Page 54 of 105 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664104 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 1049

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

  1. #531
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,132

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    The thread title is wrong too.

    (Though actually it doesn't say anything about contributions anyway).
    how would you have written the thread title?
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  2. #532
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,664

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    I had to laugh once when a friend of mine said that Nokia was an American company....
    Good point. Ever consider that it might be? If your's and my 401k's are heavily invested in a mutual that holds a good part of Nokia stock.....

    Technically....... we own it.

    Same goes for the Chinese. Is my madness starting to make any sense?

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

  3. #533
    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 ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    My bank account?
    Your bank account would be overseas, we're trying to keep our elections local...prevent foreign interests or monies from influence and all, you understand of course?
    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.

  4. #534
    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 justabubba View Post
    how would you have written the thread title?
    Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Corporate Political Ads

  5. #535
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,664

    Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    Your bank account would be overseas, we're trying to keep our elections local...prevent foreign interests or monies from influence and all, you understand of course?
    Exactly. How are we going to keep our American corporations, operating on foreign capitol, from buying our politicians? Who's behind the corporate curtain? Some good ol' boy from St. Louis? Probably not. Most likely he's from Bejing or Dubai.

    Is the message here that it is now acceptable for American companies to buy politicians but unacceptable for foreign companies to buy them?

    What's "American" anymore? Any company big enough to afford political contributions is running on global dollars. Why would a company invest in a politician in the first place? Patriotic obligation? Sacrifice return for investment? Explain THAT to the stockholders. Got any ideas people? They BUY influence. And now, thanks to our legislative branch of the Supreme Court, it's ok to do so.

    Where's the little lightbulb emoticon?
    Last edited by Captain America; 01-26-10 at 10:17 AM.

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

  6. #536
    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 Alvin T. Grey View Post
    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".
    So it's your argument that where it says "or of the press," it really means "or of media publishing corporations," and that where it says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it really means "or prohibiting the free exercise of a religious 501c3 organization by regulating its actions," but then that none of the rest of the amendment applies to anyone other than individuals?

    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.
    Unless I'm mistaken, private corporations employ something like 80% of the nation. I'd say that's a fairly positive contribution to society. Regardless, that's neither here nor there, because the existence of a constitutional right is not predicated on whether the speaker is someone who is generally seen as advancing the common good.

    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.
    Which is exactly what interest groups like the NRA or ACLU do.

    Which SCOTUS decisions? I'd be interested in reading the opinions.
    First National v. Belotti includes a great survey of the law:


    The Massachusetts court did not go so far as to accept appellee's argument that corporations, as creatures of the State, have only those rights granted them by the State. See Brief for Appellee 4, 23-25. Cf. MR. JUSTICE WHITE'S dissent, post, at 809; MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST'S dissent, post, p. 822. The court below recognized that such an extreme position could not be reconciled either with the many decisions holding state laws invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment when they infringe protected speech by corporate bodies, e. g., Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 (1975); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra; Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), or with decisions affording corporations the protection of constitutional guarantees other than the First Amendment. E. g., United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (Fifth Amendment double jeopardy); G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 353 (1977) (Fourth Amendment)....In cases where corporate speech has been denied the shelter of the First Amendment, there is no suggestion that the reason was because a corporation rather than an individual or association was involved. E. g., Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973); Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957). Corporate identity has been determinative in several decisions denying corporations certain constitutional rights, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 382 -386 (1911), or equality with individuals in the enjoyment of a right to privacy, California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 65 -67 (1974); United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 651 -652 (1950), but this is not because the States are free to define the rights of their creatures without constitutional limit. Otherwise, corporations could be denied the protection of all constitutional guarantees, including due process and the equal protection of the laws. Certain "purely personal" guarantees, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, are unavailable to corporations and other organizations because the "historic function" of the particular guarantee has been limited to the protection of individuals. United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698 -701 (1944). Whether or not a particular guarantee is "purely personal" or is unavailable to corporations for some other reason depends on the nature, history, and purpose of the particular constitutional provision.

    [ Footnote 15 ] It has been settled for almost a century that corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886); see Covington & Lexington Turnpike R. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578 (1896).
    FindLaw | Cases and Codes
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #537
    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 Alvin T. Grey View Post
    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.
    Yes. So the claim that groups can't have rights is silly.

    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.
    It is not your job, or the government's, to decide what is the common good. If so, I could easily point to religions and media that don't do much common good.

    You also mention political parties? - That's clever. It took some thinking to explain that.
    I'll bet it did.

    Political parties represent the members wishes expressed for the betterment of society (according to them) and as such also serve the common good.
    You need to think some more.

    Which SCOTUS decisions? I'd be interested in reading the opinions.
    There are dozens. Lots listed here:

    Timeline of Personhood Rights and Powers, by Jan Edwards et al

  8. #538
    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 Captain America View Post
    how can this not be influential in nature.
    Didn't say it wasn't influential. Just that it wasn't a donation.

  9. #539
    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 ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    Exactly. How are we going to keep our American corporations, operating on foreign capitol, from buying our politicians? Who's behind the corporate curtain? Some good ol' boy from St. Louis? Probably not. Most likely he's from Bejing or Dubai.
    We aren't. American corporations are American citizens whether using foreign capital or not. What are you saying, working or owning or being a shareholder of any corporation operating with foreign capital should be restricted?

    Is the message here that it is now acceptable for American companies to buy politicians but unacceptable for foreign companies to buy them?
    No. The message is it's now acceptable for any corporation, union, community organization, or 501c/nonprofit to buy politicians. And full disclosure of who is taking money from where allows the Constituents to keep track.

    What's "American" anymore?
    Americans and American freedom of speech.

    Any company big enough to afford political contributions is running on global dollars.
    But...unions, nonprofits, and community orgs like ACORN aren't running on global dollars and do have enough money? Please.

    Why would a company invest in a politician in the first place? Patriotic obligation? Sacrifice return for investment? Explain THAT to the stockholders. Got any ideas people?
    Stockholders......hey uh....yo. You over there losing your shirts under Obama, you listening? Captain America needs an argument why any of you would invest in say, a Scott Brown. He wants to know why you'd contribute to a Presidential candidate in 2012 who is Obama's opponent. The opponent of cap and trade. The opponent of carbon credits. The opponent of high taxes. The opponent of health care. The opponent of environment "greening" requirements. The argument to stockholders the oldest in the book, CA. Pay me now, or pay Obama later.

    They BUY influence. And now, thanks to our legislative branch of the Supreme Court, it's ok to do so.
    And we are taking that ok and gearing up. These corporations are gonna buy influence, they're gonna launch major artillery shells of cash to get this circus clown out of office. We're gonna buy everything and everyone in sight. Gotta go, Exxon calling.
    Last edited by Charles Martel; 01-26-10 at 12:58 PM.
    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.

  10. #540
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

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

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    how would you have written the thread title?
    Supreme Court Upholds First Amendment
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

Posting Permissions

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