Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations

Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (Full Version)

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

Message

StrangerThan -> Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 9:11:04 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/starbucks-ceo-says-100-businesses-withhold-campaign-donations-155827913.html Maybe everyone should... and just let them use federal funds. If nothing else, it would eliminate a year's worth of negative ads.

rulemylife -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 9:57:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/starbucks-ceo-says-100-businesses-withhold-campaign-donations-155827913.html Maybe everyone should... and just let them use federal funds. If nothing else, it would eliminate a year's worth of negative ads. Except that's not the principle that is motivating them. They are basically using it as blackmail to achieve what they want. Which brings up a larger point about the influence of wealthy contributors and corporations on government policy. I just read this earlier: Obama sees political opportunity in debt crisis At his first event Monday Obama addressed some 140 guests at the home of developer R. Donahue "Don" Peebles and Katrina Peebles with tickets priced at $15,000 per family to benefit the Obama Victory Fund. We really need to get some serious campaign finance reform passed. Unfortunately, the ones who would have to pass it are the ones benefiting from it. But the amount of money spent on campaigns has gone beyond ridiculous. Most of that money comes from wealthy donors and corporations who expect something in return, and they end up getting it at the expense of everyone else.

MileHighM -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 10:00:15 AM)
yup

rulemylife -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 10:10:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM yup Don't get me wrong, I still support Obama. I think he has good intentions, but he's become involved in playing the game that we have let our political system become.

Sanity -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 10:59:40 AM)
Donating to causes that advertise ones political view is the same as free speech, especially in this age of mass media Even for business owners SOMEONE is going to get their message out, even if its just those already in power from their bully pulpits Or FOX News, or Keith Overman (so long as the government allows). When the government gets even deeper into the business of limiting political speech thats definitely not a good thing

mnottertail -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 11:04:46 AM)
I would not equate money with free speech or they would be interchangeable words. And of course that gives certain factions freer speech and much more volumn. Money and favor should be stripped from politics. If Joe Blow and Co wants to support say Romney, they can put up a fuckin yard sign just like everybody else. And yammer the fuck away on a street corner, that I dont give the glimmer of a fuck about. But that is the alpha and omega of it.

MrRodgers -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 11:21:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Donating to causes that advertise ones political view is the same as free speech, especially in this age of mass media Even for business owners SOMEONE is going to get their message out, even if its just those already in power from their bully pulpits Or FOX News, or Keith Overman (so long as the government allows). When the government gets even deeper into the business of limiting political speech thats definitely not a good thing Property is NOT speech. At no time either at the constitutional convention or in the federalist papers was there any reference let alone civil legal foundation that proclaimed...property (money) as free-speech [sic] for anybody. Calling it 'political speech' would make Orwell and Goering proud. ALL speech is 'political' in so far as any govt. would restrict or censure it. This is the right-wing fascists court's idea of as Orwell put it...'changing the meaning of words.' Soon as the courts having now proclaimed money as speech and that corporations [sic] are people...we are talking the constitutional foundation for capitalist fascism, pure, simple and without remorse. After all...their money is now constitutionally protected power. Just what do you think that power will do ? As Lincoln warned...'to play upon the prejudices of the people' and it is working just fine thank you.

MrRodgers -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 11:28:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I would not equate money with free speech or they would be interchangeable words. And of course that gives certain factions freer speech and much more volumn. Money and favor should be stripped from politics. If Joe Blow and Co wants to support say Romney, they can put up a fuckin yard sign just like everybody else. And yammer the fuck away on a street corner, that I dont give the glimmer of a fuck about. But that is the alpha and omega of it. Too late man. One can in fact have more free-speech in the bank than you. I guess their free-speech rights are just a little 'more equal' than yours.

mnottertail -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 11:34:40 AM)
Well, I was going over the other thread and it got me to thinking about free-speech DEFLATION. Vast residential areas are worth alot less free-speech. Corporations are sitting on great piles of free speech. Gasoline is a real pain in the freespeech holder, groceries are costing more in terms of viewpoint these days. I used to have a little extra free speech at the end of the month, but I have to money you, I am coming up a little more silent these days. Hope all is well your end, much health, freespeech and happiness to you and yours.

Sanity -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 12:01:43 PM)
Where did anyone write that property is speech Keep it real, Stalin And whether you like it or not money is advertising, and advertising is speech The courts simply ruled with reality as opposed to your far left newspeak bs quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Donating to causes that advertise ones political view is the same as free speech, especially in this age of mass media Even for business owners SOMEONE is going to get their message out, even if its just those already in power from their bully pulpits Or FOX News, or Keith Overman (so long as the government allows). When the government gets even deeper into the business of limiting political speech thats definitely not a good thing Property is NOT speech. At no time either at the constitutional convention or in the federalist papers was there any reference let alone civil legal foundation that proclaimed...property (money) as free-speech [sic] for anybody. Calling it 'political speech' would make Orwell and Goering proud. ALL speech is 'political' in so far as any govt. would restrict or censure it. This is the right-wing fascists court's idea of as Orwell put it...'changing the meaning of words.' Soon as the courts having now proclaimed money as speech and that corporations [sic] are people...we are talking the constitutional foundation for capitalist fascism, pure, simple and without remorse. After all...their money is now constitutionally protected power. Just what do you think that power will do ? As Lincoln warned...'to play upon the prejudices of the people' and it is working just fine thank you.

mnottertail -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 12:07:00 PM)
If you had read what he wrote, you would see that you did. Pull in your pissflaps, penelope. Advertising is not speech, advertising is advertising otherwise they would call it speech, you see.

hangemhigh1953 -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 12:13:13 PM)
All companies should stop giving campaign donations. Is it too much to ask for our candidates to NOT be in the pockets of big corporations? But the way our system is set up, there's no way anyone can even consider running for office without corporate sponsors.

outhere69 -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/26/2011 1:26:21 PM)
Let 'em give all they want but they sure as shit should tell who's getting it, and the exact folks behind affiliate ads...the ones like "Taxpayers for xyz", only to find out after the election that it was 2 hedge fund managers from Jersey.

EternalHoH -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/27/2011 5:04:14 AM)
But then again, these are the CEOs at the front and center of America's conspicuous consumption problem, with that $5 latte more or less the proverbial 'ground zero'. They are hurt the most when people put money in their savings account instead. Maybe they are just mad that the nation hasn't been told to "go shopping" enough times.

MrRodgers -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/27/2011 10:19:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Where did anyone write that property is speech Keep it real, Stalin And whether you like it or not money is advertising, and advertising is speech The courts simply ruled with reality as opposed to your far left newspeak bs quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Donating to causes that advertise ones political view is the same as free speech, especially in this age of mass media Even for business owners SOMEONE is going to get their message out, even if its just those already in power from their bully pulpits Or FOX News, or Keith Overman (so long as the government allows). When the government gets even deeper into the business of limiting political speech thats definitely not a good thing Property is NOT speech. At no time either at the constitutional convention or in the federalist papers was there any reference let alone civil legal foundation that proclaimed...property (money) as free-speech [sic] for anybody. Calling it 'political speech' would make Orwell and Goering proud. ALL speech is 'political' in so far as any govt. would restrict or censure it. This is the right-wing fascists court's idea of as Orwell put it...'changing the meaning of words.' Soon as the courts having now proclaimed money as speech and that corporations [sic] are people...we are talking the constitutional foundation for capitalist fascism, pure, simple and without remorse. After all...their money is now constitutionally protected power. Just what do you think that power will do ? As Lincoln warned...'to play upon the prejudices of the people' and it is working just fine thank you. Yes, and it is obvious...obvious much too obvious I guess for someone reaching for a justification to the capitalist fascism money can buy. Property can be sold for money, stock is property, bonds are property. Understand now ? No you don't. You are a a plutocrat, govt. of the dollar by the dollar and for the dollar. Money is obviously an object, like beer and whiskey who for many was their currency. Simple, speech is free...not purchased.

DeviantlyD -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/28/2011 2:57:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/starbucks-ceo-says-100-businesses-withhold-campaign-donations-155827913.html Maybe everyone should... and just let them use federal funds. If nothing else, it would eliminate a year's worth of negative ads. Except that's not the principle that is motivating them. They are basically using it as blackmail to achieve what they want. Personally, I'm just fine with this tactic for this situation. Although I wouldn't call it blackmail per se, because none of these corporations is obligated to donate. And those seeking donations will just have to go elsewhere. Which brings up a larger point about the influence of wealthy contributors and corporations on government policy. I just read this earlier: Obama sees political opportunity in debt crisis At his first event Monday Obama addressed some 140 guests at the home of developer R. Donahue "Don" Peebles and Katrina Peebles with tickets priced at $15,000 per family to benefit the Obama Victory Fund. We really need to get some serious campaign finance reform passed. Unfortunately, the ones who would have to pass it are the ones benefiting from it. But the amount of money spent on campaigns has gone beyond ridiculous. Most of that money comes from wealthy donors and corporations who expect something in return, and they end up getting it at the expense of everyone else. I couldn't agree more. It really is ridiculous and out of hand. During the last election there were commercial breaks on t.v. that were filled with campaign ads and nothing else! If that happens again, I'm turning off my t.v. for the duration. I can see most of what I want (in terms of t.v. shows) online anyhow. ;) What's worse, most of the ads are about sticking it to their opponent. If I could vote, (I'm not a citizen), the one who gains my attention is the one who can talk about their own attributes and what their plans are if they get elected, rather than point out the deficits they see in their opponent(s).

Fellow -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/28/2011 7:24:51 AM)
Holding donations for now is part of the economic phenomenon called profit optimization. They wait who will emerge as a likely winner of the race.

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/28/2011 8:28:42 AM)
quote: Is it too much to ask for our candidates to NOT be in the pockets of big corporations? yes.

Sanity -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/28/2011 10:30:31 AM)
You seriously prefer that only politicians and the media elite have a voice? In this day and age access to mass media is free speech, and to limit access is a limit on our rights. The bigger problem that I have with your Stalinist approach to the leftists "free speech problem" isnt just this particular proposal to end to free speech by businessmen, its the general encroachment by government on all of our rights, with this being just one front. Congress has also tried to limit groups of any sort from speaking out (for example) and now we have an attorney general who uses the law to selectively target those who the administration personally dislikes for fishing expeditions and prosecution while ignoring blatant violations by favorites of theirs Part of the reason why that government which governs least governs best, you might say. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Yes, and it is obvious...obvious much too obvious I guess for someone reaching for a justification to the capitalist fascism money can buy. Property can be sold for money, stock is property, bonds are property. Understand now ? No you don't. You are a a plutocrat, govt. of the dollar by the dollar and for the dollar. Money is obviously an object, like beer and whiskey who for many was their currency. Simple, speech is free...not purchased.

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Starbucks and 100 other companies to withhold campaign donations (8/28/2011 2:22:38 PM)
quote: You seriously prefer that only politicians and the media elite have a voice? no you dumb fuck. he seriously doesn't want corporations to have a voice. quote: The bigger problem that I have with your Stalinist approach to the leftists "free speech problem" isnt just this particular proposal to end to free speech by businessmen, its the general encroachment by government on all of our rights, with this being just one front. nobody is proposing limiting anybody's fucking rights. a corporation has no rights to infringe. a businessman is free to use his own money in any way he fucking well wants, but a corporation is not a businessman, now is it fuckwit? a corporation has rights!! that is just fucking stupider than stupid.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625