• 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!

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

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

They can create their own commercials and advertisements supporting a candidate which amounts to the same thing.
 
ludahai said:
Corporations are made up of people. So, when people are a part of a corporation, they lose free speech rights? The Supreme Court isn't there to be popular, it is there to interpret the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Amazing how many people still support the "right" of corporations to purchase politicians by running ads. It does make a good investment, as those politicians then will do the bidding of their masters, rather than the work of the people.

Interesting, too, how unions are mentioned as the bad guy, as if there is somehow a difference between one special interest or another purchasing political power.

Sure, you can have free speech too, if you can afford it. The cost? Well, if you have to ask, then you can't afford it.
 
Re: Left and Right United in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

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!!

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.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
Corporations are made up of people. So, when people are a part of a corporation, they lose free speech rights? The Supreme Court isn't there to be popular, it is there to interpret the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The people working at a corporation have the right to donate from their own personal funds and speak out at conventions and walk around their neighborhood singing the praises of whatever candidate that they like.

The corporation is not a person and money is not speech.
 
hazlnut said:
Question: Do the 18% who support the ruling know how many justices sit on the U.S. Supreme Court and can they name at least one?
Click to expand...

That's probably the 18% that CAN name three or more. The rest are morons that believed Obama's claims about the ruling.
Why are liberals so against free speech?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Amazing how many people still support the "right" of corporations to purchase politicians by running ads. It does make a good investment, as those politicians then will do the bidding of their masters, rather than the work of the people.

Interesting, too, how unions are mentioned as the bad guy, as if there is somehow a difference between one special interest or another purchasing political power.

Sure, you can have free speech too, if you can afford it. The cost? Well, if you have to ask, then you can't afford it.
Click to expand...

Do you really, honestly believe that McCain Feingold limited the money spent in campaigns? Seriously? All it did was create a shell game. Now that shell game is gone.
 
MrVicchio said:
Do you really, honestly believe that McCain Feingold limited the money spent in campaigns? Seriously? All it did was create a shell game. Now that shell game is gone.
Click to expand...

This is like saying the police shouldn't go after thieves because thieves will just get sneakier. :roll:

It is society's best interest to try and make sure that everyone has free speech, not just those who can afford it.
 
Re: Left and Right United in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

Objective Voice said:
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!!

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.
Click to expand...

Is Fox, CNN, or MSNBC not a big business? Do they not do exactly what you describe?
 
MrVicchio said:
That's probably the 18% that CAN name three or more. The rest are morons that believed Obama's claims about the ruling.
Why are liberals so against free speech?
Click to expand...

Please tell me this was a (rather pathetic) attempt at sarcasm?
 
TurtleDude said:
a more important question-at least to those of us who understand that the federal government is properly limited to those powers expressly delegated to it by the constitution ask

WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EVER PROPERLY GET THE POWER TO TELL CORPORATIONS HOW TO SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY?
Click to expand...

Conversely, where is the Constitution does it say that a corporation is a person, that the Federal Government has the right to recognize corporations as persons, and endow them with "unalienable" rights?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Amazing how many people still support the "right" of corporations to purchase politicians by running ads. It does make a good investment, as those politicians then will do the bidding of their masters, rather than the work of the people.

Interesting, too, how unions are mentioned as the bad guy, as if there is somehow a difference between one special interest or another purchasing political power.

Sure, you can have free speech too, if you can afford it. The cost? Well, if you have to ask, then you can't afford it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I like it, but where is the Constitutional basis to deny it? The Corporation is using its own earned profits. Unions use dues from members for political causes that many of its members may not agree with. This is a fundamental difference. I have not been one to argue against unions being able to express their positions, but their position IS fundamentally different.

So, are you arguing that the law should not allow ANYONE to have "speech" because not everyone can afford it?
 
ludahai said:
I didn't say I like it, but where is the Constitutional basis to deny it? The Corporation is using its own earned profits. Unions use dues from members for political causes that many of its members may not agree with. This is a fundamental difference. I have not been one to argue against unions being able to express their positions, but their position IS fundamentally different.

So, are you arguing that the law should not allow ANYONE to have "speech" because not everyone can afford it?
Click to expand...

Neither unions nor corporations nor money are people who deserve rights to free speech. If individuals want to contribute money for a specific campaign, then that's OK. If individuals want to sound off on the issues of the day, that's to be encouraged. If an entity like a corporation or a union wants to purchase political power, that is detrimental to the rest of us and is not OK IMO.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Neither unions nor corporations nor money are people who deserve rights to free speech. If individuals want to contribute money for a specific campaign, then that's OK. If individuals want to sound off on the issues of the day, that's to be encouraged. If an entity like a corporation or a union wants to purchase political power, that is detrimental to the rest of us and is not OK IMO.
Click to expand...

Then change the Constitution though the legal process. Is there anything in the Constitution that denies them this right? No, there isn't. Also, the law recognizes registered corporations as legal person entities.
 
danarhea said:
Conversely, where is the Constitution does it say that a corporation is a person, that the Federal Government has the right to recognize corporations as persons, and endow them with "unalienable" rights?
Click to expand...

that isn't the issue

if the federal government has not the proper power that means people can do what they want

ever heard of the right of association?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Amazing how many people still support the "right" of corporations to purchase politicians by running ads. It does make a good investment, as those politicians then will do the bidding of their masters, rather than the work of the people.

Interesting, too, how unions are mentioned as the bad guy, as if there is somehow a difference between one special interest or another purchasing political power.

Sure, you can have free speech too, if you can afford it. The cost? Well, if you have to ask, then you can't afford it.
Click to expand...

Yea, because it's the amount of money being spend on commercials that's really influencing Congress.

Lobbying Database | OpenSecrets
 
My main issue is the same one that is in Canadian law, the law that says corporations are persons and behave as people within the legal system. I think this is the biggest mistake ever made. It places the rights of groups of people over the rights of the individual, and in the case of corporate giants, it gives them the power of entire States due to their huge finances.
 
This was such a terrible ruling. It's nice to see both liberals and conservatives uniting against this. Our government is corrupt enough (both parties), we don't need big business and unions buying special legislation via campaign donations.
 
So, those who oppose the new ruling won't be taking any of the new money when it gets offered to them?:shock:
 
digsbe said:
This was such a terrible ruling. It's nice to see both liberals and conservatives uniting against this. Our government is corrupt enough (both parties), we don't need big business and unions buying special legislation via campaign donations.
Click to expand...

For the hundredth time, this decision had nothing to do with campaign donations.
 
RightinNYC said:
For the hundredth time, this decision had nothing to do with campaign donations.
Click to expand...

so the money can't be given to the politicians? the money gets spent directly on advertising and such by the donors?
 
RightinNYC said:
For the hundredth time, this decision had nothing to do with campaign donations.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Orion said:
My main issue is the same one that is in Canadian law, the law that says corporations are persons and behave as people within the legal system. I think this is the biggest mistake ever made. It places the rights of groups of people over the rights of the individual, and in the case of corporate giants, it gives them the power of entire States due to their huge finances.
Click to expand...

so what?

if people don't want corporations participating in elections then politicians shouldn't tax and regulate corporations
 
TurtleDude said:
so what?

if people don't want corporations participating in elections then politicians shouldn't tax and regulate corporations
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom