Page 53 of 105 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563103 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 530 of 1049

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

  1. #521
    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 Lord Tammerlain View Post
    So what happens when a US based company owned or at least controlled by the Chinese government makes campaign contributions?

    With a few hundred billion USD the Chinese can now openly buy US politicians with the approval of the SC
    WRONG.

    This decision did not change the law that makes corporate and foreign contributions to candidates illegal.

  2. #522
    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
    People have the right to form groups. It follows that they can exercise their rights through groups.
    People have the right to form groups. Those groups do not collective have the same rights as the individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Wrong. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. You can't simply declare that it doesn't exist when it doesn't appear to meet your declared purpose for it.
    Corporate personhood doesn't exist. Corporations are not citizens and they are not entitled to protection, as a collective, when using their resources to commit slander. They are NOT people, they are NOT citizens, and they are NOT entitled to 1st amendment rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Where in the First Amendment does it say freedom of speech only applies to individuals?
    The 1st Amendment was DESIGNED BY OUR FOREFATHERS, TO PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN WITH PROTECTION FROM OPPRESSION. The forefathers NEVER, NOT ONE TIME, CONSIDERED CORPORATIONS.

    You are wrong. The reich-wing corporate person doesn't exist.

  3. #523
    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
    WRONG.

    This decision did not change the law that makes corporate and foreign contributions to candidates illegal.
    Examine the title of the thread: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

  4. #524
    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 Vader View Post
    People have the right to form groups. Those groups do not collective have the same rights as the individual.
    That's silly.

    A church is a group that has a right to religious freedom. A newspaper is a group (usually a corporation too) that has freedom of the press. A political party is a group that has a right to freedom of speech. I could go on.

    Corporations are not citizens and they are not entitled to protection, .
    The Constitution applies to everyone, not just citizens.

    They are NOT people, they are NOT citizens, and they are NOT entitled to 1st amendment rights.
    How many times can you repeat the same thing in all caps until it becomes true?

    The 1st Amendment was DESIGNED BY OUR FOREFATHERS, TO PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN WITH PROTECTION FROM OPPRESSION. The forefathers NEVER, NOT ONE TIME, CONSIDERED CORPORATIONS.
    False. Many many court cases over the years have found otherwise.

  5. #525
    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 Vader View Post
    Examine the title of the thread: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns
    The thread title is wrong too.

    (Though actually it doesn't say anything about contributions anyway).
    Last edited by misterman; 01-25-10 at 10:08 PM.

  6. #526
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

    Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    Exactly. It puts everyone on equal footing. I know a few industries like insurance, banking, financial, automobile, oil, energy, and defense that are going to pour monies in to throw Obama and these Congressional socialists from office.
    Where do I donate?

  7. #527
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    That's silly.

    A church is a group that has a right to religious freedom. A newspaper is a group (usually a corporation too) that has freedom of the press. A political party is a group that has a right to freedom of speech. I could go on.
    Both of those entities express the opinion of the corporation or church. Not of the individuals within. And both of those types of entities are specifically mentioned as having those rights in the first amendment.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

    One could argue that proselytizing is part of the practice of religion. Secondly the freedom of the press part is self evident.

    Now one could go as far as pointing out that religion and press serve in some respect the common good.
    Private corporations do not. They serve only the good of the shareholders.

    You also mention political parties? - That's clever. It took some thinking to explain that.
    Political parties represent the members wishes expressed for the betterment of society (according to them) and as such also serve the common good.

    However the 1st amendment

    The Constitution applies to everyone, not just citizens.
    One would have to go back to the declaration of independance to answer that:
    All men are created equal. (man being the species, not the gender)



    False. Many many court cases over the years have found otherwise.
    Which SCOTUS decisions? I'd be interested in reading the opinions.

  8. #528
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

    Quote Originally Posted by deltabtry View Post
    Where do I donate?
    My bank account?

  9. #529
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,656

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    WRONG.

    This decision did not change the law that makes corporate and foreign contributions to candidates illegal.
    Think about that for a minute.

    In this global economy, where our mutuals, personal investments, are spread from the east to the west until they come back again and meet in the middle, how is this at all possible?

    If "Super-American, Inc," donate s a zillion dollars to re-elect Senator John Wayne, and Super-America, Inc stock is mostly held by 3 American investment/holding companies, operating on 70% of Chinese investment, how can this not be influential in nature.

    It's not slippery-slope. It's reality. I know for a fact that my investments are placed in places all over the globe. And I bet, and I hope, that whoever is on the other end of my money, are doing all they can, to influence in any way they can, anything that will benefit my investment. Why would the Chinese, or any other nation for that matter, not want the same?

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  10. #530
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    Think about that for a minute.

    In this global economy, where our mutuals, personal investments, are spread from the east to the west until they come back again and meet in the middle, how is this at all possible?

    If "Super-American, Inc," donate s a zillion dollars to re-elect Senator John Wayne, and Super-America, Inc stock is mostly held by 3 American investment/holding companies, operating on 70% of Chinese investment, how can this not be influential in nature.

    It's not slippery-slope. It's reality. I know for a fact that my investments are placed in places all over the globe. And I bet, and I hope, that whoever is on the other end of my money, are doing all they can, to influence in any way they can, anything that will benefit my investment. Why would the Chinese, or any other nation for that matter, not want the same?
    I had to laugh once when a friend of mine said that Nokia was an American company....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •