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

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Praxis1452

Praxis1452

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,197
0
0
sandorski said:
They have no Vote, why should they be offerred a Political Voice at all?
Click to expand...

If people can donate individually, then groups of people can agree to donate.

If people can individually vote, they can still agree to all vote for a single candidate.

Your use of political voice is an abstraction. Everything has a political voice, corporations can make press releases denouncing certain candidates if they want I would think. I'm not sure if their are specific laws against this but I'm sure certain telco's told employees to contact their employees about net neutrality.

Point is, money, and the vote are not the only defining aspects of "political voice". It is inconsistent to allow corporations to "comment" on politics, but say that they cannot contribute money. To make illegal corporations "comment"ing on politics is something I disagree with because just as an individual has a voice, so do groups of people together. Now, corporations are large enough to make it so that many inside a corporation disagree with the donation, but that's just too bad. You work for a company by choice, too bad.
 
PJABBER

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I wouldn't make too big a deal about this. While it does provide another venue for advocacy, which is a good thing, I see it more like lobbying the public rather than the politician. And certainly nothing like an opportunity to buy the vote. Expect more issue oriented ads. The funding disclosures requirements remain so you know who is paying for the ads. So no big deal.

I like the idea of the private sector watching out for their own interests rather than having to think hard about some quid pro quo.

Link to a good story on the expected practical outcome -

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31878.html
 
C

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
PJABBER said:
I wouldn't make too big a deal about this. While it does provide another venue for advocacy, which is a good thing, I see it more like lobbying the public rather than the politician. And certainly nothing like an opportunity to buy the vote. Expect more issue oriented ads. The funding disclosures requirements remain so you know who is paying for the ads. So no big deal.

I like the idea of the private sector watching out for their own interests rather than having to think hard about some quid pro quo.

Link to a good story on the expected practical outcome -

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31878.html
Click to expand...

I don't think we'll see many "issue ads" given the vitriol of current American politics. I expect lots of mudslinging at uh...well, that's about it. I'm concerned about these ads conveying false or distorted information. Come to think of it, I'm concerned about our press doing that too. People eat this shit up and it doesn't do us any good as a country.
 
Zorkorist

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
What's really sick is the power that 100 Senators and (1000) Congressman weild.

ie the Government.

THAT might be the first "right" we want to trample on.

Not people speaking their minds.

-John
 
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Zorkorist said:
What's really sick is the power that 100 Senators and (1000) Congressman weild.

ie the Government.

THAT might be the first "right" we want to trample on.

Not people speaking their minds.

-John
Click to expand...

You are a deluded ideologue at best.

'The Power' of the government is the power of the people to restrain powerful interests from abuse. You want to strip the people of that power and enslave them to the powerful interests.

You say 'the people speaking their minds'.

THats what *I'm* trying to protect. See that word "people"? They express their opinion in free speech.

Public corporations don't have the good of society as their agenda - they are egally not allowed to if they wanted to which they don't. Their agenda is the profit of shareholders and nothing more.

Their interest it to use large cash sums to hire marketing firms and media to DEFEAT the people's interests.

Barring these enomrmously powerful and wealthy forces from overwhelming and dominating elections and DEFEATING the will of the people PROTECTS the people's free speech. You try to destroy it.

Your position is to let the people's free speech get overwhelmd and made unimportant.
 
Zorkorist

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Not at all, Craig.

You have it all wrong.

The Government (a form of people) is so strong, that amy rights denied to Corporations (a form of people) is wrong.

In abstract, there are no people.

In concrete, their is only Democracy... but see? We are a Republic.

-John
 
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Zorkorist said:
Not at all, Craig.

You have it all wrong.

The Government (a form of people) is so strong, that amy rights denied to Corporations (a form of people) is wrong.

In abstract, there are no people.

In concrete, their is only Democracy... but see? We are a Republic.

-John
Click to expand...

Id say you reinforced that I am correct. You say "there are no people". I say there are.
 
Zorkorist

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
I said neither of us have people, within our idealogical framework. We are both just beasts, made up of people.

-John
 
shira

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
CADsortaGUY said:
What you state is not always true. However, what you and most other leftists here fail to understand is the nature of the ruling that matters. Invalidating a law is one thing, but to replace a law or to change a laws wording is not the job of the courts. This seems to happen with some rulings and why it's noted as judicial activism - because that's exactly what it is. Another issue is how they came to their decision. In this particular case it seems that some in the minority voted that way due to what they feared the outcome of the ruling would be instead of the Constitutional merits. It's the same when the court tried to use international law a couple years ago as a basis for their decision - it's absolute rubbish - they only law they should be using to decide is the American law(Constitution,etc).
But you leftist keep trying to claim it's only when it's disagreed with that it's "activism"... ignorant morons...
Click to expand...

Let's see: What the current supreme court did was to invalidate federal law, invalidate the laws in about half the states, and repudiate SCOTUS decisions made in 1980 and 1990. But that, according to you, is not Judicial Activism.

Now let's compare with Roe v Wade: That didn't REPLACE or CHANGE any laws. It invalidated laws in about half the states, didn't invalidate federal law, and didn't repudiate SCOTUS precedent. But you of course refer to Roe v Wade as judicial activism.

And you claim the difference is based on the NATURE of how the decision was made? Well, let's analyze:

The current decision essentially says the corporations have the SAME FREE SPEECH RIGHTS AS LIVING PEOPLE. Where did THAT come from? From the U.S. Constitution? Please, don't insult us. This new, broad concept of corporate speech is entirely invented by the conservatives on the Supreme Court.

This court COULD have tailored a narrow decision to address legitimate concerns with McCain Feingold. For example, the issue with Hilary: The Movie. The court COULD have said that speech whose intent was largely commercial, even if it presented a strong political point of few in the period just before an election, was permissible. But this court didn't want to tailor a narrow decision. They BROADLY over-reached. And look at Thomas's separate opinion: he wanted to go even further.

No, my misguided ATPN friend, this decision was judicial activism of the most extreme form. It rivals the decision in Bush vs Gore. Please, don't pretend that you want judges to simply "interpret the law." The reality is that you want activist CONSERVATIVE judges but originalist LIBERAL judges.
 
Zorkorist

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
I was with you (kinda), until you said Bush v. Gore.

If we have a Conservative court (and nobody projected to die for a while), then phew.

But I honestly thought it was the other way, and I will need to read this decision.

-John
 
cubeless

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
sandorski said:
They have no Vote, why should they be offerred a Political Voice at all?
Click to expand...

because if politicians can change their rules with a sweep of a pen, then business interests need to be represented...

it's pretty obvious that not too many people here have ever tried to run a business and been jerked around when the rules get arbitrarily changed...

and on the foreign thing, if you pay taxes you have a right to be represented, methinks... i know that this is some amazing, evil idea, but if you contribute to the economy i believe that you have the right to protect your interests... if you aren't going to allow representation, then block out those who you don't believe deserve representation...
 
CADsortaGUY

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
shira said:
Let's see: What the current supreme court did was to invalidate federal law, invalidate the laws in about half the states, and repudiate SCOTUS decisions made in 1980 and 1990. But that, according to you, is not Judicial Activism..
Click to expand...

You seem to have some reading comprehension problems. Striking down a law is different than changing it or replacing it with another. You need to understand these sorts of things before you start wailing on and on about other things. Silly leftists and their faulty assumptions and premises. :p
 
sandorski

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,706
6,262
126
cubeless said:
because if politicians can change their rules with a sweep of a pen, then business interests need to be represented...

it's pretty obvious that not too many people here have ever tried to run a business and been jerked around when the rules get arbitrarily changed...

and on the foreign thing, if you pay taxes you have a right to be represented, methinks... i know that this is some amazing, evil idea, but if you contribute to the economy i believe that you have the right to protect your interests... if you aren't going to allow representation, then block out those who you don't believe deserve representation...
Click to expand...

They are represented, they should not be given an overwhelming Voice in something they have no part of(Elections).
 
C

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
spidey07 said:
When it comes to political free speech he'll yes you do. That's one the primary reasons the 1st is there.
Click to expand...

Yes, as an individual. I've got no problem with the employees of a company making a campaign donation (I think this should be limited somewhat) or holding a rally.

I've got serious qualms about a major corporation or unions being able to spend enough money to advertise across the entire nation. The 1st amendment was written at a time when news did not travel instantaneously, at a minimum it took days. The idea of mass media and an organization influencing millions of minds simultaneously was laughably absurd in the 1800s. Hell, I'm not sure there were even that many mega conglomerate corporations. Maybe the East India company...which influenced Britain's parliaments to give it a tax offset, which led to the Townshead act.. which is what led to Boston Tea Party. Hmm....I feel like we've been down this road before.

Those who have the most money will be able to spread their ideas the easiest. With no checks and balances in the system, how are we going to protect against obvious distortion and lies? It's bad enough that cable news is "entertainment" already.

I want the press to be able to say what it wants. I want individuals to be able to say what they want. Hell, I'd even be fine with companies saying what they want provided there some sort of democratic action taking place. Will shareholders vote? Will employees? Or is the decision going to be made by the board and CEO? Does the janitor get a vote? How will the 'little guy' get heard?

You could argue that a major corporation wouldn't want to hurt its image badly by being overly partisan. There might be something to that argument, but I haven't heard anyone say anything like that yet. My only consolation right now is that the internet exists, so maybe it would mitigate the influence of TV ads. What happens if net neutrality dies?

Call me against free speech if you want too...but I'm really concerned about this really demolishing democracy. There is already so much demagoguery. It's supposed to be about debate and the free exchange of ideas, not those with the most money getting the loudest voice. That's already a big enough problem and I don't see how this could possibly help.

I guess I might sound paranoid, but defense contractors have deliberately spread out to cover as many congressional districts as possible. That's why so many useless weapons systems end up being developed!
 
Last edited:
nobodyknows

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
senseamp said:
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?
Click to expand...

Answer the questions spidey
 
nobodyknows

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
spidey07 said:
Yes, really. Did you not read what you posted? This is all about ADs, not politicians. You know that whole free speech thing?

Corporations CANNOT donate to politicians.
Click to expand...

So the politician creates the ads he wants and the coporations pays for the air time. Are you really this fucking stupid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom