• 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

No where in the constitution are corporations allowed to finance campaigns for elective office.

More importantly, NOWHERE in the Constitution are people denied their freedom to associate...

...oh, wait, the First Amendment says the people HAVE the freedom to associate, and they have the freedom to petition their government, and it also says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Would you just look at that? Isn't it amazing? YOU mentioned the Constitution, and it got up and slapped YOU in the face.
 
Oh.

So, you're okay with the thought that people who own companies should be denied their freedom of speech, but you're going to whine the moon out of the sky if goonions were denied that freedom.

Hypocrite.
Sorry, I misread the question. I thought you were asking if I'd scream as loud if unions were allowed to pump money into campaign ads. My bad.

I don't think unions should have a voice in politics either. They are organizations created to promote workers rights not to promote political candidates.

I think people should "pitch in" (and when I use the word, what I mean is a "contribution", which, if you ever look the word up, you'll see that it embodies the word "voluntary". You use it as a euphemism to hide your desire for a TAX.) whatever they want to, as much as they want to, to only those candidates they want to support.
In a perfect world that would be preferable but in the real world, it doesn't work so well.

That's called "freedom". It's an American thing, I don't think you'll understand.
I don't think you actually understand it.

So, you're a socialist.
So you now you're going to expose your lack of intellectual honesty or your ignorance. Let's see which.

Since you've just finished insisting people pay a tax that will go to fund candidates they do not approve of, you're clearly not a libertarian,
Ignorance.

something further proven by your desire to deny people who own companies their freedom to engage in political discourse.
Intellectual dishonesty. Wow, you covered them both.
 
No, the voters are stupid because they chose Obama.

That corporations, which represent people, are allowed to represent those people by buying advertising, is a guaranteed First Amendment freedom.
since when do corporations represent people for political purposes? i've never seen a charter that details that.
 
Not at all. If I have individual rights, and then I try to do something else with a friend, suddenly we can't do what we separately would have done? Why?
I never said that. Another Strawman. Sheesh, how many times are you guys going to make up arguments?
 
No. The principle still holds. We vote out those who don't vote the way we want. No amount of corporate spending can change that.
You're living in a fantasy world or you're being disingenuous.

Reelection Rates Over the Years | OpenSecrets

If no amount of corporate spending can change the outcome of an election, which is what you're saying above, then why do corporations want to and do spend lots of money on politics?
 
No, the voters are stupid because they chose Obama.

That corporations, which represent people, are allowed to represent those people by buying advertising, is a guaranteed First Amendment freedom.
Corporations do NOT represent people, they represent corporate interests. You really are either completely hoodwinked or you're simply disingenuous, like any corporatist is when called out.
 
I don't think unions should have a voice in politics either. They are organizations created to promote workers rights not to promote political candidates.

Promoting workers' rights often requires promoting political candidates.
 
More importantly, NOWHERE in the Constitution are people denied their freedom to associate...

...oh, wait, the First Amendment says the people HAVE the freedom to associate, and they have the freedom to petition their government, and it also says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Would you just look at that? Isn't it amazing? YOU mentioned the Constitution, and it got up and slapped YOU in the face.
Your silly tactics won't prove nor improve your position.
A corporation is not an assembly, it is an entity ALLOWED to exist by the government, subject to rules which people are not subject to, they are taxed differently than people, their purpose is different than people, they are not mentioned in the Constitution because they are not granted protections that the people are (at least not until the SCOTUS started giving them protections almost 100 years AFTER the Constitution was written) because they are not people.

But keep on with your story telling, it is amusing.
 
I never said that. Another Strawman. Sheesh, how many times are you guys going to make up arguments?

So then corporations have all the rights of an individual. Thank you very much.
 
You're living in a fantasy world or you're being disingenuous.

Reelection Rates Over the Years | OpenSecrets

If no amount of corporate spending can change the outcome of an election, which is what you're saying above, then why do corporations want to and do spend lots of money on politics?

Corporations have an interest and let their opinions be known and help fund candidates that they like. People still have to choose their congressman and support how they vote.
 
Promoting workers' rights often requires promoting political candidates.
See right there, you've just had an epiphany without realizing it... I guess that actually means you didn't have the epiphany yet. Let me help you.

Why? To bribe or blackmail our government to enact laws that benefit some at the expense of others? Can a Union vote in an election? Can a corporation? Why not? Why can't 10 people get together and vote as an organization? Why can they only vote independently?
 
Yes. Apparently the people like incumbents.

What do you have against majority rule in free elections?
Because they are not free election. Districts have been jerrymandered and entities flood elections with money.
 
See right there, you've just had an epiphany without realizing it... I guess that actually means you didn't have the epiphany yet. Let me help you.

Why? To bribe or blackmail our government to enact laws that benefit some at the expense of others? Can a Union vote in an election? Can a corporation? Why not? Why can't 10 people get together and vote as an organization? Why can they only vote independently?


