• 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 can the Tea Party be anti-something-that-didn't-exist? That is, corporate personhood?
Ever heard of the East India company?

From, "Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir og George R.T.Hewes:

Hewes notes: “The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America…” allowing it to wipe out New England–based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. “Hence,” he told his biographer, “it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity ... The colonies were now arrived at the decisive moment when they must cast the dye, and determine their course ... ”

A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic “Rusticus.” One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world:“Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Rate that the poor could not purchase them.”
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

You didn't answer his question. You just went off on a tangent about something entirely unrelated.

A corporation is nothing more than the legal vehicle for individuals to pool their resources and mitigate liability. At its heart, a corporation is still a group of individuals. The reasons they form this group are irrelevant to the fact that they have free speech rights.
That definition stretches the imagination. Who is in the pool of individuals making up G.E.? The ever changing investors many of which may not be U.S. citizens? The employees?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Buy congressmen. What about my question, do you have an answer for it?

How are they going to buy congressmen now that they couldn't buy before?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

But this is why I say there is some legitimate claim to regulation on Congress. A corporation is not a person, hence it doesn't have rights. The People are still restricted, but we've removed the restriction on corporations. I think it needed to go the other way. I will agree that you cannot eliminate the freedom of the citizen; but that's still infringed upon even with throwing this clause out the window. The only thing we've added now is to exacerbate the current corruption and to allow possible influence from foreign agents.

The people owning the corporation have those rights.

The American people owning a corporation have every freedom to use their corporate money in American politics.

The Chinese do not.

That's the difference.

The Congress cannot stop Americans from participating in their government.

Sorting the two out is what Congress should focus on, not merely blanketly forbidding corporate influence.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

That definition stretches the imagination. Who is in the pool of individuals making up G.E.? The ever changing investors many of which may not be U.S. citizens? The employees?

The investors, not the employees.

Unless the employees own stock in GE.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

:lol:

When they start putting corporations to jail and giving them death sentences then I will be for it.:lol:

I'm not sure what you're implying here. Do you think being in a corporation gives individuals permission to break the law or something?
 
The individuals who compose the company can use their personal money as they see fit. Corporations with corporate dollars (those don't always belong to the CEO, in fact a publicly traded company it doesn't, it's supposed to belong to the share holders) are different as a corporation itself is not an entity which has rights. As it stands, it's the individual who is restricted and the corporation which is unrestricted. It's exactly backwards.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

How are they going to buy congressmen now that they couldn't buy before?

It makes it much easier now to do so, and opens it up to influence from foreign agents. It doesn't have to be limited to Goldman Sachs, that was just used in the example. Care to answer the question I previously posted?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Ever heard of the East India company?

From, "Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir og George R.T.Hewes:

Hewes notes: “The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America…” allowing it to wipe out New England–based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. “Hence,” he told his biographer, “it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity ... The colonies were now arrived at the decisive moment when they must cast the dye, and determine their course ... ”

A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic “Rusticus.” One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world:“Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Rate that the poor could not purchase them.”

Of course, I'm aware, but we're not talking about corporations as they were constituted at the time of the Tea Party. We're discussing corporate personhood, which is something that wasn't recognized by the American judiciary until 1886.

Furthermore, the Tea Party was less about anti-corporate sentiment and much, much more about anti-government sentiment. Who do you think empowered the East India Company to monopolize the market?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

That definition stretches the imagination. Who is in the pool of individuals making up G.E.? The ever changing investors many of which may not be U.S. citizens? The employees?

Anyone who is materially involved with the company's finances or operations.

And since all of them are individual people, it makes no sense why they cannot pool their resources and endorse a political candidate. You're using their business model as excuse to suppress their free speech rights.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

It makes it much easier now to do so, and opens it up to influence from foreign agents.

How? Every single thing that corporations can do now could have been achieved using other methods before this decision.


It doesn't have to be limited to Goldman Sachs, that was just used in the example. Care to answer the question I previously posted?

If a bill was indisputably beneficial to the nation but was bad for Goldman, I strongly believe it would pass. I don't know how we could prove this, but I think you're attributing them more influence than they actually have.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

i have yet to see a corporation speak
Whether or not you wish to recognize it as such, you'll see a lot of corporations speaking out in the upcoming election season.
 
