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

[Ozoned]

The rich Corporations have very deep pockets. They have to be very,very careful in what they say.

 

[Craig234]

Yeah, they both stand up for the little people's rights. Oh, wait..... this just in, no they aren't basically alike, not even remotely alike. If fact they were created to fight the bloody coporations. Gee whiz, imagine that.

There are things different and things alike. They are very different in a lot of ways, but they're alike that neither are persons and neither deserve the rights as citizens to use their money in our politics.

Both can ask members or employees to donate to PACs and contribute that way. THat's the 'group of citizens' that the right is parroting so much.

 

[lupi]

Yes, our country's beginning, with 95% agriculture, practically no corporations in comparison to now when big corporations dwarf most countries' GNP and the corporatocracy runs the world -

Our founding fathers founded this country ore than anything out of opposition to the one big corporation of the day, the East India corporation owned by the British crown and nobility.

The reasons were complaints that apply today - such as their size giving the political clout to unfair advantage in things like taxes (25% of the largest corporations paid no income tax).

We've been on a steady shift that direction - as CEO pay has risen from 45 times the average worker in 1979 to over a thousand today, as 94% of the national growth has gone to the top 20%, as the share of income taxes paid by corporations has fallen by half (from 22% to 11%; if I recall it was even higher bacn around the 50's) among many other things.

WIth this change look forward to corporations getting even more preferential political treatment, to politicians serving them over the people much more than even now.

Hint: A corporation with billions is far, far more organizaed and can donate more to make more money than many thousands of citizens, disorganized and donating much less out of just 'citizenship'.

Our country was founded to give individuals the political power to ru the country over any organized concentrated power. This ruling spits in the face of our founding fathers.

you're the fool who has stated he will continue to vote for political representatives simply based on their party affiliation regardless of the general consensus on how poorly they have performed in such duties. before worrying about who's financings whose campaign, you have a long way to go before that matters.

 

[sandorski]

Yeah, they both stand up for the little people's rights. Oh, wait..... this just in, no they aren't basically alike, not even remotely alike. If fact they were created to fight the bloody coporations. Gee whiz, imagine that.

I somewhat agree with you, but Elections are for the People not for Organizations. Doesn't matter who they may or may not represent.

 

[sandorski]

That's a valid theory. If the Dems had been able to resist allowing unions from running ads whilst denying corporations to do the same, that might still be the law of the land.

Not a Theory, a Principle. I'm not aware of Unions having any special privilege compared to Corporations in this matter. If they have, it's likely because the Law makes somewhat a distinction for broad Associations, in which case Corporations likely still were involved through various Councils and Coalitions that represented their particular interests.

 

[gingermeggs]

Don't you just love it when "progressive" ideas get twisted to help big business?
After all, if "freedom of speech" wasn't so twisted to include things like burning the American flag, I am sure political donations wouldn't be considered "protected speech".

The big word in justice which has been long lost is simply "Intent".
Slap my turkey bud!
Say you follow the contracts and money, there within lies the intent.

 

[Bird222]

That's why it says they shall make no law. Same with religion and press.

How about when newpapers actively endorse a candidate, print glowing stories about said endorsed candidate, highlighting why they're better than the opponents, trashing the opponents - is that not also electioneering?

But yet it's ok, because it would be unconstitutional for any law to be made against it. As it should be.

But see the first amendment says 'the press' not parrots or multinational corporations. But I was asking who did the framers intend to cover by that? Were they covering just people or anything that could 'speak'?

Can someone provide an answer for this?

 

[Craig234]

Can someone provide an answer for this?

The press and free speech are two separate rights protected.

As for who is protected, again, the founding fathers had no idea of a corporatocray that could drown out the citizens if allowed. I think it's very likely they would not have approved, but didn't write that issue.

Since the founding fathers *clearly* intended to protect the rights of the *citizens* and gave only citizens the right to vote, it seems clear to me that regulating elections to ban foreigners and corporations is ok.

Indeed, the better question is, does the constituion implicitly *ban* them even if government wanted them?

Remember, corporations can't speak They are artifical legal entities who are not citizens and only concerned with their own profits with vast resources to fight *against* the public.

 

[nobodyknows]

I somewhat agree with you, but Elections are for the People not for Organizations. Doesn't matter who they may or may not represent.

I agree with that but what the Supreme Court did will undermine the people's voice even further. Corporations have so much more money at their disposal then the Unions that you can't even compare the two.

 

[nobodyknows]

The big word in justice which has been long lost is simply "Intent".
Slap my turkey bud!
Say you follow the contracts and money, there within lies the intent.

Since corporations are obviousluy pro-business the intent is clear. Justice Roberts wants more money for the business interests to spread around DC. Coporations can do that and just add it to the product cost forcing everyone to support their political views.

It's like a tax just for the GOP.

 

[Fern]

So how do you search farther back? I tried and couldn't but i know you defended and deflected for him previous to that.
-snip-

Go to "search" then select "advanced search" etc.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Is Congress allowed to make rules limiting foreign nations' free spech to run ads for candidates?

To all the liberals around here (not necessarily you Craig234) who believe our Constitutional rights should also apply to foreigners, I've got a question for you:

If you believe foreigners (usually arrested as terrorists) should enjoy our Constitutional rights, do you also think that, similarly, foreign corporations should enjoy the same rights as US corporations?

Please don't 'cop-out' by saying US corps shouldn't have these rights, that's a different question and one that the SCOTUS has ruled on.

TIA

Fern

 

[spidey07]

I agree with that but what the Supreme Court did will undermine the people's voice even further. Corporations have so much more money at their disposal then the Unions that you can't even compare the two.

Then why are the top PAC contributions Unions? Unions have more money to toss around to influence politicians is why.

 

[Sclamoz]

To all the liberals around here (not necessarily you Craig234) who believe our Constitutional rights should also apply to foreigners, I've got a question for you:


If you believe foreigners (usually arrested as terrorists) should enjoy our Constitutional rights, do you also think that, similarly, foreign corporations should enjoy the same rights as US corporations?

Please don't 'cop-out' by saying US corps shouldn't have these rights, that's a different question and one that the SCOTUS has ruled on.

TIA

Fern

Sure why not? If they weren't able to lobby and influence elections it wouldn't be an issue and encourages more companies operating here in the US(more jobs taxes etc).

Then why are the top PAC contributions Unions? Unions have more money to toss around to influence politicians is why.

Well you should be thrilled because this ruling allows Unions to spend unlimited amounts on ad campaigns now.

 

[Throckmorton]

BTW, what other rights do corporations have? Right to bear arms? Right to vote?

 

[HumblePie]

Then why are the top PAC contributions Unions? Unions have more money to toss around to influence politicians is why.

I can actually partially explain what the PAC stuff you are finding relates to.

First, corporations still have an image to project. Why? Imagine if Coke decided to lobby for Pro Abortion or Anti Abortion? What do you think would happen in either case to their sales?

If you correctly guess they would drop then you got the prize! Bingo! Corporations are all about the bottom line. Unions are not.

Corporations have to be a bit more subtle in how they apply their money to get the results they want, which is why they typically work BOTH SIDES by contributing equally.

Unions have no such restraint. They have no bottom line. They have no face to save against public opinion. They will also dish out the most money to the people will to take it to do what they want. In this case the Dems.

Personally, I think contributions of any sort to the politicians should be abolished. Period. That's my view. No form of legal bribing by individuals, unions, or corporations should be allowed. My view is to put more standards and reforms on campaigning period. Limit the time that a politician can campaign. Limit how much personal funds they can contribute. On top of that, allow those actually running for office to draw limited funds from taxes equally.

If contributions must be made, they are made to the "pool" that all politician can pull from as this way there can be no outside influence to any one particular politician and their objectives.



However, in terms to the PAC crap spidey keeps spouting I will say this. I predict the removal of the contribution limits for corps will start changing what you see for donations. I doubt by the next presidential election that Unions will be the ones contributing the most. This is just my educated guess though.

 

[nobodyknows]

Then why are the top PAC contributions Unions? Unions have more money to toss around to influence politicians is why.

The money comes from the members of the union, not from the union. Contributions from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal. Corporations have the same rights to organize a PAC as do Unions.

What's the problem? Why should we open up the flood gates to more special interst money? Because a judicial activist Supreme Court Justice showed his true partisian colors. Sorry, not a good reason to open the door to more corruption in my book.

 

[Patranus]

POLITICO's Kasie Hunt, who's in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision.

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html

 

[Craig234]

To all the liberals around here (not necessarily you Craig234) who believe our Constitutional rights should also apply to foreigners, I've got a question for you:

If you believe foreigners (usually arrested as terrorists) should enjoy our Constitutional rights, do you also think that, similarly, foreign corporations should enjoy the same rights as US corporations?

Please don't 'cop-out' by saying US corps shouldn't have these rights, that's a different question and one that the SCOTUS has ruled on.

TIA

Fern

Simply put, there are rights that belong to 'people', and rights that belong to 'citizens'. IMO, our government should not sentence to cruel or inhuman punishment, should not indefinitely detain, people.

On the other hand, the right to vote is for citizens, not all people.

I'm against 'free speech' rights other than for human beings. Should they apply to non-citizens?

Should a legal resident be protected to say "I think taxes should be lowered (or raised)? Should he be allowed to say out president is a scumbag? Should he be allowed to pay for ads for candidates?

 

[Generator]

Obama to Supreme Court..."Yall fucked it up." Everyone in the United States deserves a sincere fuck you now and then. Everyone!

 

[Mani]

Looks like free speech won a bit of a victory today.

Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't have this in mind when they wrote free speech into the constitution. This has absolutely nothing to do with FS, and the 5-4 decision went entirely along ideological lines with the conservatives voting it down. The SC has become a complete mockery.

 

[dmcowen674]

What an awesome sight tonight watching the President rip the America hating Supreme Court a new one.

 

[Zorkorist]

No, you side has said money=free speech. Just because there are differenrd words don't make somethig different.

Watch: Sex. Making love. Screwing. Sleeping with a hooker. All words and phrases for things that are sometimes the same, sometimes subtle differences, sometines more differences but things in common.

You have to actually discussed them, your 'if there's a different word they have nothing in common' simplicity is wrong.

Try using a little rationality. Listen to the post. WHY is bribery not protected free speech under this ruling and your position? 'It's not the same word' is not an answer, I can beat that point all day if you need.

You write a letter to your congressman telling if he won't vote yes on X, you will vote against him. If he votes yes on X, you will vote for him. You are using your free speech to try to get him to vote how you want.

Now someone tells him - money=free speech, you say - they will use $500,000 of free speech to support him if he votes yes on X and pay $500,000 to oppose him if he doesn't.

It's the exact same thing by your definition - the use of free speech - money by your definition is free speech - to get him to vote how you want.

What's the difference by your definition?

Your example is Extortion... ie., threatening someone for some gain.

It falls far short of what is commonly known as free speech.

People can support political candidates, in almost any way. Free Speech.

They cannot do things like Bribery, or Extortion, as those have been judged wrong.

But spend a billion on Ross Perot's flappy wings?

Go for it... free speech.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

You gonna tell me that free speech in a theatre is bad, next?

So far you have brought up Bribery, and Extortion, as arguements against Free Speech.

lol.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

What an awesome sight tonight watching the President rip the America hating Supreme Court a new one.

LOL.
America Hating Supreme Court?

Jeezus, dude. Move to Cuba and be done with it already.

-John