Do Unions and Corporations already do what the SC ruled on through 527's anyway, before the law was ruled on? Hell yeah. Only difference is that now they can't hide behind the donations to such groups.....


j-mac
 
So then corporations have all the rights of an individual. Thank you very much.
Huh? Try putting all of those posts together with your victory lap post above. :doh
 
Wow! You have a real misunderstanding of governments role in this country from this statement alone.


j-mac
So disprove my statement that you quoted. I'll wait.
 
See right there, you've just had an epiphany without realizing it... I guess that actually means you didn't have the epiphany yet. Let me help you.

Gee, thanks. You don't need to worry about me though, I know a little about union political activities, firsthand.

Why? To bribe or blackmail our government to enact laws that benefit some at the expense of others?

No. How about workplace safety laws? Union election laws? Federal benefits laws that affect union contracts?

Can a Union vote in an election? Can a corporation? Why not? Why can't 10 people get together and vote as an organization? Why can they only vote independently?

Why does this matter? What's wrong with a union saying "vote for this guy, he's good for union workers?"
 
Last edited:
Because they are not free election. Districts have been jerrymandered and entities flood elections with money.

So here's a crazy idea - let's fix gerrymandering. Sure beats giving the government the authority to decide certain messages are wrong and shouldn't be heard by the voters.

As for flooding with money - sorry, but that doesn't make it not a free election.
 
So disprove my statement that you quoted. I'll wait.


it's so simple, it's almost rudimentary. The people have inalienable rights, these are rights from God, not Government. So in that vein, the Government doesn't decide who to grant rights to, it can't.


Understand now?


j-mac
 
Huh? Try putting all of those posts together with your victory lap post above. :doh

Since when does a whole have less than the sum of its parts?

Nice try but that is a specious argument in regards to the subject.

Not at all. If I have individual rights, and then I try to do something else with a friend, suddenly we can't do what we separately would have done? Why?

I never said that. Another Strawman. Sheesh, how many times are you guys going to make up arguments?

So then corporations have all the rights of an individual. Thank you very much.

How do you like it?
 
Do Unions and Corporations already do what the SC ruled on through 527's anyway, before the law was ruled on? Hell yeah. Only difference is that now they can't hide behind the donations to such groups.....


j-mac

And you think this is any better? So now corporations can openly influence elections... and this is good for American citizens how? 527s should be outlawed as well. No one or no thing should be allowed to influence our elections beyond a vote. If you can't vote then you shouldn't have the ability to influence elections other than YOUR OWN VOICE. I believe this was the way our country was founded, it's the way our Constitution was written and it's the way it should be. Activist judges have changed those things by giving non-human entities a voice in our politics.
 
And you think this is any better? So now corporations can openly influence elections... and this is good for American citizens how?

Tell you what - if you think you can't handle hearing certain information, throw away your TV and don't read, just in case a corporate ad comes along. Don't tell me and the rest of the voters that we are too stupid to handle it.

527s should be outlawed as well. No one or no thing should be allowed to influence our elections beyond a vote. If you can't vote then you shouldn't have the ability to influence elections other than YOUR OWN VOICE. I believe this was the way our country was founded, it's the way our Constitution was written and it's the way it should be. Activist judges have changed those things by giving non-human entities a voice in our politics.

Except it wasn't. The First amendment clearly says NO laws abridging freedom of speech. That's it. Nothing about having to be a person, or vote, or any of that. You may think that's the way it ought to be, but it's not.
 
Last edited:
And you think this is any better? So now corporations can openly influence elections... and this is good for American citizens how? 527s should be outlawed as well. No one or no thing should be allowed to influence our elections beyond a vote. If you can't vote then you shouldn't have the ability to influence elections other than YOUR OWN VOICE. I believe this was the way our country was founded, it's the way our Constitution was written and it's the way it should be. Activist judges have changed those things by giving non-human entities a voice in our politics.


The light of disclosure always is better than behind the scenes....See, the real rub, maybe not with you, but with many liberals, is that Unions, and 537's Center for American Progress won't be able to work together anymore to hide this. And as for the CfAP, I'd like to see also what role they played in garnering Obama's foreign donations to his campaign....He refuses to release that info, I'd bet it is exactly the thing you are afraid will happen with this ruling already happening on the demo ticket.


j-mac
 
it's so simple, it's almost rudimentary. The people have inalienable rights, these are rights from God, not Government. So in that vein, the Government doesn't decide who to grant rights to, it can't.


Understand now?


j-mac
Obviously you have a basic misunderstanding of the Constitution and how corporations are created. Which is why you can't disprove my statement.

The Constitution doesn't grant any rights, it protects the right of citizens from the government.

Corporations are granted license to operate (i.e. exist). The government can go to any corporation and revoke it's charter, unlike a citizen (i.e. person).
 
Back
Top Bottom