The individuals who compose the company can use their personal money as they see fit. Corporations with corporate dollars (those don't always belong to the CEO, in fact a publicly traded company it doesn't, it's supposed to belong to the share holders) are different as a corporation itself is not an entity which has rights. As it stands, it's the individual who is restricted and the corporation which is unrestricted. It's exactly backwards.

the shareholders are not forced to invest.

Do you believe the NY Times should be allowed to endorse candidates?
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

If a bill was indisputably beneficial to the nation but was bad for Goldman, I strongly believe it would pass. I don't know how we could prove this, but I think you're attributing them more influence than they actually have.

I don't know about that so much. I think the recent bailouts and such showed Congress already had a willingness to pander to banks and Wallstreet at the expense of the People. I think that by removing any restriction we had, that we'll just exacerbate the situation.
 
the shareholders are not forced to invest.

Do you believe the NY Times should be allowed to endorse candidates?

No they're not. But at the same accord they aren't being notified or asked to consent if the company starts funding particular candidates. We can get into various aspects of the Press, but the Press is specifically protected; not so with corporations in general. I don't think the NY Times should endorse any candidate, they can, but I don't think it's proper for the press to do so. They should merely be reporting the history, platform, plans, etc. of the candidate to the People in an honest manner so that we can better make decisions over whom we wish to vote for.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Whether or not you wish to recognize it as such, you'll see a lot of corporations speaking out in the upcoming election season.

Just like they always do.

The intellectual dishonesty on this point is absolutely infuriating, primarily because it's becoming so widely accepted with so little critical thought.

Rather than reciting the party line about how this will lead to corporations buying elections, why don't you explain how it will do that? If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be claiming that it does.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I'm not sure what you're implying here. Do you think being in a corporation gives individuals permission to break the law or something?

If you read corporate law it gives them a lot of priveliges and immunities that people don't have. That's why people who even incorporate because it relieves them from a lot of civil actions against them.

My problem is with corporations too big to fail and corporate monopolies.
 
I don't know about that so much. I think the recent bailouts and such showed Congress already had a willingness to pander to banks and Wallstreet at the expense of the People.

But there was a strong argument (made by both parties) that the bailouts would benefit the public as well as the banks, which is different from your scenario. Despite the argument about how it would help the nation, there was nevertheless substantial public opposition.

I think that by removing any restriction we had, that we'll just exacerbate the situation.

To a minuscule degree at the margins, but it won't be big businesses who will see the expanded influence. Prior to this decision, corporations could essentially do whatever they wanted, provided that they created various PACs or 527s. The process of organizing these is somewhat complex, but is trivial for a corporation like Goldman Sachs or Pfizer. The only types of corporations that were deterred from speaking out were smaller ones that didn't have the resources to hire people to do this for them. It was a system chock full of perverse incentives, several of which have now been removed.

No they're not. But at the same accord they aren't being notified or asked to consent if the company starts funding particular candidates.

The court upheld disclosure requirements by a vote of 8-1, and shareholders are always free to express their pleasure or displeasure with a corporation's actions.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

Rather than reciting the party line about how this will lead to corporations buying elections, why don't you explain how it will do that? If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be claiming that it does.
I don't disagree. My post was in response to the inane argument that corporations don't have rights because they can't talk.
 
But there was a strong argument (made by both parties) that the bailouts would benefit the public as well as the banks, which is different from your scenario. Despite the argument about how it would help the nation, there was nevertheless substantial public opposition.

They made the arguments alright, they weren't correct or even truthful, but they certainly made the arguments to try to justify taking our money and giving it to banks and other institutions who acted improperly and crashed the system.

To a minuscule degree at the margins, but it won't be big businesses who will see the expanded influence. Prior to this decision, corporations could essentially do whatever they wanted, provided that they created various PACs or 527s. The process of organizing these is somewhat complex, but is trivial for a corporation like Goldman Sachs or Pfizer. The only types of corporations that were deterred from speaking out were smaller ones that didn't have the resources to hire people to do this for them. It was a system chock full of perverse incentives, several of which have now been removed.

I don't see how anything was removed. It seems to me that they just made it easier to do for big corporations and to allow for foreign corporations to set up a shop in the US and then have influence on our system.

The court upheld disclosure requirements by a vote of 8-1, and shareholders are always free to express their pleasure or displeasure with a corporation's actions.

Yes, but many mechanisms for control by shareholders is largely removed, so it's not like the corporation itself would feel much in the way of backlash should they improperly use other people's money.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

How does one ensure the Chinese Army doesn't set up a corporation and contribute more money to Hillary's campaign?

That is still illegal. This decision did not change that.

A corporation cannot contribute to a campaign using corporate funds. Nor can any foreigner.

This decision is about corporations spending money to speak, or buy ads to speak. They buy ads all the time, now they can do it to talk about politics again.
 
No they're not. But at the same accord they aren't being notified or asked to consent if the company starts funding particular candidates. .

They could demand to be notified. Shareholders hold the real power, they've got the purse strings... It all just boils down to the problem of some people not holding those who work for them accountable when they should. All shareholders should demand to be notified.

We can get into various aspects of the Press, but the Press is specifically protected; not so with corporations in general. I don't think the NY Times should endorse any candidate, they can, but I don't think it's proper for the press to do so. They should merely be reporting the history, platform, plans, etc. of the candidate to the People in an honest manner so that we can better make decisions over whom we wish to vote for.

They should, but they don't.
And the NY times is no less influential than a corporation during a campaign.

... how is a corporation really any different than any other form of the press?

No direct force is being applied upon any voter, it is only dissemination of information (true or otherwise) and this is protected by the 1st. The issue becomes "what is the 'Press'?" and I don't want government officials deciding who can and can't spend money to disseminate information, that's a slippery slope. It's up to people to be informed enough to vote the right way, hold politicians and corporations accountable, and for the politicians to actually do their jobs and follow the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Section of McCain-Feingold

So why should the liberal media be given an exemption. They are corporations - in fact some of the biggest corporations in existence - and they can spew their political ideas ad nauseum every day right up to the minute of an election.

Unions can do the same. ACORN is just a wing of the liberal party.

All this ruling did was level the playing field and re-establish the right to free speech, in this case for individuals who have formed a group in the interest of doing business

Actually, the ban applied to unions before. This decision frees them from the restrictions too.
 
Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

I don't disagree. My post was in response to the inane argument that corporations don't have rights because they can't talk.

Corporations don't have rights because only individuals have rights. The individual people working in a corporation have rights. The corporate entity itself does not.
 
They made the arguments alright, they weren't correct or even truthful, but they certainly made the arguments to try to justify taking our money and giving it to banks and other institutions who acted improperly and crashed the system.

Which is neither here nor there.

I don't see how anything was removed. It seems to me that they just made it easier to do for big corporations and to allow for foreign corporations to set up a shop in the US and then have influence on our system.

They "made it easier" in the sense that they removed a stupid procedural hurdle that forced companies to funnel money through other organizations in order to have a say.

Before this decision, if GM wanted to speak out on a particular bill or support a candidate during election season, they had to create or join a PAC or 527 (usually with a name like "The Council of American Manufacturers"), fund that organization, and then the organization had to speak in code words, urging the public to "keep issues in mind," to "support American manufacturing," and to "oppose efforts to send manufacturing overseas," while showing their displeasure "with officials who support this bill." Depending on the structure of that organization, it may not have been required to release the sources of its funding.

Now, rather than doing all of that, GM can create an ad that says "We at GM believe that X bill harms American manufacturing and will result in a loss of jobs for Y reason. We ask you to support this congressman who is opposed to the bill." GM's funding for that ad is a matter of public record.

Of those two methods, which one sounds more shady and likely to result in a corruption of the electoral process?

The ironic part is that because corporations don't want to be identified as publicly supporting or opposing particular candidates, even after this decision, most of them will still continue to use the former method. We're going to see just as much corporate involvement in future elections, only now the papers and public will blame it all on the SC decision overturning BRCA, when in reality, the problem comes from BRCA itself.

It would be funny if it weren't so infuriating.


Yes, but many mechanisms for control by shareholders is largely removed, so it's not like the corporation itself would feel much in the way of backlash should they improperly use other people's money.

That's a problem intrinsic to the corporate form.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom