• 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

your trust is misplaced given the current state of affairs in this nation methinks

Sure beats totalitarianism though.
 
First, this is a great thread and a great discussion. But I do have to point out that the central issue is about speech and funding. They're being treated as the same thing. Money = Speech is an argument that many conservatives have been making for quite awhile. George Will probably makes the best case for it I've ever read.

This ruling from SCOTUS affirms that imo. Whether that's what they intended or not.

"Money = speech" isn't "an argument that many conservatives have been making," it is a well established principle that was explicitly affirmed by the Supreme Court almost 35 years ago in Buckley v. Valeo. The court knows that they were affirming that because they were the ones who came up with it.

I'm distinguishing speech from funding campaigns here to clarify that this decision did not remove limitations on direct donations to candidates.
 
Basically, there was ONE corporation that was allowed to spend unlimited money on political "advertising".

That was the media.

I watched Olberman virtually come unglued over this the other night, and I was thinking, "Hey Keith, you work for a CORPORATION and you're doing EXACTLY what you're saying corporations shouldn't be allowed to do RIGHT NOW!"

The monopoly on this is now gone for the media, and they no likey.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

So what's it called when it's the willingness to overturn precedent when one agrees with the precedent?

I've never heard of a Supreme Court doing that in the history of this country, so I don't think it has a name. :roll:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Since we're exploring this brand new definition of judicial activism that never existed before, and since you're opposed to it, what's you're opinion of the Brown vs Board of Education ruling?

Most definitely an example of judicial activism. But see, unlike you I don't use that phrase as a pejorative.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, it's a textbook example of the court doing it's job and correcting mistakes made by other courts, just like Brown vs Board of Education was.

That doesn't change the fact it's judicial activism. Every activist court believes that it's correcting previous mistakes. And sometimes they're right.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Your defense of it is a good clue.

Well then to clarify: I do not support the McCain-Feingold Act.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Most definitely an example of judicial activism. But see, unlike you I don't use that phrase as a pejorative.

Hmmm...

....what was the Plessy v Fergusson case?

Anchovies on Rye?


That doesn't change the fact it's judicial activism. Every activist court believes that it's correcting previous mistakes. And sometimes they're right.

You're right. Since it isn't judicial activism it can't change the fact that it's judicial activism because that fact doesn't exist.

The court's obeying the Constitution is not judicial activism. Period.

Well then to clarify: I do not support the McCain-Feingold Act.

Then you need to untangle your panties from the huge wad you have them in and drop out of this thread, because this court just hacked out a huge portion of an unconstitutional law you claim you don't support anyway.

Good thing Bush Appointed Alito and Roberts, eh?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I've never heard of a Supreme Court doing that in the history of this country, so I don't think it has a name. :roll:



Most definitely an example of judicial activism. But see, unlike you I don't use that phrase as a pejorative.



That doesn't change the fact it's judicial activism. Every activist court believes that it's correcting previous mistakes. And sometimes they're right.



Well then to clarify: I do not support the McCain-Feingold Act.

It's not judicial activism. It's a ruling based on the Consitition, and undoing an unconstitional bill concocted by Congress.
 
We own it because it's a public resource and it is limited. If we just let anyone broadcast, there would be nothing but static.

Fine - you can have maroon. Happy?

I can agree that in general terms where we have broadcasters there is some oversight necessary to essentially enforce property rights. Company A buys the rights to use a certain piece of the E&M spectrum and to ensure that they are able to use it for the designated area, there's some oversight to protect against piracy. But it's far from "public resource", right? Because you can't just tap into the spectrum. You have to have some mechanism to couple into that radiation. Meh, this is actually a different subject than the OP.
 
"Money = speech" isn't "an argument that many conservatives have been making," it is a well established principle that was explicitly affirmed by the Supreme Court almost 35 years ago in Buckley v. Valeo. The court knows that they were affirming that because they were the ones who came up with it.

I'm distinguishing speech from funding campaigns here to clarify that this decision did not remove limitations on direct donations to candidates.

I can't help but notice you said, "this decision did not remove limitations on direct donations to candidates."

I think the biggest problem with this, is the tremendous amount of misinformation that is going to come out of this decision. If people couldn't see past the mud in the past, there is no way the average American will understand what the actual issues are in the future. Furthermore, there will be no restriction on what the private groups say, because, as far as I understand it, the ad's and what not count as entertainment, and therefore don't have to be the least bit true. And if groups make movies like the one about Hilary Clinton, then they can be lying through their teeth, and people would believe them, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Anyone who is materially involved with the company's finances or operations.

And since all of them are individual people, it makes no sense why they cannot pool their resources and endorse a political candidate. You're using their business model as excuse to suppress their free speech rights.

That strikes me as rhetorical nonsense. Large numbers of investors do not even know exactly what is in their portfolio from one week to the next; they certainly haven't a voice in the way the corporation uses its money.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

i don't read the dailykos. and i'm certainly not trying to distract anyone. it's my belief that all campaigns should be funded by taxpayers, equally.

corporations pay taxes, for arguments sake.
 
I can't help but notice you said, "this decision did not remove limitations on direct donations to candidates."

