• 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

Wrong.

Read the federalists papers. Better yet, read the Preamble, the first three words are "we the people" "Not We the people and entities"

The Preamble isn't the First Amendment.

Cite the Federalist Papers which support you on this. Be very specific.


Next thing you will be claiming is that Soylent Green is people.:lol:

In the movie, Soylent Green WAS people (in the book it was not). And? That has what to do with what?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

i have yet to see a corporation speak
It happens all the time. The speech is called "commercials" (and sometimes "infomercials") and they show up on radio and TV all the time. Sometimes these commercials are paid for by enterprises which exist to provide a service for fair compensation (your local auto dealers, for instance), and sometimes they are paid for by enterprises which exist solely to collect donations to further the political and economic interests of their members (like ACORN and the environmental groups).
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

In the end, all we did was open up our doors and boarders of our political process to any corporation with large sums of money. Ask yourself this question, if there is a bill now which is overall great for the country and the People at large and well within the proper power of the government, but devastating to Goldman Sachs would it pass? If your answer is no, then you must admit that the system is breaking down. The Republic is at risk. The founders passed down this Republic to us and it's ours to keep or ours to loose....we are definitely on the path to loosing it.

What is it that you expect Goldman Sachs to do?
 
Bottom line.. there is far far too much money in US politics and this ruling might bring it to the public view but it will also increase it considerably since now it is legal for special interests to spend billions on a candidate.

It use to be that politicians were elected by the people for the people. Now days it looks more and more like it is politicians elected by the people for the special interests and corporations.

You have no idea what "used to be" or even "is now" in the United States.
 
Bottom line.. there is far far too much money in US politics and this ruling might bring it to the public view but it will also increase it considerably since now it is legal for special interests to spend billions on a candidate.

It use to be that politicians were elected by the people for the people. Now days it looks more and more like it is politicians elected by the people for the special interests and corporations.

I asked you once already and you dodged like everyone else. Can you please explain how this decision will lead to special interests spending billions on candidates that they couldn't spend before?

You, like everyone else who has raised this point, don't have the slightest clue. You just heard that "corporations can spend money on elections!" and got all outraged without understanding the facts. It's the same type of uninformed fear-mongering that we saw with the "death panels" nonsense.

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

The fact that a corporation is not treated as equivalent to a person for everything ranging from tax filing to voting does not mean it does not enjoy some constitutional protections.

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

So you think that they meant to protect your freedom of religion, but thought that the government could prosecute the Catholic church for being heretics? That they mean to protect your right to publish the news, but thought that the NYT could be banned?

i have yet to see a corporation speak

The fact that you don't perceive something to be speech has no bearing on whether it qualifies as speech under the constitution.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Wrong.

Read the federalists papers. Better yet, read the Preamble, the first three words are "we the people" "Not We the people and entities"

Next thing you will be claiming is that Soylent Green is people.:lol:


the federalist papers are there to show the intent of the founders, tell me what part of those papers shows that the founders were in favor of government control through excessive taxation? Seems to me that is the exact thing they were fighting against.....


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

What is it that you expect Goldman Sachs to do?

Buy congressmen. What about my question, do you have an answer for it?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Buy congressmen. What about my question, do you have an answer for it?

But that's not "speech," and it's illegal.

Would it pass? Depends what it is. No idea. History is replete with things going against the moneyed interests. Brown just won in MA with much less money, from far fewer "money people," than Coakley.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Not one far-right partisan hack on DP has been able to give a logical explanation why corporations, an artificial legal entity should be entitled to the same free speech protections as individuals.

But this libertarian has already explained that since the First Amendment forbids the government from denying the individual the freedom to assemble and petition the government, and since corporations are nothing except voluntary assemblies of people, then corporations can, as the accepted representative of the people assembled to own the corporation, petition the government.

It's not complicated.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

That point is the issue. Because at that point the emphesis changes from what is good for the people (who the government represents) and starts being about what is good for the business. Those things aren't always the same.

They are when the "people" you're referring to are the "people" that own the business.

Ergo, there is no logical limit.

Cite the clause in the constitution that allows the federal government the power to control how people spend their own money.

The mere idea that the government can control campaign contributions is anti-freedom.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I'm not a big fan of restrictive campaign finance laws...but there are bigger issues at stake here. Anyone who agrees with this ruling has no basis to ever complain about "judicial activism."

Sure we do.

It's not judicial activism when the court affirms the Constitution and rejects 100 years of bad law and precedent.

The ownership of property is one of the most important freedoms an American has. The court has just ruled that said ownership can't be restricted by congress attempting to protect incumbents.

You are aware that the sole purpose of McCain-Feingold was incumbent protection, aren't you?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

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

Yes.

People form corporations.

There has not been one corporation ever formed by dolphins.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

The founding fathers would not have agreed with that sentiment. The Boston Tea Party was an anti-corporate sentiment as much as anything.

How can the Tea Party be anti-something-that-didn't-exist? That is, corporate personhood?
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

depends. sometimes one or two people, sometimes thousands. the point is, a board of directors is not in place to represent the employees interests, they are put in place to further profits.

So you're arguing that it's not in the employees interests to see their employers remain in business.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Not one far-right partisan hack on DP has been able to give a logical explanation why corporations, an artificial legal entity should be entitled to the same free speech protections as individuals.

No, it's been explained numerous times; that you don't acknowledge it doesn't mean it hasn't been.

And the idea of you calling anyone a "partisan hack" will keep me laughing through the weekend.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Much of this has opened us up to interference by foriegn countries. Basically, any company can set up a "headquarters" in America and once they do, they can contribute all they want. Any company from any country can do it. So great. Furthermore, the People are still restricted while the corporations have become unrestricted for all practical purposes. I think that's a fundamental problem. Corporations are not people, only individuals have rights. I think this fell well into proper realm of Congress to control, at least maybe this part of it.

A fair enough issue.

How does one ensure the Chinese Army doesn't set up a corporation and contribute more money to Hillary's campaign?

However, establishing a blanket ban on corporate contributions is not the correct answer. Eliminating the freedom of the citizens is never the correct answer.

I would think the correct answer would be based on percent of US citizen ownership and control and location of facilities as well as headquarters.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

That point is the issue. Because at that point the emphesis changes from what is good for the people (who the government represents) and starts being about what is good for the business. Those things aren't always the same. And when in conflict the government is supposed to represent the citizens.

Or you don't have a democrasy. You have a corporitocracy(sp?)

And secondly this was about corporate financing wasn't it?

You didn't answer his question. You just went off on a tangent about something entirely unrelated.

A corporation is nothing more than the legal vehicle for individuals to pool their resources and mitigate liability. At its heart, a corporation is still a group of individuals. The reasons they form this group are irrelevant to the fact that they have free speech rights.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

How can the Tea Party be anti-something-that-didn't-exist? That is, corporate personhood?

The Boston Tea Party was in protest to the Tea Tax that in part benefitted the East India Company that had a government monopoly on tea imports to the colonies.

The correct solution to that particular problem is to reduce the size, scope, and power of government so it cannot facilitate the creation of coercive monopolies.

The nation has spent a century trembling in its boots over the thought that good businessmen might get a monopoly and giving the government ever more power to prevent this...when in fact the existence of government power is what makes coercive monopolies possible.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

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

And what constitutes a corporation? That would be people...
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

The Boston Tea Party was in protest to the Tea Tax that in part benefitted the East India Company that had a government monopoly on tea imports to the colonies.

The correct solution to that particular problem is to reduce the size, scope, and power of government so it cannot facilitate the creation of coercive monopolies.

The nation has spent a century trembling in its boots over the thought that good businessmen might get a monopoly and giving the government ever more power to prevent this...when in fact the existence of government power is what makes coercive monopolies possible.

Right, and they actually had the guts to fix their government.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Those are organizations of the people. ACORN is non-profit so it subsists on subsidies and donations from private individuals; therefore their existence is more democratic. If people felt they served no purpose, they'd get no money.

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.

So why should the liberal media be given an exemption. They are corporations - in fact some of the biggest corporations in existence - and they can spew their political ideas ad nauseum every day right up to the minute of an election.

Unions can do the same. ACORN is just a wing of the liberal party.

All this ruling did was level the playing field and re-establish the right to free speech, in this case for individuals who have formed a group in the interest of doing business
 
Let's just admit that we live in a Corporatocracy. That way we are not shocked, surprised or saddened when we get a broadside, unabashed look at the workings of our Corporate Government.

Yes, our system is corporatist, but it's not the corporations' fault. It's the fact that certain people keep insisting on expanding the size and scope of government far beyond its Constitutional mandate. If the government wasn't so powerful, there'd be no incentive for corporations to curry favor with our representatives.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Right, and they actually had the guts to fix their government.

Right.

Ending government restrictions on the freedom of the people to assemble and petition their government is a step in the right direction.

Eliminating the goonions' monopoly on violence would be a good next step, and allowing the employers the freedom to replace workers who refuse to work is another.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Does a corporation itself invest money in political advertising, or do the people who own and control the corporation do so?

Are they somehow not deserving of first amendment protection on political speech, simply because of their occupation?

And Soylent Green is people dammit!

btw, did you listen to the interview?
:lol:

When they start putting corporations to jail and giving them death sentences then I will be for it.:lol:
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

A fair enough issue.

How does one ensure the Chinese Army doesn't set up a corporation and contribute more money to Hillary's campaign?

However, establishing a blanket ban on corporate contributions is not the correct answer. Eliminating the freedom of the citizens is never the correct answer.

I would think the correct answer would be based on percent of US citizen ownership and control and location of facilities as well as headquarters.

But this is why I say there is some legitimate claim to regulation on Congress. A corporation is not a person, hence it doesn't have rights. The People are still restricted, but we've removed the restriction on corporations. I think it needed to go the other way. I will agree that you cannot eliminate the freedom of the citizen; but that's still infringed upon even with throwing this clause out the window. The only thing we've added now is to exacerbate the current corruption and to allow possible influence from foreign agents.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom