• 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

Cassandra said:
Do you believe that what you have to say right here, is not watched? I would say that this is not really the topic at hand but just wondering?...
Click to expand...

Do you honestly thing that someone is reading what is being written here? A government spider searching for particular terrorism-related topics I can buy, but an actual person? Not a chance.

Cassandra said:
The only races on which corporations are going to spend money are the few that are relevant to their interests.
Click to expand...

And how does that distinguish them from unions?

I have not argued that there are more ways, than one, to corrupt the system. First, you gerrymander the districts so that most are "safe". Then you allow media consolidation so that diversity of speech is limited and then you -the corporation- can narrow the field further, to the very few elections/issues that might be worth influencing. Hey, the proof is easily recognizable in the total abdication the administration & dems have shown towards the special interests in the H.C. legislation.
Click to expand...

Which has what to do with what we're talking about?
 
Cassandra said:
Any data on that?


Sorry, I fail to see how defining the rights delineated in the constitution as meant for people not corporations cedes power to Washington. I would say that it helps to cede power to citizens.

Hmm, I think that many of our elected officials are extremely unhappy with a situation that forces them to spend two days out of every work week raising money rather than doing the people's business. Judging from the Abramoff scandal there are certainly people whose minds are twisted by the flow of money. NOt all, though.

But in general, meaningful changes have to come from the bottom up. There is every reason why libertarians and progressives should make common cause to work toward financial/electoral changes that would break the back of the two party system.
Click to expand...

I don;t know much about the constitution but I am already learning a lot from you.

But, would not breaking the backs of the two party system be anarchy? I mean they are our elected leaders.

I am trying to learn.
 
RightinNYC said:
And how does that distinguish them from unions?
Click to expand...
Take a step back- the repub talking point is that corporate spending would be balanced by union spending. Their phrase, not mine. While it is true that corporations have the resources to out spend any other group, including unions, it is a pretty hollow argument. What is really lost is the speech of all the millions who are not represented by any well- off interest group. Often corporations and unions are congenial partners on issues and candidates. Need I list some?

But frankly, as I have said, it strikes me as insane to design a system in which no one can run for office w/o raising hundreds of thousands of dollars and, once in office, we pay these reps to spend 30% of their time raising more money.

And , obviously, I adamantly disagree that corporations are people. I have not seen any convincing arguments that the framers intended for corporations to be considered people and plenty of historical evidence that they could not have. So, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
 
Cassandra said:
Take a step back- the repub talking point is that corporate spending would be balanced by union spending. Their phrase, not mine.
Click to expand...

I'm not Republican! I consider that an insult! :mrgreen:

Seriously, as a fellow liberal, maybe you can trust me a little more on this issue.

While it is true that corporations have the resources to out spend any other group, including unions, it is a pretty hollow argument. What is really lost is the speech of all the millions who are not represented by any well- off interest group. Often corporations and unions are congenial partners on issues and candidates. Need I list some?
Click to expand...

Everything you say is predicated on the assumption that the voters are idiots who just vote for whoever throws more ads at them. Or if they are (maybe), that you should be designated to protect them from their idiocy. Why you?

But frankly, as I have said, it strikes me as insane to design a system in which no one can run for office w/o raising hundreds of thousands of dollars and, once in office, we pay these reps to spend 30% of their time raising more money.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. But the solution isn't to ration speech.

And , obviously, I adamantly disagree that corporations are people. I have not seen any convincing arguments that the framers intended for corporations to be considered people and plenty of historical evidence that they could not have. So, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter. The First Amendment protects speech, regardless of its source.
 
Cassandra said:
Take a step back- the repub talking point is that corporate spending would be balanced by union spending. Their phrase, not mine. While it is true that corporations have the resources to out spend any other group, including unions, it is a pretty hollow argument. What is really lost is the speech of all the millions who are not represented by any well- off interest group. Often corporations and unions are congenial partners on issues and candidates. Need I list some?
Click to expand...

Once again...after the trillion dollar bonanza by Obama, where such voices above were absolutely silent, we just now hear concerns from the Left on the "lost free speech of millions who aren't represented by special interests." Hey, welcome to the party, Cassandra! Many of us felt powerless during Obama's campaign, your party uninterested even in foreign monies and Soros stuffed bags of cash. Amusing how this SC decision jolts you awake, special interests and unions and ACORNS and community organizers and billionaires have been dominating the Democrat political machines...without a peep of representation for me.

And you are correct, corporations have money. And hopefully, it's pouring into Repub coffers right now. We need to win these elections in 2010 and then go right after the Presidency in 2012.

But frankly, as I have said, it strikes me as insane to design a system in which no one can run for office w/o raising hundreds of thousands of dollars and, once in office, we pay these reps to spend 30% of their time raising more money.
Click to expand...

Struck insane but gleeful as a schoolgirl on Obama election night is my guess.:roll:

And , obviously, I adamantly disagree that corporations are people.
Click to expand...

Of course you do.

I have not seen any convincing arguments that the framers intended for corporations to be considered people and plenty of historical evidence that they could not have. So, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Oh...we want to use the Framers now as well......for the love of God! The Framers didn't restrict people from incorporating nor gave the government any power to set rules on such freedom of speech. Should I wish to become political....why should the fact that I own, invest in, or manage a corporation make a slime's bit of difference? Why, because I have more money? Because a corporation has bucks, that's the reason to deny them their right to free speech or to contribute to a candidate??

Republicans...buckle up. This decision is landmark and should send a shiver down Obama's spine, we're gonna parachute money into Republican campaigns. It's on....:)
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel said:
Republicans...buckle up. This decision is landmark and should send a shiver down Obama's spine, we're gonna parachute money into Republican campaigns. It's on....:)
Click to expand...

Suuuure.

This decision will have very little impact, since corporations - and unions - were already able to spend all they want on political speech before, they just had to barely pretend it was something else.
 
Charles Martel said:
Once again...after the trillion dollar bonanza by Obama, where such voices above were absolutely silent, we just now hear concerns from the Left on the "lost free speech of millions who aren't represented by special interests." Hey, welcome to the party, Cassandra! Many of us felt powerless during Obama's campaign, your party uninterested even in foreign monies and Soros stuffed bags of cash. Amusing how this SC decision jolts you awake, special interests and unions and ACORNS and community organizers and billionaires have been dominating the Democrat political machines...without a peep of representation for me.

And you are correct, corporations have money. And hopefully, it's pouring into Repub coffers right now. We need to win these elections in 2010 and then go right after the Presidency in 2012.

I



Struck insane but gleeful as a schoolgirl on Obama election night is my guess.:roll:



Of course you do.



Oh...we want to use the Framers now as well......for the love of God! The Framers didn't restrict people from incorporating nor gave the government any power to set rules on such freedom of speech. Should I wish to become political....why should the fact that I own, invest in, or manage a corporation make a slime's bit of difference? Why, because I have more money? Because a corporation has bucks, that's the reason to deny them their right to free speech or to contribute to a candidate??

Republicans...buckle up. This decision is landmark and should send a shiver down Obama's spine, we're gonna parachute money into Republican campaigns. It's on....:)
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think Obama did a mafnificent job standing up to them in their home turf on nationl tv. It was refresing to see such magnificent transparency.:)
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I disagree. I think Obama did a mafnificent job standing up to them in their home turf on nationl tv. It was refresing to see such magnificent transparency.:)
Click to expand...

Transparency, bs. If Obama wanted to have a real give a take session it would have been behind closed doors. Posing for the cameras shows he really has no intention of finding common ground. He knew the public wanted bipartisanship, so he gave them a photo op.

Is he a snakeoil salesman or a real leader?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I disagree. I think Obama did a mafnificent job standing up to them in their home turf on nationl tv. It was refresing to see such magnificent transparency.:)
Click to expand...

I had no problem with how he did that either.

But he came this close to outright lying about what the decision did. I'm a strong Obama supporter, but that was very disappointing.
 
Charles Martel said:
Once again...after the trillion dollar bonanza by Obama, where such voices above were absolutely silent, we just now hear concerns from the Left on the "lost free speech of millions who aren't represented by special interests." Hey, welcome to the party, Cassandra! Many of us felt powerless during Obama's campaign, your party uninterested even in foreign monies and Soros stuffed bags of cash. Amusing how this SC decision jolts you awake, special interests and unions and ACORNS and community organizers and billionaires have been dominating the Democrat political machines...without a peep of representation for me.

And you are correct, corporations have money. And hopefully, it's pouring into Repub coffers right now. We need to win these elections in 2010 and then go right after the Presidency in 2012.

Struck insane but gleeful as a schoolgirl on Obama election night is my guess.:roll:

Of course you do.

Oh...we want to use the Framers now as well......for the love of God! The Framers didn't restrict people from incorporating nor gave the government any power to set rules on such freedom of speech. Should I wish to become political....why should the fact that I own, invest in, or manage a corporation make a slime's bit of difference? Why, because I have more money? Because a corporation has bucks, that's the reason to deny them their right to free speech or to contribute to a candidate??

Republicans...buckle up. This decision is landmark and should send a shiver down Obama's spine, we're gonna parachute money into Republican campaigns. It's on....:)
Click to expand...
No reason to respond to all these comments, separately. I see that you are under the misapprehension that there is a big difference between Repubs and Dems. There isn't. Which is really my point. Money leads to faux differences of opinion and sameness of outcome in the political elite since they are all chasing pretty much the same donors. That is why the abortion and gay marriage issues are so popular. It allows the parties to sound like they are have a different viewpoint w/o doing much of anything differently once in office.
 
Cassandra said:
No reason to respond to all these comments, separately. I see that you are under the misapprehension that there is a big difference between Repubs and Dems. There isn't.
Click to expand...

Oh, no. You're not one of those "they're all the same" people?

Money leads to faux differences of opinion and sameness of outcome in the political elite since they are all chasing pretty much the same donors.
Click to expand...

Did you just say that? They're all chasing the same donors? Really?

That is why the abortion and gay marriage issues are so popular. It allows the parties to sound like they are have a different viewpoint w/o doing much of anything differently once in office.
Click to expand...

Seriously, now you think there's no difference in the party's on abortion and gay marriage?

Please stop.
 
misterman said:
I had no problem with how he did that either.
Click to expand...

So, you support PBO sucker punching someone on national TV, when those persons weren't able to defend themselves? His actions were cowardly.
 
apdst said:
So, you support PBO sucker punching someone on national TV, when those persons weren't able to defend themselves? His actions were cowardly.
Click to expand...

By that standard, the President couldn't criticize anyone in a SOTU because they can't defend themselves. You gonna tell him he can't criticize the Republicans either? It's not a debate, it's a speech.

There's nothing wrong with saying he disagrees with a court decision. Happens all the time:

Right-wing media are attacking President Obama for his criticism of the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC during the State of the Union, calling it "unprecedented" and accusing the president of "intimidation." In fact, Obama's comments were not "unprecedented"; Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have previously used the State of the Union to criticize judicial actions, including those of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Media conservatives falsely claim Obama's Supreme Court criticism was "unprecedented" | Media Matters for America
 
misterman said:
Suuuure.

This decision will have very little impact, since corporations - and unions - were already able to spend all they want on political speech before, they just had to barely pretend it was something else.
Click to expand...

We'll see. Behind by a whoppin amount of cash, unable to keep up with Obama's nearly trillion dollar election war chest...we'll see if it makes no difference in 2012. I predict massive impact and lots of monies going to Repub candidates this fall. I smell blood in the water and any good Republican Hammerhead is filing sharp the teeth. Gotta go, Exxon calling.:cool:
 
misterman said:
By that standard, the President couldn't criticize anyone in a SOTU because they can't defend themselves. You gonna tell him he can't criticize the Republicans either? It's not a debate, it's a speech.
Click to expand...

It's a state of the union speech. Not a let me get in some cheap shots because no one can say anything speech. He has all the time in the world to criticize his political opponents and save the SOTU for what it's meant for, to speak on the state of the union.
 
Charles Martel said:
We'll see. Behind by a whoppin amount of cash, unable to keep up with Obama's nearly trillion dollar election war chest...we'll see if it makes no difference in 2012. I predict massive impact and lots of monies going to Repub candidates this fall. I smell blood in the water and any good Republican Hammerhead is filing sharp the teeth. Gotta go, Exxon calling.:cool:
Click to expand...

We'll see. But like I said, corporations and unions have been spending money on political ads all this time, they just had to avoid the terms "vote for" or whatever. That's about it. So this changes very little.
 
apdst said:
It's a state of the union speech. Not a let me get in some cheap shots because no one can say anything speech. He has all the time in the world to criticize his political opponents and save the SOTU for what it's meant for, to speak on the state of the union.
Click to expand...

So a President should never criticize anyone in a SOTU speech?

Hmmm.

It's funny how you never noticed that every president does, in every single SOTU speech, until suddenly Obama did it.
 
apdst said:
It's a state of the union speech. Not a let me get in some cheap shots because no one can say anything speech. He has all the time in the world to criticize his political opponents and save the SOTU for what it's meant for, to speak on the state of the union.
Click to expand...

And if Obama thinks something is a legitimate threat to the Union, he should state it, which he did. It doesn't matter where the threat comes from.
 
Cassandra said:
No reason to respond to all these comments, separately. I see that you are under the misapprehension that there is a big difference between Repubs and Dems. There isn't. Which is really my point. Money leads to faux differences of opinion and sameness of outcome in the political elite since they are all chasing pretty much the same donors. That is why the abortion and gay marriage issues are so popular. It allows the parties to sound like they are have a different viewpoint w/o doing much of anything differently once in office.
Click to expand...

Money...just now...leads to faux diffs of opinion and sameness of outcome. Again, you stood cheering Obama's trillion dollar election win, the hope and change the defeat of Repubs....all more important than this brand new concern of sameness of outcome or faux differences.

Merely tell me I'm wrong, merely tell me you weren't all swept up in election fever that Tuesday night, admit your concern for the trillions in sameness and faux differences wasn't top shelf then.

No there is no reason to respond, yer not going to deny this is all brand new concern for you, we know where you were then.....therefore...we know where you stand today. This is a political loss for you, not one that brings concerns for sameness. Yer concerned this is gonna result in Republican bank accounts increasing......it's a valid concern.;)
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
So a President should never criticize anyone in a SOTU speech?

Hmmm.

It's funny how you never noticed that every president does, in every single SOTU speech, until suddenly Obama did it.
Click to expand...

It's even funnier how you seem to think it's wrong when someone else does it, yet use that as an excuse for your messiah to do it.
 
megaprogman said:
And if Obama thinks something is a legitimate threat to the Union, he should state it, which he did. It doesn't matter where the threat comes from.
Click to expand...

A SC decision is a credible threat to the union? Wow! Just, wow!!
 
misterman said:
So a President should never criticize anyone in a SOTU speech?
Click to expand...

Leading on a standing ovation behind the SCJustices is inappropriate and doesn't beling at the State of the Union. He disagrees, say so in a fireside chat or in one of the media stations he owns. The State of the Union isn't the place, the fact that you can't admit this is telling. Yer normally better than this, misterman.
 
washunut said:
Transparency, bs. If Obama wanted to have a real give a take session it would have been behind closed doors. Posing for the cameras shows he really has no intention of finding common ground. He knew the public wanted bipartisanship, so he gave them a photo op.

Is he a snakeoil salesman or a real leader?
Click to expand...

A real leader. He was magnificent.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom