• 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!

Hillary calls for First Amendment o be repealed: Dems cheer!

Apples to oranges. Corporations are not a citizen, never were, never will be. I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas hangs one.

Best quote ever on citizens united.
 
From the ruling:


CU says everyone, without exception is entitled to First Amendment rights. That sounds fundamental to me. Would you propose a system where First Amendment rights were applied according to social status?

What would a repeal look like? I can't imagine a system were we were put into groups. ie group A = shut up, group B = say all you want, group c = can only talk through representative, etc.

No, the only fair way to apply the First is the way the CU establishes. That everyone is entitled to free speech regardless of there status as an individual, or in a group.

Corporations are not people, they lack intent, and they lack speech.
 
I love failed threads that are based on lies they are some of my favorite . . . has anybody shown where "hilary called for the first amendment to be repealed" yet?
:popcorn2:
 
Corporations are not people,
Sigh, not this meme again.

You and I are people.
We form an organization and incorporate it.
You and I are still people

they lack intent,

They all have intent, or they wouldn't have formed in the first place.

and they lack speech.

See point one. We can speak before we incorporate, we can speak afterwards. There is no requirement to have vocal cords removed when forming an organization.
 
But there are already limits on your speech, and yet the 1st Amendment is still operative, just as there are limits to the 2nd Amendment, etc. And limits on spending don't mean you cannot speak, or limit what you can say, just that there are limits on the amount you can spend broadcasting the message.

Yes, but those limits are applied to everyone. I have no argument against that. I am arguing that people cannot be put into groups and then have they're rights limited according to which group they are in.

That's disingenuous at best. The court spent a great deal of time discussing the Buckley decision and at one point declared that the "anticorruption interest is not sufficient." p41. So they discussed Buckley, point by point, and agreed with each point. So they did address the issue and very explicitly noted their agreement with the conclusion that if I give $10,000 to the official campaign it's potentially corrupting but if I give $500,000 or $10 million or $100 million to Hillary's dedicated but supposedly "independent" SuperPac, it's somehow not, and doesn't even give rise to the appearance of corruption.

I don't even know how to respond to that. You start off by calling me disingenuous, then proceed to agree with my point that CU did not make any corruption association. They simply called out Buckley.

A better analogy is you have a right to keep and bear arms, but if you want to fly, you'll have to leave your Glock at home, or at least check it with your bags below the plane. That's not a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and as many times as you claim otherwise, limiting speech directly intended to influence elections is not a ban on free speech, it's a limit, and the only question (in a big picture way) is whether that limit serves a legitimate purpose, preventing political corruption or the appearance of corruption.

You can still speak about the election, but your spending may be limited. That does not mean you've lost all your rights with regard to speech - it's an absurd assertion.

No, my analogy was the apropos one, we'll stick with it. If you want to make a Second Amendment comparison, it would be like saying we can bear arms, but we are not allowed to have ammunition. Or, yes, you can vote, but we get to put only one person on the ballot. You cannot claim free speech is still in effect when you proclaim that people can say what they want, but just not too much, and not during an election.
 
Sigh, not this meme again.

That's not what a meme is.

You and I are people.
We form an organization and incorporate it.
You and I are still people

That's true.

They all have intent, or they wouldn't have formed in the first place.

No, a corporation lacks consciousness and lacks intentionality. The only intentionality it might appear to have was actually the intentionality of some person. The corporation, itself, cannot express itself.

See point one. We can speak before we incorporate, we can speak afterwards. There is no requirement to have vocal cords removed when forming an organization.

That has nothing to do with my argument. A person can donate money to politics. Now they form a corporation. That person can still donate money to politics, nothing changed. But somehow you are trying to assert this to claim that the corporation can donate directly on people's behalf, something that doesn't make any sense.
 
That's not what a meme is.

Sure it is "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from one person to another in a culture" [Webster]

No, a corporation lacks consciousness and lacks intentionality. The only intentionality it might appear to have was actually the intentionality of some person. The corporation, itself, cannot express itself.

A corporation is an organization of people. Are you suggesting those people leave their consciousness at the door when they join the organization? No, they do not. All the attributes that people have, they still have after they form a corporation. If someone can express themselves before signing the papers, they can still express themselves after wards. You make it sound like incorporating performs some sort of magical transformation of people into non-people. I have incorporated several times. Never once have I woke up the next morning being anything other than myself, with all my rights intact.

That has nothing to do with my argument. A person can donate money to politics. Now they form a corporation. That person can still donate money to politics, nothing changed. But somehow you are trying to assert this to claim that the corporation can donate directly on people's behalf, something that doesn't make any sense.

Of course it makes sense. When you and I incorporate, we are the corporation, and the corporation is us. When our corporation gives money, it is doing so on our behalf. And since we are still people, the corporation gave money on people's behalf.

Your fourth sentence explains everything, and I agree with it 100%. Just because you are now a corporation, nothing changes, you can still donate money to politics.
 
Yes, but those limits are applied to everyone. I have no argument against that. I am arguing that people cannot be put into groups and then have they're rights limited according to which group they are in.

OK, but the idea behind repealing CU isn't to just reimpose limits on corporations with regard to political spending, it's to allow government to regulate spending on elections, and is broader than just the issue of corporations versus individuals (e.g. Koch Industries or Berkshire Hathaway versus Charles Koch and Warren Buffett).

I don't even know how to respond to that. You start off by calling me disingenuous, then proceed to agree with my point that CU did not make any corruption association. They simply called out Buckley.

They didn't simply "call out" Buckley - they examined the reasoning in Buckley and explicitly and unambiguously reaffirmed those findings, stated that the court AGREED with those findings in full and why. It's a minor point, but you were trying to imply that it wasn't the CU court who determined that e.g. $100 million to an "independent" entity creates no appearance of quid pro quo corruption. That's just not true - they explicitly raised the issue, discussed it, and directly, in their own words, affirmed the judgment of the Buckley court - independent expenditures do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of it. It's a core foundation of the decision - it has to be.

No, my analogy was the apropos one, we'll stick with it. If you want to make a Second Amendment comparison, it would be like saying we can bear arms, but we are not allowed to have ammunition. Or, yes, you can vote, but we get to put only one person on the ballot. You cannot claim free speech is still in effect when you proclaim that people can say what they want, but just not too much, and not during an election.

We can go back and forth on the best example, but the bottom line is all our 'rights' are subject to some limits, and the existence of limits on a right simply does not eliminate the right itself. It's easy to rewrite your last sentence: "You cannot claim you have a right to keep and bear arms is still in effect when you proclaim that people can bear arms, but just not wherever and whenever they want." Well, yes, you can - we have a right to bear arms, but it's limited in many ways, and the legal test is that government must show a sufficiently compelling interest to limit that right (e.g. State of the Union address, airplanes, nuclear facilities). The relevant question is whether limiting political speech serves a compelling interest or not. They say limiting independent expenditures does not, and that finding is predicated on the conclusion/assumption that independent spending does not create corruption or the appearance of corruption.
 
Sure it is "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from one person to another in a culture" [Webster]

A corporation is different than a person. That is a truism, not a meme.

A corporation is an organization of people. Are you suggesting those people leave their consciousness at the door when they join the organization? No, they do not. All the attributes that people have, they still have after they form a corporation. If someone can express themselves before signing the papers, they can still express themselves after wards. You make it sound like incorporating performs some sort of magical transformation of people into non-people. I have incorporated several times. Never once have I woke up the next morning being anything other than myself, with all my rights intact.

The consciousness does not become the corporation's consciousness- that argument is complete nonsense.

Again, i acknowedge that someone employed by an organization still has consciousness- that doesn't mean that the corporation, itself, is conscious.

Of course it makes sense. When you and I incorporate, we are the corporation, and the corporation is us. When our corporation gives money, it is doing so on our behalf. And since we are still people, the corporation gave money on people's behalf.

Your fourth sentence explains everything, and I agree with it 100%. Just because you are now a corporation, nothing changes, you can still donate money to politics.

Of course, but you can donate your own money, not a corporation on your behalf.
 
A corporation is different than a person. That is a truism, not a meme.



The consciousness does not become the corporation's consciousness- that argument is complete nonsense.

Again, i acknowedge that someone employed by an organization still has consciousness- that doesn't mean that the corporation, itself, is conscious.



Of course, but you can donate your own money, not a corporation on your behalf.

I don't know how else to say it. A corporation is people, and people make a corporation. A corporation is not some separate entity from the people that are in it. My corporations pay taxes on my personal tax returns. If my corporations break the law, I go to jail. When my corporations make money, I make money. When my corporations lose money, I lose money. A corporation is not a separate entity than the people in it; they are one in the same.

Somehow, you have this notion that a corporation is some sort of entity that can just exist on its own without people. I am not sure how to help you get past that. Even the simple definition of a corporation as being an organization of people doesn't have any effect. Well, let me leave it here: People can exist without an organization. An organization cannot exist without people.
 
Well put.

For me it's when one comes home in a body-bag, but that's a distinction without a difference.

Lol.....Libs want their monopoly back so bad.

Or do you think the UAW will fit in a body bag ?
 
I don't know how else to say it. A corporation is people, and people make a corporation. A corporation is not some separate entity from the people that are in it. My corporations pay taxes on my personal tax returns. If my corporations break the law, I go to jail. When my corporations make money, I make money. When my corporations lose money, I lose money. A corporation is not a separate entity than the people in it; they are one in the same.

Somehow, you have this notion that a corporation is some sort of entity that can just exist on its own without people. I am not sure how to help you get past that. Even the simple definition of a corporation as being an organization of people doesn't have any effect. Well, let me leave it here: People can exist without an organization. An organization cannot exist without people.

That's reasonable enough but i believe that still leaves us with disagreement over whether corporations should have the same campaign finance limitations (or, in this case, lack thereof) as citizens.
 
That's all completely irrelevant.

A corporation is not a person and cannot exercise rights. People may exercise rights who associate with that corporation. Any apparent intentionality on behalf of the corporation is actually the intentionality of the people who provided it.

On the contrary:

[Please review] “Are Corporations People?” in National Affairs by Carson Holloway of the University of Nebraska at Omaha. The concept of corporate personhood, he says, is not an invention of today’s conservatives. It derives from English common law and is “deeply rooted in our legal and constitutional tradition.”
William Blackstone, the English jurist who richly influenced the United States’ Founders, said that corporations are “artificial persons” created to encourage socially useful cooperation among individuals and are accorded certain rights so that they can hold property and have lives, identities and missions that span multiple generations. Early in U.S. history, many for-profit corporations were less important than the nonprofit educational and religious corporations that still produce the nation’s robust civil society of freely cooperating citizens.
If corporations had no rights of personhood, they would have no constitutional protections against, for example, the arbitrary search and seizure by government of their property without just compensation. And there would be no principled reason for denying the right of free speech (the First Amendment does not use the word “person” in guaranteeing it) to for-profit (e.g., the New York Times) or nonprofit (e.g., the NAACP) corporations.
 
That's reasonable enough but i believe that still leaves us with disagreement over whether corporations should have the same campaign finance limitations (or, in this case, lack thereof) as citizens.

Corporation and private campaign contributions currently have the same limits. I have no problem with that, and CU did not undo those limits. I have mixed emotions about the unlimited non campaign spending that CU allows for. On one hand, I have no problem with groups like the NRA or Green Peace spending all they want to address their causes. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be anything , with teeth, in place to assure that no hanky-panky is going on between those advocacy groups and individual campaigns.

I have this gut feeling that every super pac out there is crooked. And since there are certain donation list that don't have to be disclosed by super pacs, they are free to slide money under the carpet to their favorite campaign with a wink and a nod.
 
On the contrary:

[Please review] “Are Corporations People?” in National Affairs by Carson Holloway of the University of Nebraska at Omaha. The concept of corporate personhood, he says, is not an invention of today’s conservatives. It derives from English common law and is “deeply rooted in our legal and constitutional tradition.”
William Blackstone, the English jurist who richly influenced the United States’ Founders, said that corporations are “artificial persons” created to encourage socially useful cooperation among individuals and are accorded certain rights so that they can hold property and have lives, identities and missions that span multiple generations. Early in U.S. history, many for-profit corporations were less important than the nonprofit educational and religious corporations that still produce the nation’s robust civil society of freely cooperating citizens.
If corporations had no rights of personhood, they would have no constitutional protections against, for example, the arbitrary search and seizure by government of their property without just compensation. And there would be no principled reason for denying the right of free speech (the First Amendment does not use the word “person” in guaranteeing it) to for-profit (e.g., the New York Times) or nonprofit (e.g., the NAACP) corporations.

I'm familiar with the idea that they operate, legally, as a person in some respects. However; it would be nonsense to, say, give a corporation free healthcare if its income were below a certain level. Or to give a corporation more welfare based on how many children corporations it has. In the same vein, i do not understand how a corporation can endorse a candidate. In reality, the people who comprise the leadership of that corporation are the ones making the choice, but now they're spending someone else's money (the corporations). That's where it doesn't make sense for me to give them the same campaign contribution policies.
 
Corporation and private campaign contributions currently have the same limits. I have no problem with that, and CU did not undo those limits. I have mixed emotions about the unlimited non campaign spending that CU allows for. On one hand, I have no problem with groups like the NRA or Green Peace spending all they want to address their causes. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be anything , with teeth, in place to assure that no hanky-panky is going on between those advocacy groups and individual campaigns.

I have this gut feeling that every super pac out there is crooked. And since there are certain donation list that don't have to be disclosed by super pacs, they are free to slide money under the carpet to their favorite campaign with a wink and a nod.

Yup, i agree with all of this.

Perhaps we would be better served fighting for campaign finance reform, in general, rather than corporate personhood.
 
I'm familiar with the idea that they operate, legally, as a person in some respects. However; it would be nonsense to, say, give a corporation free healthcare if its income were below a certain level. Or to give a corporation more welfare based on how many children corporations it has. In the same vein, i do not understand how a corporation can endorse a candidate. In reality, the people who comprise the leadership of that corporation are the ones making the choice, but now they're spending someone else's money (the corporations). That's where it doesn't make sense for me to give them the same campaign contribution policies.

They have the same rights as unions in that regard.
 
All missing the point. It's not whether CU was right or wrong .The case was decided on First amendment grounds . Thus a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United would have to to repeal the First amendment.

No it wouldnt
 
The body-bag monopoly?



I doubt it.

You a Trump supporter?

Sure, I voted for Trump but a supporter ? That depends of-course, Im not into blind allegiance or hero worship.
 
Back
Top Bottom