Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain

  1. #11
    Conservative Independent
    DarkWizard12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Tyler TX
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 01:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

    It's funny how a corporation is a person but a fetus, which actually contains human dna, isnt.

  2. #12
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

    This is paramount to legalizing bribery and corruption.. congrats.
    PeteEU

  3. #13
    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: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    This is paramount to legalizing bribery and corruption.. congrats.
    This is the second time you've dropped into a thread on this topic with a nonsensical one-liner. If you weren't able to explain your stance after being challenged in the other thread, what are you bringing to the table here?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #14
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    See what happens when people irresponsibly report what the Supreme Court decided, and those myths are perpetuated by, oh, I don't know, an irresponsible President?

    But I'm sure Murray Hill will get some play out of this.
    I am not sure the president was adding to the "myths."

    "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." -President Obama

    This somewhat echos what 4 of the supreme court justices said in the actual court decision.

    "The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michi-gan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990)."

    "Going forward, corporations and unions will be free to spend as much general treasury money as they wish on ads that support or attack specific candidates, whereas national parties will not be able to spend a dime of soft money on ads of any kind. The Court’s ruling thus dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions—and the narrow interests they represent—vis-à-vis the role of political parties—and the broad coalitions they represent—in determining who will hold public office."

    "Unlike voters in U. S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled."

    So I am pretty sure he was not lying about the supreme court descision as some people like to say.

    This is a section from Justice Stevens section that relates to the OP:

    "In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."

    It is hardly black and white. There is a lot of controversy, even inside the supreme court on this issue.

  5. #15
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    This is the second time you've dropped into a thread on this topic with a nonsensical one-liner. If you weren't able to explain your stance after being challenged in the other thread, what are you bringing to the table here?
    Sorry but not curbing corporations access to "influencing" policy by direct money giving is legalized bribery and corruption.

    As for my stance.. it is pretty well know as I have stated it many times. Corporations/companies should not be allowed to finance in secret or in public any political campaign and should not be allowed to use corporate/company money to influence political campaigns. My stance is also there is far far far too much money involved in US politics.. it is not about politics any more but about making money for yourself and your friends. On this issue, European politics is far far superior than you yanks..we do not allow corporations to fund political campaigns, because corporations cant freaking vote.

    Politics is by the people for the people and corporations/companies are not people. People can vote, corporations can not. Hence any free speech issue is not relevant to corporations. Next will be that Churchs cant be barred from political campaigning (without loosing their tax breaks) .. mark my words.. that will be the next thing to fall if something is not done and I would wager you and other Conservatives would support that fully.. since the present rules hurt your base.

    This is a serious blow to US democracy and the consequences could be very well be very grave. This can not be stressed enough. But I would wager that if the justices did this, were "leftist", and the Republicans were against the ruling, then the right would be crying activist judges...

    I fully understand why you and your cohorts on the US right support this ruling. It means more money for your political cause, and that your money backers can use as much as they want in whatever way they want to hurt your political enemies.

    And if you seriously think that foreign entities dont influence your politics dream on. A freaking Aussie has been setting the political discourse in the US since 1996 when Fox News started to air. All it requires to avoid any legal problems now is to be registered as a business in the US.

    So congrats the US right, you have now near unlimited money.. who will be the first to sell out and become the Senator from Bank of America and the representative from the glorious Comcast Corporation?
    PeteEU

  6. #16
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    It is hardly black and white. There is a lot of controversy, even inside the supreme court on this issue.
    Yes, he was

    "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." -President Obama

    Its wonderful you think that Mr. Obama. Its not so great you're putting that right with your rant about the Supreme Court because its dishonest if not a flat out lie for what you're implying.

    This court decision in no way allows elections to be "Bankrolled" by corporations.

    At most, Corporations can now run Political Ad's. They can not givem oney directly to a campaign. So any notion of "bankrolling" an individuals election attempt is patentedly false.

    Travel expenses?
    Staff expenses?
    Appearances?

    And on and on. At most its corporations being able to put forth advertisements for a campaign, and even then it can't actually be "with" the campaign because the corporation has to do the advertising not giving moeny to allow the campaign to do it as they wish.

    This is not "bankrolling" elections. That's patently false. People upset people are saying Obama lied, or at the very least mislead, have no one to be angry at but Obama for using the words he used to try and make the boogyman bigger than it is.

  7. #17
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Read Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburgs, Justice Breyers, and Justice Sotomayors sections. They all partly disagreed.

    "At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining selfgovernment since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." - Justice Stevens

    I don't know if their decision is a "joke" because the majority of the court obviously had an appealing arguement as well. However, I am not sure it is as cut and dry as you make it to be.
    Yeah, I read it. How does that passage address what I said?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #18
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Sorry but not curbing corporations access to "influencing" policy by direct money giving is legalized bribery and corruption.

    As for my stance.. it is pretty well know as I have stated it many times. Corporations/companies should not be allowed to finance in secret or in public any political campaign and should not be allowed to use corporate/company money to influence political campaigns. My stance is also there is far far far too much money involved in US politics.. it is not about politics any more but about making money for yourself and your friends. On this issue, European politics is far far superior than you yanks..we do not allow corporations to fund political campaigns, because corporations cant freaking vote.

    Politics is by the people for the people and corporations/companies are not people. People can vote, corporations can not. Hence any free speech issue is not relevant to corporations. Next will be that Churchs cant be barred from political campaigning (without loosing their tax breaks) .. mark my words.. that will be the next thing to fall if something is not done and I would wager you and other Conservatives would support that fully.. since the present rules hurt your base.

    This is a serious blow to US democracy and the consequences could be very well be very grave. This can not be stressed enough. But I would wager that if the justices did this, were "leftist", and the Republicans were against the ruling, then the right would be crying activist judges...

    I fully understand why you and your cohorts on the US right support this ruling. It means more money for your political cause, and that your money backers can use as much as they want in whatever way they want to hurt your political enemies.

    And if you seriously think that foreign entities dont influence your politics dream on. A freaking Aussie has been setting the political discourse in the US since 1996 when Fox News started to air. All it requires to avoid any legal problems now is to be registered as a business in the US.

    So congrats the US right, you have now near unlimited money.. who will be the first to sell out and become the Senator from Bank of America and the representative from the glorious Comcast Corporation?
    ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    You said all this before; all of this was taken down before. Nothing has changed. You still have no freakin' clue.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #19
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    It was an incredibly stupid decision. The idea that a corporation is a person is a completely disengenous argument.

    What is hilarious is that the justices that bent and twisted every bit of logic to benefit their corporate buddies...are the same ones who always claim that the constitution is a static document and should be construed "Strictly".

    What a joke....and this is an example of why their decision is an utter joke.
    i agree completely.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  10. #20
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yes, he was

    "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." -President Obama

    Its wonderful you think that Mr. Obama. Its not so great you're putting that right with your rant about the Supreme Court because its dishonest if not a flat out lie for what you're implying.

    This court decision in no way allows elections to be "Bankrolled" by corporations.

    At most, Corporations can now run Political Ad's. They can not givem oney directly to a campaign. So any notion of "bankrolling" an individuals election attempt is patentedly false.

    Travel expenses?
    Staff expenses?
    Appearances?

    And on and on. At most its corporations being able to put forth advertisements for a campaign, and even then it can't actually be "with" the campaign because the corporation has to do the advertising not giving moeny to allow the campaign to do it as they wish.

    This is not "bankrolling" elections. That's patently false. People upset people are saying Obama lied, or at the very least mislead, have no one to be angry at but Obama for using the words he used to try and make the boogyman bigger than it is.
    I believe you honestly believe what you are saying here, otherwise I would accuse you of being disingenuous.

    Running advocacy ads is the most influential thing, and the most expensive thing, that a campaign does. Corporations are now going to be able to run those advocacy ads for the campaigns. To believe that the influence of corporations has not just ballooned as a result of this change is at least naive. There is a reason the practice was outlawed to begin with, after all.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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