• 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 Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

We don't live in a free market society, and with good reason. I suggest you think about that.

Nothing is black and white. Not all corporations do bad things; not all corporations do good things. As I said, the ruling was fair.

Whenever rulings or legislation is passed that favors the corporate upper crust, it has wide spread implications. It's a simple fact that corporations behave like individual persons with a huge amount of money and resources. They have sway over the democratic process, which is not always a bad thing, but regulations don't exist because of those who behave.

This particular ruling doesn't mean much in the grand scheme, other than giving the nod to lobbyists to keep doing what they're doing.

Money does buy politics and that is simply a modern reality, which is why I am not jumping for joy about this.

I think you lost sight of what you were even arguing. These are not things you have to tell me.

And there's a LOT more to this ruling than just limits on corporate spending, for which I indeed AM jumping for joy.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

i fail to see how a corporation has a right to free speech.

This should help:

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.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

We don't live in a free market society, and with good reason. I suggest you think about that.

What's a "free market society"? Why is it good we don't live in one?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

i fail to see how a corporation has a right to free speech.

As much as the people at dailykos would like to pretend that that was the issue in question in this case, it wasn't. It is, however, a useful tool for distracting people from the fact that the claims of "an end to democracy" are horribly overblown.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

As much as the people at dailykos would like to pretend that that was the issue in question in this case, it wasn't. It is, however, a useful tool for distracting people from the fact that the claims of "an end to democracy" are horribly overblown.

As I recall, we had democracy before 2002.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

This should help:

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.

Don't be silly, they were only referring to citizens with the first amendment, not corporations. That's why individuals like you and me are protected by the freedom of press, but news organizations like the NYT aren't. Same reason why I'm allowed to exercise my religion, but my church can be prosecuted.

Duh.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

i fail to see how a corporation has a right to free speech.

Why shouldn't they have a right to free speech? Why should a union have more rights than a corporation?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

I think you lost sight of what you were even arguing. These are not things you have to tell me.

Then why are you implying I'm against freedom because I don't like the ruling? I said it was fair which is why I support it... but that doesn't mean I have to like it. There is a difference between my own preferences and my preferences for the greater good. Take note.

And there's a LOT more to this ruling than just limits on corporate spending, for which I indeed AM jumping for joy.

I can still see the dissenting judge's point of view even if I support the ruling. Corporations aren't democratic organizations and letting them toss their full girth around in the political arena creates risk for those organizations which are directly supported by the people. A corporation represents one individual legally speaking, yet they could have thousands of individuals working for them who aren't represented in corporate decisions to lobby particular campaigns. Yes, those individuals could themselves go and vote for whoever they want, but they don't have the financial power to compete with a big company that has tens of millions of dollars to contribute to the actual campaign.

It can balance out because both the Republican and Democratic campaigns can still get huge contributions, but I still see the power of individuals being drowned out by these huge business powers.

I support the ruling because free speech takes precedence over control of business, and that's pretty much the only reason.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Why shouldn't they have a right to free speech? Why should a union have more rights than a corporation?
A union is an entity made up of members elected to represent them. a corporation is not.

however, i believe neither should be able to contribute to candidates or political parties. i think all campaigns should be financed by the taxpayers, on an equal basis.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

A union is an entity made up of members elected to represent them. a corporation is not.

however, i believe neither should be able to contribute to candidates or political parties. i think all campaigns should be financed by the taxpayers, on an equal basis.

So you believe that the tax payers should fund incumbents re-elections, and that people should not be allowed to support the candidate of their choice. Got it. Government = good, people = evil to you.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Then why are you implying I'm against freedom because I don't like the ruling? I said it was fair which is why I support it... but that doesn't mean I have to like it. There is a difference between my own preferences and my preferences for the greater good. Take note.

Where did I say anything about your being "against freedom"? Is this why you think I'm looking through a "black-and-white lens"? Because it's the way you see things? Seems that way.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

A union is an entity made up of members elected to represent them. a corporation is not.

The hell it isn't. Never mind that there are several dozen different types of corporations, including the ones which consist of me and only me, or me and 1-2 partners.


however, i believe neither should be able to contribute to candidates or political parties. i think all campaigns should be financed by the taxpayers, on an equal basis.

Does not matter to what you said -- that you fail to see how corporations have freedom of speech.

Again, I refer you to the First Amendment.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Why shouldn't they have a right to free speech? Why should a union have more rights than a corporation?

it should not ... neither should be entitled to free speech, unless they possess the actual physical ability to speak

but when was the last time you have seen either a corporation or union actually speak

by its decision, the sc has given over citizens' rights to what could be multi-national organizations - and potentially corporate arms of foreign governments

should we really trust the multi-national corporations and foreign, state-owned entities to not inordinately influence our politics, which is their right as has now been proscribed by the highest court

we continue to have the best government money can buy
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

A union is an entity made up of members elected to represent them. a corporation is not.

Who makes up a corporation?

however, i believe neither should be able to contribute to candidates or political parties. i think all campaigns should be financed by the taxpayers, on an equal basis.

And, that would be fair. I could go along with that.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

it should not ... neither should be entitled to free speech, unless they possess the actual physical ability to speak

but when was the last time you have seen either a corporation or union actually speak

by its decision, the sc has given over citizens' rights to what could be multi-national organizations - and potentially corporate arms of foreign governments

should we really trust the multi-national corporations and foreign, state-owned entities to not inordinately influence our politics, which is their right as has now been proscribed by the highest court

we continue to have the best government money can buy

I've seen SEIU strong arming for Obama many times over the past couple years.

Remember when Obama said he was going to, "paint the country purple"??
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Where did I say anything about your being "against freedom"? Is this why you think I'm looking through a "black-and-white lens"? Because it's the way you see things? Seems that way.

Harshaw said:
Corporations = evil; must have free speech suppressed.

Orius said:
Oh yes... because I think there should be economic regulation, I am against freedom.

Harshaw said:
Well, yeah, which is why I'm calling it out.

Don't piss on me and call it rain.
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...aign-finance-reform-rules.html#post1058266093



I'd love to hear an explanation for how this decision will corrupt politics in a way that it's not already corrupted, as opposed to your ignorant pronunciations on issues you clearly don't understand.

Quite a rebuttal... :roll:

Why bother going point by point, just dismiss it ad hominem without explanation. Saves time on having to formulate thoughts of your own...:2razz:

Okay, RightNYC, explain why corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere.

And what do we gain by having more expensive and elaborate political campaigns?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Don't piss on me and call it rain.


Corporations = evil; must have free speech suppressed.

You lament the striking down of regulations on corporations on the grounds that corporations are necessarily a corruptive influence on politics.


Well, yeah, which is why I'm calling it out.

Dude. That was my response to your question about me being tired of black-and-white thought. I was "calling out" yours.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

.

Corporations exist to rake in profits and their influence on government does not help to balance democracy. They are the business sector gone wild and they don't give a toss about individuals.

You should get a tally sheet and see how much money corporations donate to various causes and rethink your philosophy here.
 
Naturally. The Reiche-wing loves to buy off votes.

Now they can do it wholesale.

Would you rather they do it out in the open or behind your back? :mrgreen:
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

Here's what I'd like to see:

1. The Supreme Court says, like they did today, that money is speech and that therefore you cannot stop people from spending money on campaigns.

2. The Supreme Court holds that corporations are NOT people, and therefore restrictions on campaign spending by corporations (and unions and PACs and other such groups) is constitutional.

The idea that a corporation is considered a "person" under the 14th amendment is the root of the problem. We need to get rid of that notion. I mean, the conservatives talk about the intent of the Founding Fathers. I doubt any of them thought that a Court would later decide that businesses are "people."
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

You lament the striking down of regulations on corporations on the grounds that corporations are necessarily a corruptive influence on politics.

There is no "necessarily" about it. Corporations ARE a corrupting influence on politics.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

What about in-kind contributions from media corporations?
 
Back
Top Bottom