• 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 .
1Perry said:
Right, you are irrelevant. Why you think your opinion matters here is beyond me.
Click to expand...

But see, the thing is, thats not democracy. That my friend is an oligarch/plutocracy
 
xpiher said:
But see, the thing is, thats not democracy. That my friend is an oligarch/plutocracy
Click to expand...

You have more votes than a corporation.
 
1Perry said:
You have more votes than a corporation.
Click to expand...

And here is finally my main problem with the system. We have a federal system, that corps has the money to fund 1000s of elections, thus not having 1 vote as an entity, but 1000s.
 
xpiher said:
And here is finally my main problem with the system. We have a federal system, that corps has the money to fund 1000s of elections, thus not having 1 vote as an entity, but 1000s.
Click to expand...

Seems many are upset that they are in the minority opinion and want something to blame for that.
 
1Perry said:
Seems many are upset that they are in the minority opinion and want something to blame for that.
Click to expand...
That wasn't blame that was a statement of fact. Do you have a response to xpiher's argument or are you simply going to prove that you're unable to handle others' arguments by diverting the conversation with ad hominems?
 
His reply did not address my statement. I noted that his votes trumps the corporations as they do not have a vote.

That they have pooled their resources together with others does not negate that.

Soros spent a ton of money and failed miserably. Swiftboaters spent very little but helped bring Kerry down.
 
1Perry said:
Right, you are irrelevant. Why you think your opinion matters here is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Well if you read the thread you would know he's the OP, so his opinion matters HERE at LEAST as much as anyone elses.
 
1Perry said:
His reply did not address my statement. I noted that his votes trumps the corporations as they do not have a vote.
Click to expand...

Yet you clearly failed to note that this point nullifies your argument.

1Perry said:
That they have pooled their resources together with others does not negate that.
Click to expand...

Since the argument is that corporations have the ability to effect a much larger number of elections then a single voter, this more then negates that, it crushes it. Which is why we're having this discussion in the first place.

1Perry said:
Soros spent a ton of money and failed miserably. Swiftboaters spent very little but helped bring Kerry down.
Click to expand...

It takes money to get on TV, to broadcast, and advertise, etc. That this worked means that Soros used his money inefficiently, whereas money was used against him more efficiently. Just throwing money at a problem is never the solution, but effectively throwing money is. And because of that fact, this example is pointless.
 
1Perry said:
Of course you can find examples of antipathy and even outright hate of a corporation. That is really irrelevant to anything.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious. You said that Americans don't hate corporations. NGNM85 destroyed that argument, and then you went, "but it doesn't really matter...."

Just felt like highlighting your lack of substance for all to see.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's "the people" vs. "the people."
Click to expand...

This is not the case. It is, "the people" vs. "the people with extremely limited liability, and billions in funds that don't necessarily belong to them."

Money causes great imbalances. If it was equally easy for the average joe to secure 30 seconds of airtime on a channel, and for a corporation to do so, I would be much more content with the situation. But the fact of the matter is, a few thousand stockholders can outweigh the effect of hundreds of thousands of people. That is inherently imbalanced, and inequal.

Heck, there's even an argument that allowing corporations to contribute at all is unconstitutional. 1 man, 1 vote. Corporations can secure thousands of votes, much more than the stockholders could secure individually.

If they want to be involved in politics so bad, fine. I'd redefine corporations as people in the following way: take away their unlimited contribution ability, give every corporation in America 1 vote. They can figure out who to vote for on their own. This should have been the result of Citizen's United States.
 
What if...? said:
Well if you read the thread you would know he's the OP, so his opinion matters HERE at LEAST as much as anyone elses.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I do not think I explained myself here very well. I was speaking about the idea that holding a handful of a corporations stock means your opinion is worth much.
 
repeter said:
Yet you clearly failed to note that this point nullifies your argument.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. All the money in the world does not gaurantee you a single vote.

Since the argument is that corporations have the ability to effect a much larger number of elections then a single voter, this more then negates that, it crushes it. Which is why we're having this discussion in the first place.
Click to expand...

They do not.

It takes money to get on TV, to broadcast, and advertise, etc. That this worked means that Soros used his money inefficiently, whereas money was used against him more efficiently. Just throwing money at a problem is never the solution, but effectively throwing money is. And because of that fact, this example is pointless.
Click to expand...

No, people didn't buy what Soros was selling. Corporations by and large would be for more and more and more government spending. That idea was dismissed despite all the money they may have spent in the last elections. Now does all of this money have an effect on the individual politician? That's a much better arguement but your complaint should be with the politician not with free speech.

I've seen little in the way of complaints concerning the incestous relationship Obama had with Immelt.
 
1Perry said:
It doesn't. All the money in the world does not gaurantee you a single vote.
Click to expand...

It does. You choose to ignore the reality of the situation because there is no upfront benefit.

1Perry said:
They do not.
Click to expand...

Again, this is based on the perspective/opinion that because they don't have upfront benefits, and don't get votes right away or in discrete quantities, it is negligible. That logic is completely and totally fallacious, and fundamentally flawed.

1Perry said:
No, people didn't buy what Soros was selling. Corporations by and large would be for more and more and more government spending. That idea was dismissed despite all the money they may have spent in the last elections. Now does all of this money have an effect on the individual politician? That's a much better arguement but your complaint should be with the politician not with free speech.
Click to expand...

People did buy from Soros, he just didn't get enough to buy it, because he didn't use his money in the most efficient manner. If 2 quantities of money are used for equal relative efficiency, the larger quantity will have the larger effect.

Corporations' wishes by and large are muffled by the voices of the largest corporations, such as Goldman Sachs, which want less govt. regulation, and thus less government. There is nothing equal or balanced in the current contribution system, and these fundamental imbalances result with its incompatibility with democracy. Again, the principle of 1 man, 1 vote is not true with the system as it is.

I do also have complaints about the effect of this money on politicians, but that is an entirely different topic then the one at hand.

1Perry said:
I've seen little in the way of complaints concerning the incestous relationship Obama had with Immelt.
Click to expand...

Just because people choose to be hypocritical, doesn't mean they don't have a point. Thats one of the problems with the entire political world right now. One group points out a problem, and then an oppossing group prevents any progress towards fixing the problem, because the first group has a similar problem. You can't fix everything at the same time, you have to take it one step at a time, and blaming the other group for hypocrisy, and using that as an excuse to altogether prevent progress is unacceptable.
 
1Perry said:
Sorry, I do not think I explained myself here very well. I was speaking about the idea that holding a handful of a corporations stock means your opinion is worth much.
Click to expand...

People can essentially buy influence in the political system? That seems to be an admission of incompatibility, if I'm not mistaken.

And I would agree that people who hold stocks, and use the accompanying leverage are entitled to "more" of an opinion than those without an equivalent number of stocks. That is the problem!
 
repeter said:
This is hilarious. You said that Americans don't hate corporations. NGNM85 destroyed that argument, and then you went, "but it doesn't really matter...."
Click to expand...

No, I said that he could show where Americans do hate corporations but that really doesn't matter. Rights do not rest upon how much we like those excercising them.

Just felt like highlighting your lack of substance for all to see.
Click to expand...

You'll need to read a little closer to even attempt that.
 
1Perry said:
No, I said that he could show where Americans do hate corporations but that really doesn't matter. Rights do not rest upon how much we like those excercising them.



You'll need to read a little closer to even attempt that.
Click to expand...

No need to try to save face, it's all there.
 
repeter said:
Again, this is based on the perspective/opinion that because they don't have upfront benefits, and don't get votes right away or in discrete quantities, it is negligible. That logic is completely and totally fallacious, and fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

Let's also note, it's also the opinion of the USSC.

People did buy from Soros, he just didn't get enough to buy it, because he didn't use his money in the most efficient manner. If 2 quantities of money are used for equal relative efficiency, the larger quantity will have the larger effect.

