Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

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

  1. #21
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

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

    And what of in-kind contributions from media corporations?
    “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

  2. #22
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    And what of in-kind contributions from media corporations?
    It's just astounding, the deafening silence which always follows that question.
    “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

  3. #23
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    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.
    Can you cite anything reputible.to support your assertions?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #24
    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
    And what of in-kind contributions from media corporations?
    How about from the courts decision. From Justice Stevens section, represent the opinion of 4/9 supreme court justices.

    "In critiquing Austin’s antidistortion rationale and campaign finance regulation more generally, our colleagues place tremendous weight on the example of media corporations. See ante, at 35–38, 46; ante, at 1, 11 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); ante, at 6 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). Yet it is not at all clear that Austin would permit §203 to be applied to them. The press plays a unique role not only in the text, history, and structure of the First Amendment but also in facilitating public discourse; as the Austin Court explained, “media corporations differ significantly from other corporations in that their resources are devoted to the collection of information and its dissemination to the public,” 494 U. S., at 667. Our colleagues have raised
    some interesting and difficult questions about Congress’ authority to regulate electioneering by the press, and about how to define what constitutes the press. But that is not the case before us. Section 203 does not apply to media corporations, and even if it did, Citizens United is
    not a media corporation."

  5. #25
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

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

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    How about from the courts decision. From Justice Stevens section, represent the opinion of 4/9 supreme court justices.

    "In critiquing Austin’s antidistortion rationale and campaign finance regulation more generally, our colleagues place tremendous weight on the example of media corporations. See ante, at 35–38, 46; ante, at 1, 11 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); ante, at 6 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). Yet it is not at all clear that Austin would permit §203 to be applied to them. The press plays a unique role not only in the text, history, and structure of the First Amendment but also in facilitating public discourse; as the Austin Court explained, “media corporations differ significantly from other corporations in that their resources are devoted to the collection of information and its dissemination to the public,” 494 U. S., at 667. Our colleagues have raised
    some interesting and difficult questions about Congress’ authority to regulate electioneering by the press, and about how to define what constitutes the press. But that is not the case before us. Section 203 does not apply to media corporations, and even if it did, Citizens United is
    not a media corporation."
    I read it. Nice little false appeal to authority with the "4/9 justices" thing. Doesn't address the question in context, being a matter of Constitutional rights being applicable to corporations or not.

    They are or they aren't, when you disparage "corporate personhood" in toto. The New York Times Corporation is no more a "person" than Lockheed-Martin.
    “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

  6. #26
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

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

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    How about from the courts decision. From Justice Stevens section, represent the opinion of 4/9 supreme court justices.

    "In critiquing Austin’s antidistortion rationale and campaign finance regulation more generally, our colleagues place tremendous weight on the example of media corporations. See ante, at 35–38, 46; ante, at 1, 11 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); ante, at 6 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). Yet it is not at all clear that Austin would permit §203 to be applied to them. The press plays a unique role not only in the text, history, and structure of the First Amendment but also in facilitating public discourse; as the Austin Court explained, “media corporations differ significantly from other corporations in that their resources are devoted to the collection of information and its dissemination to the public,” 494 U. S., at 667. Our colleagues have raised
    some interesting and difficult questions about Congress’ authority to regulate electioneering by the press, and about how to define what constitutes the press. But that is not the case before us. Section 203 does not apply to media corporations, and even if it did, Citizens United is
    not a media corporation."
    You keep pointing to the dissenting opinion as if it means anything..... they lost, they are wrong.... the court ruled and majority opinion is now law, get over it.
    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.

  7. #27
    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 American View Post
    Can you cite anything reputible.to support your assertions?
    Again, from the supreme courts decision, and Justice Stevens opinion:

    "The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it. Austin set forth some of the basic differences. Unlike natural perons, corporations have “limited liability” for their owners and managers, “perpetual life,” separation of ownership and control, “and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets . . . that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that
    maximize the return on their shareholders’ investments.” 94 U. S., at 658–659. Unlike voters in U. S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled. Unlike other interest groups, business corporations have been “effectively delegated responsibility for ensuring society’s economic welfare”; they inescapably structure the life of every citizen. “ ‘[T]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation,’ ” furthermore, “ ‘are not an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.’ ” Id.,
    t 659 (quoting MCFL, 479 U. S., at 258). “ ‘They reflect instead the economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no reflection
    of the power of its ideas.’ ” 494 U. S., at 659 (quoting MCFL, 479 U. S., at 258).72 It might also be added that corporations have no con*sciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not them*selves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

  8. #28
    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 Crunch View Post
    You keep pointing to the dissenting opinion as if it means anything..... they lost, they are wrong.... the court ruled and majority opinion is now law, get over it.
    That is a terrible position. Why would the court ever be able to overturn Austin if they took your viewpoint?

  9. #29
    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
    I read it. Nice little false appeal to authority with the "4/9 justices" thing. Doesn't address the question in context, being a matter of Constitutional rights being applicable to corporations or not.

    They are or they aren't, when you disparage "corporate personhood" in toto. The New York Times Corporation is no more a "person" than Lockheed-Martin.
    I answered your question in context.

    "And what of in-kind contributions from media corporations? "

    You changed the context now to the first amendment. Which there is plenty of evidence against from the dissenting opinions as well.

    Have I appealed to authority, sure I have, and it is true 4/9 have this opinion. Of course you are appealing to authority everytime you cite the 1st amendment.

  10. #30
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

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

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    That is a terrible position. Why would the court ever be able to overturn Austin if they took your viewpoint?
    A case was filed..... it was ruled on. If you don't like it, file a case. Siteing the loseing opinion isn't going to convince anyone of anything..... that opinion lost.
    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 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •