• 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

reefedjib said:
No, they said the First Amendment applies to either individuals or groups of individuals.
Click to expand...

Symbolism. In other words how can you use a symbol to replace people? It's full of pot holes. It's like using soylent green for people.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Symbolism. In other words how can you use a symbol to replace people? It's full of pot holes. It's like using soylent green for people.
Click to expand...

So, your assertion is that a group of people do not have freedom of speech? That a group of people do not have freedom of the press?
 
reefedjib said:
So, your assertion is that a group of people do not have freedom of speech? That a group of people do not have freedom of the press?
Click to expand...

They have no input in how the company is run. They can vote out the ceos every year or sell their stock but they have no direct control over what the companies do, be it good or evil.

What's to keep china from using a sock puppet corporation to come in and destroy our country?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
They have no input in how the company is run. They can vote out the ceos every year or sell their stock but they have no direct control over what the companies do, be it good or evil.

What's to keep china from using a sock puppet corporation to come in and destroy our country?
Click to expand...

As you surely know, but I will repeat, the first amendment states:
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.
Click to expand...

There is nothing that declares those rights to be individual rights.

That this applies to a corporation involved in economic activity is beside the point and doesn't matter. That a corporations management team is the people that determine a companies message doesn't matter.

Nothing is preventing china from spending money in the US for elections. I don't know about "destroying" our country. I think we can withstand a media barrage of their opinion. This "problem" has nothing to do with whether companies have protected speech.
 
Justice Stevens was eloquent - and correct - in his dissenting view:
“The majority blazes through our precedents,” he wrote, “overruling or disavowing a body of case law” that included seven decisions.
Click to expand...
“Such an assumption,” he wrote, “would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by ‘Tokyo Rose’ during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders.”
Click to expand...
and his coup de grâce:
“While American democracy is imperfect,” he wrote, “few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
Click to expand...
the man has acquired a lifetime of wisdom in his almost 90 years. too bad the majority members of the court are unworthy to appreciate it

Sidebar - Justice John Paul Stevens Voices Frustration With Recent Decisions of Supreme Court - Series - NYTimes.com
 
reefedjib said:
As you surely know, but I will repeat, the first amendment states:


There is nothing that declares those rights to be individual rights.

That this applies to a corporation involved in economic activity is beside the point and doesn't matter. That a corporations management team is the people that determine a companies message doesn't matter.

Nothing is preventing china from spending money in the US for elections. I don't know about "destroying" our country. I think we can withstand a media barrage of their opinion. This "problem" has nothing to do with whether companies have protected speech.
Click to expand...


Try "We the People" in the preamble. the enumerations are in the constitution to back up and support the preamble.


I read press and people in the amendment but I don't see corporations.

How can we withstand a media barrage when we don't know it's them that are doing it?

The power of advertising is awesome. Example: "What are you, some kind of rodeo clown" Do you know what commercial that is from. Remember "Where's the beef?". Close your eyes and think about all of the brainwashing commercials running around in your head. Hey man, how about the green stupid lizard in the geico commercials. I would love to smash him. :smash:
 
“The majority blazes through our precedents,” he wrote, “overruling or disavowing a body of case law” that included seven decisions.
Click to expand...

This is not necessarily a bad thing. This can be a good thing.

“Such an assumption,” he wrote, “would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by ‘Tokyo Rose’ during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders.”
Click to expand...

I think that is fair. She did not incite the overthrow of our government nor create a clear and present danger. Her speech should be protected.

“While American democracy is imperfect,” he wrote, “few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
Click to expand...

What is the problem with a dearth of corporate money in politics? It is going to happen either on top of the table or under the table regardless.


the man has acquired a lifetime of wisdom in his almost 90 years. too bad the majority members of the court are unworthy to appreciate it
Click to expand...

This does not make him right.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Try "We the People" in the preamble. the enumerations are in the constitution to back up and support the preamble.


I read press and people in the amendment but I don't see corporations.

How can we withstand a media barrage when we don't know it's them that are doing it?

The power of advertising is awesome. Example: "What are you, some kind of rodeo clown" Do you know what commercial that is from. Remember "Where's the beef?". Close your eyes and think about all of the brainwashing commercials running around in your head. Hey man, how about the green stupid lizard in the geico commercials. I would love to smash him. :smash:
Click to expand...

We the people does not specify individuals.

The term "press" in the First Amendment does not refer to companies engaged in the business of publishing. It refers to the act of publishing.

You withstand a media barrage by educating yourself, same as always.

Oh yeah, love the graphic!
 
reefedjib said:
We the people does not specify individuals.

The term "press" in the First Amendment does not refer to companies engaged in the business of publishing. It refers to the act of publishing.

You withstand a media barrage by educating yourself, same as always.

Oh yeah, love the graphic!
Click to expand...

You are talking about a majority of people who would rather watch reality shows, american idol, or the play offs rather than a presidential speech. It's a scary thing.

Well, I enjoyed talking to you but it's time to recharge my batteries.:surrender
 
phattonez said:
You're just being blatantly ignorant of the spirit of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Nope, don't think so. What's this spirit of the constitution, by the way? You have a link?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
You are talking about a majority of people who would rather watch reality shows, american idol, or the play offs rather than a presidential speech. It's a scary thing.

Well, I enjoyed talking to you but it's time to recharge my batteries.:surrender
Click to expand...

It is a scary thing. Of course, that speech sucked, so it's more of the same. Oh yeah, NOW jobs are a priority. jeez.

Nice to talk to you, too.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
They have no input in how the company is run. They can vote out the ceos every year or sell their stock but they have no direct control over what the companies do, be it good or evil.
Click to expand...
Do you think we U.S. citizens have any input on how the United States is run?

I am on the fence with this decision. I don't like heavy regulation of corporations. On the other hand, I can see potential problems in this. Corporations have all the money. If for whatever reason corporations share a certain opinion on an issue that poorer people do not, it will be a biased issue. The corporations will be able to spend money to help elect their candidates, but the voices of the poorer people will not be heard. More money allows you to project you free speech louder.

What exactly did this decision do? Can somebody link me to a nonbiased source or just tell me what restrictions exactly where removed? I just want to understand this issue more. Have campaign finance laws every applied to unions?
 
We elect our representatives every two years, but we have no direct control over what they do in the intervening time.
 
Cassandra said:
As I said, already, it can prevent people w/o the backing of moneyed interests from being on a ballot to begin with.
Click to expand...
Because they can't afford the filing fee? That doesn't make any sense.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
EVERY corporation that has the desire to effect the law in their favor.

It works like this. Don't vote yes on that bill or I will drown the next election in negative campaign ads against you while flooding your opponent with positive ads. I might even buy up all the ad space in advance so you can't even run an ad on TV or Radio. :2wave:
Click to expand...
Nonresponsive answer.

I shall restate the question: So which corporations that you know of are buying votes? Be specific.
 
Yet another article by an expert in the field restating what I've said since the beginning:

The real meaning of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. - By Nathaniel Persily - Slate Magazine

The Floodgates Were Already Open

What will the Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling really change?
Click to expand...

Citizens United, the fourth in a series of decisions from the Roberts Court that has narrowed or struck down campaign finance regulations, has garnered headlines of shock and awe. But the writing for it has been on the wall since the court's 2007 decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. That case, which interpreted the same provision of the same law as Citizens United, held that corporate and union ads were constitutionally protected so long as they did not explicitly endorse or oppose candidates. The difference now is that corporations and unions can tell you directly who to vote for. In other words, before Citizens United, a corporation or union could sponsor ads with its treasury funds that said "Tell Congressman Smith to stop destroying America." After Citizens United, they can add at the end "and, by the way, don't vote for him."


The difference is an important one for constitutional theorists. But blaming this decision for opening the floodgates to corporate cash simply ignores recent history. The gates were already wide open. Any flood that swamps candidates in the 2010 election could have been unleashed even before the court's most recent decision.
Click to expand...

But will the corporations in fact spend all the new millions being predicted? Remember that in the wake of McCain-Feingold, the assumption was that corporations would simply funnel their money into shadowy interest groups, such as 527s. In fact, although such groups blossomed, they did so mainly with contributions from individuals, not companies. Rather than consistently trying to buy influence through TV ads, corporations may more often be on the receiving end when politicians shake them down for campaign cash. Perhaps the stimulus, TARP, and a new age of increased government regulation of industry have restruck the balance. Or perhaps, as was historically the case, corporations will continue to spend much more on lobbying, which has often proved a more efficient means of influencing policy. If so, then the world of corporate influence in the immediate aftermath of Citizens United may not look much different than the world that preceded it.
Click to expand...
 
RightinNYC said:
Yet another article by an expert in the field restating what I've said since the beginning:

The real meaning of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. - By Nathaniel Persily - Slate Magazine
Click to expand...

Don't you GET IT? The CORPORATIONS!!!! Dear GOD, the CORPORATIONS!!!!!!

Kinda reminds me of the one and only Ted Turner-produced "New Jonny Quest" I ever watched, where some no-name corporation had a facility somewhere in the Everglades, and Pristine Local Tribe attacked them because they were Doing Evil(TM). They never said exactly what evil, but you know it had to be Doing Evil(TM). Why? Duh. Because it's a corporation.
 
Harshaw said:
Don't you GET IT? The CORPORATIONS!!!! Dear GOD, the CORPORATIONS!!!!!!

Kinda reminds me of the one and only Ted Turner-produced "New Jonny Quest" I ever watched, where some no-name corporation had a facility somewhere in the Everglades, and Pristine Local Tribe attacked them because they were Doing Evil(TM). They never said exactly what evil, but you know it had to be Doing Evil(TM). Why? Duh. Because it's a corporation.
Click to expand...

Johnny Quest?:smileyfart
 
Harshaw said:
Don't you GET IT? The CORPORATIONS!!!! Dear GOD, the CORPORATIONS!!!!!!

Kinda reminds me of the one and only Ted Turner-produced "New Jonny Quest" I ever watched, where some no-name corporation had a facility somewhere in the Everglades, and Pristine Local Tribe attacked them because they were Doing Evil(TM). They never said exactly what evil, but you know it had to be Doing Evil(TM). Why? Duh. Because it's a corporation.
Click to expand...
Does this mean me because I am incorporated.
 
Charles Martel said:
Race Bannon and Dr. Quest. Great cartoon.:cool:
Click to expand...
Now these are great cartoons..off topic:doh


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luKU53ihiK8"]YouTube- Bugs Gets The Boid[/ame]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom