• 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

A) In other words, it does not keep people off the ballot. You declaring that it would is nothing more than useless hyperbole.

B) As has been described by articles upthread, this ruling will not have any noticeable change in the money involved in political campaigns.

C) I'm glad of anything that keeps people with views similar to that of Ralph Nader from running a viable campaign.

You were rolling with A and B, but then you had to throw in C. It doesn't help, does it?
 
It's really not going to benefit anyone that much. Most corporations don't want to go spending their money on political ads, and they could already do that anyway, just obliquely. The impact of this decision is overblown. The law it overturned was only 20 years old anyway, it's not like it's some kind of radical change (contrary to the crap you hear about it overturning "100 years" of precedent).

As I have said before, I agree that it won't make a really bad situation all that much worse. I am sure they would prefer to exert influence w/o having their brand name revealed.
 
A) In other words, it does not keep people off the ballot. You declaring that it would is nothing more than useless hyperbole.

I am not the only one. You better take that up with Newt Gingrich who has opined that this is a great victory for non-incumbents -the individuals who can muster support from those that have money- corporations. Of course, they always toss in unions as though unions had parity with corporations in the ability to spend $$$ to influence elections.
C) I'm glad of anything that keeps people with views similar to that of Ralph Nader from running a viable campaign.

Well that is a revealing comment. I guess you are the one happy to have some voices stifled.
 
Of course, they always toss in unions as though unions had parity with corporations in the ability to spend $$$ to influence elections.

Ha.

Well that is a revealing comment. I guess you are the one happy to have some voices stifled.

Don't flatter yourself - you're talking about stifling voices because you don't like them too.
 
Ha.



Don't flatter yourself - you're talking about stifling voices because you don't like them too.


I am all for fairness. You are not. You cannot allow such lopsided power to influence politicians and elections and expect that at the end of the day they will represent the Individuals not corporations that got them there. As one of my heroins, Molly Ivins, was fond of saying; "you gotta dance with the one that brought you!"
 
I am all for fairness. You are not. You cannot allow such lopsided power to influence politicians and elections and expect that at the end of the day they will represent the Individuals not corporations that got them there. As one of my heroins, Molly Ivins, was fond of saying; "you gotta dance with the one that brought you!"

Do you feel that, in the face of advertising campaigns and media bombardment, people are incapable of making a sound decision on who to vote for?
 
Do you feel that, in the face of advertising campaigns and media bombardment, people are incapable of making a sound decision on who to vote for?
Do you believe that advertising works?

Citizens have challenged corporate power in the past and I think they will do so again. Prior to the 17th amendment, corporations were basically buying senators

I think there may be a popular movement to urge for a constitutional amendment to clarify the status of corporate personhood.

There is also a strong logical argument for legislation that says that if a corp. does business with federal government it cannot spend money to influence elections. So that would include industries w defense contractors, big Pharma, the insurance industry, and many others who have contracts or subsidies.
 
I am not the only one. You better take that up with Newt Gingrich who has opined that this is a great victory for non-incumbents -the individuals who can muster support from those that have money- corporations. Of course, they always toss in unions as though unions had parity with corporations in the ability to spend $$$ to influence elections.


Well that is a revealing comment. I guess you are the one happy to have some voices stifled.
Is English not your first language? You said only corporate money can get people on the ballot, which is bull**** because most people can afford the filing fees. Even dip****s like Ralph Nader, and more power to him if he wants to be on a ballot and raise as much money from as many idiots as he can. He can make all the speeches he wants and buy all the commercials he can afford. But not with my money and I hope with nobody else's.

Now, before you choose to post again, please learn to ****ing read the English language. Thanks.
 
You were rolling with A and B, but then you had to throw in C. It doesn't help, does it?
It only makes sense that she gets all wet over Nader and Ivins. Probably she has a thing for LaRouche, too.

It's a shame.
 
Do you believe that advertising works?

Citizens have challenged corporate power in the past and I think they will do so again. Prior to the 17th amendment, corporations were basically buying senators.

I believe that advertising sometimes has the opposite effect. And furthermore, without the force of government, corporate power is nothing. Corporations would not even exist without manipulation of the market through exhaustive policies and regulations.

I think there may be a popular movement to urge for a constitutional amendment to clarify the status of corporate personhood..

that's a can o' worms that also happens to be a degredation of freedom of the press. Most, I think, would oppose ceding such power to Washington.

There is also a strong logical argument for legislation that says that if a corp. does business with federal government it cannot spend money to influence elections. So that would include industries w defense contractors, big Pharma, the insurance industry, and many others who have contracts or subsidies.

Why not just cut to the chase and remove the incentive for such entities to bother rent-seeking in the first place? Why not simply push for a limitation to the power of the government to manipulate markets? As long as legislators have this ability, entities will seek to buy off legislators to affect policy either in their favor or to stifle competitors. Any law restricting corporations is going to be riddled with loopholes... why would you trust the very people who are so easily bought off by corporations to effect any serious limitation in the process? They will only pass law that serves to pick and choose among various outlets of information--those that suit their own re-elections.
 
Last edited:
? You disagree with that analysis? Good grief

It was hardly an analysis, but yes, I disagree. Union money is probably behind corporate money, but not by much.
 
I believe that advertising sometimes has the opposite effect.
Any data on that?

that's a can o' worms that also happens to be a degredation of freedom of the press. Most, I think, would oppose ceding such power to Washington.
Sorry, I fail to see how defining the rights delineated in the constitution as meant for people not corporations cedes power to Washington. I would say that it helps to cede power to citizens.
Why not just cut to the chase and remove the incentive for such entities to bother rent-seeking in the first place? Why not simply push for a limitation to the power of the government to manipulate markets? As long as legislators have this ability, entities will seek to buy off legislators to affect policy either in their favor or to stifle competitors. Any law restricting corporations is going to be riddled with loopholes... why would you trust the very people who are so easily bought off by corporations to effect any serious limitation in the process? They will only pass law that serves to pick and choose among various outlets of information--those that suit their own re-elections.
Hmm, I think that many of our elected officials are extremely unhappy with a situation that forces them to spend two days out of every work week raising money rather than doing the people's business. Judging from the Abramoff scandal there are certainly people whose minds are twisted by the flow of money. NOt all, though.

But in general, meaningful changes have to come from the bottom up. There is every reason why libertarians and progressives should make common cause to work toward financial/electoral changes that would break the back of the two party system.
 
Do you believe that advertising works?

So you believe the voters are not qualified to make an informed decision without the government deciding what political ads they can view.

Wow. Think about that.
 
It was hardly an analysis, but yes, I disagree. Union money is probably behind corporate money, but not by much.

If G.E.- just one company- chose to spend 10% of its yearly profits, it would have 8.5 Billion to play with: many,many more times than the Obama, McCain campaigns and all the House and Senate seats combined.
 
Is English not your first language? You said only corporate money can get people on the ballot, which is bull**** because most people can afford the filing fees. Even dip****s like Ralph Nader, and more power to him if he wants to be on a ballot and raise as much money from as many idiots as he can. He can make all the speeches he wants and buy all the commercials he can afford. But not with my money and I hope with nobody else's.

Now, before you choose to post again, please learn to ****ing read the English language. Thanks.

Apparently, I should not have assumed that it was obvious to everyone that no one would choose to put their name on a ballot who does not have a strategy to raise large wadges of cash. I don't live in some fantasy world where it is enough to just put a name on a ballot.
 
If G.E.- just one company- chose to spend 10% of its yearly profits, it would have 8.5 Billion to play with: many,many more times than the Obama, McCain campaigns and all the House and Senate seats combined.

Cassandra, GE could already spend as much as it wanted on political ads before this decision. It just had to pretend it wasn't political by avoiding words like "vote for." That's it. Nothing has really changed.

But if you think GE is eager to spend 10%, or even 0.1%, on political ads, you should think again.

In any event, the voters aren't idiots, and they can make informed decisions even if there are some ads thrown in their faces - which would probably backfire anyway as they got sick of the ads and questioned their motivation.

You don't think voters are idiots who need to be protected from hearing certain messages or getting too much information, do you? Do you?
 
Do you believe that advertising works?

How can anyone deny it.

Hope and Change. Change we can believe in. Yes, we can.

It's clear a nearly trillion dollar advertising campaign just got an inexperienced bumbling backtracking jester into the Oval Office, of course advertising works.

Who did you vote for Cassandra? How can anyone on this forum deny advertising works, look to some of the posts in here. Advertising swallowed hook, link, and sinker on a daily basis.:cool:
 
I am not the only one. You better take that up with Newt Gingrich who has opined that this is a great victory for non-incumbents -the individuals who can muster support from those that have money- corporations. Of course, they always toss in unions as though unions had parity with corporations in the ability to spend $$$ to influence elections..

And as was pointed out to you pages ago, UNIONS SPEND MORE THAN CORPORATIONS.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ng-political-campaigns-17.html#post1058514838

If you're continuing to pretend otherwise, then you're being deliberately disingenuous.

If G.E.- just one company- chose to spend 10% of its yearly profits, it would have 8.5 Billion to play with: many,many more times than the Obama, McCain campaigns and all the House and Senate seats combined.

And if Obama chose to nuke the world, we'd all be dead! Those two events have roughly the same likelihood of occurring.

Again, if GE wanted to spend 8.5B on politics, they could have done so already. You keep on pretending that this isn't the case.
 
Apparently, I should not have assumed that it was obvious to everyone that no one would choose to put their name on a ballot who does not have a strategy to raise large wadges of cash. I don't live in some fantasy world where it is enough to just put a name on a ballot.
Then do not engage in hyperbole. You were running around saying that people wouldn't be able to get on the ballot now that corporate money could be spent. I showed you how wrong that was. Save the Chicken Little act for the Ralph Nader rallies.
 
You don't think voters are idiots who need to be protected from hearing certain messages or getting too much information, do you? Do you?
You keep saying this. I am the last person on the block advocating "cover your ears". Hey I voluntarily engage in debate on a starboard leaning forum like this to try to understand why people I disagree with, think the way they do. I have also seen what happens when one point of view drowns out other points of view. Last time H.C. reform was under consideration, BiG Pharma and the Health Insurance Assoc. of America spent up to 20 million to defeat it- I am sure you remember the Harry and Louise ads. Why do you suppose that Obama made this concession, now? Do you think maybe he hoped not to buy their cooperation?


Obama gives powerful drug lobby a seat at healthcare table
The pharmaceutical industry, once condemned by the president as a source of healthcare problems, has become a White House partner.

August 04, 2009|Tom Hamburger L.A.Times

WASHINGTON — As a candidate for president, Barack Obama lambasted drug companies and the influence they wielded in Washington. He even ran a television ad targeting the industry's chief lobbyist, former Louisiana congressman Billy Tauzin, and the role Tauzin played in preventing Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices.

Since the election, Tauzin has morphed into the president's partner. He has been invited to the White House half a dozen times in recent months. There, he says, he eventually secured an agreement that the administration wouldn't try to overturn the very Medicare drug policy that Obama had criticized on the campaign trail.

It was important, he said, to block the threat of Medicare price negotiations, which he called tantamount to price-setting and a threat to the industry. In addition, Tauzin said the industry asked the administration not to allow the import of cheaper drugs because of safety concerns.


So this ruling doesn't change much - that is true- the problem is the system is already corrupted and this ruling just opens the door a little further.
 
How can anyone deny it.

Hope and Change. Change we can believe in. Yes, we can.

It's clear a nearly trillion dollar advertising campaign just got an inexperienced bumbling backtracking jester into the Oval Office, of course advertising works.

Who did you vote for Cassandra? How can anyone on this forum deny advertising works, look to some of the posts in here. Advertising swallowed hook, link, and sinker on a daily basis.:cool:

Absolutely true- Just the way Bush was going to bring the country together and promised not to engage in nation building.
 
You keep saying this. I am the last person on the block advocating "cover your ears".

I didn't say that - you're trying to cover everyone else's ears.

I have also seen what happens when one point of view drowns out other points of view. Last time H.C. reform was under consideration, BiG Pharma and the Health Insurance Assoc. of America spent up to 20 million to defeat it- I am sure you remember the Harry and Louise ads. Why do you suppose that Obama made this concession, now? Do you think maybe he hoped not to buy their cooperation?

Tough. That's free speech!

Do you think there should be limits on the amount of speech everyone should have? A dollar amount for everyone? Political parties, wealthy individuals, etc?

So this ruling doesn't change much - that is true- the problem is the system is already corrupted and this ruling just opens the door a little further.

Speech isn't corruption.
 
Back
Top Bottom