• 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 eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Do you really think when this law you speak of was passed that every corporate CEO in America just shrugged and said, "well damn, I guess we're just powerless now"? Are you really that naïve?

You're in high school, right?

I don't think the insults are going to help you win this debate. But carry on if that's all you've got.

A Strawman argument is when you claim I think something that I never said and expect me to argue to defend that stance.

LOL!!!

I'm not going to make an argument that you want me to make. I'm just going to tell you how it is.

This supreme court ruling overturned a 1907 law called the Tillman act.

Appendix 4: Brief History

This is only going to lead to corruption and remove the power of the people to elect our politicians. This gives all the power to the big money corporations to buy politicians to do what they want them to do.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

You mean a candidate of the unions and the Dept. of Education who line the coffers of the dems don't you,,,,,,The dems always doubled or tripled the money donated to campaigns because of that..........Well thanks to this great SCOTUS those days are gone fooever........Thank you President Bush for thos 2 great conservative justices you appointed........

The unions have pennies to the corporations millions. No comparison.

The Dept of Education is part of the government.

Your argument makes no sense. Your vote will not count anymore. The corporations will decide who runs the government. Do you think the corporations have you in mind when they make policy?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I don't think the insults are going to help you win this debate. But carry on if that's all you've got.

A Strawman argument is when you claim I think something that I never said and expect me to argue to defend that stance.

LOL!!!

I'm not going to make an argument that you want me to make. I'm just going to tell you how it is.

This supreme court ruling overturned a 1907 law called the Tillman act.

Appendix 4: Brief History

This is only going to lead to corruption and remove the power of the people to elect our politicians. This gives all the power to the big money corporations to buy politicians to do what they want them to do.
Yep, high schooler.

Get back to me when you learn something useful. Dismissed.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

foreign governments especially ones with deep pockets are going to enjoy this ruling if its stands

won't be hard to use a state owned corporation to run all sorts of ads and buy some politicians to get what they want directly, nice security risk

of course if the US actually enforced its anti-trust laws it would help a great deal but even if it did this new ruling isn't good, unintended consequences and corruption can do wonders :)
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

foreign governments especially ones with deep pockets are going to enjoy this ruling if its stands

Let me get this straight. It's corporations' fault a Senator will betray his conscience, his country and his family for money? If that's the case, it really doesn't matter where that money comes from. Does it? If that is the case, there's clearly more fundamental problems within the government, than in a free associations.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

foreign governments especially ones with deep pockets are going to enjoy this ruling if its stands
won't be hard to use a state owned corporation to run all sorts of ads and buy some politicians to get what they want directly, nice security risk

of course if the US actually enforced its anti-trust laws it would help a great deal but even if it did this new ruling isn't good, unintended consequences and corruption can do wonders :)

You mean like the unions and the DOE do now do for the dems now?:confused:
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Let me get this straight. It's corporations' fault a Senator will betray his conscience, his country and his family for money? If that's the case, it really doesn't matter where that money comes from. Does it? If that is the case, there's clearly more fundamental problems within the government, than in a free associations.

nope it isn't, all this new ruling does is make it legal for corporations to overtly spend money and support whomever they please and this can be done with or without the consent and knowledge of the candidate

for example a foreign corporation can now buy airtime and run ads for a sympathetic candidate to their cause and its all legal

as far as betrayal goes, money already has been shown to do that, it is a great motivator and yes we do have some very very serious problems within our govt, that is not new
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Corporations are just groups of people who voluntarily associate. Why should my free speech rights evaporate when I want to get together with a like minded individual and support a common view?

WRONG -- a Corporation is legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.


Your reasoning is as thin as all the partisan explanations defending this activist decision. You all mindlessly recite back what you heard on FNC, Rush, or Drudge...

It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.

The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that, unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt.

LINK

Not one far-right partisan hack on DP has been able to give a logical explanation why corporations, an artificial legal entity should be entitled to the same free speech protections as individuals.

You morons freak out about socialism, communism, and the Acorn boogyman, but you've drunk so much of the Teaparty cool-aide you can't see how totally ****ed up this is...

This is not a victory for Free Speech. It's a ****ing disaster. I wouldn't even call it right-wing judicial activism. A true conservative jurist would have thrown this out.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Its amazing that are left wing friends are ignoring this great victory for the right and for the first amendment which they are always citing........

You didn't give anyone much time to reply before you double posted. I agree with the supreme court on just about everything, including this. Conservatives on the other hand seem to attack the supreme court every chance they get as if they are more qualified to interpret the constitution...
 
Bottom line.. there is far far too much money in US politics and this ruling might bring it to the public view but it will also increase it considerably since now it is legal for special interests to spend billions on a candidate.

It use to be that politicians were elected by the people for the people. Now days it looks more and more like it is politicians elected by the people for the special interests and corporations.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

I'm confused. Since when was a Corporation granted Constitutional rights?

Do you believe a single person has the right to speak freely about a candidate?

Do you believe a group of friends have the right to speak freely about a candidate?

Do you believe that group of friends would have the right to attempt to pool their money and buy a local newspaper ad to speak freely about their candidate?

Do you believe a group of friends that form a club that gets more people that pool their money to send out letters have a right to speak freely about their candidate?

Do you believe a group of friends that form a club that gets more people that does a bake sell that raises money they use to send out letters have a right to speak freely about their candidate?

Do you believe a group of friends who start a business which grows large enough to have employees that makes a good that sells for money that they use to buy a commerical have a right to speak freely about a candidate?

I'm curious at which point you feel that individuals grouped together become to large to be allowed freedom of speech.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Do you believe a single person has the right to speak freely about a candidate?

Do you believe a group of friends have the right to speak freely about a candidate?

Do you believe that group of friends would have the right to attempt to pool their money and buy a local newspaper ad to speak freely about their candidate?

Do you believe a group of friends that form a club that gets more people that pool their money to send out letters have a right to speak freely about their candidate?

Do you believe a group of friends that form a club that gets more people that does a bake sell that raises money they use to send out letters have a right to speak freely about their candidate?

Do you believe a group of friends who start a business which grows large enough to have employees that makes a good that sells for money that they use to buy a commerical have a right to speak freely about a candidate?

I'm curious at which point you feel that individuals grouped together become to large to be allowed freedom of speech.

That point is the issue. Because at that point the emphesis changes from what is good for the people (who the government represents) and starts being about what is good for the business. Those things aren't always the same. And when in conflict the government is supposed to represent the citizens.

Or you don't have a democrasy. You have a corporitocracy(sp?)

And secondly this was about corporate financing wasn't it?
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Another win for the good guys and the first amendment....Way to go SCOTUS...Thank you President Bush!!!!


Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending - CNN.com

January 21 2012

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has given big business, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, a major turnaround that threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

A 5-4 conservative majority crafted a narrow overhaul of federal campaign spending Thursday that could have an immediate effect on this year's congressional midterm elections. The justices eased long-standing restrictions on "independent spending" by corporations and unions in political campaigns.

"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

While I agree with you that campaign finance laws are generally too strict and some of them are an assault on free speech, I am horrified that the Supreme Court has overturned 100 years of precedent by essentially granting corporations the same rights as human beings.

The courts (until now) have always viewed the idea of corporate personhood as a gift bestowed onto business. In exchange for this legal standing, government has reserved the right to limit the extent to which corporations can be treated like humans.

I'm not a big fan of restrictive campaign finance laws...but there are bigger issues at stake here. Anyone who agrees with this ruling has no basis to ever complain about "judicial activism."
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

You mean like the unions and the DOE do now do for the dems now?:confused:

Actually, the Supreme Court's ruling overturns campaign restrictions on unions as well.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

That point is the issue. Because at that point the emphesis changes from what is good for the people (who the government represents) and starts being about what is good for the business. Those things aren't always the same. And when in conflict the government is supposed to represent the citizens.

How it is changing? The "Business" is a group of "people". They are arguing for what's good for "them" because that's what EVERYONE does.

How many people do you know that send money to a politician going "This will hurt me, but please do it or i'll stop sending money".

The prime reason many people give money to a politician is so they do what htey want, or because they already are doing what you want and you want to support them.

Why is it that a group of people could do a bake sale and you'd be fine with them using that profit to make a political message, but if a group of people make a legitimate business and use that profit to make a political message its horrible?

Are Business not made out of "the people"? Are businesses not made up of American Citizens? Does a businesses success not impact American citizens? Then wouldn't doing something specifically bad for business be in essense doing something specifically bad for a large number of people as well?

So you're saying that PEOPLE are allowed to lobby the government for anything and everything that's helpful to themselves....EXCEPT when it comes to their business?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

This should help:

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.
i don't believe our founding fathers were referring to anyone but people.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

So you believe that the tax payers should fund incumbents re-elections, and that people should not be allowed to support the candidate of their choice. Got it. Government = good, people = evil to you.
what a leap. but not unexpected.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Who makes up a corporation?



And, that would be fair. I could go along with that.
depends. sometimes one or two people, sometimes thousands. the point is, a board of directors is not in place to represent the employees interests, they are put in place to further profits.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

I'm confused. Since when was a Corporation granted Constitutional rights?

The stronger concept of corporate personhood, in which (for example) First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been asserted by corporations, is often traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394). In that case, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[7]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate]Corporate personhood debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

This ruling only does one thing: it makes it legal to do what they're doing anyway.

Check out what Obama got from AIG, Quadrangle, etc, in the last election. Check out how that money gets funneled to ACORN and like.

The reason the Dems (MSNBC was ballistic last night, LOL) are so pissed about this is that it takes the steam out of one of their playbook talking points during campaigns. They always accuse the Republicans of being in corporate back pockets, while they themselves were beholden even to a greater degree to corporations and special interests.

Nothing is new here. It's just now going to be out in the open again.

Both sides will benefit greatly, AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE.
 
Let's just admit that we live in a Corporatocracy. That way we are not shocked, surprised or saddened when we get a broadside, unabashed look at the workings of our Corporate Government.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Let me get this straight. It's corporations' fault a Senator will betray his conscience, his country and his family for money? If that's the case, it really doesn't matter where that money comes from. Does it? If that is the case, there's clearly more fundamental problems within the government, than in a free associations.

Point is that corporate flacks will have a huge funding advantage going into any election. People who possess the courage of their convictions will be even less likely than they are now to become Senator.

But, I agree, the U.S. political system is fundamentally, irretrievably broken.
 
:confused:
Somehow this thread got moved to "US Elections???"
:confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom