RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections???

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

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

Message

LadyEllen -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 9:19:12 AM)
Not a bad idea Thadius, but I would turn it around and have donors have to publish what they will commit to the campaign before the actual polling - perhaps at the outset of the campaign even, so we all know (or rather, you all know, I dont get to vote in US elections!) who is backing whom and in what sum. But ultimately I'm just having a really difficult time coming to terms with the idea that a limited liability company (and a union for that matter) is a citizen, with the same rights as a natural person. E

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 9:19:48 AM)
quote: 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. Hi Thadius, "The volume and quantity of speech" belongs to individuals. A "tax paying entity" such as a corporation still has people inside it who vote. Why should they get a second pass, with special legal protection? If they don't like the deal, they don't have to continue as a corporation. These are apples and oranges. Corporations aren't people--they are in fact designed to have protections people don't have. Say, in your district, XYZ doesn't like how your representative is voting. So, 30 days before the election, they buy all the air time--all of it. What just happened to all the other voices in your district? What just happened to their free speech? You are talking about protecting non-persons with purely business interests who have far out of proportion economic power, that they are now allowed to use unfettered. This also presents a court wiling to ignore stare decisis, in this case ignoring law and many precedents that goes back to 1907. Both the decision and this court scare me. Live well, Tim

philosophy -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 11:22:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Say, in your district, XYZ doesn't like how your representative is voting. So, 30 days before the election, they buy all the air time--all of it. What just happened to all the other voices in your district? What just happened to their free speech? ...it just went to the highest bidder. This decision directly correlates freedom of speech with the ability to spend cash. The more cash you have, the freer your speech.

Thadius -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 11:24:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Say, in your district, XYZ doesn't like how your representative is voting. So, 30 days before the election, they buy all the air time--all of it. What just happened to all the other voices in your district? What just happened to their free speech? ...it just went to the highest bidder. This decision directly correlates freedom of speech with the ability to spend cash. The more cash you have, the freer your speech. In many cases that also describes the ability to defend oneself in court...

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 11:27:15 AM)
So, should poorer voters have a "public contributor" to spend election cash for them?

Sanity -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 12:07:13 PM)
By your same logic, movon.org's website has absolutely no constitutional protections either. Its not a person and it is advertising political speech... The rights that were granted or stricken in 1907 have no bearing on this discussion. Look at the rights of women and minorities from that time! Just because something seemed cool then means nothing today. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Hi Thadius, "The volume and quantity of speech" belongs to individuals. A "tax paying entity" such as a corporation still has people inside it who vote. Why should they get a second pass, with special legal protection? If they don't like the deal, they don't have to continue as a corporation. These are apples and oranges. Corporations aren't people--they are in fact designed to have protections people don't have. Say, in your district, XYZ doesn't like how your representative is voting. So, 30 days before the election, they buy all the air time--all of it. What just happened to all the other voices in your district? What just happened to their free speech? You are talking about protecting non-persons with purely business interests who have far out of proportion economic power, that they are now allowed to use unfettered. This also presents a court wiling to ignore stare decisis, in this case ignoring law and many precedents that goes back to 1907. Both the decision and this court scare me. Live well, Tim

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 12:13:08 PM)
Moveon.org was subject to the same restrictions. I've no trouble with that. To compare this to civil rights for minorities and women is first, patently ridiculous, but more cooly, just repeats the mistake that court made, of treating a corporation as a person. Even if it were, the implication that a corporation is marginalized from society due to discrimination is quite obviously not the case.

philosophy -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 1:11:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Say, in your district, XYZ doesn't like how your representative is voting. So, 30 days before the election, they buy all the air time--all of it. What just happened to all the other voices in your district? What just happened to their free speech? ...it just went to the highest bidder. This decision directly correlates freedom of speech with the ability to spend cash. The more cash you have, the freer your speech. In many cases that also describes the ability to defend oneself in court... ...wholly agreed. Cash and the ability to spend it, should not equal a greater voice in any arena as important as politics or law. No doubt, that as i have just violated an article of faith for some people (cash good, no cash bad) i will be flamed as a communist. Which just goes to prove sommat or other.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 1:21:19 PM)
Tax the corporations as individuals if we accord them every other right, we will see some free speech then, I guarentee it. Ron

Jeffff -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 1:24:05 PM)
Whoa. Corporations are people too!

