• 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!

Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain

Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

How about from the courts decision. From Justice Stevens section, represent the opinion of 4/9 supreme court justices.

"In critiquing Austin’s antidistortion rationale and campaign finance regulation more generally, our colleagues place tremendous weight on the example of media corporations. See ante, at 35–38, 46; ante, at 1, 11 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); ante, at 6 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). Yet it is not at all clear that Austin would permit §203 to be applied to them. The press plays a unique role not only in the text, history, and structure of the First Amendment but also in facilitating public discourse; as the Austin Court explained, “media corporations differ significantly from other corporations in that their resources are devoted to the collection of information and its dissemination to the public,” 494 U. S., at 667. Our colleagues have raised
some interesting and difficult questions about Congress’ authority to regulate electioneering by the press, and about how to define what constitutes the press. But that is not the case before us. Section 203 does not apply to media corporations, and even if it did, Citizens United is
not a media corporation."

You keep pointing to the dissenting opinion as if it means anything..... they lost, they are wrong.... the court ruled and majority opinion is now law, get over it.
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

Can you cite anything reputible.to support your assertions?

Again, from the supreme courts decision, and Justice Stevens opinion:

"The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it. Austin set forth some of the basic differences. Unlike natural perons, corporations have “limited liability” for their owners and managers, “perpetual life,” separation of ownership and control, “and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets . . . that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that
maximize the return on their shareholders’ investments.” 94 U. S., at 658–659. Unlike voters in U. S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled. Unlike other interest groups, business corporations have been “effectively delegated responsibility for ensuring society’s economic welfare”; they inescapably structure the life of every citizen. “ ‘[T]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation,’ ” furthermore, “ ‘are not an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.’ ” Id.,
t 659 (quoting MCFL, 479 U. S., at 258). “ ‘They reflect instead the economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no reflection
of the power of its ideas.’ ” 494 U. S., at 659 (quoting MCFL, 479 U. S., at 258).72 It might also be added that corporations have no con*sciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not them*selves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

You keep pointing to the dissenting opinion as if it means anything..... they lost, they are wrong.... the court ruled and majority opinion is now law, get over it.

That is a terrible position. Why would the court ever be able to overturn Austin if they took your viewpoint?
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

I read it. :roll: Nice little false appeal to authority with the "4/9 justices" thing. Doesn't address the question in context, being a matter of Constitutional rights being applicable to corporations or not.

They are or they aren't, when you disparage "corporate personhood" in toto. The New York Times Corporation is no more a "person" than Lockheed-Martin.

I answered your question in context.

"And what of in-kind contributions from media corporations? "

You changed the context now to the first amendment. Which there is plenty of evidence against from the dissenting opinions as well.

Have I appealed to authority, sure I have, and it is true 4/9 have this opinion. Of course you are appealing to authority everytime you cite the 1st amendment.
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

That is a terrible position. Why would the court ever be able to overturn Austin if they took your viewpoint?

A case was filed..... it was ruled on. If you don't like it, file a case. Siteing the loseing opinion isn't going to convince anyone of anything..... that opinion lost. :doh
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

I answered your question in context.

"And what of in-kind contributions from media corporations? "

You changed the context now to the first amendment. Which there is plenty of evidence against from the dissenting opinions as well.

Have I appealed to authority, sure I have, and it is true 4/9 have this opinion. Of course you are appealing to authority everytime you cite the 1st amendment.

5/9 don't agree with you.
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

A case was filed..... it was ruled on. If you don't like it, file a case. Siteing the loseing opinion isn't going to convince anyone of anything..... that opinion lost. :doh

Wow, now this is an appeal to authority. Different justices have different opinions. I mean, why was Austin allowed 19 years ago?
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

5/9 don't agree with you.

Now that that is out of the way. Lets just discuss the opinions and not who did them, since it is obviously irrelevent either way.
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

I answered your question in context.

"And what of in-kind contributions from media corporations? "

You changed the context now to the first amendment. Which there is plenty of evidence against from the dissenting opinions as well.

No, I've been arguing within the context of "corporate personhood" and whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to corporations.:roll:

But I get it, right -- there are good corporations and bad corporations. Good corporations enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights, while bad corporations don't.


Have I appealed to authority, sure I have, and it is true 4/9 have this opinion. Of course you are appealing to authority everytime you cite the 1st amendment.

No, the text of the law is actually the law, so that's fact. You're appealing to the opinions of four people.
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

OMG Corporations can now run misleading ads in elections!! ... just like what politicians have been doing for years:roll:
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

OMG Corporations can now run misleading ads in elections!! ... just like what politicians have been doing for years:roll:

That's why the libs are all up in arms about this..... for the last year they have been demonizing Wall Street, now Wall Street has a voice.... pay back's a bitch.
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

No, I've been arguing within the context of "corporate personhood" and whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to corporations.:roll:

But I get it, right -- there are good corporations and bad corporations. Good corporations enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights, while bad corporations don't.




No, the text of the law is actually the law, so that's fact. You're appealing to the opinions of four people.

What makes you think the bill of rights should even apply to a corporation?

Austin was the law, and the opinions of 5 people overturned it. But why would we do that. The law is the law, thats a fact, right?
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

What makes you think the bill of rights should even apply to a corporation?

Congress shall make no law . . .

Look, corporations do not exist independent of people. People do not give up their rights when they form an association.

It's really sad that you have to find a way to diminish the protections of the Bill of Rights to establish your preferred state of being.


Austin was the law, and the opinions of 5 people overturned it. But why would we do that. The law is the law, thats a fact, right?

Austin was precedent. And it was overturned through due process. If the text of the First Amendment were similarly changed through due, prescribed process, then it would change. Nothing magic about that.
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

5/9 don't agree with you.

If that is the main argument you present, then you are going to have to accept the Roe v. Wade decision. A majority of justices didn't agree with you on that.
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

What makes you think the bill of rights should even apply to a corporation?

Austin was the law, and the opinions of 5 people overturned it. But why would we do that. The law is the law, thats a fact, right?

The Supreme court is the final arbiter of Law in The US.

5 of the 9 Justices decided that Austin was unconstitutional.

5 is a majority.

The Supreme court operates on a simple majority.

That is why Austin is no longer law....capiche?
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

If that is the main argument you present, then you are going to have to accept the Roe v. Wade decision. A majority of justices didn't agree with you on that.

What makes you think I don't accept Roe v Wade?
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

Congress shall make no law . . .

Look, corporations do not exist independent of people. People do not give up their rights when they form an association.

It's really sad that you have to find a way to diminish the protections of the Bill of Rights to establish your preferred state of being.

The whole point of a corporation is to exist independent of its owners. The owners are seperate from those who manage the company, but when it comes time to be recognized under the legal system they are offered limited liability of the corporations actions. To accept what a corporation is you have to accept that it is legally independent of the people that run it and own it.

Austin was precedent. And it was overturned through due process. If the text of the First Amendment were similarly changed through due, prescribed process, then it would change. Nothing magic about that.

I know how it works, but appealing to the law being the law is not an arguement when we are discussing whether the law is correct. Especially when it in not clear the law was even meant to perscribe to these situations.
 
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

The whole point of a corporation is to exist independent of its owners. The owners are seperate from those who manage the company, but when it comes time to be recognized under the legal system they are offered limited liability of the corporations actions. To accept what a corporation is you have to accept that it is legally independent of the people that run it and own it.

A corporation cannot act indepedently of its owners. Everything it does is the action of people.


I know how it works, but appealing to the law being the law is not an arguement when we are discussing whether the law is correct.

I think when the argument is over whether or not the law was interpreted correctly, the text of the law is very much at the heart of the matter. :roll:

"Prove the First Amendment applies to corporations -- but don't quote it!!!"



Especially when it in not clear the law was even meant to perscribe to these situations.

If you can find an exception for people acting as a group in the protections of the First Amendment, please quote it for me.

Or, if you can find where the Framers of the First Amendment said they don't consider it to apply to groups but individuals only, please show that.
 
Back
Top Bottom