Corporations' wishes by and large are muffled by the voices of the largest corporations, such as Goldman Sachs, which want less govt. regulation, and thus less government. There is nothing equal or balanced in the current contribution system, and these fundamental imbalances result with its incompatibility with democracy. Again, the principle of 1 man, 1 vote is not true with the system as it is.
Click to expand...

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.

I do also have complaints about the effect of this money on politicians, but that is an entirely different topic then the one at hand.
Click to expand...

O.K.

Just because people choose to be hypocritical, doesn't mean they don't have a point. Thats one of the problems with the entire political world right now. One group points out a problem, and then an oppossing group prevents any progress towards fixing the problem, because the first group has a similar problem. You can't fix everything at the same time, you have to take it one step at a time, and blaming the other group for hypocrisy, and using that as an excuse to altogether prevent progress is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

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.
 
1Perry said:
It doesn't. All the money in the world does not gaurantee you a single vote.
Click to expand...
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

A corporation that has millions of dollars to (directly or indirectly) fund politicians, ads, biased media outlets and campaigns has significantly more influence over politics than a regular person who makes $50,000/year.
 
theplaydrive said:
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

A corporation that has millions of dollars to (directly or indirectly) fund politicians, ads, biased media outlets and campaigns has significantly more influence over politics than a regular person who makes $50,000/year.
Click to expand...

No and I provided an example. John Kerry spent how many millions upon millions of dollars and a guy with a decades old beef with him, brought him down.
 
Not only does the influence matter, but so do loyalties. You give a guy 5 dollars to do something, and someone else gives him 10 dollars to do the exact opposite. What is that guy going to do? This is evident in politics with things like being taken on "special retreats" to get "advice" on how to "handle the public." This cuts both ways, both right and left.
 
1Perry said:
Let's also note, it's also the opinion of the USSC.
Click to expand...

So was Plessy v. Ferguson.

1Perry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

1Perry said:
"I can see the facts but others can't because corporations are spending too much money" Hog wash.
Click to expand...

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

1Perry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

1Perry said:
You would agree would you not that each individual has a COnstitutional right to free speech. Right?
Click to expand...

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

1Perry said:
Do you agree that if 50 people are around you, they all have that right also?
Click to expand...

As you said, yes on an individual basis.

1Perry said:
Now how does this right dissapear simply because they all decide to say the same thing at the same time?
Click to expand...

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

1Perry said:
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...

Absolutely, but allowing them to the level of control and influence they have through corporations fundamentally flaws the system.
 
1Perry said:
Indeed. Post #13.



Apology accepted.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, all I see is you doing some CYA after you were showed wrong. Since you want to keep this up, let me actually show you.

Post # 5
NGNM85 said:
Corporations are monolithic, illegitimate institutions, which enrich themselves through theft, and, are, fundamentally, antithetical to democracy.
Click to expand...

Post # 6
1Perry said:
The cool thing is that the above opinions never gain any sort of traction.
Click to expand...

Post # 11
NGNM85 said:
I can cite several historical examples. Are the majority of Americans (real) Libertarians? No, most Americans don't approach these issues in such a systemic way; they aren't reading Chomsky, or Kropotkin, or whatever. However, the basic principles are widely held. There are ample statistics revealing substantial antipathy towards corporations among the American people, and justifiably so. Most Americans don't read Marx, either, however, most of them regard his famous quote; 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' to be be such an obvious truism, as to be taken for granted.
Click to expand...

Post # 13
1Perry said:
Of course you can find examples of antipathy and even outright hate of a corporation. That is really irrelevant to anything.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
No and I provided an example. John Kerry spent how many millions upon millions of dollars and a guy with a decades old beef with him, brought him down.
Click to expand...
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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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...

Here are my thoughts:

1) I realize that many liberals do tend to overstate the influence of money in politics

2) However, that doesn't mean that the influence isn't still there, or that it isn't significant

3) Aside from the argument that people with money have an undue influence in politics, the idea of corporate personhood is questionable in and of itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom