• 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:
It's not a matter of who is selling. It's a matter of big business special interests flashing unimaginable large sums of money in front of a greedy politician who is willing to bend over and spread his/her cheeks to get it.
Click to expand...
And why would the big business interests do this? Is it because they are buying influence from a corrupt politician? Is there any way to prevent this, other than smaller and less intrusive government where the politicians have less influence to sell?
 
Diogenes said:
And why would the big business interests do this? Is it because they are buying influence from a corrupt politician? Is there any way to prevent this, other than smaller and less intrusive government where the politicians have less influence to sell?
Click to expand...
The real problem here is underlined.
 
American said:
The real problem here is underlined.
Click to expand...
True. But that's human nature in action, and IMO the only practical way to limit the damage is to give them less influence to sell. To me this means smaller less intrusive government and/or more transparency in government decisions. What do you think?
 
Cassandra said:
As I said, already, it can prevent people w/o the backing of moneyed interests from being on a ballot to begin with.
Click to expand...

The voters are choosing those "monied interest" candidates. They seem to like them. Why do you want to deny them their choice?
 
misterman said:
Really? Who is selling?

Seriously, buying votes is illegal. If a voter freely chooses to vote for someone based on the ads he or she saw on TV, that's democracy. You have no right to tell voters they are too dumb to hear certain speech just because you don't like it or think it's too much. Pretty simple concept.
Click to expand...

Squashing or drowning out the voice of the people isn't illegal anymore either. Doesn't make it right. Pretty simple concept.
 
misterman said:
Wrong, as has been amply demonstrated.

And irrelevant. The first amendment simply says there shall be no abridgement of speech. Nothing about the source of the speech.



I'm a lefty. I like Supreme Court decisions that make sense. If it makes you feel better, this decision will apply to unions too.
Click to expand...

And who is the Constitution written for, people or corporations?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I see nothing about the "Incorporated of America".
 
Coronado said:
So which corporations that you know of are buying votes? Be specific.
Click to expand...
EVERY corporation that has the desire to effect the law in their favor.

It works like this. Don't vote yes on that bill or I will drown the next election in negative campaign ads against you while flooding your opponent with positive ads. I might even buy up all the ad space in advance so you can't even run an ad on TV or Radio. :2wave:
 
NoJingoLingo said:
And who is the Constitution written for, people or corporations?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I see nothing about the "Incorporated of America".
Click to expand...

You seem to be struggling with something very basic.

The ruling is simple. Corporations, made of people, can run political ads any time they want. Just like MSNBC can run Olberman up to and during election day, or Fox can run Hannity. (Those are corporations, too.) It will also help to counterbalance the unlawful ACORNs of the world.

This ruling leveled the playing field for all parties. Nothing more, nothing less. It did not change the rules for donating to political candidates.
 
Last edited:
NoJingoLingo said:
EVERY corporation that has the desire to effect the law in their favor.

It works like this. Don't vote yes on that bill or I will drown the next election in negative campaign ads against you while flooding your opponent with positive ads. I might even buy up all the ad space in advance so you can't even run an ad on TV or Radio. :2wave:
Click to expand...

All of which can be countered with ads from the other side. You're giving too much credit to the power of these ads. (Kerry made it easy for the swift boaters by constantly mentioning his service, without going into the "other" part of his service.)

How about..."you'd better not veto this bill or we'll tell the world about Monica Lewinsky"? That kind of bribery concerns me far more, and it's why character is so vital in our candidates.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
EVERY corporation that has the desire to effect the law in their favor.

It works like this. Don't vote yes on that bill or I will drown the next election in negative campaign ads against you while flooding your opponent with positive ads. I might even buy up all the ad space in advance so you can't even run an ad on TV or Radio. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Yeah. This sounds just like all the hysteria when the "Assault Weapons" Ban was allowed to expire. "There's gonna be blood flowing in the streets!!!!!!!!"

What happened then? Nothing.
 
American said:
Yes, imagine Palin with a billion in her war chest, and from only one company. :lol: She could go ahead and buy CNN and we could watch her all day.
Click to expand...

dOh boy and then could I come over and watch your mind rot?:mrgreen:
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah. This sounds just like all the hysteria when the "Assault Weapons" Ban was allowed to expire. "There's gonna be blood flowing in the streets!!!!!!!!"

What happened then? Nothing.
Click to expand...

I believe it is the right of every commie stompin redblooded american to own a chi-com ak-47.

I am dead serious about this.

It's our most important right.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
At least you've formally declared that corporations are not citizens. Now on to personhood.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The First Amendment protects speech, not persons, not corporations.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Squashing or drowning out the voice of the people isn't illegal anymore either. Doesn't make it right. Pretty simple concept.
Click to expand...

Not, simple - absurd. How is "the people's" voice squashed by the speech of others?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
And who is the Constitution written for, people or corporations?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I see nothing about the "Incorporated of America".
Click to expand...

How many times do we have to go over this one?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
EVERY corporation that has the desire to effect the law in their favor.

It works like this. Don't vote yes on that bill or I will drown the next election in negative campaign ads against you while flooding your opponent with positive ads. I might even buy up all the ad space in advance so you can't even run an ad on TV or Radio. :2wave:
Click to expand...

That could apply to anyone. It could apply to a political party, or a rich individual. You gonna limit their speech too?

And it still isn't "buying" votes.
 
Harshaw said:
No one ever said they were. That's your strawman.
Click to expand...
Not a strawman, he asked how many votes they get and I noted that only citizens get a vote. Are citizens chairs? Are citizens cars? Are citizens people? :2wave:
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Not a strawman, he asked how many votes they get and I noted that only citizens get a vote. Are citizens chairs? Are citizens cars? Are citizens people? :2wave:
Click to expand...

So . . .

No one who doesn't get to vote is protected by the Bill of Rights?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Not a strawman, he asked how many votes they get and I noted that only citizens get a vote. Are citizens chairs? Are citizens cars? Are citizens people? :2wave:
Click to expand...

Nobody ever said citizens are chairs or cars or people. That's why it was a straw man.
 
Erod said:
You seem to be struggling with something very basic.

The ruling is simple. Corporations, made of people, can run political ads any time they want. Just like MSNBC can run Olberman up to and during election day, or Fox can run Hannity. (Those are corporations, too.) It will also help to counterbalance the unlawful ACORNs of the world.

This ruling leveled the playing field for all parties. Nothing more, nothing less. It did not change the rules for donating to political candidates.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you highlighted something I didn't say. Nor did I say Hannity or Olberman or MSNBC or Fox should have the right to spin "news".

Pick you battles a little better.
 
Erod said:
All of which can be countered with ads from the other side. You're giving too much credit to the power of these ads. (Kerry made it easy for the swift boaters by constantly mentioning his service, without going into the "other" part of his service.)

How about..."you'd better not veto this bill or we'll tell the world about Monica Lewinsky"? That kind of bribery concerns me far more, and it's why character is so vital in our candidates.
Click to expand...
Even though I just gave an example of drowning out the other side... read much?

Who are you quoting on the Lewinsky quote?
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah. This sounds just like all the hysteria when the "Assault Weapons" Ban was allowed to expire. "There's gonna be blood flowing in the streets!!!!!!!!"

What happened then? Nothing.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't eat those words after some time has passed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom