• 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

Groucho said:
Hm? Where do you think I have done that? My comments about this case are the same ones made by the 4 lawyers on the Supreme Court who filed their dissent.
Click to expand...


I pretty much stated it above, when I laid out what I understand to be what was deemed in the decision. And that is that although advertising is opened up, outright donations, ( the very thing you represent as "buying the candidate" ) is not. That would seem to be a misrepresentation on your part....


j-mac
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

j-mac said:
I pretty much stated it above, when I laid out what I understand to be what was deemed in the decision. And that is that although advertising is opened up, outright donations, ( the very thing you represent as "buying the candidate" ) is not. That would seem to be a misrepresentation on your part....

j-mac
Click to expand...

Well, we're just disagreeing on terms.

If I were a candidate and a corporation came to me and said "Listen, we can only give you $1200 under the law, but we're going to spend $14 million on advertising on your behalf" how is that any different from giving the candidate $14 million? You're just cutting out the middleman...

Seriously, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that a politician would not be beholden to some corporation (or union) that spends millions on their behalf.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Gibberish said:
I'm sure the corporations making $3-4 billion per quarter are devastated when they have to pay a few hundred million in fines.

I wish if I did something illegal I only got fined 5% of my annual income.
Click to expand...
Arthur Andersen received what amounted to capital punishment. That's a bit more than 5% of their liquidity.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Groucho said:
Well, we're just disagreeing on terms.

If I were a candidate and a corporation came to me and said "Listen, we can only give you $1200 under the law, but we're going to spend $14 million on advertising on your behalf" how is that any different from giving the candidate $14 million? You're just cutting out the middleman...

Seriously, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that a politician would not be beholden to some corporation (or union) that spends millions on their behalf.
Click to expand...


So, are you then saying that demo politicians are "beholden" to say Geo. Soros? By you logic they should be, No?


j-mac
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

They overturned a case less than 20 years old.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Groucho said:
Corporations can be prosecuted but the punishment is always monetary damages or restraining orders.

Unlike other "people" you can't put a corporation in jail.
Click to expand...

Enron, Worldcom, Tyco. People within the corporation can be jailed.

On another point, government can't create jobs. Corporations can. Liberals see the word "corporation" as some evil entity that does no good, but corporations produce things that solve problems and employ people. They are ultimately the only answer to the economic mess we're in.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

j-mac said:
So, are you then saying that demo politicians are "beholden" to say Geo. Soros? By you logic they should be, No?

j-mac
Click to expand...

First, he's a person, not a corporation.

Second, as I said previously, I believe in the part of the decision that says that people should be able to spend whatever they want because of the 1st amendment. My disagreement is in considering corporations as people (for the reasons I already gave.)

Third, yes, to an extent, whenever huge amounts of money are being spent, politicians will be "beholden". I think that's obvious. Soros will be able to have access to a politician I will never get.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Groucho said:
Corporations can be prosecuted but the punishment is always monetary damages or restraining orders.

Unlike other "people" you can't put a corporation in jail.
Click to expand...

So, does that mean you're just as opposed to 527 orginizations being able to make political donations?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Erod said:
Enron, Worldcom, Tyco. People within the corporation can be jailed.
Click to expand...

Yes, if they commit real crimes as individuals.

I'm not anti-corporation. I am a stockholder in a small corporation myself.

What I disagree with is the fiction that a piece of paper is a potentially immortal "person" entitled to the exact same rights as a living breathing human being.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

apdst said:
So, does that mean you're just as opposed to 527 orginizations being able to make political donations?
Click to expand...

I'm not against donations and never said so. I am against the idea that organizations and corporations have 1st amendment rights to the point where they cannot be regulated.

I believe that people should be able to spend all they want. See? I am FOR the first amendment. What I am against is the fiction that groups, unions, organizations, corporations, and soylent green are "people."
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Coronado said:
Arthur Andersen received what amounted to capital punishment. That's a bit more than 5% of their liquidity.
Click to expand...

I'm not complete familiar but from quick research it looks like they were convicted of Obstruction of Justice, which resulted in the firm giving up their CPA licensees. The firms branches were then acquired by local firms.

The Supreme Court later overturned the conviction.

I can't seem to find anything about capital punishment. Please share.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Groucho said:
I'm not against donations and never said so. I am against the idea that organizations and corporations have 1st amendment rights to the point where they cannot be regulated.

I believe that people should be able to spend all they want. See? I am FOR the first amendment. What I am against is the fiction that groups, unions, organizations, corporations, and soylent green are "people."
Click to expand...

They are unquestionably groups of people.

And people don't give up their rights simply because they've formed a group.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Groucho said:
I'm not against donations and never said so. I am against the idea that organizations and corporations have 1st amendment rights to the point where they cannot be regulated.

I believe that people should be able to spend all they want. See? I am FOR the first amendment. What I am against is the fiction that groups, unions, organizations, corporations, and soylent green are "people."
Click to expand...

The question still stands: you oppose the formation of 527 orgs in order to influence political campaigns?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I think this excerpt from an op-ed in todays USA Today, sums this decision up rather nicely:

First, the case does not alter the current ban in federal law, and the laws of just under half the states, that prohibit corporations and unions from contributing directly to candidates. All this means is that they can spend money to speak directly to voters.

Second, 28 states, holding 60% of the nation's population, already allow corporate and union independent expenditures in state races. Yet none of these states is swamped with corporate and union spending, or dominated by special interests in some way that other states have escaped. Indeed, these 28 states, which include such relatively strong economies as Utah and Virginia, are over-represented in the rankings by Governing magazine as among the best governed in the country. Others, such as Oregon, hardly have a reputation as hotbeds of corruption.

Today's decision is good not only for what it does, but also for what it didn't do.

Remember, the government's position in the case was that it had the power, under the Constitution, to ban the distribution of political books over Amazon's Kindle, to prohibit political movies from being shown by video-on-demand, to forbid a union from paying a writer to author a political book, and to prohibit a corporation from publishing a 500-page book with even one sentence of political advocacy.

The Supreme Court said, "No, you don't have that authority," and we are all the better for it.


http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/...e-fiction.html
Click to expand...
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Groucho said:
First, he's a person, not a corporation.

Second, as I said previously, I believe in the part of the decision that says that people should be able to spend whatever they want because of the 1st amendment. My disagreement is in considering corporations as people (for the reasons I already gave.)

Third, yes, to an extent, whenever huge amounts of money are being spent, politicians will be "beholden". I think that's obvious. Soros will be able to have access to a politician I will never get.
Click to expand...


Maybe so, maybe not. It seems to depend on what the politicians think of their constituents. I believe that many of them today think that we are sheep, too stupid to understand what is being offered as governance on our behalf. Right now the demo's are displaying that. The GOP displayed it before 2006 and got their wake up call.

But the fact is that direct sponsorship of one candidate through direct donation is still prohibited, and whether or not you believe that a Corporation is a person or not, they are to an extent by law. That is settled. Look, I may not like Roe, but I have to accept it as settled law don't I? What makes demo's faux outrage over this any different?


j-mac
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

apdst said:
The question still stands: you oppose the formation of 527 orgs in order to influence political campaigns?
Click to expand...

I thought I was clear.

NO I do not oppose 527s. I just believe that, because they are not PEOPLE, that it is not unconstitutional to place limits on their political spending for particular candidates.

I know, it's very much a lawyerly way of looking at it, but there it is. Four Supreme Court justices agree with me.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Grim17 said:
I think this excerpt from an op-ed in todays USA Today, sums this decision up rather nicely:
Click to expand...

Outstanding. I hadn't grasped it fully until reading that summary. Thanks for posting that.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Gibberish said:
I'm just waiting for the politicians to start wearing suits with patches like NASCAR drivers.

I wonder who Iran wants to win our next election and will pour billions into to get into office. It seems with this new ruling they wil be free to do so if they funnel through a US corporation.
Click to expand...

Not to mention china who we owe our jock strap to.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Groucho said:
I thought I was clear.

NO I do not oppose 527s. I just believe that, because they are not PEOPLE, that it is not unconstitutional to place limits on their political spending for particular candidates.

I know, it's very much a lawyerly way of looking at it, but there it is. Four Supreme Court justices agree with me.
Click to expand...


Almost only counts in horseshoes, and hand grenades.....This is neither.


j-mac
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Grim17 said:
I think this excerpt from an op-ed in todays USA Today, sums this decision up rather nicely:
Click to expand...

Interesting.

I need to read the opinion fully instead of relying on media reports.

I won't change my opinion, which I have held forever, that corporations are not "people".
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Groucho said:
I thought I was clear.

NO I do not oppose 527s. I just believe that, because they are not PEOPLE, that it is not unconstitutional to place limits on their political spending for particular candidates.

I know, it's very much a lawyerly way of looking at it, but there it is. Four Supreme Court justices agree with me.
Click to expand...

No, you're not making yourself clear, you're just dancing around the question. But, whatever.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Groucho said:
Interesting.

I need to read the opinion fully instead of relying on media reports.

I won't change my opinion, which I have held forever, that corporations are not "people".
Click to expand...


Should Roe be overturned considering the same sense of 'making bad law' that you hold over this?


j-mac
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Grim17 said:
I think this excerpt from an op-ed in todays USA Today, sums this decision up rather nicely:
Click to expand...

I wonder what corporation owns usa today?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

apdst said:
No, you're not making yourself clear, you're just dancing around the question. But, whatever.
Click to expand...

:confused:

You asked a yes or no question and I answered it with a yes or no answer.

Not sure how I could be more clear.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Gibberish said:
I'm not complete familiar but from quick research it looks like they were convicted of Obstruction of Justice, which resulted in the firm giving up their CPA licensees. The firms branches were then acquired by local firms.

The Supreme Court later overturned the conviction.

I can't seem to find anything about capital punishment. Please share.
Click to expand...
How does an accounting firm run without it's CPA licenses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom