• 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 ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

What is it that you think Unions are doing? They're not giving politicians money the same way corporations are, it's not possible...they're Unions...

What Unions offer that politicians actually want are votes, not large sums of money. Hence putting the corporations on the same level as the Unions. That's probably what American meant.

OpenSecrets

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010

1 AT&T Inc $44,027,485
2 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $41,751,311
3 National Assn of Realtors $35,438,725
4 Goldman Sachs $31,413,462
5 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $31,359,957
6 American Assn for Justice $31,319,029
7 National Education Assn $30,068,167
8 Laborers Union $28,814,400
9 Service Employees International Union $27,911,232
10 Carpenters & Joiners Union $27,769,683
11 Teamsters Union $27,684,624
12 Communications Workers of America $26,992,076
13 Citigroup Inc $26,983,588
14 American Federation of Teachers $26,282,491
15 American Medical Assn $26,280,223
16 United Auto Workers $25,767,002
17 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $25,105,777
18 National Auto Dealers Assn $24,253,708
19 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $24,088,333
20 United Parcel Service $24,064,929

The top 20 donors in all of politics over the past 20 years are:

1 - Corporation
2 - Union
3 - Association of workers in an industry
4 - Corporation
5 - Union
6 - Association of workers in an industry
7 - Union
8 - Union
9 - Union
10 - Union
11 - Union
12 - Union
13 - Corporation
14 - Union
15 - Association of workers in an industry
16 - Union
17 - Union
18 - Association of workers in an industry
19 - Union
20 - Corporation

If you look at the distribution of money, only 5 of those 20 give more to Republicans than Democrats, with the largest split being 67-31. In contrast, 15 give more to Democrats than Republicans, with 14 of them giving more than 90% of their donations to Democrats. 7 of the unions give less than 2% of their donations to Republicans.

All of which is a long way of saying that you're right that Unions don't donate the same way that Corporations do. The Corporations can't keep up.
 
This was never about speech. It was about John Roberts and his Reich-wing cronies removing the barriers preventing their big business special interests from buying out Politicians wholesale.

You've been invited to explain your position plenty of times. I've yet to see it.

Is it your claim that only a "reich-wing crony" would decide a case holding that corporations have a first amendment right to make contributions in order to attempt to influence political processes? Yes or no.
 
Allow me to end your wonder. The 5 ayes were dead on balls Constitutionally correct...is the answer.

I still cannot see where the framers of the constitution intended for businesses to have a protected right to buy off politicians.
 
You've been invited to explain your position plenty of times. I've yet to see it.

Is it your claim that only a "reich-wing crony" would decide a case holding that corporations have a first amendment right to make contributions in order to attempt to influence political processes? Yes or no.

No, I am well aware that the left is guilty of it as well. However, the reich-wing is generally the party that supports corrupt big businesses. (Yes, I know the left supports unions) There has to be a balance.

Unions were created to keep murderous, dishonest, business owners in check. Unions protected the working class from the corrupt business owners. Don't believe me? In the 1800s, little children were forced to work in factories, 16-18 hours per day. They made about a nickle per day. They were not allowed to go to school and they often lost limbs because of the business owners did not want to spend money on safety measures.

Unions forced businesses to do things they would not have. The unions were not always corrupt. Business always has been.

The right-wing operates on a system designed to make them money while helping them avoid paying the consequences of their illegal actions. The unions where created by the working class to combat this.

Neither of these institutions are entitled to protection or rights under the constitution.

Businesses are NOT citizens and they do not have 1st Amendment rights. That is a reich-wing tactic used to protect their dishonest friends.

I do not like it when ANYBODY does it. REGARDLESS of their political affiliation.

Businesses and Unions are not American citizens; therefore, they are NOT entitled to constitutional protections provided to American citizens. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
 
Last edited:
I still cannot see where the framers of the constitution intended for businesses to have a protected right to buy off politicians.

The Constitution says the people have the right to form associations and it also says the government can't stop freedom of speech.

Since you weren't objecting when the goonions were buying politicians wholesale, you clearly don't have any objection to the idea of Congressmen for Sale.
 
Re: Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash

OpenSecrets

The top 20 donors in all of politics over the past 20 years are:

If you look at the distribution of money, only 5 of those 20 give more to Republicans than Democrats, with the largest split being 67-31. In contrast, 15 give more to Democrats than Republicans, with 14 of them giving more than 90% of their donations to Democrats. 7 of the unions give less than 2% of their donations to Republicans.

All of which is a long way of saying that you're right that Unions don't donate the same way that Corporations do. The Corporations can't keep up.

I stand corrected, thanks for the info.
 
The Constitution says the people have the right to form associations and it also says the government can't stop freedom of speech.

Since you weren't objecting when the goonions were buying politicians wholesale, you clearly don't have any objection to the idea of Congressmen for Sale.

WRONG.

On both counts. I suggest you re-read my posts.
 
I still cannot see where the framers of the constitution intended for businesses to have a protected right to buy off politicians.

Doesn't deny my freedom of speech just because I wish to unionize or incorporate either.
 
So what happens when a US based company owned or at least controlled by the Chinese government makes campaign contributions?

With a few hundred billion USD the Chinese can now openly buy US politicians with the approval of the SC
 
So what happens when a US based company owned or at least controlled by the Chinese government makes campaign contributions?

With a few hundred billion USD the Chinese can now openly buy US politicians with the approval of the SC

Save the conspiracy theorist horse****. Believe it or not globalized economics can turn out to be mutually beneficial.
 
The Constitution says the people have the right to form associations and it also says the government can't stop freedom of speech.

People do. Corporations do not.... Unions DO NOT.

The framers of our Constitution did not create the document with the intent of protecting big businesses. You do not seem to realize this fact.

Those rights were intended to protect people from government persecution. Nothing more. They do not protect businesses, unions, or other non-citizens.

Nice try; however, your position, as interesting as it is, is not consistent with the Constitution or the intent of those who wrote it.
 
No, I am well aware that the left is guilty of it as well. However, the reich-wing is generally the party that supports corrupt big businesses.

...

Businesses are NOT citizens and they do not have 1st Amendment rights. That is a reich-wing tactic used to protect their dishonest friends.

I do not like it when ANYBODY does it. REGARDLESS of their political affiliation.

Businesses and Unions are not American citizens; therefore, they are NOT entitled to constitutional protections provided to American citizens. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

So you're saying that liberals and conservatives agree that corporations have a first amendment right to make contributions in order to attempt to influence political processes? You went back and forth a couple times in there and lost me.
 
Doesn't deny my freedom of speech just because I wish to unionize or incorporate either.

You the citizen remain protected. Your business is not. Businesses do not have the right to buy off politicians. Businesses are not allowed to slander and then hide behind the 1st Amendment. (Neither are the unions)

The constitution provides INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS with liberty. Businesses and Unions ARE NOT INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS; therefore, they are NOT entitled to the protection heretofore applied to American citizens by the constitution.
 
So you're saying that liberals and conservatives agree that corporations have a first amendment right to make contributions in order to attempt to influence political processes? You went back and forth a couple times in there and lost me.

I am saying that neither of them has that right and that both sides are guilty of an epic, disgusting, motherload of political corruption.

Remember... business corruption led to the creation of the unions... who then went corrupt.
 
Save the conspiracy theorist horse****. Believe it or not globalized economics can turn out to be mutually beneficial.

Where did I complain about globalized economies?

I am stating a possibility of having foreign governments through corporations they control fund the campaigns of politicians that may represent their interest more then the interests of the citizens who vote said politician into power.

Giving rights to corporations is rather idiotic.

A corporation cant vote, nor can it go to jail. Only the people who own or work for the corporation can. A corporation does not have the right to free speech, but its owners and workers do (or at least should)
 
I am saying that neither of them has that right and that both sides are guilty of an epic, disgusting, motherload of political corruption.

Remember... business corruption led to the creation of the unions... who then went corrupt.

So even though both liberals and conservatives on the court agree that corporations have the rights I referred to, you think that they're just plain wrong and that you've got it all figured out?
 
People do. Corporations do not.... Unions DO NOT.

People have the right to form groups. It follows that they can exercise their rights through groups.

The framers of our Constitution did not create the document with the intent of protecting big businesses. You do not seem to realize this fact.

That's highly debatable.

Those rights were intended to protect people from government persecution. Nothing more. They do not protect businesses, unions, or other non-citizens.

Wrong. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. You can't simply declare that it doesn't exist when it doesn't appear to meet your declared purpose for it.

Nice try; however, your position, as interesting as it is, is not consistent with the Constitution or the intent of those who wrote it.

Where in the First Amendment does it say freedom of speech only applies to individuals?
 
The constitution provides INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS with liberty. Businesses and Unions ARE NOT INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS; therefore, they are NOT entitled to the protection heretofore applied to American citizens by the constitution.

The Constitution protects more than individuals just like it protects more than citizens.

The idea that corporations can speak is silly anyway - it's just individuals speaking as a group.
 
So what happens when a US based company owned or at least controlled by the Chinese government makes campaign contributions?

With a few hundred billion USD the Chinese can now openly buy US politicians with the approval of the SC
It's been done. The Chinese were heavy donors to Clinton's successful campaign in 1996, and who could forget AlGore's great 2000 fundraiser among the Buddhist monks who had taken vows of poverty?
 
Save the conspiracy theorist horse****. Believe it or not globalized economics can turn out to be mutually beneficial.

Especially if you are a millionaire ["What do you mean "we" whiteman tonto said to the lone ranger when they were surrounded by some pissed off indians].:roll:
 
So what happens when a US based company owned or at least controlled by the Chinese government makes campaign contributions?

With a few hundred billion USD the Chinese can now openly buy US politicians with the approval of the SC

WRONG.

This decision did not change the law that makes corporate and foreign contributions to candidates illegal.
 
People have the right to form groups. It follows that they can exercise their rights through groups.

People have the right to form groups. Those groups do not collective have the same rights as the individual.

Wrong. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. You can't simply declare that it doesn't exist when it doesn't appear to meet your declared purpose for it.

Corporate personhood doesn't exist. Corporations are not citizens and they are not entitled to protection, as a collective, when using their resources to commit slander. They are NOT people, they are NOT citizens, and they are NOT entitled to 1st amendment rights.

Where in the First Amendment does it say freedom of speech only applies to individuals?

The 1st Amendment was DESIGNED BY OUR FOREFATHERS, TO PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN WITH PROTECTION FROM OPPRESSION. The forefathers NEVER, NOT ONE TIME, CONSIDERED CORPORATIONS.

You are wrong. The reich-wing corporate person doesn't exist.
 
WRONG.

This decision did not change the law that makes corporate and foreign contributions to candidates illegal.

Examine the title of the thread: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns
 
People have the right to form groups. Those groups do not collective have the same rights as the individual.

That's silly.

A church is a group that has a right to religious freedom. A newspaper is a group (usually a corporation too) that has freedom of the press. A political party is a group that has a right to freedom of speech. I could go on.

Corporations are not citizens and they are not entitled to protection, .

The Constitution applies to everyone, not just citizens.

They are NOT people, they are NOT citizens, and they are NOT entitled to 1st amendment rights.

How many times can you repeat the same thing in all caps until it becomes true?

The 1st Amendment was DESIGNED BY OUR FOREFATHERS, TO PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN WITH PROTECTION FROM OPPRESSION. The forefathers NEVER, NOT ONE TIME, CONSIDERED CORPORATIONS.

False. Many many court cases over the years have found otherwise.
 
Examine the title of the thread: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

The thread title is wrong too.

(Though actually it doesn't say anything about contributions anyway).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom