vendur
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,250
- Reaction score
- 384
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Thanks for stating the obvious.
Given your prior post, you seem to be confused by "the obvious" .
Thanks for stating the obvious.
A group of people can't vote, they can only vote as individual persons. A group of people can freely associate and pool their money for a shared cause, be it to build the biggest pizza in the world or to elect a jackass who lies real good I fail to understand your confusion.
the biggest pizza in the world isn't going to effect which laws are passed, or how they get passed ect. Allowing the rich to influence elections in a country where he who spends wins is essentially allowing people to buy politicians and allows companies and the rich to dictate law. Our polliticians need to be working to do what is best for our country and for our people, but not their financiers.
The system before this only allowed the major media corporations to unduly affect elections. Now everyone has that right. Others can also enjoy the liberty of supporting their own candidates/issues without having to own a media empire. You do't see an issue with only the media having that power before? Some mix of fascism and aristocracy, replaced by good old capitalism.
Since large campaign contributions are expected to buy future favors and access to various politicians, to me it's nothing short of legalized bribery.
Until private funding is completely removed, replaced by governmental campaign dollars that are split equally among all candidates, only the rich and powerful will be able to afford public office. California was nearly saddled with a governor who literally used her own millions to try and purchase the office of governor. People who would be excellent public servents in state and federal legislatures are unable to run for those offices because they don't have million-dollar warchests until they find a benefactor who will finance them in return for future favors.
As long as people and corporations can buy congress, corruption will continue to run rampant, and congress will represent their interests over the interests of the people and the nation as a whole.
Dang, I have to agree with you 100%.
Can you show me where it says you have the right to use money to influence candidates and voting?
States can't ban or limit electioneering speech or spending by private parties....
they can limit direct campaign contributions though.
Dang, I have to agree with you 100%.
Let me know when you have to pay for it.
How can a state limit them?
If money is considered speech then these states have absolutly no busniss trying to restrict the 'speech' of anyone. Corporations just like NRA,GOA, planned parenthood, churches,unions, GLAAD and other group are an assembly of persons.That assembly of people are entitled to their other constitutional rights ,just like a church, unions, GLAAD, NRA, GOA, or any other group of people are entitled to exercise their other constitutional rights. Last I checked there is no one at a time clause in the first amendment or in the bill rights. Lib-tards seem to fail to understand that fact and the fact that corporations are groups of individuals and as a group of individuals they don't lose their rights.
The SC never said WalMart is a person, nor did they say banks are people. That is stupid BS invited by lib-tards because they can no longer restrict the rights that group.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that since the First Amendment (and the Court) do not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.[2]
snip..
The majority argued that the First Amendment must protect speakers with equal vigor and that the First Amendment does not tolerate prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Because corporations are groups of individuals, the corporate form must receive the same free speech privileges as individual citizens. Likewise, the majority argued that independent expenditures are a form of speech, and limiting a corporation's ability to spend money also limits its ability to speak.
Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people?
Or that the enumerated rights apply to organizations, as opposed to individuals?
Doesn't it seem odd to you that a corporation would have the right to spend tens of millions of dollars to influence many thousands of votes, but not have the right to vote itself?
We're in one of the places where you have to stand back and say, "wait a minute ... this **** doesn't make sense."
Free speech is not fascism.
Can you show me where it says you have the right to use money to influence candidates and voting?
"A corporation using corporate funds to pay for political speech does not necessarily allow for the views of individuals working for the same corporation."
True enough. When I worked in city government I had to join the union. I had to pay union dues. The union, in turn, gave vast sums of money to political campaigns that I strongly disagreed with. Is that the same? Or is that different?
Americans must pay taxes (well, half of us must). A significant portion of those taxes must go to public employees. Public employees must pay union dues. Unions must use that money to support liberal politics. Following the money, that means all taxpayers must provide financial support to liberal causes. Is that fair?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for election finance reform. Our political system shouldn't be up for grabs to the highest bidder. My problem is with the folks who only want to reform one side of the equation.
What in the world are you talking about? Do you even know?
WAKE UP CALL:
Regardless of whether you're a corporation or an actual flesh and blood human being, when political influence is determined by the largesse of one's bank roll instead of the sagacity of one's ideas, freedom of speech loses all value.
You'll actually find that most here who want campaign money limited include unions in their equations.
same way the federal government can.
( there is a public interest in mitigating quid pro quo behavior, which is why limits can be imposed on campaign donations.)
keep in mind that they can only limit direct campaign contributions... not electioneering speech/spending.
Citizen's United was a horrible ruling from an overly activist Supreme Court.
Yes, it's a horrible ruling that the leftwing coporate media are no longer the only ones to significantly affect election outcomes.
So how, pray tell, did right wing candidates get elected BEFORE CU set their investors free?