Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 56 of 56

Thread: Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

  1. #51
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    That doesn't make sense.

    They are taxed because they are businesses, not because they are individuals, yet in the political landscape they are treated as individuals. This needs to change.

    You get taxed because you make income. I don't see how that equates to having the right to make huge campaign donations to sway political forces.
    Isn't this about placing advocacy ads and NOT campaign donations?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  2. #52
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    so the money can't be given to the politicians? the money gets spent directly on advertising and such by the donors?
    Yes.

    Prior to this decision, corporations could go out and conduct "voter education" or "issue advocacy" however they saw fit. The only limitation that was placed on them was a ban on "electioneering communications" (i.e. ads specifically advocating for or against a candidate's defeat) that were broadcast within 30 days of an election. "Electioneering" is incredibly narrowly defined, meaning that anything that could be interpreted as anything other than an explicit endorsement was perfectly fine.

    That meant that corporations could air an ad saying this:

    'VOICE-OVER: Sometimes it's just not fair to delay an important decision.

    " 'But in Washington it's happening. A group of Senators is using the filibuster delay tactic to block federal judicial nominees from a simple "yes" or "no" vote. So qualified candidates don't get a chance to serve.

    " 'It's politics at work, causing gridlock and backing up some of our courts to a state of emergency.

    " 'Contact Senators Feingold and Kohl and tell them to oppose the filibuster.
    all the way through election season without violating the law even one bit. They could also air ads saying "Vote for Joe Johnson," but not within a certain number of days before the election.

    In Citizens United, the court took the next logical step, saying that corporations could air ads even if they constituted electioneering, even within the 30 day period. The practical effect of the decision in terms of the amount of ads will most likely be minimal.

    What the decision also said is that the current laws banning any direct contributions from corporations to candidates are still completely valid, as are the laws requiring the organization broadcasting the ad to state its name at the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    It may not have been directly been about that, but it does effect campaign donations to some degree. I know they were thinking in terms of constitutional law (and by the law I would probably agree with their ruling), but I don't like the idea of corporations and unions being able to donate an infinite amount of money to a campaign.
    How will it affect donations?

    Again, corporations and unions are not able to donate an infinite amount of money to a campaign.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #53
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Yes.

    Prior to this decision, corporations could go out and conduct "voter education" or "issue advocacy" however they saw fit. The only limitation that was placed on them was a ban on "electioneering communications" (i.e. ads specifically advocating for or against a candidate's defeat) that were broadcast within 30 days of an election. "Electioneering" is incredibly narrowly defined, meaning that anything that could be interpreted as anything other than an explicit endorsement was perfectly fine.

    That meant that corporations could air an ad saying this:



    all the way through election season without violating the law even one bit. They could also air ads saying "Vote for Joe Johnson," but not within a certain number of days before the election.

    In Citizens United, the court took the next logical step, saying that corporations could air ads even if they constituted electioneering, even within the 30 day period. The practical effect of the decision in terms of the amount of ads will most likely be minimal.

    What the decision also said is that the current laws banning any direct contributions from corporations to candidates are still completely valid, as are the laws requiring the organization broadcasting the ad to state its name at the end.



    How will it affect donations?

    Again, corporations and unions are not able to donate an infinite amount of money to a campaign.
    Then I am for it....it will be refreshing to know i who is funding the
    information presented.....instead of just having the politician repeating the words of others who finance them.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  4. #54
    Guru
    BWG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South Coast
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Then I am for it....it will be refreshing to know i who is funding the
    information presented.....instead of just having the politician repeating the words of others who finance them.
    Oh, this decision wasn't made in a vacuum. Don't think for a second that these corporations or their lobbyists haven't been busy figuring out ways to cover their backsides.

    Since the entity or entities financing independent expenditures must be disclosed, a corporation leading the way against a particular candidate risks alienating a significant block of its potential customer or shareholder base.

    [...]

    If such independent expenditures are made, groups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny.

    K&L Gates : Newsstand : <i>Citizens United</i>: Questions and Answers
    “We just simply don’t know how to govern” - Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) a member of the House Budget Committee

  5. #55
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

    Quote Originally Posted by BWG View Post
    Oh, this decision wasn't made in a vacuum. Don't think for a second that these corporations or their lobbyists haven't been busy figuring out ways to cover their backsides.
    Oh, so you mean that corporations can do exactly what they have been doing for decades? What you're describing is not new.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #56
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Left and Right United in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    It's not enough that lobbyist can pay big bucks to influence legistlation but now thanks to the SC major corporations can "contribute" big bucks to directly from their own cauffers to any campaign race they want. Talk about captialism running amock!!
    I guess you missed the fact that the corporations are still banned from contributing to a campaign.... any campaign, this change in law only allows them to run political ads.


    Mind you, I don't have a problem with capitalism or individuals contributing to public campaigns as long as they aren't doing so while holding a prominate position of influence within a major corporation. But when you allow big businesses to make such direct contributions...now you've opened the door to all sorts of questionable ethical and perhaps even illegal practises. Not a smart decision by the SCOTUS at all.
    Again, all they can do is buy ads, not contribute to campaigns.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •