• 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

I'm confused. Since when was a Corporation granted Constitutional rights?
Constitutional rights don't evaporate simply because they're expressed through a corporation.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Looks to me like the GOP has been getting cheated. Look how much the Dems have been getting. :mad:
Yeah, but they have the National Beer Wholesalers Association in their corner. That's a big plus.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

i don't believe our founding fathers were referring to anyone but people.

The Amendment is a blanket prohibition against abridging any of those freedoms.

So do you argue that the New York Times -- a corporate entity -- is not covered by freedom of the press?

Keep in mind, unions are pretty much all corporations, too.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

I'm confused. Since when was a Corporation granted Constitutional rights?

The Constitution doesn't grant any rights.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Its amazing that are left wing friends are ignoring this great victory for the right and for the first amendment which they are always citing........

Victory for the right? This is no victory for anyone my rightwing friend. As soon as the unions start pouring the dollars into the democratic machine I'm sure you will agree.

This is a travesty. I thought for sure you would be the first one here criticizing the court for "legislating from the bench" and making it possible to buy elections and politicians. (Even more than it's already being done.)

I'm quite surprised, to say the least. In a million years I never thought you to be one to approve of this, of all people. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Constitutional rights don't evaporate simply because they're expressed through a corporation.

how many corporations do you know of which have been extended the right to vote?
or do you want us to believe the Constitution was silent about voting rights
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Someone, I forget who, was joking on television last night how our politicians will have to start wearing NASCAR style jackets listing their sponsors.

"This election brought to you by EXXON." :rofl

But, really, I think our country is most likely too far gone to even bother anymore.

As long as the fish are biting, to hell with the whole ****ting shooting match.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Victory for the right? This is no victory for anyone my rightwing friend. As soon as the unions start pouring the dollars into the democratic machine I'm sure you will agree.

This is a travesty. I thought for sure you would be the first one here criticizing the court for "legislating from the bench" and making it possible to buy elections and politicians. (Even more than it's already being done.)

I'm quite surprised, to say the least. In a million years I never thought you to be one to approve of this, of all people. :confused:


I am nearly positive that your condemnation is of supreme import. In any case I think there is some level of misrepresentation going on here.

On Pg. 2 "Queen" made it appear as though Corporations could now give as much money to a single candidate as they wished. My understanding is that this is untrue. Ad time can be spent without restriction, but donation levels stay the same.

So what's the rub here? Libs will no longer be able to fill the airwaves with propaganda about a candidate unchallenged? Seems so.


j-mac
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Yeah, but they have the National Beer Wholesalers Association in their corner. That's a big plus.
Damn right!!!! :mrgreen:
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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.


Maybe we can get a law passed that requires politicians to wear advertising on their suits, like Nascar drivers, so you know who has paid for them.

Edit: DOH! Wrote this before reading the entire thread and seeing that someone else made the same point! Sorry!
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Maybe we can get a law passed that requires politicians to wear advertising on their suits, like Nascar drivers, so you know who has paid for them.

Edit: DOH! Wrote this before reading the entire thread and seeing that someone else made the same point! Sorry!


Why are you as a lawyer, misrepresenting what this decision means?


j-mac
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Now we can watch the corporations that actually do the hiring

Corporations don't actually hire anybody. People who work for corporations hire other people to work for corporations, and then the corporations pay them.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Why are you as a lawyer, misrepresenting what this decision means?

j-mac

Hm? Where do you think I have done that? My comments about this case are the same ones made by the 4 lawyers on the Supreme Court who filed their dissent.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Its called freedom of speech my left wing friend..You leftys are all he time quoting the first amendment......What is the matter????:rofl

Its a sad day in America when Corporations are considered to be entitled to same the rights as people...and yet, Corporations can't be prosecuted or held to the same standards as people.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I love to watch you liberals whine when the playing field is leveled.

Thanks for indicating what you REALLY care about (i.e. helping the Republican Party, rather than taking some principled stand for free speech), but I think you are mistaken in your assumption that this somehow "levels the playing field." Corporations are hardly monolithic Republican donors. Many of them favor Democrats, and some donate huge amounts of money to BOTH sides. While this will certainly increase corporate influence over politicians of both parties, it's anybody's guess as to which party will benefit from it. My guess: Neither.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I am nearly positive that your condemnation is of supreme import. In any case I think there is some level of misrepresentation going on here.

On Pg. 2 "Queen" made it appear as though Corporations could now give as much money to a single candidate as they wished. My understanding is that this is untrue. Ad time can be spent without restriction, but donation levels stay the same.

So what's the rub here? Libs will no longer be able to fill the airwaves with propaganda about a candidate unchallenged? Seems so.


j-mac

Libs? I see them all doing that. MoveOn.org, SwiftBoatVets., the list goes on.

I understood the court to say that now corporations can spend as much as they want. Does that mean they can now finance a campaign by paying for their TV ads, chartering their jet, etc.? Things that were normally the expense of the politician's can now be paid for by special interest corporations, albeit, not directly paid to the politician?

I really don't have a "rub" with it, per se, as I see this being an equal advantage/disadvantage to either party. There is just something fundamentally wrong with the idea and I was surprised to see that some of our collegues here who are usually staunch proponents of good (vs. bad,) have chose their stance on what is, to me, the "bad" side of issue. I was somewhat surprised. That's all.

At the end of the day, who can deny, even if it is cloaked as a "free speech" issue, it is about buying politicians. People I thought that would oppose that are saying they approve it. Just don't add up and I was taken by surprise by their position. But the next time a certain collegue of ours claims to be non-partisan and independant, I will remember this thread.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Its a sad day in America when Corporations are considered to be entitled to same the rights as people...and yet, Corporations can't be prosecuted or held to the same standards as people.
Actually yes, they can be prosecuted.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

When has a corporation been prosecuted?
Arthur Andersen comes to mind.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I'm just waiting for the politicians to start wearing suits with patches like NASCAR drivers.

I wonder who Iran wants to win our next election and will pour billions into to get into office. It seems with this new ruling they wil be free to do so if they funnel through a US corporation.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Corporations can be prosecuted but the punishment is always monetary damages or restraining orders.

Unlike other "people" you can't put a corporation in jail.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Corporations can be prosecuted but the punishment is always monetary damages or restraining orders.

Unlike other "people" you can't put a corporation in jail.

I'm sure the corporations making $3-4 billion per quarter are devastated when they have to pay a few hundred million in fines.

I wish if I did something illegal I only got fined 5% of my annual income.
 
Back
Top Bottom