Citizen's United is backfiring

[jackschmittusa]

I've argued that this is bad for all of America since corporate interests often conflict with citizen interests and allowing significantly more corporate influence in our elections is not desirable.

I've argued that corporations are not "people". I find the idea ludicrous since they cannot perform the same acts that real people do, nor are they subject to the same laws as real people.

The part of the current situation that I find humorous is that it was the Republicans as a whole were ecstatic with this ruling, envisioning great leverage in upcoming elections for themselves. Now they are probably Googling "The Law of Unintended consequences". The irony is so obvious that the humor is visible to the naked eye. No special partisan lenses needed.

 

[blackangst1]

That was what I was talking about from post 1....

lol then WTF were you talking about when you said

it is going to unfairly tip the scales in terms of cash toward the Republican party.

and

That's how you think when you don't believe Corporations for the most part bankroll Republicans

???

 

[spidey07]

I've argued that this is bad for all of America since corporate interests often conflict with citizen interests and allowing significantly more corporate influence in our elections is not desirable.

I've argued that corporations are not "people". I find the idea ludicrous since they cannot perform the same acts that real people do, nor are they subject to the same laws as real people.

The part of the current situation that I find humorous is that it was the Republicans as a whole were ecstatic with this ruling, envisioning great leverage in upcoming elections for themselves. Now they are probably Googling "The Law of Unintended consequences". The irony is so obvious that the humor is visible to the naked eye. No special partisan lenses needed.

There are no unintended consequences. Free speech is free speech and the government can't silence people from showing a documentary

The thread and posts by liberals are proof they only approve of free speech as long as they agree with it.

I however disagree that the government can censor free politcal speech. The law prevented free speech and as such was highly unconstitutional. I support free speech no matter what the message is. That the big difference between liberals and conservatives. Just read this thread for proof.

 

[Genx87]

I've argued that this is bad for all of America since corporate interests often conflict with citizen interests and allowing significantly more corporate influence in our elections is not desirable.

I've argued that corporations are not "people". I find the idea ludicrous since they cannot perform the same acts that real people do, nor are they subject to the same laws as real people.

The part of the current situation that I find humorous is that it was the Republicans as a whole were ecstatic with this ruling, envisioning great leverage in upcoming elections for themselves. Now they are probably Googling "The Law of Unintended consequences". The irony is so obvious that the humor is visible to the naked eye. No special partisan lenses needed.

The law has over and over said a corporation is considered a person. Free speech applies to them just like it does you and me. Why should their free speech be curtailed any more than you and I? Because they have more money? Why is it the ACLU applauded this decision but politicians on both sides of the aisle dislike it? Could it be restricting free speech benefits politicians?

 

[soundforbjt]

The law has over and over said a corporation is considered a person. Free speech applies to them just like it does you and me. Why should their free speech be curtailed any more than you and I? Because they have more money? Why is it the ACLU applauded this decision but politicians on both sides of the aisle dislike it? Could it be restricting free speech benefits politicians?

Since they're considered a "person", does that mean "they" can be jailed or executed? They are not a person.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I've argued that this is bad for all of America since corporate interests often conflict with citizen interests and allowing significantly more corporate influence in our elections is not desirable.

I've argued that corporations are not "people". I find the idea ludicrous since they cannot perform the same acts that real people do, nor are they subject to the same laws as real people.

The part of the current situation that I find humorous is that it was the Republicans as a whole were ecstatic with this ruling, envisioning great leverage in upcoming elections for themselves. Now they are probably Googling "The Law of Unintended consequences". The irony is so obvious that the humor is visible to the naked eye. No special partisan lenses needed.

Ignore the issue of corporate personhood for a moment and just look at the text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you give me a good reason why this wouldn't apply to a corporation?

 

[Ausm]

lol then WTF were you talking about when you said

and


???

Dude we got a serious disconnect going here....

 

[ElFenix]

obviously the press didn't include newspaper companies

 

[jackschmittusa]

spidey07

I've always been an advocate of free speech. I became sure I always would be back when I had to do a lot of hard thinking about the Nazi march in Skokie issue.

So you can shove your rant about people that only support for issues that they agree with. It's not true.

You completely ignored my plainly stated problem is that I cannot accept that corporations are people. Non persons have never been granted free speech.

I can imagine your response if I said "as people, corporations cannot participate in elections until they are 18; at 35, corporations can run for President, if, in time of war, the draft is re-instated, corporations will be drafted into the Army; a form of "corporate incarceration" will be developed for corporations breaking the law, corporations will fall under the same tax laws as ordinary citizens, etc.".

 

[jackschmittusa]

the DRIZZLE

Can you give me a good reason why it shouldn't apply to dogs?

 

[Screech]

The arguments in favor of the majority opinion of the court in citizens united are pretty much torn apart in steven's dissent, which is, while a rather long read, a very good point by point dismantling of the arguments behind corporate personhood, among other things.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/slip/558/08-205/cdinpart.pdf

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by xBiffx
But at the same time you pit the left against the right. Doesn't that kind detract from your message? You have turned this thread into a righties are crazy thread once again. No one can take you seriously with your beliefs because they always involve this theme. If you really believed what you said in your last post, every other post wouldn't be a right vs. left rant. If you really believe what you posted then you would know this is just as much an issue for Obama and the left as it is for the right. Funny how your OP says otherwise. Hack away though since it is keeping this worthless thread going.

Instead of attacking me, why don't you contribute something substantive for example, explaining how this ruling is helping us. Can you refute the facts? I seriously doubt it.

That's all the whacked out America hating Righties have.

They have nothing to stand on other than their hate of the American people and their love of profits.

Take away their profits and you have nothing but the hate left.

 

[Ausm]

The arguments in favor of the majority opinion of the court in citizens united are pretty much torn apart in steven's dissent, which is, while a rather long read, a very good point by point dismantling of the arguments behind corporate personhood, among other things.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/slip/558/08-205/cdinpart.pdf

Very good read but I doubt any Rightist in here will read nor care about it.

 

[Ausm]

Ignore the issue of corporate personhood for a moment and just look at the text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you give me a good reason why this wouldn't apply to a corporation?

Why did it take 100 years for the Supreme Court to deem Corporations as people using Campaign Finance Reform?

 

[Genx87]

Since they're considered a "person", does that mean "they" can be jailed or executed? They are not a person.

They can certainly be brought up on civil and criminal charges and found guilty. If the people working for the corporation broke any laws they are also charged as individuals.

 

[Genx87]

Very good read but I doubt any Rightist in here will read nor care about it.

And why should we? It isnt the law of the land.

 

[Genx87]

Why did it take 100 years for the Supreme Court to deem Corporations as people?

They didnt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

 

[jackstar7]

They didnt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

"The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Looks like they did...

But maybe you're right, as we know legal matters never rely on language being all that precise.

 

[Genx87]

"The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Looks like they did...

But maybe you're right, as we know legal matters never rely on language being all that precise.

Right, Ausm was certainly talking about the 14th amendment in his reply. No, he was regurgitating the line that it took 100 years for the supreme court to apply 1st amendment to political free speech for corporations.

And it would be rather hard for corporations to recieve 14th amendment protections any sooner than 1868.

You have been around here long enough to know Ausm doesnt think but spews what he is told.

 

[Fern]

Citizen's United is backfiring

I love it! The Right Wing Supreme court opened the flood gates on undisclosed cash in elections and here it is in action against potential GOP presidential candidates. The Newtster's Super Pac is spending 5 million to smear Romney....a liberals dream come true. The Newster is giving President Obama some free ammunition here.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/12/political-wisdom-the-year-of-the-super-pac/

karma's a bitch!

I believe your premise is incorrect.

Citizen's United did not create or affect PAC's. Citizen's United says corps can contribute out of their treasury (but not directly to a campaign) without using a PAC.

Newt is using a PAC, hence Citizen's United is irrelevant.

If there's a court case at play it would be SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which further helped create Super PAC's.

Fern

 

[lopri]

The principle decreed in Citizens United has already been eroded.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27557
http://volokh.com/2012/01/10/suprem...s-by-non-permanent-resident-foreign-citizens/

The next case (and many more) will cause the SCOTUS even more headache.

GOP: Corporate donation ban unconstitutional

The way I see it, Citizens United will be silently overruled or ignored as aberration due to its own weight. In my non-legal view, the decision was a conservative counter measure against the massively growing modern communication, previewed by Obama campaign in 2008. Plus the conservatives angst that their voice is being marginalized by "elite" media. (e.g. The New York Times)

 

[lopri]

I mean, the logical end point of Citizens United is that laws banning bribery (from anyone or anything from anywhere) is unconstitutional. How would you distinguish a bribe from a "sincere" contribution? That will be fun to watch if the SCOTUS tries to perform legal acrobatic to create such a distinction.

 

[xBiffx]

I mean, the logical end point of Citizens United is that laws banning bribery (from anyone or anything from anywhere) is unconstitutional. How would you distinguish a bribe from a "sincere" contribution? That will be fun to watch if the SCOTUS tries to perform legal acrobatic to justify such a distinction.

Easy. Bribes are to people that are already in a position of power. Contributions are to those seeking a position of power. Granted, if they get that power is pretty much like a preemptive bribe but there's no guarantee to them getting the position either.

 

[jackstar7]

You have been around here long enough to know Ausm doesnt think but spews what he is told.

If you're going to respond to him though, then you take on the onus to be precise and explain yourself, no? Or do you find you get more flies with dickishness?

 

[lopri]

Easy. Bribes are to people that are already in a position of power. Contributions are to those seeking a position of power. Granted, if they get that power is pretty much like a preemptive bribe but there's no guarantee to them getting the position either.

So contributions to losers are innocent but contributions to winners are guilty of a "preemptive" bribe?

How about incumbents seeking re-election? Can they raise fund without being charged of bribery? (They are already in power, in case it's not obvious)

How about a case like this?
Caperton v. Massey