• 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

j-mac said:
Nah, It really isn't even in the same class as what Obama did. You have Reagan talking out against Roe, and then Reagan calling for Justice Kennedy to be confirmed
Click to expand...

That's not all.

and you consider that to be the same thing as what Obama did?
Click to expand...

Yes. How is it the least bit different? Other than his "tone."
 
misterman said:
That's not all.
Click to expand...


Am I supposed to read your mind? What is it that you see that was SOOOOOOO bad that Reagan was talking about to compare it to Obama instigating the disrespect of the Court that he did?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Am I supposed to read your mind? What is it that you see that was SOOOOOOO bad that Reagan was talking about to compare it to Obama instigating the disrespect of the Court that he did?
Click to expand...

I meant it wasn't just Reagan who did this. My link mentioned a few others.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
They are now. Did not you read the article? It will end up in court soon.
Click to expand...


And it will be rejected because a corporation can't be sworn into office. It has some of the same rights a person has, because a corporation is an assembly of people, but it is not a person. Many of us know this already.
 
Cassandra said:
Take a step back- the repub talking point is that corporate spending would be balanced by union spending.
Click to expand...

It's not a talking point, it's empirical fact. Unions fill out the bulk of the list of biggest campaign donors.

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.
Click to expand...

Which is why we have advocacy groups like the NRA, the ACLU, and the Sierra Club. This decision eliminates a pointless procedural hurdle that forced them to couch their ads in particular terms.

Often corporations and unions are congenial partners on issues and candidates. Need I list some?
Click to expand...

I just don't have a clue what you're getting at here. Nothing in this decision has any relation to the issues you're complaining about.

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...

So propose a system that you think would work.

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...

Again, the issue is not whether corporations = people, no matter how much people try to misconstrue it as such. The issue is whether certain constitutional rights protect corporate entities in addition to individuals.
 
misterman said:
No it won't. It's a parody. Cute, but not serious.
Click to expand...

It may be a parody but I saw the guy on msnbc and they offered no disclaimer. Now if it had been fox.:roll:

It will be interesting.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
It may be a parody but I saw the guy on msnbc and they offered no disclaimer.
Click to expand...

Because they think their viewers are smart enough to see the obvious and be in on the joke. Maybe they overestimated a little.

Seriously - it's a joke. The corporation won't even get on the ballot. I can't believe I have to tell you that.
 
misterman said:
Because they think their viewers are smart enough to see the obvious and be in on the joke. Maybe they overestimated a little.

Seriously - it's a joke. The corporation won't even get on the ballot. I can't believe I have to tell you that.
Click to expand...

Well it is med time......
 
j-mac said:
Regardless of what Media Matters trys to pass off here, their case is weak to say the least.


j-mac
Click to expand...
I guess it's for us to decide then. I bet you are just a partisan hack who never bothered to cry over repub presidents who did the exact same thing, similar thing or worse. :2wave:
 
NoJingoLingo said:
I guess it's for us to decide then. I bet you are just a partisan hack who never bothered to cry over repub presidents who did the exact same thing, similar thing or worse. :2wave:
Click to expand...


Depends on who you are talking about when you say 'us'? As for the rest of your name calling, grow up will ya?


j-mac
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And it will be rejected because a corporation can't be sworn into office. It has some of the same rights a person has, because a corporation is an assembly of people, but it is not a person. Many of us know this already.
Click to expand...

If it's not a person then how can it possibly have rights protected under the constitution that a person has?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
If it's not a person then how can it possibly have rights protected under the constitution that a person has?
Click to expand...


The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders. The legal independence of a corporation prevents shareholders from being personally liable for corporate debts. It also allows stockholders to sue the corporation through a derivative suit and makes ownership in the company (shares) easily transferable. The legal "person" status of corporations gives the business perpetual life; deaths of officials or stockholders do not alter the corporation's structure.

Corporations are taxable entities that fall under a different scheme from individuals. Although corporations have a "double tax" problem -- both corporate profits and shareholder dividends are taxed -- corporate profits are taxed at a lower rate than the rates for individuals.


Corporations | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


j-mac :mrgreen:
 
NoJingoLingo said:
If it's not a person then how can it possibly have rights protected under the constitution that a person has?
Click to expand...

Got a problem with reading comprehension?

The people owning the corporation have those protected freedoms, hence the government cannot deny those people, or their chosen representative, their corporation, from excercising that freedom.

That's what, the 250th time that's been said out of almost a thousand posts, and you still pretend to not know this?
 
j-mac said:
j-mac :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, I posted that days ago in the Corporate personhood thread. I disagree with the concept that corporations need to to be treated as a person in order for the corporation to receive those benefits listed. Corporate law could handle those without dipping into the Constitution, but of course we know that corporations write our laws therefore we have corporate personhood. It's simply the corporations way of having their cake while being protected from the calories. :2razz:
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Yeah, I know, I posted that days ago in the Corporate personhood thread. I disagree with the concept that corporations need to to be treated as a person in order for the corporation to receive those benefits listed. Corporate law could handle those without dipping into the Constitution, but of course we know that corporations write our laws therefore we have corporate personhood. It's simply the corporations way of having their cake while being protected from the calories. :2razz:
Click to expand...


Corporations write the laws? I believe that is congress.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Corporations write the laws? I believe that is congress.


j-mac
Click to expand...

J-mac,

Unfortunately for the common citizens, most congressman are owned by one big business or another.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that businesses are buying the laws they want.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Got a problem with reading comprehension?

The people owning the corporation have those protected freedoms, hence the government cannot deny those people, or their chosen representative, their corporation, from excercising that freedom.

That's what, the 250th time that's been said out of almost a thousand posts, and you still pretend to not know this?
Click to expand...
I know, you keep saying it as if it will magically become true. It's the republican game plan and we all realize it without you having to remind us.

Again I'll spell it out for you. The people working at said corporations have their rights protected whether they are employed or not, therefore, no additional protections are needed because being employed does not negate their rights.

The SCOTUS ruling is in conflict with the Constitution because they gave the corporation free speech protection where none was needed. Bill Gates has his rights protected under the Constitution no matter where he works or whether he works at all. So saying that now he can have his right protected because of the SCOTUS decision is a tautology.
 
Vader said:
J-mac,

Unfortunately for the common citizens, most congressman are owned by one big business or another.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that businesses are buying the laws they want.
Click to expand...


For what common citizen? Look, I am a veteran truck driver, I can assure you that I don't set the world on fire, but tell me, all you anti business people, what are you going to do for a job when you destroy the ones currently?



j-mac
 
Vader said:
J-mac,

Unfortunately for the common citizens, most congressman are owned by one big business or another.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that businesses are buying the laws they want.
Click to expand...

It is logical to assume that if congressmen are voting for laws that constituents don't like then they'll be voted out of office. I mean, we do have elections, right?
 
Vader said:
J-mac,

Unfortunately for the common citizens, most congressman are owned by one big business or another.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that businesses are buying the laws they want.
Click to expand...

Can lobbyists write legislation?
Lobbyists can and at times do write legislation, sometimes at the behest of a member of Congress or their staff. Often, lobbyists will submit language to a member who has a working relationship with the industry which the lobbyist represents.
Click to expand...

Source

So there we have it!
 
Vader said:
J-mac,

Unfortunately for the common citizens, most congressman are owned by one big business or another.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that businesses are buying the laws they want.
Click to expand...

That's crap. The voters choose the congressmen. No amount of money can change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom