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

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

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

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections???

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? - 1/22/2010 7:47:19 PM

Sanity

Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

My apologies, you are right, that post was inartfully worded as they say. What I meant was that under the changes to the Constitution that opponents to this ruling desire it would make sense that "nonpersons" could have all of their rights stripped away, including the right to run any news media outlets (especially if there is any op-ed content) or post political web pages, and so on.

Anything akin to political advertising.

I should probably refrain from posting when I don't have adequate time I suppose. Again, my apologies, that post was unclear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
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.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 61

RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? - 1/22/2010 7:52:08 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

That does clarify, thanks.

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 62

RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? - 1/22/2010 8:23:59 PM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

If the normal business activity of a corporation is the production of news and commentary on current events, including politics, then I see no problem in that continuing should a ban on corporate sponsorship of chosen parties or candidates be enacted. It is clearly the purpose of such a corporation to produce and publish such a product - it is equally clearly not the purpose of a bank, oil company or labour union to do so and nor is it their purpose to participate in the political process.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 63

RE: SCOTUS shakes up mid-term elections??? - 1/24/2010 9:44:25 AM

InvisibleBlack

Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

I have always found the idea that corporations are treated as "virtual citizens" as entirely senseless. Allowing them a clear and limited set of privileges and rights in order to limit individual liability and allow greater economic activity serves a useful social purpose. Treating them as human beings is deranged.

At the extreme - shouldn't each corportation be allowed to vote then? If they're people, that is?

However - regarding free speech and campaign contributions - the solution is simple and straightforward - abolish all restrictions on campaign finance - what you choose to do with your money regarding politics - whether it's back yourself, someone else, or oppose everyone - is your choice. Whether the contributor is a group of citizens gathered solely for the purpose of pushing a political agenda (i.e. the NRA, Moveon.org, whatever) a rich individual (Soros, Bloomberg, etc.) or a large business concern is not the government's concern. Allowing the government to say "you can sponsor a candidate but you over there cannot" is allowing those in power to pick and choose who has influence and that is exactly what the "free speech" clause of the First Amendment is trying to prevent.

To stop the dangerous possibility that a consortium of the very rich could thereby block or prevent any other voices from being heard by buying up all available airtime prior to an election - put the Equal Time Rule (the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act ) back into effect or modify it in such a way that it makes sure that all valid candidiates for a particular office are allowed fair opportunity and access to whatever media in question during the run-up to an election.

Political opinions must be heard. The opinion of the managers of Exxon-Mobil is no more or less valid than the opinion of the guy ranting fom the soapbox on the corner in Times Square. If what you're saying is that, presented with every opinion, people are too stupid or too gullible to choose wisely and so need to be sheltered or protected from those with "dangerous" views - then you're basically saying that our elective form of government doesn't work - in which case, why vote at all save as a sham, a mock facade of 'freedom' to keep the stupid masses satisfied while "those who know better" make all the decisions - in which who gives a crap whether corporations can spend money on political ads or not?

< Message edited by InvisibleBlack -- 1/24/2010 9:46:10 AM >

_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 64