On the Supreme Court ruling in favor of corps, unions...

[woolfe9999]

Funny how the right loves to quote opinion polls to prove "the people" are behind them, but when the poll leans in the other direction, it is because the people being polled didn't understand the issue. I've been saying for a long time that the American people had a very poor understanding of the healthcare bill, and that was maligned...

For the record, I don't think an opinion poll is a very good indication of the merits of a SCOTUS ruling which is interpreting the Constitution. I happen to think the ruling was wrong on the merits, but I didn't come to that conclusion before reading both the majority and dissenting opinions. OTOH, the poll *does* reflect the fact that a strong majority are fed up with special interest influence in our politics. That sentiment is certainly in the right direction, regardless of the merit of this particular Constitutional ruling.

- wolf

 

[HumblePie]

Then you're trampling on the 1st amendment again. I never took you for a "freedom of speech, as long as you agree with me" type of person. You're smarter than that.

Not exactly, for example obscenity and pornography can be "regulated" forms of speech along with things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It just depends upon the intent of the regulation and the uniformity of it.


Anyhow, due to a case of my stomach not liking lunch, I had some time to think a few things over.

Here's my newly reformed opinion and why it was sticking in the back of my head. One, I'm am still of the opinion that Corporate Entities are NOT a person. I still do not think a corporate entity should be granted inherent individual rights.

Going back to my previous example, I'm going to re-qualify it. If Apple, the Corporation wants to endorse a political figure through a commercial, I feel that is wrong as well. Do you think every single person working for, or connected to Apple like stockholders, all agree to that endorsement? I doubt it.

Now, if Steve Jobs wants to make a personal commercial in which he states he runs Apple Corp and endorses a political figure, then that is a completely different story. I have no problem with an actual person expressing their First Amendment right. I do have a problem with a fake "person" trying to do so.

 

[Ozoned]

That's because the overwhelming majority of people believe the spin that this allows corporations to send money to candidate and campaigns, which is totally false and nothing to do with this ruling what so ever. .

Heh Heh. Read the poll questions and you will understand why.

I wouldn't expect that you will see much in the way of corporate advertising in the upcoming election. The word has been already put out about how it will be handled. (TOYOTA)

The union money, that might be a different story...

Freedom of speech, my ass.

 

[piasabird]

When a ruling states things about the general treasury fund it is being very specific. From my Accounting Classes I learned that money inside corporate accounts, depending on the specific account can and should be considered the property of the stockholders and that money can not be spent by the corporation without reporting it to the stockholders and also may not spend the money in large quantities without a vote of board members. Now the correct way to do this is that you have to pay the employees, pay the bills, and then report the income on your stock reports. Then after that you may also need to pay dividends. Then after all the stockholders are taken care of then what is left over can be considered the porperty of the company. However, most corporations also keep a revenue fund which is considered part of the property of the stock holders. The level of the revenue fund or the reserves is part of a key in determining factor of the viability of a stock. Stock brokers want to see large levels of cash in the reserves to prove a company can handle problems that may arise.

When the Real Estate Investment bubble started to burst on the leading investment banks was reporting a reserve account with 50 billion in it. By the end of the week the money was almost all gone. So much for the Junk Bonds!

 

[PokerGuy]

What the people want or what is popular (polls) is completely meaningless in terms of what the SCOTUS rules on something. They are interpreting the law, not figuring out what the people want. If the people don't like the law (or in this case, the constitution), they can change it. It's not up to the SCOTUS to rule differently because the people don't like the result.

Another example of this is the eminent domain case. Everyone disagreed with the result of the case, but that's not the fault of the SCOTUS, they ruled on the law, like it or not. Then it was up to the legislature to fix it.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with the ruling, but Obama just once again showed himself to be a tool by trying to chastise the court publicly. I hope they continue to smack him down in the future.

 

[spidey07]

What the people want or what is popular (polls) is completely meaningless in terms of what the SCOTUS rules on something. They are interpreting the law, not figuring out what the people want. If the people don't like the law (or in this case, the constitution), they can change it. It's not up to the SCOTUS to rule differently because the people don't like the result.

Another example of this is the eminent domain case. Everyone disagreed with the result of the case, but that's not the fault of the SCOTUS, they ruled on the law, like it or not. Then it was up to the legislature to fix it.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with the ruling, but Obama just once again showed himself to be a tool by trying to chastise the court publicly. I hope they continue to smack him down in the future.

Supreme Court to Obama
"Hi, please provide birth certificate
kthxbye"

 

[Robor]

I wonder what percentage of the respondents actually know what this ruling means outside of what Obama said in the state of the union.

Wow, not only are you an idiot your troll posts are getting weaker and weaker. Are the checks you get for being a shill bouncing or something?

 

[woolfe9999]

supreme court to obama
"hi, please provide birth certificate
kthxbye"

fail.

 

[Darwin333]

Uhh no.

First off, if it is a freedom of speech issue, Corporations right now are legally able to endorse and campaign for anyone they want to. They can pay for an advertisement for themselves and say what they want to say in it. Nothing to stop AT&T from making a commercial that says "Buy an iPhone and vote for prop999!" as an example.

The problem comes when they just bribe... er donate the money directly to a political figure in hopes they will get special favors in return for the bribe... er donation. This goes for anyone that legally bribes... er donates to political parties and figures.

Another thing is that money is not speech. It's money. I'm not saying something when I buy a breakfast burrito or purchase a movie ticket. I'm just spending money. Trying to equate the two is non sense.

Oh and to head you off before you start on your PAC crap, I don't believe money should be given to politicians from any source, including unions. Using the excuse that someone else is doing something I don't think is right does not make it right for them or anyone else. The example everyone's mother has told them about friends jumping off a bridge comes to mind. It's a poor excuse.

Money can be used as a tool for speech just like pen and paper.

I don't agree with the corporations being able to legally bribe politicians in any way but I also don't agree with the government being able to "prohibit publication of a book using the corporate treasury funds." I disagree with a lot of things Michael Moore puts in his movies but I would never agree with a law that allows the government to prevent him from marketing them because they are political, nor do I think the government should be able to ban a book because of timing and politics.

Do you think that the government should be able to prohibit you from publishing a book because it is political in nature? If so, do you think they should be limited to banning just political publications or should they have the ability to make up rules to ban other books? Does the Constitution allow them to do that?

I am no lawyer but from what I have read it sounds like the government went way to far and got slapped down for it.

 

[Craig234]

Money can be used as a tool for speech just like pen and paper.

I don't agree with the corporations being able to legally bribe politicians in any way but I also don't agree with the government being able to "prohibit publication of a book using the corporate treasury funds." I disagree with a lot of things Michael Moore puts in his movies but I would never agree with a law that allows the government to prevent him from marketing them because they are political, nor do I think the government should be able to ban a book because of timing and politics.

Do you think that the government should be able to prohibit you from publishing a book because it is political in nature? If so, do you think they should be limited to banning just political publications or should they have the ability to make up rules to ban other books? Does the Constitution allow them to do that?

I am no lawyer but from what I have read it sounds like the government went way to far and got slapped down for it.

False analogy. Michael Moore is a person, not a corporation. The 'you' you ask is a person, not a corporation. And I would like 'you' a person not to be drowned out by massive coporate spending.

 

[senseamp]

Supreme Court to Obama
"Hi, please provide birth certificate
kthxbye"

Are you a Birther?

 

[spidey07]

Are you a Birther?

it was a joke. Thought the kthxbye made it clear.

And regarding the Moore aspect. I'm sure there is a business behind it even if it's own. It's a good analogy. You either support political free speech or you don't.

And if you read more of the arguments the question was asked if they could ban the sale of political books. The dissenters said yes, yes they could. Scary that anybody disagrees with this ruling.

 

[Hacp]

We don't need to amend the Constitution. To prevent corporations and unions form spending money, just pass laws to bust them. These are government protected organizations, therefore it implies government interference. Take away the government backing. Lets see how they do after.

 

[spidey07]

We don't need to amend the Constitution. To prevent corporations and unions form spending money, just pass laws to bust them. These are government protected organizations, therefore it implies government interference. Take away the government backing. Lets see how they do after.

How about your small business, incorporated of course, trying to advertise your book or documentary?

At what point is abridging free speech ok? Just make your line clear before you draw it.

 

[Hacp]

How about your small business, incorporated of course, trying to advertise your book or documentary?

At what point is abridging free speech ok? Just make your line clear before you draw it.

If the individuals want to advertise on their own, its ok.However, I don't see the Unions or Corporations mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

The last thing I want is the Big banks and Unions begging for more taxpayer handouts.

 

[1prophet]

Repeat something enough and most people might believe it to be true.

What happens when the corporations hire a Karl Rove type to advertise against a candidate and use their resources to buy up as much air time as possible?

 

[nobodyknows]

Supreme Court to Obama
"Hi, please provide birth certificate
kthxbye"

I know you tightie righties are used to lying and getting away with it, but the people have wised up a bit. I know you and your types think you can lie forever but as Abe Lincoln said, "You can't fool all the people all the time".

You need to come up with some new schtick.

 

[ccbadd]

I don't understand how you legislate a 'workaround' of the Constitution. Sems to me we'd need a new amendment, but the legislature can't that alone.

Fern

AMEN, wish more people on this board, and BHO, understood that!

 

[ElFenix]

False analogy. Michael Moore is a person, not a corporation. The 'you' you ask is a person, not a corporation. And I would like 'you' a person not to be drowned out by massive coporate spending.

i guarantee you the marketing for michael moore's movies (along with the funding, planning, etc.) is done by a corporation (likely several).

 

[spidey07]

If the individuals want to advertise on their own, its ok.However, I don't see the Unions or Corporations mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

The last thing I want is the Big banks and Unions begging for more taxpayer handouts.

I just want to make sure I'm clear on your stance.

So Big banks, Big Unions, Big corporations, Big blimps shouldn't be able to advertise or voice their point of view in their best interest?

How about Small banks, Small unions, Small business, Small blimps? Where would you like to draw the line?

 

[ElFenix]

If the individuals want to advertise on their own, its ok.

that's a good way to lose your corporate identity. goodbye limited liability!

 

[Atreus21]

If an individual has freedom of speech, why not an organization of individuals?

 

[HumblePie]

If an individual has freedom of speech, why not an organization of individuals?

Then they can all individually express their opinions. Do you think a group of people are all going to have the same opinions just because they are either forced to join the group (unions) or are only part of the group for a paycheck (corps).

 

[Carmen813]

It's only a matter of time before we see candidates sporting company logos. It's just going to be like football and NASCAR The only corporation that I can think of that existed in substantial size during the time the first amendment was written was the East India Company, and we all know how much the founders loved them.

From Wikipedia:

The Company long held a privileged position in relation to the English, and later the British, government. As a result, it was frequently granted special rights and privileges, including trade monopolies and exemptions. These caused resentment among its competitors, who saw unfair advantage in the Company's position. Despite this resentment, the Company remained a powerful force for over 200 years over India.

Every sane individual knows that the first amendment doesn't mean that you get to do or say whatever the hell you want, and I still have not found compelling evidence that suggests a corporation or union deserves the same right as an actual human being.

 

[Atreus21]

Then they can all individually express their opinions. Do you think a group of people are all going to have the same opinions just because they are either forced to join the group (unions) or are only part of the group for a paycheck (corps).

If they don't share in the opinion of the group, they need not associate with it. It's their option.