Page 50 of 105 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260100 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 1049

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

  1. #491
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    let's look at your example magnified
    say a mob boss wants to "contribute" $5 million to a judge's campaign, but wants to keep it a secret so the FBI does not learn of it. is that so bad

    just wanted to illustrate that sometimes the perfect really is an enemy of the good
    Well, you don't understand. A mob boss isn't really a criminal, he's just a business-oriented man who is unduly prohibited from making a profit because of tyrannical government regulations on the industries he is interested in. He has a voice in the goings-on of government as well, and therefore should be able to spend his money for his views on politics however he deems fit as well.

  2. #492
    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 ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    There is no competition between unions. There is competition between businesses though. This is all that is necessary for workers to get their due pay.

    There is plenty of competition in unions, not as much in the craft unions (Carpenters, Electricians, et al) but even in some of the Crafts there are mergers of like crafts; Pipefitters in some areas merging with plumbers locals.


    Then you have The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET merged with the Teamsters (IBT). Plus you have conference levels of mergers; some would, and have called that shrinkage, where local unions have combined with other locals to save on overhead.
    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

  3. #493
    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 ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I think it puts corporations on equal footing with unions.
    I don't like it when the unions do it and I dislike the ID of corporate scumbags being allowed to do it.

    A law needs to be made to outlaw it completely.

  4. #494
    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 misterman View Post
    That's pretty much the way it is now, at least for campaign money.

    As for personal funds, even politicians have some level of a right to privacy and being considered innocent until proven guilty.
    I don't agree.

    Politicians are by design public figures. In terms of receiving money from corporations, wealthy donors, ect... they are not entitled to privacy.

    Forcing them to be completely transparent is the only way to ensure they are not being bought off by big oil, big drug, big whatever.

    They want privacy they can resign from their post.

  5. #495
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    I don't like it when the unions do it and I dislike the ID of corporate scumbags being allowed to do it.

    A law needs to be made to outlaw it completely.
    What is it that you think Unions are doing? They're not giving politicians money the same way corporations are, it's not possible...they're Unions...

    What Unions offer that politicians actually want are votes, not large sums of money. Hence putting the corporations on the same level as the Unions. That's probably what American meant.
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

  6. #496
    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 samsmart View Post
    It's interesting that you criticize Obama for spending campaign contributions from foreigners when the SCOTUS decision may allow influence of the U.S. government by corporations owned by foreign investors.

    SCOTUS Decision Allows Foreign Influence of U.S. Elections | Progressive Nation
    This is why I hate dealing with prominent SC cases - "journalists" who don't know the first thing about the law perpetually miss the point.

    That article is correct in saying that this decision could mean that foreign companies could spend to influence our government. What it neglects to mention is that foreign companies already spend to influence our government. The article bemoans the possibility of Citgo spending billions on advertising as a way to subvert our democracy, but ignores the fact that Citgo already spends millions lobbying Congress via its American subsidiaries.

    Which one of those seems more likely to "subvert democracy"?

    Also:

    Several other analysts, however, cautioned that the fear was being overblown and that foreign companies would be reluctant to dabble in U.S. politics for the same reason some American companies steer clear, to avoid angering consumers.

    ďIt is a plausible inference from the courtís opinion that [foreign] money canít be restricted,Ē said Michael Dorf, a Cornell law professor who has backed giving foreigners the right to contribute to U.S. campaigns. ďFor me, thatís not such a terrible thing.Ē

    Dorf said it was unlikely that large multinational companies would want to weigh in in most elections. ďIf Iím the CEO of a major corporation, Iím going to be very leery of directly supporting or opposing a candidate. ... Itís just not good business to alienate potential customers,Ē he said.
    Decision may mean more foreign cash - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com


    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Sure, that is true, though not a particularly persuasive argument for making a bad situation, worse.
    Again, I don't see how anything is made worse. We had an unworkable system that violated the first amendment and restricted the speech of small corporations while letting big corporations do whatever they wanted. Now we have a workable system that is constitutional and lets everyone speak freely.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #497
    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 RightinNYC View Post
    This is why I hate dealing with prominent SC cases - "journalists" who don't know the first thing about the law perpetually miss the point.

    That article is correct in saying that this decision could mean that foreign companies could spend to influence our government. What it neglects to mention is that foreign companies already spend to influence our government. The article bemoans the possibility of Citgo spending billions on advertising as a way to subvert our democracy, but ignores the fact that Citgo already spends millions lobbying Congress via its American subsidiaries.

    Which one of those seems more likely to "subvert democracy"?

    Also:



    Decision may mean more foreign cash - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com




    Again, I don't see how anything is made worse. We had an unworkable system that violated the first amendment and restricted the speech of small corporations while letting big corporations do whatever they wanted. Now we have a workable system that is constitutional and lets everyone speak freely.

    This was never about speech. It was about John Roberts and his Reich-wing cronies removing the barriers preventing their big business special interests from buying out Politicians wholesale.
    Last edited by Vader; 01-25-10 at 03:40 PM.

  8. #498
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    This was never about speech. It was about John Roberts and his Reich-wing cronies remove the barriers preventing their big business special interests from buying out Politicians wholesale.
    How'd he get Anthony Kennedy to come on board?

    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.

  9. #499
    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 Charles Martel View Post
    How'd he get Anthony Kennedy to come on board?

    Good question. I have been wondering that myself.

  10. #500
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    Good question. I have been wondering that myself.
    Allow me to end your wonder. The 5 ayes were dead on balls Constitutionally correct...is the answer.
    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.

Page 50 of 105 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260100 ... 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
  •