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 1:26:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So, should poorer voters have a "public contributor" to spend election cash for them? Oh, there will be lawsuits!!!!!!!! Ron

Sanity -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 2:14:14 PM)
You miss the point. moveon isn't a person, therefore they have no right to have a website. That law just hasn't been passed yet. If "nonpersons" have no right to political speech why should they have a right to maintain websites which contain political speech. Why should newspapers or cable or broadcast networks ever be "permitted" to carry political news or views since they too are nonpersons. Frankly I find this whole "nonpersons have no rights" argument dangerous.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 2:36:20 PM)
Who says they dont have a right to political speech? You are elliding this to an argument against that which has not been contemplated nor forwarded. Because that is patently obvious on its face that they have a right to political speech and always have. Even the ruling that has stood these years agreed with that.

AnimusRex -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 3:59:16 PM)
Doesn't anyone think it odd that the Founders never spoke about public versus private, and which should have primacy? Fact is, they weren't concerned with that; their main overriding concern was power, and how to allocate it. The whole Constitution is created with the intent of separating power, of preventing any one entity from ever having too much of it. This ruling was a radical act, in pursuing an abstract legal theory without regard to the balancing of power. By giving corporations the right to spend as much as they want (instead of hte limited amounts they had before) the court makes an absurd equating of corporate power with individual power; like saying GE and me have the same right to spend cash, despite the enormous difference in our fortunes.

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 4:05:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You miss the point. moveon isn't a person, therefore they have no right to have a website. That law just hasn't been passed yet. If "nonpersons" have no right to political speech why should they have a right to maintain websites which contain political speech. Why should newspapers or cable or broadcast networks ever be "permitted" to carry political news or views since they too are nonpersons. Frankly I find this whole "nonpersons have no rights" argument dangerous. psst....move.org is incorporated

Sanity -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 4:07:30 PM)
THATS NOT GERMAINE TO THE ARGUMENT quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery psst....move.org is incorporated

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 4:11:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You miss the point. moveon isn't a person, therefore they have no right to have a website. That law just hasn't been passed yet. If "nonpersons" have no right to political speech why should they have a right to maintain websites which contain political speech. Why should newspapers or cable or broadcast networks ever be "permitted" to carry political news or views since they too are nonpersons. Frankly I find this whole "nonpersons have no rights" argument dangerous. Here's what you said, addressing earlier points that corporations aren't people and don't have the same rights. Your objection here is moveon.org, as separate from the "nonpersons" corporation argument. Moveon.org is incorporated. It's entirely germaine.

Sanity -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 4:17:14 PM)
No, because I extended it to websites. For the same reasons that "nonpersons" have no right to speak freely during the election cycle on mass media outlets, you would think that government bans on free speech could just as easily forbid such "nonpersons" from operating websites, etc. Especially during election cycles.

DomImus -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 4:37:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus 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. And again today in Cleveland: "Now, we've gotten pretty far down the road, but I have to admit, we've run into a bit of a buzzsaw along the way," Obama said. "The long process of getting things done runs headlong into the special interests, their armies of lobbyists and partisan politics aimed at exploiting fears instead of getting things done." Truly amazing.

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? (1/22/2010 7:26:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No, because I extended it to websites. For the same reasons that "nonpersons" have no right to speak freely during the election cycle on mass media outlets, you would think that government bans on free speech could just as easily forbid such "nonpersons" from operating websites, etc. Especially during election cycles. OK, I'm puzzled here. If a corporation has a website, it's no longer a corporation for purposes of this inquiry? And the ruling just indicated that "nonpersons" as you put it DO have the right to speak freely during election cycles. And how is this any different from the thousands of other websites speaking freely? The court just loosened restrictions, not tightened them.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875