• 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

Vader said:
Now corporations can legally buy off politicians to push their personal corporate agendas.
Click to expand...
Some corporations could do that before this ruling: For example, GE owns NBC and has been free to barter favorable coverage in return for political favors like government contracts for other GE products.

Now the playing field is level. As it should be.
 
elbatrop said:
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
Click to expand...

The dots are only easy to connect if you don't understand what you're drawing.

If GM wanted to spend a billion dollars on a campaign, they could have done so before this decision, using only slightly different methods. They didn't. What makes you think they're going to do it now?

Again, so it's perfectly clear, corporations were free to buy all the ads they wanted even before this decision, so long as they did it through various front groups and avoided using particular words.
 
All this hysteria is quite reminiscent of when the "Assault Weapons" Ban was allowed to expire.
 
RightinNYC said:
The dots are only easy to connect if you don't understand what you're drawing.

If GM wanted to spend a billion dollars on a campaign, they could have done so before this decision, using only slightly different methods. They didn't. What makes you think they're going to do it now?

Again, so it's perfectly clear, corporations were free to buy all the ads they wanted even before this decision, so long as they did it through various front groups and avoided using particular words.
Click to expand...

those "other" methods involved risks and limitations which no longer exist, at this stage why not use it? but at this point some companies are already so deep into the government that it doesn't even matter, for them there is no need to bother as lobbying is enough while others will have a new and legal way in

This ruling is just a new tool for them to use or door to walk thru, they have the right to not use it as well as use it, given what is at stake and how anti-trust laws and law in general is basically unenforced these days I would expect them to use it and see how it goes at the very least. I suspect some will be quite successful at it. I would think most sane folks would have enough of abusive/corrupt/illegal corporate power entrenched in govt these days but I guess not. Is it worth the risks? I do not think so. I don't think it will stand for long either but we will see.

I think it will be quite interesting to watch the major media corps decide who gets airtime though, that is a nice new power to have.
 
Anti-trust laws are enforced.

Look at what Microsoft was going through until Gates caved in and started shelling out the money Clinton was demanding. As soon as he started his liberal foundations, Reno the Attack Bull Dyke Baby-Barbequing Jello was called off.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Anti-trust laws are enforced.

Look at what Microsoft was going through until Gates caved in and started shelling out the money Clinton was demanding. As soon as he started his liberal foundations, Reno the Attack Bull Dyke Baby-Barbequing Jello was called off.
Click to expand...

I guess free speech is pretty expensive.
 
washunut said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is the popular excuse of the reiche-wing. They want to be legally allowed to buy off politicians at will.

The democrats are just as bad and need to be expelled from politics just a much as the rieche-wingers do.

Business and politics should be banned by law from mixing.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Anti-trust laws are enforced.
Click to expand...

no, they are selectively enforced, very selectively and rarely actually

how many large and vertically integrated corporations does this nation have?

how many corporations feed you? provide media? provide your energy? provide your clothing? provide communication?

has this number increased or decreased over the last few decades?

do these corporations get favorable treatment from the govt?

how many exist as near monopolies using govt help to avoid having more competition?

Want a blatant example of anti-trust and monopolies forming?, how does a handful of banks gobble up a bunch of other banks and become too big to fail to where they are so far in violation of the law the government can't even deal with it? so much so that they even extorted the govt into putting you into debt to pay for their greed. Investment bank, deposit bank, primary dealer, all wrapped up into one entity, a vertically integrated bank, this is non enforcement of anti-trust law.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes, we should always joke when the politicians in government abuse the power we give them to steal money and freedom for your side.
Click to expand...

I'm suprised third parties aren't for more finance reform. How much more powerful do you think they'd be if they didn't have to compete with massive donations unions and corporations make to the GOP and Dems?
 
Coronado said:
:rofl

Good luck with that, sport.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. The corrupt corporate ********ers are not going to freely give up corruption.

The best means of ****ing their world up is to stop all lawmakers from receiving salaries.

Then make their finanical records subject to regular scruitny. That way a sudden donation of a large sum of money, stocks, bonds, property ... whatever would be obvious and unhideable.

Then those politicians can be removed from office and sent to Florence, CO (Supermax) for 20 years.... and they can be in the cell across the hall from the party responsible for the bribe.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I'm suprised third parties aren't for more finance reform. How much more powerful do you think they'd be if they didn't have to compete with massive donations unions and corporations make to the GOP and Dems?
Click to expand...
The problem is that money is inseperable from politics. It's like trying to cut the head off a Hydra.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I'm suprised third parties aren't for more finance reform. How much more powerful do you think they'd be if they didn't have to compete with massive donations unions and corporations make to the GOP and Dems?
Click to expand...

I doubt they'd be much more powerful. Prior to both large corporations and unions 3rd parties were never a very significant political force in US politics, with the possible exception of the 1850s/60s, because the 2 main national parties were collapsing in on themselves.
 
Vader said:
That is the popular excuse of the reiche-wing. They want to be legally allowed to buy off politicians at will.

The democrats are just as bad and need to be expelled from politics just a much as the rieche-wingers do.

Business and politics should be banned by law from mixing.
Click to expand...

So, you're okay with goonions buying politicians, but you don't want to share.

Good thing your side lost the argument in the Supreme Court.

Maybe we can start working on ways to enforce the honesty of politicians.

I would say the first step is a permanent Independent Counsel with the sole function of investigating and prosecuting ethics charges against Congressmen.

Chrissy Dodd can take bribes from ****rywide and he's allowed to retire at taxpayer expense? Chucky Rangel can cheat on his taxes infinitely and retain his leadership position on the Ways and Means Committee?

You know, the committee that writes the tax laws?

We've suffered having Barney "Gay Bordello in My Apartment, Oh My!" Frank in the House, only to discover he's influencing banking legislation because he likes some male teller's ass.

No, we need to start amputating the corrupt Representatives and Senators, using criminal prosecution as the tool.

No Congressman convicted of a felony should be eligible for any pension accrusing from his time in office. (We'll skip over the fact that Congressmen should not be getting pensions at all...)

Jail.

That's how you stop Congressmen from being bought off.

No person convicted of an ethic
 
the makeout hobo said:
I'm suprised third parties aren't for more finance reform. How much more powerful do you think they'd be if they didn't have to compete with massive donations unions and corporations make to the GOP and Dems?
Click to expand...

I don't know about other "third" parties, but libertarianism presumes that the phrase "your money" means that you're the one who decides how it's spent, not me or anyone else.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So, you're okay with goonions buying politicians, but you don't want to share.
Click to expand...

No, I am against ANYBODY buying politicians.

And for the record EVERYBODY lost when the SCOTUS made that unamerican decision.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Maybe we can start working on ways to enforce the honesty of politicians.

I would say the first step is a permanent Independent Counsel with the sole function of investigating and prosecuting ethics charges against Congressmen.
Click to expand...

I agree. This independant council must be screened to rule out political affiliations.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Chrissy Dodd can take bribes from ****rywide and he's allowed to retire at taxpayer expense? Chucky Rangel can cheat on his taxes infinitely and retain his leadership position on the Ways and Means Committee?
Click to expand...

Chris Dodd belongs in 10x10 cell ... receiving the same treatment that Bernard Madoff got.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, we need to start amputating the corrupt Representatives and Senators, using criminal prosecution as the tool.

No Congressman convicted of a felony should be eligible for any pension accrusing from his time in office. (We'll skip over the fact that Congressmen should not be getting pensions at all...)
Click to expand...

I agree completely. This is why I want to all financial data, from campaign finance all the way through retirement, open to regular examination by independant forensic accountants.

The first time a suspicious charge at Wallmart pops up, I want to see a Sentor/Congressmen/President/Vice President immeediately indicted and removed from office.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Jail.

That's how you stop Congressmen from being bought off.
No person convicted of an ethic
Click to expand...

I agree. Also ... these sentences need to me made pardon-proof and there needs to be absolutely no early release.

Also ... all bribes need to be confiscated and sold. The offending business needs to suffer the same. All assets of the corporation need to be frozen, the officer responsible for the bribe needs to have all of his/her assets frozen.

Then ... massive fines againsts the business as a result. Fines in the 10s of millions of dollars for companies like AIG and the like.
 
Vader said:
And for the record EVERYBODY lost when the SCOTUS made that unamerican decision.
Click to expand...

How do people lose when a Constitutional right is restored after long suppression?

Vader said:
Chris Dodd belongs in 10x10 cell ... receiving the same treatment that Bernard Madoff got.
Click to expand...

So much room!

Vader said:
I agree completely. This is why I want to all financial data, from campaign finance all the way through retirement, open to regular examination by independant forensic accountants.
Click to expand...

That's part of the answer.

Vader said:
The first time a suspicious charge at Wallmart pops up, I want to see a Sentor/Congressmen/President/Vice President immeediately indicted and removed from office.
Click to expand...

That's the spirit.

Vader said:
I agree. Also ... these sentences need to me made pardon-proof and there needs to be absolutely no early release.
Click to expand...

That's right.

No way should we let terrorists have a chance to parade their prostate cancer
before cheering crowds, and no way should corrupt politicians be given a break.

Vader said:
Also ... all bribes need to be confiscated and sold.
Click to expand...

What do you think William Jefferson's frozen twenty-thou would sell for?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vader
Chris Dodd belongs in 10x10 cell ... receiving the same treatment that Bernard Madoff got.



So much room!
Click to expand...

:rofl

don't know why, but that's funny
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
How do people lose when a Constitutional right is restored after long suppression?
Click to expand...

I do not believe allowing bribes from SIGs is nor or ever was a Constitutional right.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What do you think William Jefferson's frozen twenty-thou would sell for?
Click to expand...

Who knows. All of those frozen assets need to be confiscated and returned to the American people.
 
Vader said:
Who knows. All of those frozen assets need to be confiscated and returned to the American people.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see it used to defray the costs of his prosecution, though I suspect it will go to law enforcement.
 
Vader said:
I do not believe allowing bribes from SIGs is nor or ever was a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

How does this decision allow for bribery?

(Hint - it didn't touch the current limits on contributions to political candidates.)
 
Vader said:
I agree completely. This is why I want to all financial data, from campaign finance all the way through retirement, open to regular examination by independant forensic accountants.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the way it is now, at least for campaign money.

As for personal funds, even politicians have some level of a right to privacy and being considered innocent until proven guilty.
 
RightinNYC said:
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?
Click to expand...

The entire point of this decision is that it expands the ability to do it. And since the corporations are doing this, they operate under slightly different legal standards, which allows them to deliver a lot more misinformation then before.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
How do people lose when a Constitutional right is restored after long suppression?
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?

The problem with this decision, is that the political ads that are now going to be allowed are going t be complete bull, lying every which way about the candidates. Then, the people will have to decide what they see is true, and what they see is false. Given that people are pretty freaking stupid, I doubt they will see through all the misinformation heading their way.

What will end up happening, is the stupidest part of America will decide what the entire country has to put up with for the term limit of whatever office.

People are going to switch on the tv, see some stupid commerical for candidate X, against candidate Y, and are going to see some total bull, and they are goign to buy it, and vote for X because of the ad. No intelligent person wants that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom