• 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!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

Exactly. It puts everyone on equal footing. I know a few industries like insurance, banking, financial, automobile, oil, energy, and defense that are going to pour monies in to throw Obama and these Congressional socialists from office.
Where do I donate?
 
That's silly.

A church is a group that has a right to religious freedom. A newspaper is a group (usually a corporation too) that has freedom of the press. A political party is a group that has a right to freedom of speech. I could go on.
Both of those entities express the opinion of the corporation or church. Not of the individuals within. And both of those types of entities are specifically mentioned as having those rights in the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

One could argue that proselytizing is part of the practice of religion. Secondly the freedom of the press part is self evident.

Now one could go as far as pointing out that religion and press serve in some respect the common good.
Private corporations do not. They serve only the good of the shareholders.

You also mention political parties? - That's clever. It took some thinking to explain that.
Political parties represent the members wishes expressed for the betterment of society (according to them) and as such also serve the common good.

However the 1st amendment

The Constitution applies to everyone, not just citizens.
One would have to go back to the declaration of independance to answer that:
All men are created equal. (man being the species, not the gender)



False. Many many court cases over the years have found otherwise.
Which SCOTUS decisions? I'd be interested in reading the opinions.
 
WRONG.

This decision did not change the law that makes corporate and foreign contributions to candidates illegal.

Think about that for a minute.

In this global economy, where our mutuals, personal investments, are spread from the east to the west until they come back again and meet in the middle, how is this at all possible?

If "Super-American, Inc," donate s a zillion dollars to re-elect Senator John Wayne, and Super-America, Inc stock is mostly held by 3 American investment/holding companies, operating on 70% of Chinese investment, how can this not be influential in nature.

It's not slippery-slope. It's reality. I know for a fact that my investments are placed in places all over the globe. And I bet, and I hope, that whoever is on the other end of my money, are doing all they can, to influence in any way they can, anything that will benefit my investment. Why would the Chinese, or any other nation for that matter, not want the same?
 
Think about that for a minute.

In this global economy, where our mutuals, personal investments, are spread from the east to the west until they come back again and meet in the middle, how is this at all possible?

If "Super-American, Inc," donate s a zillion dollars to re-elect Senator John Wayne, and Super-America, Inc stock is mostly held by 3 American investment/holding companies, operating on 70% of Chinese investment, how can this not be influential in nature.

It's not slippery-slope. It's reality. I know for a fact that my investments are placed in places all over the globe. And I bet, and I hope, that whoever is on the other end of my money, are doing all they can, to influence in any way they can, anything that will benefit my investment. Why would the Chinese, or any other nation for that matter, not want the same?

I had to laugh once when a friend of mine said that Nokia was an American company....
 
The thread title is wrong too.

(Though actually it doesn't say anything about contributions anyway).

how would you have written the thread title?
 
I had to laugh once when a friend of mine said that Nokia was an American company....

Good point. Ever consider that it might be? If your's and my 401k's are heavily invested in a mutual that holds a good part of Nokia stock.....

Technically....... we own it. :rofl

Same goes for the Chinese. Is my madness starting to make any sense? :doh
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

My bank account?

Your bank account would be overseas, we're trying to keep our elections local...prevent foreign interests or monies from influence and all, you understand of course?
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

Your bank account would be overseas, we're trying to keep our elections local...prevent foreign interests or monies from influence and all, you understand of course?

Exactly. How are we going to keep our American corporations, operating on foreign capitol, from buying our politicians? Who's behind the corporate curtain? Some good ol' boy from St. Louis? Probably not. Most likely he's from Bejing or Dubai.

Is the message here that it is now acceptable for American companies to buy politicians but unacceptable for foreign companies to buy them?

What's "American" anymore? Any company big enough to afford political contributions is running on global dollars. Why would a company invest in a politician in the first place? Patriotic obligation? Sacrifice return for investment? Explain THAT to the stockholders. Got any ideas people? They BUY influence. And now, thanks to our legislative branch of the Supreme Court, it's ok to do so.

Where's the little lightbulb emoticon?
 
Last edited:
Both of those entities express the opinion of the corporation or church. Not of the individuals within. And both of those types of entities are specifically mentioned as having those rights in the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

So it's your argument that where it says "or of the press," it really means "or of media publishing corporations," and that where it says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it really means "or prohibiting the free exercise of a religious 501c3 organization by regulating its actions," but then that none of the rest of the amendment applies to anyone other than individuals?

Now one could go as far as pointing out that religion and press serve in some respect the common good.
Private corporations do not. They serve only the good of the shareholders.

Unless I'm mistaken, private corporations employ something like 80% of the nation. I'd say that's a fairly positive contribution to society. Regardless, that's neither here nor there, because the existence of a constitutional right is not predicated on whether the speaker is someone who is generally seen as advancing the common good.

You also mention political parties? - That's clever. It took some thinking to explain that.
Political parties represent the members wishes expressed for the betterment of society (according to them) and as such also serve the common good.

Which is exactly what interest groups like the NRA or ACLU do.

Which SCOTUS decisions? I'd be interested in reading the opinions.

First National v. Belotti includes a great survey of the law:

The Massachusetts court did not go so far as to accept appellee's argument that corporations, as creatures of the State, have only those rights granted them by the State. See Brief for Appellee 4, 23-25. Cf. MR. JUSTICE WHITE'S dissent, post, at 809; MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST'S dissent, post, p. 822. The court below recognized that such an extreme position could not be reconciled either with the many decisions holding state laws invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment when they infringe protected speech by corporate bodies, e. g., Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 (1975); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra; Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), or with decisions affording corporations the protection of constitutional guarantees other than the First Amendment. E. g., United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (Fifth Amendment double jeopardy); G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 353 (1977) (Fourth Amendment)....In cases where corporate speech has been denied the shelter of the First Amendment, there is no suggestion that the reason was because a corporation rather than an individual or association was involved. E. g., Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973); Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957). Corporate identity has been determinative in several decisions denying corporations certain constitutional rights, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 382 -386 (1911), or equality with individuals in the enjoyment of a right to privacy, California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 65 -67 (1974); United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 651 -652 (1950), but this is not because the States are free to define the rights of their creatures without constitutional limit. Otherwise, corporations could be denied the protection of all constitutional guarantees, including due process and the equal protection of the laws. Certain "purely personal" guarantees, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, are unavailable to corporations and other organizations because the "historic function" of the particular guarantee has been limited to the protection of individuals. United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698 -701 (1944). Whether or not a particular guarantee is "purely personal" or is unavailable to corporations for some other reason depends on the nature, history, and purpose of the particular constitutional provision.

[ Footnote 15 ] It has been settled for almost a century that corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886); see Covington & Lexington Turnpike R. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578 (1896).

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
 
Both of those entities express the opinion of the corporation or church. Not of the individuals within. And both of those types of entities are specifically mentioned as having those rights in the first amendment.

Yes. So the claim that groups can't have rights is silly.

Now one could go as far as pointing out that religion and press serve in some respect the common good.
Private corporations do not. They serve only the good of the shareholders.

It is not your job, or the government's, to decide what is the common good. If so, I could easily point to religions and media that don't do much common good.

You also mention political parties? - That's clever. It took some thinking to explain that.

I'll bet it did.

Political parties represent the members wishes expressed for the betterment of society (according to them) and as such also serve the common good.

You need to think some more.

Which SCOTUS decisions? I'd be interested in reading the opinions.

There are dozens. Lots listed here:

Timeline of Personhood Rights and Powers, by Jan Edwards et al
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

Exactly. How are we going to keep our American corporations, operating on foreign capitol, from buying our politicians? Who's behind the corporate curtain? Some good ol' boy from St. Louis? Probably not. Most likely he's from Bejing or Dubai.

We aren't. American corporations are American citizens whether using foreign capital or not. What are you saying, working or owning or being a shareholder of any corporation operating with foreign capital should be restricted?

Is the message here that it is now acceptable for American companies to buy politicians but unacceptable for foreign companies to buy them?

No. The message is it's now acceptable for any corporation, union, community organization, or 501c/nonprofit to buy politicians. And full disclosure of who is taking money from where allows the Constituents to keep track.

What's "American" anymore?

Americans and American freedom of speech.

Any company big enough to afford political contributions is running on global dollars.

But...unions, nonprofits, and community orgs like ACORN aren't running on global dollars and do have enough money? Please.

Why would a company invest in a politician in the first place? Patriotic obligation? Sacrifice return for investment? Explain THAT to the stockholders. Got any ideas people?

Stockholders......hey uh....yo. You over there losing your shirts under Obama, you listening? Captain America needs an argument why any of you would invest in say, a Scott Brown. He wants to know why you'd contribute to a Presidential candidate in 2012 who is Obama's opponent. The opponent of cap and trade. The opponent of carbon credits. The opponent of high taxes. The opponent of health care. The opponent of environment "greening" requirements. The argument to stockholders the oldest in the book, CA. Pay me now, or pay Obama later.;)

They BUY influence. And now, thanks to our legislative branch of the Supreme Court, it's ok to do so.

And we are taking that ok and gearing up. These corporations are gonna buy influence, they're gonna launch major artillery shells of cash to get this circus clown out of office. We're gonna buy everything and everyone in sight. Gotta go, Exxon calling.
 
Last edited:
Supreme Court Upholds First Amendment

please point out which American citizens had lost their right to free speech which you would have us believe had been restored
 
please point out which American citizens had lost their right to free speech which you would have us believe had been restored

When ACORN has the right to get involved in politics and Exxon doesn't, then Exxon has been stripped of the same rights that ACORN has been given.

Let everybody do it, or let nobody do it. There can't be an in between.
 
When ACORN has the right to get involved in politics and Exxon doesn't, then Exxon has been stripped of the same rights that ACORN has been given.

Let everybody do it, or let nobody do it. There can't be an in between.

LOL! When in the hell has EXXON not been involved in American politics???

They're neck-deep in American politics. And have been for decades. EXXON can spend more money in 5 minutes than ACORN can spend in 5 years.
 
that article said nothing about any citizens losing their right to speak freely

try again

Um, yes it does. Read it more carefully. You do know who the group is, right?
 
LOL! When in the hell has EXXON not been involved in American politics???

They're neck-deep in American politics. And have been for decades. EXXON can spend more money in 5 minutes than ACORN can spend in 5 years.

Good point. So now that we've agreed that they could do so before, why is there so much fear-mongering over this decision?
 
please point out which American citizens had lost their right to free speech which you would have us believe had been restored
Do you think the "freedom of the press" is only for newspapers and broadcast companies (usually corporations)? Or can other organizations also publish and broadcast their views?
 
Last edited:
Good point. So now that we've agreed that they could do so before, why is there so much fear-mongering over this decision?

Well I admit that over the last 2 days I've changed my mind. My original reading of this decision was that the flood gates are wide open now for more money to pour in. But I was wrong. The flood gates are already wide open. They've been wide open for years.

The court just gave the green light for corporations, unions, etc to do whatever they want right up until election day. The situation is just the same ol crazy spending spree it has always been.
 
Back
Top Bottom