• 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!

Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

Is Citizen's United et al ruling compatible with democracy?

  • yes

    Votes: 9 39.1%

  • no

    Votes: 14 60.9%
  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .
repeter said:
So was Plessy v. Ferguson.
Click to expand...

It's the law.

And while you're busy fighting the right to determine what's balanced, the corporations are making sure everything is imbalanced.
Click to expand...

There is no "right" to determine this.

And as NGNM85 already pointed out to you, rather explicitly, Americans disagree with you. They don't corporations, and the power they have over the political system. If you want a link, ask NGNM85, I'm sure he'd be happy to provide it for you.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the KKK but it means nothing. They have a right to say what they have to say. Many do disagree with me on this. I'd bet a majority would also say that it should be illegal for the KKK have their say. OPinion does not trump Constitutional Rights.

What you quoted is hogwash, but I never said that, explicitly or implicitly :doh
Click to expand...

So you believe you are also swayed by the Soros's of the world? If so, fair enough.

I'm not trying to change the right to Free Speech, I would however like to reverse the SC decision in Citizens United.
Click to expand...

Well it is now set precedent and it's going to be very hard to do.

Yes, an individual. A corporation, which is a compilation of thousands of people's greed is not an individual.
Click to expand...

Those greedy unions. Yeah, we might agree there.

As you said, yes on an individual basis.
Click to expand...

That doesn't dissappear, the distortion caused by magnification of their right through a corporation should.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can not rectify this statement. They have a right to what they want to say but they shouldn't be able to say it together? Why is that? They have to right to associate with like thinking people for a similiar goal?

You want to determine what people can say together or who they can say it with?

Absolutely, but allowing them to the level of control and influence they have through corporations fundamentally flaws the system.
Click to expand...

Whether they say it with one voice or 500 voices, they are still going to say the same thing.
 
repeter said:
I could abide if you challenegd his claims, or if you brought up something that counters his facts, but no. You acted dishonorably.

You. Fail.
Click to expand...

You can't even properly quote. NGNM85 never said what you have him quoted as saying. I did. No, I can not address your mucked up post.
 
1Perry said:
You can't even properly quote. NGNM85 never said what you have him quoted as saying. I did. No, I can not address your mucked up post.
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

Check it again. That a little less mucked up? :2wave:
 
theplaydrive said:
1. Kerry lost the election for several reasons, most of which were his fault, so the idea that one guy "brought him down" is silly.
Click to expand...

LOL, he did a ton of damage. I think you got the point. All of Kerry's money could not overcome it.

2. To answer your example: Barack Obama raised millions upon millions of dollars and won, Scott Walker was backed by corporate giants the Koch brothers and he's changed his state and perhaps the country significantly, many of the most influential lobbyists in Washington are funded by corporations and many politicians at every level of government have "special" relationships with corporations which is why their corporate friends end up getting contracts with government over others and sometimes to detriment of the public.
Click to expand...

McCain raised millions upon millions and lost. Again, your beef is with political whores.

In other words, your one or two examples do not affect the general rule. Of course money and power don't always lead to political influence, but it's pretty evident that it leads to such influence more often than not. I know that I couldn't fund a campaign like Koch brothers or get certain contracts in Chicago like Rahm Emmanuel's friends.
Click to expand...

No, but what is cool is that you could join with many people with similiar views and have an equal say. This is what brought this before the USSC. Groups like the NRA, Unions, and other groups being told they could not speak their piece.
 
1Perry said:
It's the law.



There is no "right" to determine this.



I disagree with the KKK but it means nothing. They have a right to say what they have to say. Many do disagree with me on this. I'd bet a majority would also say that it should be illegal for the KKK have their say. OPinion does not trump Constitutional Rights.



So you believe you are also swayed by the Soros's of the world? If so, fair enough.



Well it is now set precedent and it's going to be very hard to do.



Those greedy unions. Yeah, we might agree there.





Sorry, I can not rectify this statement. They have a right to what they want to say but they shouldn't be able to say it together? Why is that? They have to right to associate with like thinking people for a similiar goal?

You want to determine what people can say together or who they can say it with?



Whether they say it with one voice or 500 voices, they are still going to say the same thing.
Click to expand...

I just can't take anything you say after Post # 102 seriously. You need to grow up, and learn to be accountable for your actions.
 
repeter said:
:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

Check it again. That a little less mucked up? :2wave:
Click to expand...


No it isn't. NGNM85 never said this:

Of course you can find examples of antipathy and even outright hate of a corporation. That is really irrelevant to anything.

I did. I even reposted it just a few posts above.
 
repeter said:
I just can't take anything you say after Post # 102 seriously. You need to grow up, and learn to be accountable for your actions.
Click to expand...

I understand. You've thrown in the towel. It's a simple concept and question. If one person has a Constitutional Right to have his say, what happens that makes it wrong when he gets together with similiar minded people?
 
Thinking this over a bit more I'll have to admit that maybe I am partially wrong in part. (not that it will matter substantially). This discussion has revolved around corporations. The USSC was brought on because of McCain/Feingold.

It also banned groups like unions, planned parenthood, NARAL and the NRA from having a say. That so many seem to gloss over that either means that the loudest voices have swayed them or they have decided to overlook that themselves and just demonize corporations.

I suppose I'd need to see answers from those against this to determine.
 
1Perry said:
LOL, he did a ton of damage. I think you got the point. All of Kerry's money could not overcome it.

McCain raised millions upon millions and lost. Again, your beef is with political whores.

No, but what is cool is that you could join with many people with similiar views and have an equal say. This is what brought this before the USSC. Groups like the NRA, Unions, and other groups being told they could not speak their piece.
Click to expand...
You're either missing my point or purposely ignoring it considering that none of your points contradict mine at all. Everything you said is just a supplement or support to the point I've made. Either way, I'm not interested in repeating myself.
 
1Perry said:
Thinking this over a bit more I'll have to admit that maybe I am partially wrong in part. (not that it will matter substantially). This discussion has revolved around corporations. The USSC was brought on because of McCain/Feingold.

It also banned groups like unions, planned parenthood, NARAL and the NRA from having a say. That so many seem to gloss over that either means that the loudest voices have swayed them or they have decided to overlook that themselves and just demonize corporations.

I suppose I'd need to see answers from those against this to determine.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between pointing out the realities of corporate influence + the problems they cause and "demonizing corporations". Learn it and maybe you'll be able to address people's actual arguments instead of making up imaginary ones.

As to your point about unions, PP, etc. - I don't believe it's good for most organizations to have overwhelming power in politics. Too much power harms in a small group of wealthy organizations harms the public.
 
theplaydrive said:
There's a difference between pointing out the realities of corporate influence + the problems they cause and "demonizing corporations". Learn it and maybe you'll be able to address people's actual arguments instead of making up imaginary ones.
Click to expand...

Would it be a good arguement for me to say, black people commit crimes so we must do something about that? If you simply want to say that corporations *sometimes* promote ideas you feel are bad for society, fine. I wouldn't disagree.

As to your point about unions, PP, etc. - I don't believe it's good for most organizations to have overwhelming power in politics. Too much power harms in a small group of wealthy organizations harms the public.
Click to expand...

Not only do we have free speech, we have the Freedom of Assembly.

Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political freedom and a civil liberty.

Freedom of assembly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can not change that in the courts or a simple law.
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
Would it be a good arguement for me to say, black people commit crimes so we must do something about that? If you simply want to say that corporations *sometimes* promote ideas you feel are bad for society, fine. I wouldn't disagree.
Click to expand...
Your comment about black people and crimes doesn't make sense in the context of this discussion. I haven't been talking about "bad ideas" that corporations promote, I've been talking about the level of influence corporations have, so your second comment isn't relevant either.

Not only do we have free speech, we have the Freedom of Assembly.

Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political freedom and a civil liberty.

Freedom of assembly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can not change that in the courts or a simple law.
Click to expand...
Freedom of assembly isn't the issue, it's freedom of speech, so I'm not sure what your point is. Moreover, the country can go against the Constitution if it has a legitimate reason, so telling me what the Constitution says isn't really an argument. For more information, see slander and libel.
 
theplaydrive said:
Your comment about black people and crimes doesn't make sense in the context of this discussion. I haven't been talking about "bad ideas" that corporations promote, I've been talking about the level of influence corporations have, so your second comment isn't relevant either.
Click to expand...

It's a misguided generalization all the same as the one that corporations are bad.

Freedom of assembly isn't the issue, it's freedom of speech, so I'm not sure what your point is. Moreover, the country can go against the Constitution if it has a legitimate reason, so telling me what the Constitution says isn't really an argument. For more information, see slander and libel.
Click to expand...

We all seem to agree that people have the right of free speech. The problem with some seem to be when they get together. Sorry, many people aren't willing to toss our rights aside simply because we do not like how some express theirs. In the end, there may be some bumps but the courts will uphold our Constitutional rights as they did here.
 
1Perry said:
It's a misguided generalization all the same as the one that corporations are bad.
Click to expand...
I never said corporations are bad and I don't believe that they are. As I said, I've only been talking about the amount of influence that they have on society and the potential consequences of such influence. You have created a strawman.

We all seem to agree that people have the right of free speech. The problem with some seem to be when they get together. Sorry, many people aren't willing to toss our rights aside simply because we do not like how some express theirs. In the end, there may be some bumps but the courts will uphold our Constitutional rights as they did here.
Click to expand...
There's no need to be sorry, you haven't said anything that has countered my arguments. I don't think anyone here has argued that we should "simply toss our rights aside because we don't like how some express theirs". This is another imaginary argument that you have created and argued against. What I said in that last post is that we can go against the Constitution when we have a legitimate reason. How did you get "toss our rights aside because we don't like others" from "legitimate reason"?
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
Let's also note, it's also the opinion of the USSC.



You nor anyone else gets to decide what is "balanced". Unfortunately, those who lose always thinks it's because something wasn't "fair". No, it's because more disagreed with you than agreed with you. People do not by and large disagree with you because someone else told them to. This type of elitist thinking is pretty disgusting actually.

"I can see the facts but others can't because corporations are spending too much money" Hog wash.



O.K.



You can never fix a problem until one elects someone willing to fix it. We can not change ones right to Free Speech without a Constitutional Adm and that aint going to happen.

You would agree would you not that each individual has a COnstitutional right to free speech. Right?

Do you agree that if 50 people are around you, they all have that right also?

Now how does this right dissapear simply because they all decide to say the same thing at the same time?

As an aside, it does not matter whether what they say is good, helpful or positive. They have a right to say something you deem wrong also.
Click to expand...

Now imagine the original 50 people are surrounded by another 50 people with a million dollars worth of amplifiers and speakers, and we are both discussing apples.

The above illustrates the phenomenon that concerns those who are uncomfortable with the ramifications of the CU decision.

The ability of an equal number of people to apply massive amounts of money alone to completely drown out the original 50 IS something to be concerned about.

And then you look at a board of directors numbering say, 20, who stand to gain or lose billions of dollars depending on what party is in power, and now these 20 men can spend hundreds of millions of dollars supporting candidates and points of view before that becomes an unacceptable cost of doing business.
 
1Perry said:
We all seem to agree that people have the right of free speech. The problem with some seem to be when they get together. Sorry, many people aren't willing to toss our rights aside simply because we do not like how some express theirs. In the end, there may be some bumps but the courts will uphold our Constitutional rights as they did here.
Click to expand...

Its not they get together that is the main problem. Its that a person who lives in NY can buy influence in SC, NH, IN, WI, visa versa etc. How is the citizens of IN served by the lobbying of a person who has no ties to IN? How is his voice given more weight?

Of course, this could all be solved if speech were free in dollar sense.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
I never said corporations are bad and I don't believe that they are. As I said, I've only been talking about the amount of influence that they have on society and the potential consequences of such influence. You have created a strawman.
Click to expand...

No, my statement was simply misunderstood. I didn't say that you made the arguement only that the idea is as misguided as mine. There are many here making that arguement. We seem to agree.

There's no need to be sorry, you haven't said anything that has countered my arguments. I don't think anyone here has argued that we should "simply toss our rights aside because we don't like how some express theirs". This is another imaginary argument that you have created and argued against. What I said in that last post is that we can go against the Constitution when we have a legitimate reason. How did you get "toss our rights aside because we don't like others" from "legitimate reason"?
Click to expand...

We can "not go against the Constitution". To do so would be tossing it aside. As an example.....shouting fire in a crowded theater. That was ruled as not protected speech, not that it was but we would simply "go against the Constitution".
 
xpiher said:
Its not they get together that is the main problem. Its that a person who lives in NY can buy influence in SC, NH, IN, WI, visa versa etc. How is the citizens of IN served by the lobbying of a person who has no ties to IN? How is his voice given more weight?
Click to expand...

I will say that I do not care much for this myself. As I've said before though, I do not like that the KKK can have their say in the local park either. Just because I do not like it is not reason enough to curtail the rights of others.

There is much that those who band together have to say that I do not like. I despise removing their right to say it even more though.
 
What if...? said:
Now imagine the original 50 people are surrounded by another 50 people with a million dollars worth of amplifiers and speakers, and we are both discussing apples.

The above illustrates the phenomenon that concerns those who are uncomfortable with the ramifications of the CU decision.
Click to expand...

Free speech is not always pretty. Rights are not always positive. It is still better than the alternative.

The ability of an equal number of people to apply massive amounts of money alone to completely drown out the original 50 IS something to be concerned about.
Click to expand...

The single charismatic speaker can drown out 50 unprepared speakers. One guy caused the death of 900 in Jonestown.

And then you look at a board of directors numbering say, 20, who stand to gain or lose billions of dollars depending on what party is in power, and now these 20 men can spend hundreds of millions of dollars supporting candidates and points of view before that becomes an unacceptable cost of doing business.
Click to expand...

Do you know 20 people that have banded together to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence an election or is this just a hypothetical?
 
1Perry said:
No, my statement was simply misunderstood. I didn't say that you made the arguement only that the idea is as misguided as mine. There are many here making that argument. We seem to agree.
Click to expand...
We do agree and yet I don't see anyone else in here making the generalizations that you accuse them of.

We can "not go against the Constitution". To do so would be tossing it aside. As an example.....shouting fire in a crowded theater. That was ruled as not protected speech, not that it was but we would simply "go against the Constitution".
Click to expand...
Ruling that something is not protected speech is, in fact, "going against the Constitution" because it directly ignores the 1st Amendment. Many of our laws "go against the Constitution" and they do so when we decide that certain parts of the Constitution shouldn't apply to certain action (i.e. free speech shouldn't apply to libel). It's about "throwing our rights away for no reason" as you said earlier, so if your argument rests on "the Constitution says so", then that isn't a compelling or valid argument.
 
theplaydrive said:
We do agree and yet I don't see anyone else in here making the generalizations that you accuse them of.
Click to expand...

Post number 5 for one.

NGNM85 said:
Corporations are monolithic, illegitimate institutions, which enrich themselves through theft, and, are, fundamentally, antithetical to democracy.
Click to expand...

Ruling that something is not protected speech is, in fact, "going against the Constitution" because it directly ignores the 1st Amendment. Many of our laws "go against the Constitution" and they do so when we decide that certain parts of the Constitution shouldn't apply to certain action (i.e. free speech shouldn't apply to libel). It's about "throwing our rights away for no reason" as you said earlier, so if your argument rests on "the Constitution says so", then that isn't a compelling or valid argument.
Click to expand...

There are times when rights conflict and the courts must rule which one trumps the other. You simply not liking something is never going to trump a right.
 
1Perry said:
Post number 5 for one.
Click to expand...
i was wrong then.

There are times when rights conflict and the courts must rule which one trumps the other. You simply not liking something is never going to trump a right.
Click to expand...
And again, you pull the same exact straw man. I have not argued AT ALL that the Constitution should be changed just because I don't like something. Furthermore, I have said over and over again that I don't dislike corporations. And finally, even NGNM85's argument isn't based just in "dislike", it's based in seeing fundamental problems with corporations and their impact on society. So maybe you should finally address people's actual arguments instead of reducing them to "simply not liking something" because that's just an imaginary argument you've created, particularly in regards to my posts.
 
Free Speech has many fundemental problems. It's still far, far better than the alternative.
 
1Perry said:
I will say that I do not care much for this myself. As I've said before though, I do not like that the KKK can have their say in the local park either. Just because I do not like it is not reason enough to curtail the rights of others.

There is much that those who band together have to say that I do not like. I despise removing their right to say it even more though.
Click to expand...

Its not about liking what people have to say, its about why should a person in another state, who has no ties to that state, be able to lobby in that state? It would be like a foreign national giving money to congress.
 
xpiher said:
Its not about liking what people have to say, its about why should a person in another state, who has no ties to that state, be able to lobby in that state? It would be like a foreign national giving money to congress.
Click to expand...

You understand that a foreign national, while (s)he cannot donate directly to a Congressional Caimpaign, can donate to a Political Action Committee. Even one whose only purpose is to elect a singular Congressional Represenative?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom