• 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

Oh sure. "Slavery is freedom", too.:roll: The corporations could outspend the unions by a million to one.

You think so, huh?

Look, my liberal credentials are pretty good, and I know this political spending stuff inside and out, and I'm hear to tell you you're wildly overreacting, and in a pretty high school drama way at that.
 
For ****'s sake, have you read anything that has been posted in this thread?

This decision will not have a substantial impact on the amount of money that corporations throw at politics.

We shall see. I don't believe a thing the corporatist lap dogs say. They speak with forked tongues.

Look how much the average workers pay has increased since trickle down economics became the paradigm.

I am talking about the ones lucky enough to have a decent job or any job at all for that matter.

It all depends which trough you feed at.
 
We shall see. I don't believe a thing the corporatist lap dogs say. They speak with forked tongues.

Drama club is down the hall.

This liberal doesn't want you speaking for us, you make us look goofy.
 
Drama club is down the hall.

This liberal doesn't want you speaking for us, you make us look goofy.

Are you God? Who annoited you to be the judge. You should use singular, not plural. English compisition 101. I am not a liberal:mrgreen: You claim to be a centrist but yet you speak for all liberals.
 
Last edited:
For ****'s sake, have you read anything that has been posted in this thread?

This decision will not have a substantial impact on the amount of money that corporations throw at politics.

You are quite mistaken.

Corporations and the SIGs will now feel free to buy off politicians to make laws that favor them and only them.
 
I'd love to see it used to defray the costs of his prosecution, though I suspect it will go to law enforcement.

Yeah, that is a good thought.

I'm sure the government will find some way to absorb it and use it to fund their agenda.
 
I haven't read this whole thread, and how can I with 44 pages here? I think that it would be important for people to understand what exactly the case was.

Citizens United tried to produce a video about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Presidential Election. Citizens United is a group that formed to respond to Michael Moore's video Farenheit 9/11. So they try to come up with this video, but the FEC says that it can't come out. It is effectively censored.

Let's not talk about this being about corporate spending. This is about free speech being censored. Corporations are groups of INDIVIDUALS. If they want to put forward an opinion, so be it.
 
I haven't read this whole thread, and how can I with 44 pages here? I think that it would be important for people to understand what exactly the case was.

Citizens United tried to produce a video about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Presidential Election. Citizens United is a group that formed to respond to Michael Moore's video Farenheit 9/11. So they try to come up with this video, but the FEC says that it can't come out. It is effectively censored.

Let's not talk about this being about corporate spending. This is about free speech being censored. Corporations are groups of INDIVIDUALS. If they want to put forward an opinion, so be it.

Corporate personhood is a myth. Corporations are not people and the do not deserve the same rights as people.
 
You think so, huh?

Look, my liberal credentials are pretty good, and I know this political spending stuff inside and out, and I'm hear to tell you you're wildly overreacting, and in a pretty high school drama way at that.

You claim to know this political spending stuff inside and out?:mrgreen:

Are you even remotely implying that most politicans are honest?:mrgreen:

I graduated from hs over fifty years ago and then attended the college of hard knocks the rest of my life. I've learned how crooked they ALL are.:(
 
Corporate personhood is a myth. Corporations are not people and the do not deserve the same rights as people.

I never said that they are people. However, corporations are composed of people and so if you restrict the rights of the corporation then you restrict the rights of the people that compose that corporation.
 
I never said that they are people. However, corporations are composed of people and so if you restrict the rights of the corporation then you restrict the rights of the people that compose that corporation.

Not really. Each member has those rights individually. The corporation does not. When speaking as the corporation, the corporation does not have those rights.
 
Not really. Each member has those rights individually. The corporation does not. When speaking as the corporation, the corporation does not have those rights.

You would say that the ability to speak is proportional with money right? So the people in the corporations get their money from the corporation. Presumably, their opinions will be biased for their corporations. So their power will come from the corporation and opinion will be for the corporation. Yet this is okay? What exactly is the difference?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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

There was no thing about taxation in the original.

The amendment on taxation was ratified in 1916. The constitution is a living document for living people we can not have "rule from the dead" as Tom Paine once wrote.

The constitution is a contract approved by the people through their reps in a republican form of government for the purpose of constituting the rule of law.

We could theoretically ratify an amendment to make slavery legal again if it was ratified by the people. Even the supreme court can not overturn a constitutional amendment.
 
I never said that they are people. However, corporations are composed of people and so if you restrict the rights of the corporation then you restrict the rights of the people that compose that corporation.

Soylent green is people!:roll:
 
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.
I highly doubt this. Unless a person invested strictly in mutual funds, they should know exactly in which companies they have invested, and they would get a ballot each year in the mail for the stockholder election. The only way a person could not know what was in their portfolio is some sort of amnesia.
 
You would say that the ability to speak is proportional with money right? So the people in the corporations get their money from the corporation. Presumably, their opinions will be biased for their corporations. So their power will come from the corporation and opinion will be for the corporation. Yet this is okay? What exactly is the difference?

No, what I am saying is that, for the exact reasons you mentioned, corporations CANNOT be allowed to have the rights in questions.

Corporations cannot be allowed to buy votes or have the freedom to force their purchased opinions on the world.
 
No, what I am saying is that, for the exact reasons you mentioned, corporations CANNOT be allowed to have the rights in questions.

Corporations cannot be allowed to buy votes or have the freedom to force their purchased opinions on the world.

Why not? If you restrict the rights of the corporations then how exactly do you not restrict the rights of the people that comprise that corporation?
 
No, what I am saying is that, for the exact reasons you mentioned, corporations CANNOT be allowed to have the rights in questions.

Corporations cannot be allowed to buy votes or have the freedom to force their purchased opinions on the world.

Buy votes? Force their opinions?

Try reality. This is no different from anyone else's speech. Do you want to ban all political ads?
 
And yet more:

Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption?

ince the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, Congress has imposed stricter regulations on money in politics. Advocates of those rules argue that they rein in corruption and increase public trust in government. But after more than three decades, has the system made a difference?

...

Legal scholars and social scientists say the evidence is meager, at best, that the post-Watergate campaign finance system has accomplished the broad goals its supporters asserted. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in his opinion that no evidence was marshaled in 100,000 pages of legal briefs to show that unrestricted campaign money ever bought a lawmaker’s vote. And even after Congress further tightened the rules with the landmark McCain-Feingold law in 2002, banning hundreds of millions of dollars in unlimited contributions to the political parties, public trust in government fell to new lows, according to polls.

And what about the corporations that contributed so much of that money? A review of the biggest corporate donors found that their stock prices were unaffected after they stopped giving to the parties. The results suggest that those companies did not lose their influence and may have been giving “because they were shaken down by politicians,” said Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School who has studied the law’s impact. “There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government,” said Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove.”

...

In the United States, studies comparing states like Virginia with scant regulation against those like Wisconsin with strict rules have not found much difference in levels of corruption or public trust, several scholars said. Jeff Milyo, an economist at the University of Missouri, has compared states with strict bans on corporate contributions to political parties against those with no limits at all. “There is just no good evidence that campaign finance laws have any effect on actual corruption,” he said.

 
Why not? If you restrict the rights of the corporations then how exactly do you not restrict the rights of the people that comprise that corporation?

The individuals can speak for themselves; however, they CANNOT speak on behalf of the corporations with the same protections given an individual speaking his own (not owned by corporate bribery) opinion.
 
The individuals can speak for themselves; however, they CANNOT speak on behalf of the corporations with the same protections given an individual speaking his own (not owned by corporate bribery) opinion.

Huh? Why not?
 
Please! help! Wont anybody listen to me? Soylent green is people!:shock::shock::shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom