• 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

How does an accounting firm run without it's CPA licenses?

It doesn't. It's employees and clients get acquired by other firms.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I heard an interview yesterday with the guy that brought this case to the courts. He said that in oral arguments, one of the justices (I believe it was Antonin Scalia) asked the head of the FEC, that if his documentary on Hillary Clinton, that they had refused to allow him to distribute, was put into book form, would they still have banned it. The director reluctantly said "Yes".

According to the film maker, that admission turned everyones heads, and in his opinion, was the nail in the coffin of McCain/Feingold.

What he found incredible, and I have to agree with him, was the fact that the 4 liberal justices went against the first amendment guarantee of free speech, and voted to allow the government to ban books based on their content.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

It doesn't. It's employees and clients get acquired by other firms.
There you go. A corporation that cannot operate in the business realm for which it was created is dead, wouldn't you say?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

There you go. A corporation that cannot operate in the business realm for which it was created is dead, wouldn't you say?

What is your point? I have never argued the company isn't dead.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

What is your point? I have never argued the company isn't dead.
But you do contend that they weren't killed by the government, right?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I heard an interview yesterday with the guy that brought this case to the courts. He said that in oral arguments, one of the justices (I believe it was Antonin Scalia) asked the head of the FEC, that if his documentary on Hillary Clinton, that they had refused to allow him to distribute, was put into book form, would they still have banned it. The director reluctantly said "Yes".

According to the film maker, that admission turned everyones heads, and in his opinion, was the nail in the coffin of McCain/Feingold.

What he found incredible, and I have to agree with him, was the fact that the 4 liberal justices went against the first amendment guarantee of free speech, and voted to allow the government to ban books based on their content.

I don't understand the part about the head of the FEC would have banned "his" book. Who is "his". Just curious.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

But you do contend that they weren't killed by the government, right?

They weren't. The conviction was over ruled by the Supreme Court and they were free to get licensed again. They just choose not to.

My assumption is they folded into other firms and are just doing business as another name now.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

They weren't. The conviction was over ruled by the Supreme Court and they were free to get licensed again. They just choose not to.

My assumption is they folded into other firms and are just doing business as another name now.
Had the conviction been upheld, and the CPA licenses remained revoked, would you agree or disagree that they would have been executed by the government?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I don't understand the part about the head of the FEC would have banned "his" book. Who is "his". Just curious.

I don't remember the mans name, be he is the one who sued the government because the FEC wouldn't allow him to distribute his documentary film about Hillary Clinton, based on McCain/Feingold. That is the case SCOTUS just ruled on, and what we are discussing.

.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I heard an interview yesterday with the guy that brought this case to the courts. He said that in oral arguments, one of the justices (I believe it was Antonin Scalia) asked the head of the FEC, that if his documentary on Hillary Clinton, that they had refused to allow him to distribute, was put into book form, would they still have banned it. The director reluctantly said "Yes".

According to the film maker, that admission turned everyones heads, and in his opinion, was the nail in the coffin of McCain/Feingold.

What he found incredible, and I have to agree with him, was the fact that the 4 liberal justices went against the first amendment guarantee of free speech, and voted to allow the government to ban books based on their content.

I found the interview if anyone is interested. Skip to the 18 minute mark and that's where it begins.

Mark Levin Show Audio Rewind

.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Had the conviction been upheld, and the CPA licenses remained revoked, would you agree or disagree that they would have been executed by the government?

They wouldn't have been able to do business in which required a CPA license, yes. The company could have still have existed.

If as a person I committed these same crimes would I have simply had my license revoked?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

They wouldn't have been able to do business in which required a CPA license, yes. The company could have still have existed.

If as a person I committed these same crimes would I have simply had my license revoked?
For obstruction of justice, probably you would be imprisoned. As far as I recall, that happened to a good number of the top brass at AA though, so to imply that the company "simply had [its] license revoked" is not an accurate statement.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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...

I find it odd that you would agree with the SCOTUS on this issue because it hurts democrats and helps republicans.........as far as conservatives attacking the supreme curt can you provide and example....I can give you one against lbs Gore/Bush 2000........
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

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.

Five disagree.

If you want to get lawyerly, the First Amendment does not speak, as other Amendments do, of rights "of the People." The first Amendment is a blanket prohibition against abridging the rights listed.

Now, consistent with a philosophy, as I have, that the Bill of Rights should be read as expansively as possible in what the Amendments protect, the argument that corporations aren't "people" doesn't mean their speech and association may be abridged.

Besides, no one has yet answered the question -- the New York Times is a corporation. Do you suggest that it is not covered by the First Amendment?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

how many corporations do you know of which have been extended the right to vote?
None.

The comparison isn't a good one - I hope we can both agree that it makes sense to give one person one vote (i.e. can vote individually but not collectively). Why do you think we should limit (collective) free speech?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

None.

The comparison isn't a good one - I hope we can both agree that it makes sense to give one person one vote (i.e. can vote individually but not collectively). Why do you think we should limit (collective) free speech?

i have yet to see a corporation speak
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Much of this has opened us up to interference by foriegn countries. Basically, any company can set up a "headquarters" in America and once they do, they can contribute all they want. Any company from any country can do it. So great. Furthermore, the People are still restricted while the corporations have become unrestricted for all practical purposes. I think that's a fundamental problem. Corporations are not people, only individuals have rights. I think this fell well into proper realm of Congress to control, at least maybe this part of it.

In the end, all we did was open up our doors and boarders of our political process to any corporation with large sums of money. Ask yourself this question, if there is a bill now which is overall great for the country and the People at large and well within the proper power of the government, but devastating to Goldman Sachs would it pass? If your answer is no, then you must admit that the system is breaking down. The Republic is at risk. The founders passed down this Republic to us and it's ours to keep or ours to loose....we are definitely on the path to loosing it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Five disagree.

If you want to get lawyerly, the First Amendment does not speak, as other Amendments do, of rights "of the People." The first Amendment is a blanket prohibition against abridging the rights listed.

Now, consistent with a philosophy, as I have, that the Bill of Rights should be read as expansively as possible in what the Amendments protect, the argument that corporations aren't "people" doesn't mean their speech and association may be abridged.

Besides, no one has yet answered the question -- the New York Times is a corporation. Do you suggest that it is not covered by the First Amendment?

Wrong.

Read the federalists papers. Better yet, read the Preamble, the first three words are "we the people" "Not We the people and entities"

Next thing you will be claiming is that Soylent Green is people.:lol:
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

The Constitution doesn't grant any rights.

Excuse me for using the vernacular. But it's easier than typing "Rights gaurenteed by the restrictions on government as proscribed in the United States Constitution most specifically in this instance, the 1st Amendment right to free speach."

But everyone knows what I was talking about, or were you going somewhere specific with this?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Constitutional rights don't evaporate simply because they're expressed through a corporation.

The issue is one of intention.
Acme inc. is responsible to Acme shareholders. Not all of which are residents or citizens. It is responsible for the fiscal well being of those people, not their actual well being.
The opinions being expressed are the opinions of Acme. Not necessarily those of the people voicing them.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

The opinions being expressed are the opinions of Acme. Not necessarily those of the people voicing them.

"Acme" is the people of Acme. But even so -- so what?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Wrong.

Read the federalists papers. Better yet, read the Preamble, the first three words are "we the people" "Not We the people and entities"

Next thing you will be claiming is that Soylent Green is people.:lol:

Does a corporation itself invest money in political advertising, or do the people who own and control the corporation do so?

Are they somehow not deserving of first amendment protection on political speech, simply because of their occupation?

And Soylent Green is people dammit!

btw, did you listen to the interview?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

Excuse me for using the vernacular. But it's easier than typing "Rights gaurenteed by the restrictions on government as proscribed in the United States Constitution most specifically in this instance, the 1st Amendment right to free speach."

But everyone knows what I was talking about, or were you going somewhere specific with this?

No, not everyone knows that, and yes, there's a point.

The First Amendment is a blanket restriction on what government may do. It's not specific as to who's exercising the rights in question.
 
Back
Top Bottom