• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I am not going to do your work for you.......Lets just say this ruling levels the playing field when it comes to contributions to a candidate..............If your not smart enough to figure that out its on you..........

So you can't answer the question. Fair enough.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

They voted today and gave corporations the right to give unlimited $$$$$ to political campaigns.

There will no longer be the Senator from Kansas or the congressperson from Wyoming or the Governor of New York. We will have the Senator from EXXON and the representative from Bank of America and the Governor of Pfizer.

In 1907 congress banned corporations from donating to campaigns. The 5 conservative judges overthrew these laws without precedent.

You think our government is corrupt now? Here comes the US of Big Business. Goodbye America.

The only hope is if this congress can pass laws to stop this corporate interference and control of our government. Florida Democratic Representative Alan Grayson has 5 bills in congress right now. Let's hope they get passed. Obama is against this ruling.

Iowa Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell has an amendment to the constitution to negate this ruling.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) is also promising legislation.

If this congress doesn't do it, the next one will have more bought and paid for politicians and it will get worse every election year until the whole government is completely bought and paid for.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he's going to hold hearings on the impact off this ruling.

Dems Consider New Laws in Response to Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

This is very scary. Can the Democrats fight this off? They have been pretty wimpy so far.

Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending - NYTimes.com

Siiiiiiigh.

Exactly like it all was before 2002, right?

You people say this like it's a century-old law and now that it's gone, it's a new frontier.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

I agree with you there. McCain/Feingold needed to be scrapped. It only got passed because the Reiche-wing controlled the house and the senate at the time.

Oh my GOD, Magnum, you make no sense.

You started a thread with your typical "ALL THESE TRAITORS NEED TO BE KILLED!!!!!!!!!!! KILLED DEAD!!!!!!!!!" becuase the Supreme Court "scrapped" McCain-Feingold, and now you're saying "McCain-Feingold needed to be scrapped."
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

The Constitution protects people.

I'm fairly certain the Constitution protects "inalienable rights," but hey; I could be wrong. The rights, in turn, do protect individuals from government overreach. But there's a large distinction between a document which aims to protect "the people," and one that aim to protect liberty.

Corporations are NOT people.

Aren't they merely a group of people?

They have certain rights based on previous decisions (such as the right to due process if sued) but never never have they been given ALL of the rights in the Constitution.

Of course not. But being able to express yourself politically is one of the essential ones, right? It makes no sense to negate certain rights merely because they are being used by many people on a large scale.

That's what makes this decision judicial activism. It goes against the intent of the framers (who certainly did NOT make corporations "people").
Judging by the 3/5ths compromise, I'm willing to admit the Founding Father's were not the most astute bunch at deeming what constitutes "the people." But that's a side matter completely

It goes against 100 years of law made by the people.

That 100 years then goes against the previous 100+ years where there was no action taken against free associations.

And it replaces the will of the people with 5 justices' opinion.
Do you have a poll for that?
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Aren't they merely a group of people?

No, not really; not in the same sense that, say, a church or a political action group is. A corporation is a legal entity that is answerable to stockholders and a bottom line and may not even be held by Americans. Face it, American elections may be decided largely by money from China and the Middle East from now on.

Of course not. But being able to express yourself politically is one of the essential ones, right? It makes no sense to negate certain rights merely because they are being used by many people on a large scale.

Many corporations worth billions of dollars are privately held and owned.

I dunno, I just can't understand how a fictional creation can ever be considered a "person" -- especially one that can be taken over by another fictional creation, dissolved, reorganized, and formed into a monopoly.

Judging by the 3/5ths compromise, I'm willing to admit the Founding Father's were not the most astute bunch at deeming what constitutes "the people." But that's a side matter completely

I'd be willing to bet that Benjamin Franklin didn't consider his printing press business a "person."

That 100 years then goes against the previous 100+ years where there was no action taken against free associations.

There was not a need then; campaigns were cheaper, businesses mostly stayed out of it (at first), and there were no huge corporations of the kind that later developed.

We need a Teddy Roosevelt populist now.

Seriously, it amazes me that huge businesses have destroyed our economy, increased the distance between rich and poor in America, made health care unaffordable for many, moved the businesses overseas and taken away our jobs, been full of corruption and crime, bought off politician after politician -- and people want to give them even more power over us.

"We support our great overlords!" :lol:

Do you have a poll for that?

I was referring to our laws, passed by our elected representatives, which is the "will of the people" is it not?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

This would have sounded better if you had not acted as if you made that up yourself.

And really, aren't you blowing this a tad out of proportion?

Really? Who are you claiming said it first?

No I'm not blowing this out of proportion.

The corporations will be buying our politicians. The ones that aren't already bought and paid for will be pushed out with hundreds of billions of dollars. If a pol doesn't vote the way the corporation wants, they will be run out of office by a puppet who will, with unlimited funding.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

On many occasions Democrats have received far more in campaign contributions than Republicans. Granted corporations now have (imo) an advantage. But we'll have to see how the numbers turn out.

I'll gladly concede that we will see unprecedented levels of money funneling into campaign coffers and every other coffer in politics.

It's gonna be nuts.

It won't matter anymore whether a politician calls himself a Dem or a Repub. It will only matter which corporation owns him.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Wrong, they used the constitution.........We could have never got this done without President Bush putting 2 conservatiive justices on the SCOTUS........

I know. It's sickening how conservatives are so pro billionaire and so anti-regular middle class American.

Why would any non-millionaire be a conservative anymore? I have no idea.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

The corporations will be buying our politicians. The ones that aren't already bought and paid for will be pushed out with hundreds of billions of dollars. If a pol doesn't vote the way the corporation wants, they will be run out of office by a puppet who will, with unlimited funding.
This already happens. It happened before CFR. It happened after CFR. The one and only way to stop this is to reduce the size and scope of government, but since neither left nor right are interested in this, you might as well get used to the concept of your government being in the pocket of the people with the most money.

Seriously, wake the **** up. There's nothing new about any of this.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

And maybe the Senator From Exxon won't hold meeting at midnight excluding the opposition party and having critical health care votes in private in Christmas Eve, and maybe C-SPAN will get to see what's going on for a "change".



In 1907 the Congress violated the First Amendment.


Yes, the Democrats have long been foes of the First Amendment, let's hope they'll continue their recent string of failures well into the next millenium.


You really think the Senator from EXXON will have open door meetings? LOL!!! What went on at those Big Oil meetings with Cheney that we weren't allowed to even see the guest list?

Please. That's just silly.

In 1907 congress passed a law that gave the power to the people.

In 2010 the Supreme Court took that power away from the people and gave it to the corporations.

Democrats love the first amendment. We just don't agree that a corporation is a person. We think people have skin and bones and get sick and have organs and blood and fall in love and die. Corporations don't do any of these things.

1st amendment said:
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.


There's no part of this that democrats are against.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I love to watch you liberals whine when the playing field is leveled..We have watched the unions and the DOE line the pockets of democrats for years.....Now we can watch the corporations that actually do the hiring in this country line the pockets of the Republicans.......Remember my left wing friends, what goes around come around............:rofl
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I'm fairly certain the Constitution protects "inalienable rights," but hey; I could be wrong. The rights, in turn, do protect individuals from government overreach. But there's a large distinction between a document which aims to protect "the people," and one that aim to protect liberty.



Aren't they merely a group of people?

The founding fathers would not have agreed with that sentiment. The Boston Tea Party was an anti-corporate sentiment as much as anything. Reminds me of the controversy surrounding the re-importation of drugs. The whole notion of corporate personhood defies common sense.


Of course not. But being able to express yourself politically is one of the essential ones, right? It makes no sense to negate certain rights merely because they are being used by many people on a large scale.
When were rights ever negated? They could not INDIVIDUALLY vote or speak or write letters or contribute money to a candidate in the past??
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Yes, amazingly, there no corporations anywhere owned and run by either dolphins or robots.

I wonder how you'll feel about this when Citgo, owned by Venezuela, pays for a Senator to do their bidding?

I wonder how you'll feel when a Saudi Arabian or a Japanese or an Iranian corporation pays for a politician to vote the way they want them to.

This ruling takes away the voice of the people of the USA and gives the power to any corporation in the world who feels like buying a US politician.

Hello major corruption.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Yes. I.M.O., this is a catastrophe for democracy. It is simply hard to believe that any self-described "conservative' can call this a victory for free speech.

Apparently they are just parroting what the corporation News Corp (FOX) is telling them to think. They are being told this is a free speech issue.

But this isn't a free speech issue. This is a campaign finance issue. And now there are no limits to funding a candidate.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I am not going to do your work for you.......Lets just say this ruling levels the playing field when it comes to contributions to a candidate..............If your not smart enough to figure that out its on you..........

How does it level the playing field?

If a corporation pays candidate A a billion dollars to run for office, how does candidate B match that funding for advertising his campaign?

How does a candidate of the people run against a candidate of the corporation?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Really? Who are you claiming said it first?

Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy (Twelfth Edition); ISBN # 0-321-29236-7

A corporation is a legal entity that is answerable to stockholders and a bottom line and may not even be held by Americans.

Couldn't you say "answerable to participants and a bottom line," with regards to, well, every association? What makes a corporation so deserving of punishment?


I dunno, I just can't understand how a fictional creation can ever be considered a "person" -- especially one that can be taken over by another fictional creation, dissolved, reorganized, and formed into a monopoly.

No one is arguing over whether a corporation is a person, it's not. It's a piece of paper. But what matters is whether or not liberties endowed to individuals become invalid once they group together and can rival the scope of government.

I'd be willing to bet that Benjamin Franklin didn't consider his printing press business a "person."

Under the act, The Federalist Papers would never have been written. Consider that nugget of irony for a moment. ;)

There was not a need then; campaigns were cheaper, businesses mostly stayed out of it (at first), and there were no huge corporations of the kind that later developed.

"Expensive" campaigns and influence peddling are not indicative of more corrupt corporations. But of a more corrupt government.

We need a Teddy Roosevelt populist now.

The only trust he would seek to bust would be the US Federal Government. IMO

I was referring to our laws, passed by our elected representatives, which is the "will of the people" is it not?

I'm branching off in a unique direction, but bear with me.

Take the first instance of restricting corporate donations. How could it be the will of the people to pass a law when corporations can donate as much as they want? Is that not the definition of the argument? But certainly, the law could not have prevented corporations donating before the law was signed. So was the law which you see as the "people's will," not their will at all?
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Heh, welcome to the last 100 years. :lol:

103 years ago congress passed a law that prevented corporations from buying candidates.

You think our politicians were bought and paid for before?

The days are gone where you'll see any candidate like Ron Paul ever again. No corporation is going to back him. He's not a corporate shill.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Siiiiiiigh.

Exactly like it all was before 2002, right?

You people say this like it's a century-old law and now that it's gone, it's a new frontier.

1907 is a century ago, yes. That's when the law was written that's been overturned by this ruling.

This effort to bring about more comprehensive campaign finance reform began in 1907 when Congress passed the Tillman Act, which prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing money to Federal campaigns. The first Federal campaign disclosure legislation was a 1910 law affecting House elections only. In 1911, the law was amended to cover Senate elections as well, and to set spending limits for all Congressional candidates.

Appendix 4: Brief History
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

But that would mean they used judicial activism, and we all know that judges only use judicial activism when they make decisions that liberals agree with!!!

As a attorney Groucho what do you think of this decision?

Edit: Sorry I see you've answered that as I went farther in the thread.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

This already happens. It happened before CFR. It happened after CFR. The one and only way to stop this is to reduce the size and scope of government, but since neither left nor right are interested in this, you might as well get used to the concept of your government being in the pocket of the people with the most money.

Seriously, wake the **** up. There's nothing new about any of this.

You're wrong. This is new. It's a new ruling by the supreme court that undid the 1907 law and now there are no limits at all on how much money a corporation can spend buying a candidate for themselves.

Any politician in office right now can be told by a corporation if they don't vote the right way, the corporation will buy one to replace him, who will vote the right way.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I love to watch you liberals whine when the playing field is leveled..We have watched the unions and the DOE line the pockets of democrats for years.....Now we can watch the corporations that actually do the hiring in this country line the pockets of the Republicans.......Remember my left wing friends, what goes around come around............:rofl

You gotta be kidding. The unions are nearly powerless as it is. Why don't you do a little research and check out how much $$ unions have in their coffers versus that of the corporations. Check out the F.I.R.E. sector in particular- you know the guys who just recently brought the country to its knees and sprang back with a little help from the tax payer! Their deep pockets are making certain ,as we speak, that there will be no needed reforms to prevent them from pulling off a similar scam in a few years... just the sort of "speech" the Supreme Court is celebrating, it would seem.

This should not be a liberal/conservative issue because no self respecting true conservative would be happy about this.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I love to watch you liberals whine when the playing field is leveled..We have watched the unions and the DOE line the pockets of democrats for years.....Now we can watch the corporations that actually do the hiring in this country line the pockets of the Republicans.......Remember my left wing friends, what goes around come around............:rofl

And I thought our military folks actually LOVED our country. If you think this is funny and 'pay back' and part of a partisan game like sports, you should be ashamed of yourself.

This ruling takes away all the people's power in elections. We can give our little donations to a candidate we like, we can work for their campaigns, we can believe what they say when they tell us what their policies are, but at the end of the day, from now on, they will do the bidding of their corporate masters. Because that's who's paying them the unlimited big bucks.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy (Twelfth Edition); ISBN # 0-321-29236-7

Interesting. Never heard of it.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

You're wrong. This is new. It's a new ruling by the supreme court that undid the 1907 law and now there are no limits at all on how much money a corporation can spend buying a candidate for themselves.

Any politician in office right now can be told by a corporation if they don't vote the right way, the corporation will buy one to replace him, who will vote the right way.
Do you really think when this law you speak of was passed that every corporate CEO in America just shrugged and said, "well damn, I guess we're just powerless now"? Are you really that naïve?

You're in high school, right?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

How does it level the playing field?
If a corporation pays candidate A a billion dollars to run for office, how does candidate B match that funding for advertising his campaign?

How does a candidate of the people run against a candidate of the corporation?

You mean a candidate of the unions and the Dept. of Education who line the coffers of the dems don't you,,,,,,The dems always doubled or tripled the money donated to campaigns because of that..........Well thanks to this great SCOTUS those days are gone fooever........Thank you President Bush for thos 2 great conservative justices you appointed........
 
Back
Top Bottom