RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DomImus -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 6:57:23 PM)

Michael Bloomberg spent $108M of his own money campaigning for mayor of NYC. John Corzine reportedly has spent about $100M of his own money campaigning for office. If I own a large company and want to spend $100M of my money in advertising to support a candidate how is that fundamentally any different from allowing the candidate himself to funnel massive amounts of his own money into the campaign?



Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 7:01:32 PM)

The Age of Political Sponsorship...

"This Supreme Court decision has been brought to you by __________, makers of fine ___________ since ________. Stop by ________ and try a ______ today!"






Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 7:10:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

When the government begins to limit free speech as Mccain-Feingold did it makes some other entity more equal, in this case big unions and big media.

And big Soros, of course. And big moveon.org...

It isn't the business of government to decide who has a right to say what, it is patently unconstitutional and the Roberts court is absolutely rock solid in finding it so.



Nonsense. You've been smoking Newt's Kool-Aid.

This applies the same to unions, and it has no effect on media, which can always run what it wants. This allows a corporate interest to sweep in and buy all the air time, blacking out any other coverage.

It also reverses over a century of established law, ignoring substantial precedent. This is a activist, politicized court. This is an attempt to counter the successful grass roots funding raising in the past few elections, giving power back to the corporations.

And come on--for every Soros and moveon.org there are dozens of Republican millionaires and well-funded organizations.

I don't remember anyone on the right complaining limiting union participation was patently unconstitutional. Be honest. Further, unions are miniscule compared to the dollars corporate interests control.

This also opens the door to multinational corporations held by foreign interests to directly influence elections. The amount of money involved here can flood and stop a debate, shutting down all other speech.

And Newt heralds this as helping middle-class candidates? Who's buying that crap?



DomImus -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 7:24:17 PM)

Is the task of the Supreme Court to decide what is inherently right and wrong or is it their job to decide whether an issue is constitutional or unconstitutional? I think they ruled on the latter rather than the former. I don't like this decision but I'm not going to hang the court because of it. I don't like some things that they have determined are constitutional. This time I favored something they found to be unconstitutional. 



Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 7:31:26 PM)

I think you're wrong. They made a political call, not a constitutional ruling. They also decided to do away with stare decisis and substitute their opinions for established legal precedent. It also invests a corporation with personal rights. Show me that part of the Constitution.

This is shaping up to be an activist court. I hope Congress buries them under a flurry of new laws to strike down.



DomImus -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 7:32:27 PM)

A quote from Obama:

"The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," President Obama said in a statement released by the White House. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”

This guy has balls so big it's a wonder he can stand upright considering some of the concessions he was willing to make to get support for his health care reform bill and especially in light of his own record concerning lobbyists - even after pledging to limit their influence. I still don't like the ruling and essentially agree with his comments. It's just that he is such a freaking hypocrite.





europeantrainer -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 8:06:05 PM)

Im very surprise that they STILL  followed the constitution,JANKO



Sanity -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 8:07:42 PM)


A corporation is a group of people. If a group or groups of people are prohibited from speaking out, why even pay lip service to the freedom of speech in a country the size of ours.

One person speaking on a street corner somewhere is meaningless.

Congress has free mailings paid for with our taxes, and the president has the bully pulpit which he uses to lie and slander and smear groups he doesn't like, which he uses to further his party and his political agenda... but the groups he attacks are prohibited by this same government from answering his venomous attacks?

Also, we've learned that our laws are enforced very selectively. The Attorney General's office and the entire Justice Department have become mere political tools. Its all so politicized that  I would prefer to limit the power of government rather than private citizens in whatever groups. In these days of mass media, why should the president and the congress and NBC and CBS and FOX News have the exclusive right to sway elections.

Let everyone speak, and educate the citizens well enough that they can sort their way through the bullshit. With the Internet its hard to keep anything a secret anyway. I say open it up, and speak freely, one and all.


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Sanity - for the benefit of an ignorant Brit, could you maybe explain (in your own words) why you believe a limited liability corporation whose purpose is to transact business for the profit of its shareholders, should have constitutional rights alike with a natural person?

Just interested in whether this is a considered position you hold or one of convenience or one held for the sake of a party line?

E







TheHeretic -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/21/2010 9:01:12 PM)

On the silver lining front, it will help create some jobs in PR and advertising companies.



Vendaval -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 5:49:58 AM)

Now this is a very significant change and quite troubling.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

This also opens the door to multinational corporations held by foreign interests to directly influence elections. The amount of money involved here can flood and stop a debate, shutting down all other speech.




LadyEllen -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 6:42:17 AM)

Thanks for your explanation Sanity

I am not following it though sorry; you say that corporations are made up of people (true) but that if the corporation is prevented from political participation then those people will have no voice - this is clearly not the case since every single one of them that is a citizen, has the same vote as every other citizen.

Your position seems to enable some citizens to have (effectively) more votes, and at best allows them a more vociferous vote than others. It furthermore allows individuals such as me, a Brit, to participate in US politics with a louder voice and/or greater influence over the process than you as an individual US citizen.

The real question though when it is boiled down, was why should a corporation be counted as a citizen?

We could answer this question one of two ways if we really, firmly can support the notion -
a) in the scenario where the corporation employs thousands in the US
b) in the scenario where the corporation has off-shored 95% of its jobs

Perhaps then, there could be an argument for permitting corporations a vote - a single vote, and rights to support campaigns, as long as they have sufficient socio-economic presence in the US - ie they employ a great many people in the US. This would then encourage, one would hope, US corporations to be good citizens.

E



UncleNasty -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 7:22:54 AM)

corporation = person

Personally I just don't see it.


Uncle Nasty



housesub4you -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 7:25:50 AM)

quote:


One person speaking on a street corner somewhere is meaningless.


Which is what most of us are, as we do not have billions of dollars in revenue to spend.  So, it gives an unequal amount of power to those with the deepest pockets.  Not that this is any real change, now at least we will know who is fucking us when they bend us over.

I do not agree with this decision, I think we have just opened up a flood gate of money to change this country into whatever giant multi-national companies desire.

And there will be no TV coverage of the lone person standing on the street corner standing up against it






Thadius -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 8:36:07 AM)

*FR*
After a bit more reading on the ruling. It seems that it also opens the door for unions to do the same. Although they have pretty much been doing that via 527s for awhile.

For those not familiar with how this case came about, a company wanted to release a "biop" of Hillary prior to the last presidential election, and was concerned with what penalties and possible jail time they would face because of the election finance laws.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next 10 months, and what influence it actually plays in the current political climate.



Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 8:51:27 AM)

quote:

A corporation is a group of people. If a group or groups of people are prohibited from speaking out, why even pay lip service to the freedom of speech in a country the size of ours.


No, it's not. It's its own legal entity--one that shields people in it from personal responsibility by limited their liability. That's very, very different from a person.

Nor are the people in it prohibited from speaking. They are still people. They still have individual rights.

Nor are groups prohibited from "speaking out." That's very different from buying up a market, shutting out other voices.

This ruling means that those with money are allowed to speak louder, and that those with the most money are allowed to do most of the speaking.

I don't care who's buying the election, it's a bad idea---as we've legally recognized for over 100 years, until now.

Kiss regulation goodbye. It's back to the 19th century.



Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 8:52:44 AM)

quote:

It seems that it also opens the door for unions to do the same.


It does. But unions are miniscule next to the financial power of corporations.



LadyEllen -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 8:53:03 AM)

For the sake of fairness and balance in my argument in all this, I dont believe unions should be accounted citizens either such that they might exercise influence on the process, whether by finance or otherwise. The members of a union are alike with the shareholders of a company - as long as they are citizens they each have a vote and may donate from their personal funds what they will. If they are not citizens, then they have no vote and no right to interfere in the process.

What now is to stop an agent of the Chinese communist party setting up a company in say, New York, and funding (with American taxpayers' own money - in sums far in excess of any competitor) a party that would seek to turn the US into a client state (even more than now)?

Or for that matter to stop an agent of the Iranian government from doing something similar?

I hear the Bin Ladens have quite a good sized stash too. Wonder what that might buy?

E



Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 8:59:57 AM)

The difference is that corporations are created to limit personal liability.



Thadius -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 9:04:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

It seems that it also opens the door for unions to do the same.


It does. But unions are miniscule next to the financial power of corporations.

Tim,

There are plenty of corps out there that lean to the left and right. I do understand your point though, and am still torn on the core issue. Is regulating the volume and quantity of speech, a direct violation of the 1st Ammendment? I am not sure. Should all tax paying entities be allowed to speak freely about the representation they are or possibly will be receiving in Washington? Of, course.

With the new mediums for folks to express themselves the cost of getting a particular opinion out there has been cut dramatically. Just look at all of the blogs, editorial websites, tweets, etc... Where is the balancing point between Joe the barber and Enron getting to voice their opinions on a Federal candidate or policy? I have no clue.

I wish you well,
Thadius



Thadius -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 9:10:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

For the sake of fairness and balance in my argument in all this, I dont believe unions should be accounted citizens either such that they might exercise influence on the process, whether by finance or otherwise. The members of a union are alike with the shareholders of a company - as long as they are citizens they each have a vote and may donate from their personal funds what they will. If they are not citizens, then they have no vote and no right to interfere in the process.

What now is to stop an agent of the Chinese communist party setting up a company in say, New York, and funding (with American taxpayers' own money - in sums far in excess of any competitor) a party that would seek to turn the US into a client state (even more than now)?

Or for that matter to stop an agent of the Iranian government from doing something similar?

I hear the Bin Ladens have quite a good sized stash too. Wonder what that might buy?

E


There were claims of this occuring during a some of the last few presidential campaigns. As far as I know all of the investigations were shut down because the accused recipient actually won the elections.

I think the solution may not be in the ammount spent, but in full disclosure of what was spent and for which candidate (pro and con) or cause). Require such expenditures to be reported on tax forms, by the recipient and the spenders.

Bah, who knows.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875