• 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 Rips Up Campaign Finance Laws

Thanks for posting the 10th thread on this.
 
Re: Supreme Court Rips Up Campaign Finance Laws

just came out today, sorry didnt see the others
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

hey HEY, Americans, it turns out we have a "freedom of speech" thingy!

hey HEY, Americans, it turns out we don't mind having our politicians bought and paid for by corporations and labor unions!
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

hey HEY, Americans, it turns out we don't mind having our politicians bought and paid for by corporations and labor unions!

For this, I blame the politicians, not the corporations.

We should just eliminate the government's ability to throw out corporate kick backs in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

Here's what I'd like to see:

1. The Supreme Court says, like they did today, that money is speech and that therefore you cannot stop people from spending money on campaigns.

2. The Supreme Court holds that corporations are NOT people, and therefore restrictions on campaign spending by corporations (and unions and PACs and other such groups) is constitutional.

The idea that a corporation is considered a "person" under the 14th amendment is the root of the problem. We need to get rid of that notion. I mean, the conservatives talk about the intent of the Founding Fathers. I doubt any of them thought that a Court would later decide that businesses are "people."


But corporations are nothing more than people excercising their First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Association, and the FA also guarantees those assemblies can interact in political discourse.

How about ending the idea of a corporation as a taxable entity, and instead require that all profits be realized as dividends, and let the people earning the dividends decide if they wish to pool their money back into the corporations polical activism office to assist in the defense of the corporation against the ravages of government?

Better yet, how about if we so limit the power of government that corporate entities no longer have an interest in influencing government actions?

The US government isn't supposed to be as strong as it is, ya know.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

That's true -- you can't very well argue that a corporation isn't a "person" and then tax its income like it is one. Well, you can, but it's not consistent.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

But corporations are nothing more than people excercising their First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Association, and the FA also guarantees those assemblies can interact in political discourse.

No, they aren't. They are businesses who seek to provide services and goods with the highest possible profit margin. To that end, not all of them care about the damage they do to people or the environment. We need the laws of government to protect the people from them.

How about ending the idea of a corporation as a taxable entity, and instead require that all profits be realized as dividends, and let the people earning the dividends decide if they wish to pool their money back into the corporations polical activism office to assist in the defense of the corporation against the ravages of government?

I'm as concerned about the ravages of corporations as I am about ravages of government.

Better yet, how about if we so limit the power of government that corporate entities no longer have an interest in influencing government actions?

Because then corporations would call all the shots in this country, and I have a vote in the government but I don't have a vote in all the corporations.

The US government isn't supposed to be as strong as it is, ya know.

And U.S. corporations aren't supposed to be more powerful than the government.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

That's true -- you can't very well argue that a corporation isn't a "person" and then tax its income like it is one. Well, you can, but it's not consistent.

Corporations benefit just as much from public roads, public transportation, and public law enforcement as individuals are, perhaps more so since they rely even more on such things to exist. Maybe they shouldn't be taxed on income but they should pay their share of taxes for public services they benefit from.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

No, they aren't. They are businesses who seek to provide services and goods with the highest possible profit margin. To that end, not all of them care about the damage they do to people or the environment. We need the laws of government to protect the people from them.

But you can say the same thing about people in general.

I'm as concerned about the ravages of corporations as I am about ravages of government.

Because then corporations would call all the shots in this country, and I have a vote in the government but I don't have a vote in all the corporations.

Corporations would have no power if people don't buy their stuff.


And U.S. corporations aren't supposed to be more powerful than the government.

The people most certainly are.
 
however, i believe neither should be able to contribute to candidates or political parties. i think all campaigns should be financed by the taxpayers, on an equal basis.

And this is where the logic breaks down. We're not talking about direct funding of candidates, we're talking about independent advocacy.

Do you think that aside from the taxpayer funding, nobody should be allowed to express their opinions on elections? Moveon shouldn't be allowed to email people to tell them to vote? The Sierra Club shouldn't be able to run ads urging people to think of the environment?

Quite a rebuttal... :roll:

Why bother going point by point, just dismiss it ad hominem without explanation. Saves time on having to formulate thoughts of your own...:2razz:

Okay, RightNYC, explain why corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere.

That's not the question that was at issue in this case, so I'm not sure why you're asking about it. The concept of corporate personhood has been around for hundreds of years. If you want to argue about that, start another thread.

And what do we gain by having more expensive and elaborate political campaigns?

I've asked this a half-dozen times and have yet to receive a response. Can you explain exactly how this decision will result in more expensive and more elaborate elections? Give me some examples of things that corporations will do now that they couldn't do before.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

No, they aren't. They are businesses who seek to provide services and goods with the highest possible profit margin. To that end, not all of them care about the damage they do to people or the environment. We need the laws of government to protect the people from them.

I'm fairly certain corporations are "free associations," in every sense of the word. Associations, as you know, are made up of people. Why do you believe a group of people deserve to lose their constitutional rights merely because the vehicle in which they exercise them disagrees with your value system?

I'm as concerned about the ravages of corporations as I am about ravages of government.

The government can pool all of its resources together to affect the country, but corporations can't? It'd make sense to put restrictions on government excess and "vote buying" (e.g. no pork). It makes no sense to apply them to one party.

And U.S. corporations aren't supposed to be more powerful than the government.

The government is, actually, supposed to be second to society. Even the parts you disagree with.

Corporations benefit just as much from public roads, public transportation, and public law enforcement as individuals are, perhaps more so since they rely even more on such things to exist. Maybe they shouldn't be taxed on income but they should pay their share of taxes for public services they benefit from.

I'm sorry, but isn't a corporation a piece of paper? I doubt a piece of paper really cares if it's protected from, well, anything.

And people rely on associations of all kinds. They rely on the people partaking in them to provide cheaper services, faster. They rely on them to better represent their opinions. You ever get a job from a poor man?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

You should get a tally sheet and see how much money corporations donate to various causes and rethink your philosophy here.

You have a point. It's just when it gets political that I worry a bit. They lobby for favors or for future decisions that will allow them to have more freedoms in business, and depending on what they want, it's not always a good thing... but what politician will reject a hefty sum of money these days?
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

The idea that a corporation is considered a "person" under the 14th amendment is the root of the problem. We need to get rid of that notion. I mean, the conservatives talk about the intent of the Founding Fathers. I doubt any of them thought that a Court would later decide that businesses are "people."

I agree with this.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

No, they aren't. They are businesses who seek to provide services and goods with the highest possible profit margin. To that end, not all of them care about the damage they do to people or the environment. We need the laws of government to protect the people from them.

Damages to people?

You mean like providing jobs? Services? Goods?

Environmental laws are a separate issue.


I'm as concerned about the ravages of corporations as I am about ravages of government.

You mean like when the fools in government, ie "Congress", started engineering cars, or at least writing design specifications called "CAFE Standards" that raised the price of American cars drastically, or when they decided to give the goonions a monopoly on violence so the employers couldn't effectively bargain with the goonions, hence driving the costs up even further....leading inescapably to the collapse of GM and the fascist assumption of control over that company by the government?

All those problems were caused by the government.

Because then corporations would call all the shots in this country, and I have a vote in the government but I don't have a vote in all the corporations.[/qutoe]

Yes, yes, of course. I forget the time I stood behind Ford in the line at the polls. Dow Corning was up at the front of the line, if I recall.

You can get a vote in the corporations.

Buy some damn stock.

And U.S. corporations aren't supposed to be more powerful than the government.

Cite the articles of the Constitution specifying this assertion.
 
Re: SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Finance!

Corporations benefit just as much from public roads, public transportation, and public law enforcement as individuals are, perhaps more so since they rely even more on such things to exist. Maybe they shouldn't be taxed on income but they should pay their share of taxes for public services they benefit from.


HINT:

The original purpose of federal gasoline tax was to finance road construction and maintenance.

Ergo, companies that do business over the road, like...um...all of them, pay their fair share of taxes for those roads.

They also have an astounding habit of paying their utility bills, and thus pay "their fairs share" of that, too.

Funny how that works so perfectly in a capitalist society, isn't it?
 
Do you think that aside from the taxpayer funding, nobody should be allowed to express their opinions on elections? Moveon shouldn't be allowed to email people to tell them to vote? The Sierra Club shouldn't be able to run ads urging people to think of the environment?

Taxpayers should not be funding candidates.
 
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."
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

Disagreed. The McCain-Feingold bill was an atrocity that richly deserves to be tossed in the trash.

A much better approach is to promptly (like within 24 hours) report on the internet where the money is coming from. Sunshine is a much better disinfectant than regulation because there are always lawyers who can figure out how to game the system.

Just my opinion.

I agree with you there. McCain/Feingold needed to be scrapped. It only got passed because the Reiche-wing controlled the house and the senate at the time.
 
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........
 
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........

It's also a huge victory for unions. They're now free to spend even more money backing their candidates. How many of those candidates do you think will be Republicans?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...42930090152.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories
Some company executives and unions said they were ready to jump more directly into this year's congressional campaigns under the new rules, but big companies may remain cautious about doing so for public-relations reasons.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

It's also a huge victory for unions. They're now free to spend even more money backing their candidates. How many of those candidates do you think will be Republicans?

Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits - WSJ.com

Its called freedom of speech my left wing friend..You leftys are all he time quoting the first amendment......What is the matter????:rofl
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I have always said that America has the best politicians money can buy. :rofl
 
Back
Top Bottom