Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment;

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
You believe it in this instance because you know corporations will now be free to donate more money to the GOP.

Nope, restrictions on donations to candidates or political parties were upheld.

Really a lot of mis-information and hysteria over this.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_14242620?nclick_check=1

Two significant prohibitions were left standing. Corporations and unions cannot give money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates, or to political parties. The court affirmed current federal rules that require the sponsors of political ads to disclose who paid for them

Fern
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
This has nothing to do with donating money, nothing has changed in that respect. Why is this so difficult for you people to understand? How am I failing to make it any more clear?

This is whether a corporation or union can use their general fund to pay and run political ADs.

Yes, that's SOOOO much different than donating directly to a campaign. Just stop. :rolleyes:
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
From your own link...
Many political analysts and election-law experts predict millions of extra dollars will flood into this fall's contests, much of it benefiting Republican candidates.

We'll see. But personally I don't think a lot of big publicly traded corporations are all that interested in spending large amounts of money on political ads for several reasons. They'll anger half their customers, half (if not more) of their shareholders, half their employees, expenses for political ads aren't tax deductible, it would lowers the net profit thereby reducing exec and other bonuses, and would lower stock value etc.

"Millions of extra dollars" sounds scary until you realize how little that is. The 2008 presidential campaign alone spent $5.3 BILLION. We've got an awful lot of races coming up in 2010, how much difference some 'millions' will make when spread that far remains to be seen.

Oh, and personally I don't like the idea of corporations running political ads.

Fern
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Corporations cannot donate to politicians.

Indirectly through their employee contributions they can, but now they won't even need to, they can just run ads supporting politicians directly. Channel taxpayer money to me and I'll run ads for you, don't do it and I will run ads against you. What exactly do you expect to happen when you set up the system this way?
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
if companies are taxed, they deserve to buy representation just like anyone else... get rid of corporate taxation and then they can be shut out at the corporate level...
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
if companies are taxed, they deserve to buy representation just like anyone else... get rid of corporate taxation and then they can be shut out at the corporate level...

Should a foreigner who pays a tax in the US be able to contribute money to a campaign? What about a foreign owned corporation?
 
Last edited:

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Should a foreigner who pays a tax in the US be able to contribute money to a campaign? What about a foreign owned company?

I believe there are already laws to deal with that.

What's really sad here is this was all about 1st Amendment and it's getting spun as a "but, but, but the corporations can buy and contribute to politicians and be all corporationy!"

No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. This ruling upheld the FACT THAT CORPORATIONS CANNOT CONTRIBUTE. This is protection of freedom of speech. I remember reading about this during the elections and had an immediate "WTF! You can't do that! 1st amendment!" reaction.

I'm just dying for some leftist to bring up PACs, the trap is set and the tender food is right there for them to take. But they won't take it. Wonder why?

That's the thing with freedom of speech. You either want it or not. I can't stand michael moore's crap, but will denounce ANY LAW that prevents him from showing or advertising it. 1st amendment, love it and embrace it. It's sickening how liberals will only agree with the 1st if it suits their desires.

Still waiting for somebody to bring up PACs, the trap is set. I DARE you to bring that up.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
I believe there are already laws to deal with that.

What's really sad here is this was all about 1st Amendment and it's getting spun as a "but, but, but the corporations can buy and contribute to politicians and be all corporationy!"

No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. This ruling upheld the FACT THAT CORPORATIONS CANNOT CONTRIBUTE. This is protection of freedom of speech. I remember reading about this during the elections and had an immediate "WTF! You can't do that! 1st amendment!" reaction.

I'm just dying for some leftist to bring up PACs, the trap is set and the tender food is right there for them to take. But they won't take it. Wonder why?

That's the thing with freedom of speech. You either want it or not. I can't stand michael moore's crap, but will denounce ANY LAW that prevents him from showing or advertising it. 1st amendment, love it and embrace it. It's sickening how liberals will only agree with the 1st if it suits their desires.

Still waiting for somebody to bring up PACs, the trap is set. I DARE you to bring that up.

I'll bring up PACs. What the hell...

If this law going to have campaign commercials with company logos on them? Or are we going to see mini-corps/unions setup to run a campaign ad for Microsoftopia without the big name companies/unions reputation being endangered? I think one is alright, one could be sort of sinister. Sort of like how PACs are "independent."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_an/us_campaign_finance_analysis outlines my concerns.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
So clueless, Fern.

We'll see. But personally I don't think a lot of big publicly traded corporations are all that interested in spending large amounts of money on political ads for several reasons.


I just boggle.

I just legalied nudity and underage drinking in Florda a Spring break, but I don't think the kids will do it.

They'll anger half their customers

Of course As I said before and you ignored, that's why they don't donate hundreds of millions NOW with the rules and disclosure.

half (if not more) of their shareholders

Right. It's said corporations get the highest return on investment for political donation of anything - it's not uncommon to see a thousandto one and more. That'll really piiss off stockholders.

half their employees

Yes, that stops them all the time, which is why they don't donate hundreds of millions NOW. Employees are contstantly quitting over political donations that benefit the company.

expenses for political ads aren't tax deductible

You are frickin KIDDING me. You said that? Oh my gosh.

"Well, We were going to put $5 million into the "freedom to blow up mountaintops" political fund that will make us a half billion, but it's not tax deductible.. Nevermind.

it would lowers the net profit thereby reducing exec and other bonuses, and would lower stock value etc.

Most profitable investment of all. Get it? It doesn't COST money. It's done to MAKE money. There's a chance not every spend gets the desired result but the benefits are enormous.

"Millions of extra dollars" sounds scary until you realize how little that is. The 2008 presidential campaign alone spent $5.3 BILLION. We've got an awful lot of races coming up in 2010, how much difference some 'millions' will make when spread that far remains to be seen.

Do you live in a cave? We ALREADY have corporoate dominance of most of our politicians.

Thast's why people's *health care* - people care about that - that's a top priority of a president with a big amoutn of political power - with 2 to 1 poitical support initially falls flat on its face.

THis makes it a lot worse.

Oh, and personally I don't like the idea of corporations running political ads.

Fern

Good. That and a few bucks gets you coffee.

The guy who got the MOST Wall Street donations in 2008 - at a time when the public was FURIOUS with Wall Street for the meltdown - the firms did not hesitate to donate over any reason you listed, he did not esitate to take the money - and you say the public wouldn't vote for him because they don't approve - he won.

All the experts predicting the corporations will much more massively dominate and underime democracy jsty have't heard your explanation.
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
I believe there are already laws to deal with that.

What's really sad here is this was all about 1st Amendment and it's getting spun as a "but, but, but the corporations can buy and contribute to politicians and be all corporationy!"

No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. This ruling upheld the FACT THAT CORPORATIONS CANNOT CONTRIBUTE. This is protection of freedom of speech. I remember reading about this during the elections and had an immediate "WTF! You can't do that! 1st amendment!" reaction.

I'm just dying for some leftist to bring up PACs, the trap is set and the tender food is right there for them to take. But they won't take it. Wonder why?

That's the thing with freedom of speech. You either want it or not. I can't stand michael moore's crap, but will denounce ANY LAW that prevents him from showing or advertising it. 1st amendment, love it and embrace it. It's sickening how liberals will only agree with the 1st if it suits their desires.

Still waiting for somebody to bring up PACs, the trap is set. I DARE you to bring that up.

Forgive me your highness, I should have would it be OK for a corporation to run a candidates ad campaign not donate directly. The distinction is not that big. I'm aware that they can't donate directly, IMO they shouldn't be involved period. at the least there should be some caps on how much can be spent.

I brought up the point about foreigners because this ruling potentially opens the door for foreign companies that operate in the US to impact our elections.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1913/

I agree this specific ruling isn't going to change a lot but thats because campaign financing rules are messed up regardless.
 
Last edited:

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Simple question: do you prefer for the wealthy to have cominance in our government by ther money for donationsneeded to win overpowering the democracit right to representation by most citizens?
For the same reason that I prefer a Republic form of Government, to a Democracy, I DO prefer that the wealthy are allowed free speech.

-John
 
Last edited:

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing stopping a rich foreigner from buying and running ads today. The reaction of the voters to that is a different story, but actually doing it is allowed.

They cannot, of course, contribute to a party.

Michael
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Ok... I prefer that all enteties have free speech.

A corporation is only a legal thing. It is made up of people like you and I.

A "legal thing" should have free speech.

A Corporation, of people, should have free speech.

-John
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,706
6,262
126
Ok... I prefer that all enteties have free speech.

A corporation is only a legal thing. It is made up of people like you and I.

A "legal thing" should have free speech.

A Corporation, of people, should have free speech.

-John

They have no Vote, why should they be offerred a Political Voice at all?
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
1st 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.

-John
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
By leaving out my quote of Craig - the meaning was lost.
His normal MOA is to blame the Republicans for everything - the Dems are infallible.

You lie too much. Simple people need extreme straw men.


The Dems (Progressives and otherwise) have now shown that they can be bought - that they are not for the people.


And the people are ready to show that they will no longer have the wool pulled over their eyes.


Truth hurts does it not?