• 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

Vader said:
I never thought of it that way. Maybe it will. I just dislike business and politics being in bed with one another.

Maybe ... I just do not trust business ... or the government to be honest.
Click to expand...

It's a good suspicion to have. There is a problem for sure, but McCain-Feingold didn't address it. It did exactly the wrong thing.
 
The libs are in a uproar.

Schumer Calls for Hearings on "Un-American Supreme Court Decision:

The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday striking down limits on corporate and union spending in elections is "un-American," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday.

Schumer, a top Senate Democrat who formerly ran their campaign committee, said he would hold hearings on the decision in the coming weeks.

"I think it's an un-American decision," Schumer said at a press conference Thursday. "I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today."

More at link:
Schumer calls for hearings on 'un-American' court decision - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
 
This has been a tough ass week for the Liberals.
 
apdst said:
This has been a tough ass week for the Liberals.
Click to expand...

LOL, that it has.

Healthcare, cap and trade, global warming, McCain-Feingold, Republicans in Massachusetts, the TSA guy, mass chaos in the party......

House of cards.
 
PeteEU said:
And death to US democracy. So when is the new Senator for Bank of America going to take his seat?
Click to expand...

So, you think it's ok for George Soros, who isn't even an American citizen, can pump billions of dollars into American politics, through non-profit orgs, but American owned, operated and based companies shouldn't be able to do that?
 
apdst said:
So, you think it's ok for George Soros, who isn't even an American citizen, can pump billions of dollars into American politics, through non-profit orgs, but American owned, operated and based companies shouldn't be able to do that?
Click to expand...

Soros is a naturalized American citizen. Isn't that the same status that Arnold holds:confused:?
 
texmaster said:
Yes. He's a hard core liberal masquerading as a centrist.

This is good news that the government cannot stop companies from their right to free speech.
Click to expand...

It's not so much about left or right so much as it is about having a consistent philosophy beyond "SOMEONE DID SOMETHING THAT OUTRAGES ME THEY SHOULD GO TO JAIL AND BE KILLED."
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Taylor said:
Courthouse News Service

Good news for free speech advocates, bad news for liberals (and McCain).

Let's hope this ridiculous law continues to be gutted.
Click to expand...

It's a fair ruling, but it still doesn't bode well for the balance of power in politics.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Orius said:
It's a fair ruling, but it still doesn't bode well for the balance of power in politics.
Click to expand...

How do you figure? Big corporations are already able to spend as much money as they want doing whatever they want. The only difference is that now there aren't as many hoops to jump through in terms of organization.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Orius said:
It's a fair ruling, but it still doesn't bode well for the balance of power in politics.
Click to expand...

At least it helps to offset the power and election influences of unions, ACORN, etc.
 
RightinNYC said:
It's not so much about left or right so much as it is about having a consistent philosophy beyond "SOMEONE DID SOMETHING THAT OUTRAGES ME THEY SHOULD GO TO JAIL AND BE KILLED."
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a lot of things you can label him as. "Left" or "Right" isn't one of them. Vader's political lean is "Vader". If there's anything I'll give him is that he's consistant, he's just consistant in an extremely crazily chaotic way.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

RightinNYC said:
How do you figure? Big corporations are already able to spend as much money as they want doing whatever they want. The only difference is that now there aren't as many hoops to jump through in terms of organization.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't support the existence of those barriers out of matters of fairness, but those barriers did delay or prevent some corporations from donating. We all know that corporations have the most money, hands down. Now their ability to influence politics will be just that more effortless.

Erod said:
At least it helps to offset the power and election influences of unions, ACORN, etc.
Click to expand...

Those are organizations of the people. ACORN is non-profit so it subsists on subsidies and donations from private individuals; therefore their existence is more democratic. If people felt they served no purpose, they'd get no money.

Corporations exist to rake in profits and their influence on government does not help to balance democracy. They are the business sector gone wild and they don't give a toss about individuals.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Orius said:
Again, I don't support the existence of those barriers out of matters of fairness, but those barriers did delay or prevent some corporations from donating. We all know that corporations have the most money, hands down. Now their ability to influence politics will be just that more effortless.



Those are organizations of the people. ACORN is non-profit so it subsists on subsidies and donations from private individuals; therefore their existence is more democratic. If people felt they served no purpose, they'd get no money.

Corporations exist to rake in profits and their influence on government does not help to balance democracy. They are the business sector gone wild and they don't give a toss about individuals.
Click to expand...

Ah.

Corporations = evil; must have free speech suppressed.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Harshaw said:
Ah.

Corporations = evil; must have free speech suppressed.
Click to expand...

Oh yes... because I think there should be economic regulation, I am against freedom. :roll:

Don't you ever get tired of using the same black and white crap?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Orius said:
Oh yes... because I think there should be economic regulation, I am against freedom. :roll:

Don't you ever get tired of using the same black and white crap?
Click to expand...

Ever think you might advocate too much economic regulation?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

apdst said:
Ever think you might advocate too much economic regulation?
Click to expand...

I already said that the ruling was fair.

Just because it's fair, does not mean I have to like it.

Welcome to the world of what it means to be a moderate.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Orius said:
Again, I don't support the existence of those barriers out of matters of fairness, but those barriers did delay or prevent some corporations from donating. We all know that corporations have the most money, hands down. Now their ability to influence politics will be just that more effortless.
Click to expand...

I'm looking for specific examples of how corporations will be able to spend money that they couldn't have spent before. Every electoral goal that companies will be able to pursue now could have been pursued in a slightly different method under the old laws.

Does anyone actually believe that the campaign finance laws were what kept companies from pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into elections?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

RightinNYC said:
I'm looking for specific examples of how corporations will be able to spend money that they couldn't have spent before. Every electoral goal that companies will be able to pursue now could have been pursued in a slightly different method under the old laws.

Does anyone actually believe that the campaign finance laws were what kept companies from pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into elections?
Click to expand...

I suppose now the directness of the method will make it more transparent.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Orius said:
Oh yes... because I think there should be economic regulation, I am against freedom. :roll:

Don't you ever get tired of using the same black and white crap?
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, which is why I'm calling it out. :shrug: I mean, what would you call this syllogism: corporations have lots of money, therefore they will run politics into the ground . . . ?

Seriously, this is like Obi-Wan declaring "only the Sith think in absolutes!"
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
So, a businessperson should have no right to petition their government for redress?
Click to expand...

More than that, if business and politics "cannot EVER mix," then there can be no regulation of business.

But I'm sure he didn't mean that.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Harshaw said:
Well, yeah, which is why I'm calling it out. :shrug: I mean, what would you call this syllogism: corporations have lots of money, therefore they will run politics into the ground . . . ?

Seriously, this like Obi-Wan declaring "only the Sith think in absolutes!"
Click to expand...

We don't live in a free market society, and with good reason. I suggest you think about that.

Nothing is black and white. Not all corporations do bad things; not all corporations do good things. As I said, the ruling was fair.

Whenever rulings or legislation is passed that favors the corporate upper crust, it has wide spread implications. It's a simple fact that corporations behave like individual persons with a huge amount of money and resources. They have sway over the democratic process, which is not always a bad thing, but regulations don't exist because of those who behave.

This particular ruling doesn't mean much in the grand scheme, other than giving the nod to lobbyists to keep doing what they're doing.

Money does buy politics and that is simply a modern reality, which is why I am not jumping for joy about this.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Taylor said:
Courthouse News Service

Good news for free speech advocates, bad news for liberals (and McCain).

Let's hope this ridiculous law continues to be gutted.
Click to expand...
i fail to see how a corporation has a right to free speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom