thinks the possible repercussions of the decision have been exaggerated.

    ...

    But the reality is likely to be something more modest, mainly a shifting of cash that’s already in the system away from so-called 527 groups. In the last decade, corporations have actually been trying to get out of the business of big political giving. They sided with reform advocates when the McCain-Feingold law was first challenged in 2003 and testified on behalf of its ban on unlimited corporate giving to the political parties, which were dubbed “soft money” donations. The reasons for this reluctance were complex. Some executives hated the way politicians always had their hand out, making appeals that were difficult to turn down for fear of retribution in the legislative process. Others didn’t like the lack of control they had over how their money was spent. The court ruling would give corporate officials that control, but many of them may decide – especially those in publicly held companies – to keep the cash for their real business needs.

    Running attack ads against political targets would create real risks of alienating customers and shareholders. And, given voters’ sentiments toward corporations today, most politicians would probably not welcome a glowing ad campaign on their behalf that was funded by big business. Most CEOs will avoid the whole question by simply sticking with their traditional – and safe — government relations package of lobbying and limited giving through the in-house political action committee, experts said. As evidence, they note that in 2004 corporations had a chance to jump into the ad game in a big way when wealthy individuals, searching for a way around the ban on soft-money donations, began creating new organizations that were dubbed 527s because of their tax status. One corporate executive who supported the campaign finance reform laws bans on big donations, remembers being approached to donate to a Republican-leaning 527. “It took me three nanoseconds” to say no, he said.

    ...

    That’s not to say corporations have or will be silent in the political debate. For decades, they’ve expressed their views through trade associations that can shield the involvement of their members because they don’t disclose membership lists. Many experts predict that those groups, which include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association, will be the biggest beneficiaries of the court ruling. However, the fundraising rules for them weren’t changed in any way by the court ruling. Even before the decision in Citizens United was handed down, the chamber and others trade groups could legally receive unlimited donations from corporations. To be sure, those groups are likely to ramp up their fundraising efforts or increase membership dues to gain new ad revenue, but one chamber official said Friday he’s not expecting a windfall since they work all the donors pretty hard already. “My reaction to the ruling was to shrug,” he said.
    Thank god that some people are finally getting it.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 01-23-10 at 03:46 AM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #406
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

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

    "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," the court said in a decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
    You are exactly right, Tony! The whining and carrying on by the Left here is completely unfounded. We are a nation of laws, Ladies and Gentlemen. Our Government governs at the consent of the governed...whether those governed choose to incorporate...or not.

    DO NOT lose the larger perspective either, let's look at the split on the High Court. It has been held that a President's legacy includes nominated Supreme Court Justice decisions. This one is landmark. Massive. Many observers had predicted Bush's legacy would improve and grow by the day. They now expotentially grow by the hour.

    And you are exactly correct Supreme Court. And now.....Exxon.......GM.......all carbon burning industries...gear up. We choose candidates in two to three months, the Congressional elections are this November, and then stand by...it's on in 2012. Obama collected a war chest of monumental and unprecedented mass, his defeat will cost some bucks. And now we know exactly where to go for it.

    Thank you Sammy Alito. Scalia and Thomas, you are the backbone of the Supreme Court. Justice Roberts....the oh so young Chief Justice proves his merit and shows why Bush put him there. And Tony Kennedy...not always my favorite....you are the man. You are exactly dead on balls accurate here, your lesson in rule of law staggering and eye popping.....and a dagger to Democrat chances in November. The Dems already fuming plan immediate Congressional action, they've just been rolled in Massachusetts, Obama looks like he needs another vacation.

    But vacations are over. It's on. The Bush legacy denied by many causing tsunamis to this day and as we roll into 2010 elections for the fate of Obama's Presidency. Gotta go, Exxon's calling.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  7. #407
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,564

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    DO NOT lose the larger perspective either, let's look at the split on the High Court. It has been held that a President's legacy includes nominated Supreme Court Justice decisions. This one is landmark. Massive. Many observers had predicted Bush's legacy would improve and grow by the day. They now expotentially grow by the hour.
    Yeah, well, it was Bush who signed the damn thing into law, saying he thought it was "probably unconstitutional."
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #408
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,564

    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.
    They do if they choose to exercise it. That many don't doesn't mean they can't.

    By this reasoning, "people" have no say in the government, either, because many choose to ignore it and not vote.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #409
    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 Charles Martel View Post
    You are exactly right, Tony! The whining and carrying on by the Left here is completely unfounded.
    Please, enough with the "Left" stuff. I usually fall on the left side of things, but I totally support this ruling.

  10. #410
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Think this through more carefully rather than going off half cocked.

    Why do you think that this parade of horribles will come to pass now, but did not come to pass under the previous system. What will be different under the new system? Simply saying that it "expands the ability" of corporations to act doesn't actually get at what has changed. If you don't understand what was permissible before and how that differs from what is permissible now, then how can you pretend to know the impact of the ruling?

    Again, if you actually look at what could be done under the old system and compare it to the new, you'll see that none of what you're saying makes sense. Corporations had an almost identical ability to mislead under the old system, they simply had to do it in more shady ways.
    I’ll have to disagree with you here, for the following reason. Much more money to move the fence sitters that hardly have time to do the research who to vote for.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

Page 41 of 105 FirstFirst ... 3139404142435191 ... 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
  •