I think the biggest problem with this, is the tremendous amount of misinformation that is going to come out of this decision. If people couldn't see past the mud in the past, there is no way the average American will understand what the actual issues are in the future. Furthermore, there will be no restriction on what the private groups say, because, as far as I understand it, the ad's and what not count as entertainment, and therefore don't have to be the least bit true. And if groups make movies like the one about Hilary Clinton, then they can be lying through their teeth, and people would believe them, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

The actual issues are:

Arrogation of unconstitutional power by government.

Opposition to same.

Those issues aren't hard to see.

what is hard to figure out is when both candidates want to usurp power, but one wants some here, some wants some there.

How about if we stop electing candidates who usurp power in the first place?
 
I can't help but notice you said, "this decision did not remove limitations on direct donations to candidates."

I think the biggest problem with this, is the tremendous amount of misinformation that is going to come out of this decision. If people couldn't see past the mud in the past, there is no way the average American will understand what the actual issues are in the future. Furthermore, there will be no restriction on what the private groups say, because, as far as I understand it, the ad's and what not count as entertainment, and therefore don't have to be the least bit true. And if groups make movies like the one about Hilary Clinton, then they can be lying through their teeth, and people would believe them, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

That's what libel laws are for.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

That strikes me as rhetorical nonsense. Large numbers of investors do not even know exactly what is in their portfolio from one week to the next; they certainly haven't a voice in the way the corporation uses its money.

You write as if the trustees are all victims--and that's nonsense. If they don't bother to keep track of their paticular portfolio, that's not a corporation's fault. If they are concerned with the way their money is being used, they certainly do have a say--- They can invest elsewhere or not at all.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but notice you said, "this decision did not remove limitations on direct donations to candidates."

I think the biggest problem with this, is the tremendous amount of misinformation that is going to come out of this decision. If people couldn't see past the mud in the past, there is no way the average American will understand what the actual issues are in the future. Furthermore, there will be no restriction on what the private groups say, because, as far as I understand it, the ad's and what not count as entertainment, and therefore don't have to be the least bit true. And if groups make movies like the one about Hilary Clinton, then they can be lying through their teeth, and people would believe them, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

For the 40th or 50th time, can you explain why that problem will be any more substantial under this decision than it was before this decision?
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

Disagreed. The McCain-Feingold bill was an atrocity that richly deserves to be tossed in the trash.

A much better approach is to promptly (like within 24 hours) report on the internet where the money is coming from. Sunshine is a much better disinfectant than regulation because there are always lawyers who can figure out how to game the system.

Just my opinion.

We already have similar systems in place... donations are tracked and recorded. The issue isn't who they're getting money from, it is how much they're getting and how much they need to compete.
 
Fine.

Stop giving government so much power business feels it has to play a role in government out of self-defense.

This is bull****.

The government governs because that is what it is supposed to do. Corporations are buying off politicians because they do not want to follow the rules set up by the government.

This is not self-defence. This is a means of avoiding responsibility for their actions.
 
For the 40th or 50th time, can you explain why that problem will be any more substantial under this decision than it was before this decision?

money buys lots and lots of ads and TV time, corps have deep pockets and a handful of corps own the media

it is also in the best interests of corporations to get what they want from the govt despite what may be good for the country or citizens

now corporations have an open mic to advertise as they wish in politics where before they did not

they don't have to vote, all they have to do is get voters to vote how they want them to and advertise against some candidates while promoting others, this is very easy when you can use corporate cash directly

when you can literally throw a few billion at a campaign while the actual candidates are using a few million what do you think happens?

these dots are not hard to connect
 
And as I noted before, this isn't about funding campaigns, it's about speech during campaign season.
That is where you are wrong. Now corporations can legally buy off politicians to push their personal corporate agendas.

This has ZERO to do with speech and EVERYTHING to do with allowing corporations to own politicians.

This is very bad for the people who are not members of the Reiche-wing.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

We already have similar systems in place... donations are tracked and recorded. The issue isn't who they're getting money from, it is how much they're getting and how much they need to compete.
And the donations are reported much too late. Part of gaming the system is to have large donors commit to large sums donated in the last few weeks before the election; that way the donations don't have to be reported until after the election is over. If Soros or one of his front organizations is putting up the money for a candidate, I want to know about it before I vote.
 
This is bull****.

The government governs because that is what it is supposed to do. Corporations are buying off politicians because they do not want to follow the rules set up by the government.

This is not self-defence. This is a means of avoiding responsibility for their actions.

Let's not forget the labor unions that have collected tens of billions for their investment on Obama.

Corporations should have bought shares in the unions after the election.
 
What disturbs me is how far back it rolls restrictions, arguably back to 1907. A lot of precedent is being disregarded here. This comes to mind.

The-Bosses-of-the-Senate-original1.jpg
 
This is bull****.

The government governs because that is what it is supposed to do. Corporations are buying off politicians because they do not want to follow the rules set up by the government.

This is not self-defence. This is a means of avoiding responsibility for their actions.

Try reading the Constitution sometimes.

The American governs inside specific limits.

Restricting freedom of speech is expressly outside those limits.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

And the donations are reported much too late. Part of gaming the system is to have large donors commit to large sums donated in the last few weeks before the election; that way the donations don't have to be reported until after the election is over. If Soros or one of his front organizations is putting up the money for a candidate, I want to know about it before I vote.

But that's going to affect very few people's votes if they know WHO is funding them. The issue is how much money candidate need at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom