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

[StageLeft]

Great, as if this country's political system wasn't already fvcked in the A by too much money.

 

[spidey07]

This anti-corporation stance that has reared its head by certain individuals in this thread is interesting. If people want to collectively establish themselves to accomplish something, why be against it? And, one person still retains individual rights, but twelve people collectively put together do not?

The mere truth is that there are some corporations that people do not like and this provides the foundation for a convoluted perception that the corporation in question yields incredible power in manipulating public opinion.

Is that fear unfounded? Not always, but freedoms come with the cost that everyone gets to participate.

What's that famous quote? With great freedom comes great responsibility?

 

[daishi5]

Because companies shouldn't be influencing elections, that's for American citizens to do. Companies have enough influence on our elected officials already by lobbying.

Companies are made up of american citizens and represent the interests of those citizens. You are making a logical error of composition, the company does not think, the people who are part of the company think. The people who make the decision are american citizens acting as a group. They give up part of their resources to the corporation, the corporation acts in the best interest of the people who own it towards the direction that those citizens want. Corporations do not have to be geared towards profit, the OP has an example of an issue corporation, the Environmental Defense Fund. The corporation is merely a group of people pooling their resources in their own common interest.

Would it be any more acceptable if every stock holder of Exxon Mobil voted to liquidate the company and then they all donated all their money from the liquidation to the democrats, just because it came from individuals as individuals rather than a corp representing their interests?

 

[Craig234]

So let me be clear here, the government cannot stop me from speaking, but the government can stop me from spreading an idea via a pamphlet just because of how much money has been spent to make the pamphlets? Is there an upper limit on how much money I could spend on a pamphlet to spread an idea, or is $1 too much?

IIRC, $20K - but unlimited if you are the candidate.

If there is a limit, can I go around that limit and get the exact same pamphlet through my own labor, (no actual $$$ involved) and produce the exact same pamphlet and be legal?

No, goods and services and money all add up.

Why is business money different than personal money?

Let's start with that question, Because citizens and business are not the same thing.

Citizens say "is the environmetal impact of mountaintop removal mining worth it? We do sure like to look at pretty mountains."

Business don't. They don't look at pretty mountains. They care about one thing, profit. Allowing the mining company to partcipate in the political system gives you not a citizen ith a valid citizen's society-spanning interest but an aritifical interest, represented by people legally obligated NOT to care about any issue other than the company's profits, who doesn't listen to pretty mountain talk, but DOES have large amounts of money as a big corporation, and can afford to invest large sums in the political system to make more money - often much more than the public can to protect the mountains.

Allowing that new artificial group in the process greatly changes it and threatens to frequently overwhelm the public interest.

Imagine that tomorow we allowed China in the process with free speech and donations.

Suddently, you see the candidates meeting with powerful Chinese interests, getting big donations, and making them promises that are sometimes against the American public intrerest.

You might try to say the public will vote against those who do, but you know that's naive and wrong, and then learn that every candidate is doing it, because the money is so useful you need it to win.

You try to back a good guy for normal issues, but his opponent gets a big Chinese donation and is buying massive attacks ads on your guy and the public moves to him. You are frustrated.

That DChinese analogy is the same thing we are doing with corporations. THey do not have a 'citizen's agenda', they have a very specific agenda for their profit without concern for society.

Do we require citizens to consider the public good? How are they preventing speech? Of course money is powerful, but your problem is not with money, but with what it buys, ads. Would you be ok with advertisements equivalent to what corps buy now, if somehow people decide to give them for free, with no money involved?

It's all the same - cash for the ad, or the ad istelf free but worth cash. Same rules.

What if he donated his time, and we ended up through our own labor with 50 times the equivalent campaigning through our own labor, with no money. Is it not free speech just because we used money rather than our own arms?

Same as cash.

Maybe my mind is fuzzy, but I seem to recall that for a personal business owner, organized as a sole proprietor, there is no difference between his money and business money. They are legally one and the same.

If it's set up that way, my reaction is to say, that's personal money usable under those rules.

In corporations it is different, the owners all own a portion of the corp. They own that portion and their liability is limited to that portion. However, the portion that they own, is theirs. Why can't they use that portion just because they have it in a limited liability corp? Why is that portion of a persons resources less acceptable than a persons own savings account?

To the extent it's *their* personal property, I'd say they can use it, subject to the limits on personal participation ($20,000 per person IIRC).

It's the board of a big public company for example voting a $5 million spend to try to buy nice laws that make them billions without their own personal money I'm objecting to.

You seem to have a very weird concept of "money."

Quote?

Money is a medium of exchange. When I do work, I am payed in money, I then turn that money in for things like food. In reality I got food for my work, money just allowed me to make the exchange between multiple parties more efficient. Anything I can buy, I could technically make myself or with the help of others with no money involved. When I donate money, in essence I donate a portion of my work. Only, it is usually more efficient for me to do my normal job, and donate money for a sign maker then it is for me to make signs by hand.

Ya?

 

[Ldir]

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

Yes, if by free speech you really mean deep pockets. This is a victory for the wealthy and powerful. It is a great loss for democracy of the people.

 

[daishi5]

If we still had strong unions you guys would be shitting your pants right now.

Strong unions (approaching monopolies on labor) suffer from the same problems as monopolistic businesses. I do not have a problem with unions, as long as they are on a level playing field. My distrust of unions comes from personal experience, namely my mother was assaulted by a union picket line. (Attacked her car with a baseball bat while she was in it, she was an office worker).

I only desire that unions be restricted and prevented from the use of force, intimidation, and monopolization. I believe unions are a good thing, when properly restricted, just like I do with businesses. I don't believe complete freedom for companies is good, and it isn't good for unions either, but both of them need to exist.

 

[Blackjack200]

This anti-corporation stance that has reared its head by certain individuals in this thread is interesting. If people want to collectively establish themselves to accomplish something, why be against it? And, one person still retains individual rights, but twelve people collectively put together do not?

The mere truth is that there are some corporations that people do not like and this provides the foundation for a convoluted perception that the corporation in question yields incredible power in manipulating public opinion.

Is that fear unfounded? Not always, but freedoms come with the cost that everyone gets to participate.

Do you even know what a corporation is?

Hint, it's not a collection of people.

 

[Ldir]

I believe fascist is a better term for Craig and his like.

That is because you have no idea what the word means. You are literally backwards. This is a big victory for fascism.

 

[Blackjack200]

What's that famous quote? With great freedom comes great responsibility?

"It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

Excellent advice for some in this thread.

 

[spidey07]

Yes, if by free speech you really mean deep pockets. This is a victory for the wealthy and powerful. It is a great loss for democracy of the people.

This whole case was brought up by some people that made the film about Hillary Clinton and they were blocked from showing it in movie theaters.

This is CLEARLY a victory for free speech.

 

[Craig234]

That is the very point I've been arguing with of few of my "business above all else" colleagues, and they always have to resort to the "well the corporations fuel this country!" bullshit. When did business entities become more important than people and people's rights?
With the exceptions of Scalia and Alito, I'm very surprised that the votes went that way.

The sad thing is, for all the brainwashing now going on, it's going to get a lot worse.

That's what always happens when the machinery of soceity is pitted against the people of society.

It's why a central tenent of fascism is the government coercing the corporations and feeding off of them for its power. This is like that, but reversed, with the same thing - the corporations and goverment the same.

My question is, why did you think Thomas and Roberts, who are so much like them, would vote differently?

As an previous poster put it so well, this is indeed more of the "Russification" of America. The founding fathers would be so proud.

I liked that from Sandorski too.

 

[Jaskalas]

This whole case was brought up by some people that made the film about Hillary Clinton and they were blocked from showing it in movie theaters.

This is CLEARLY a victory for free speech.

This is the relevant point here. Can anyone argue that this movie should be banned?

 

[daishi5]

IIRC, $20K - but unlimited if you are the candidate.

So, you are ok with the government restricting your freedom of speech. You are not allowed to work beyond a certain point in support of a position. Honestly, I have a huge problem with this part right here, this seems to be a horrible thing that we restrict peoples involvment in the political process to being no more than this level of participation. "I am sorry sir, but we have determined you have protested the war for more than $20K worth of time, you are not allowed to protest any more."

 

[Ldir]

This whole case was brought up by some people that made the film about Hillary Clinton and they were blocked from showing it in movie theaters.

This is CLEARLY a victory for free speech.

The effect of this ruling is far greater than one specific case.

 

[Craig234]

That is because you have no idea what the word means. You are literally backwards. This is a big victory for fascism.

Thank you for the sanity wasted on, er, offered to him.

 

[ayabe]

This is the relevant point here. Can anyone argue that this movie should be banned?

"The court found that the Federal Elections Commission overstepped its constitutional authority when it barred a conservative group called Citizens United from running ads for a movie attacking Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season."

Ads, not the movie.

I wish you guys would at least try to understand the issues, especially since you're so "passionate" about the great Constitutional triumph that took place today.

 

[spidey07]

"The court found that the Federal Elections Commission overstepped its constitutional authority when it barred a conservative group called Citizens United from running ads for a movie attacking Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season."

Ads, not the movie.

I wish you guys would at least try to understand the issues, especially since you're so "passionate" about the great Constitutional triumph that took place today.

You sure about that? The AP article I was reading said they were barred from showing it in movie theaters and could only go to DVD, on-demand, pay-per-view, etc.

 

[Mursilis]

You have crossed the line to idiocy. Ask the question again with a hint of intellectual honesty if you want a response.

Whatever works for you, Craig. Keep on dodging. How about the fact the ACLU also has argued the provision at issue of the Act (Sect. 203) is unconstitutional? Did you even read their amicus brief, which was very similar to the one they filed in 2002(?), when the BRCA was last before the Court? They argued it was unconstitutional back then, too. But I guess they're just a GOP mouthpiece organization, aren't they?

I'm not 100% in agreement with the ACLU, but they're right on this one.

 

[daishi5]

"The court found that the Federal Elections Commission overstepped its constitutional authority when it barred a conservative group called Citizens United from running ads for a movie attacking Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season."

Ads, not the movie.

I wish you guys would at least try to understand the issues, especially since you're so "passionate" about the great Constitutional triumph that took place today.

You are happy that the FEC was allowed to prevent a group from promoting its political views? What about the word "Ad" makes this form of advancing their political views not "speech."

 

[Craig234]

So, you are ok with the government restricting your freedom of speech. You are not allowed to work beyond a certain point in support of a position.

No, of a CANDIDATE. You can spend all you want to warn the country of global warming.

Look, you are going to seethe issue one of two ways IMO. One is the naive way - YOUR rights are being restricted because YOU can only give $20,000 to a person's campaign. It's an oppression of YOU.

The second way understand better what's going on. It means your volunteering, or $50 donation MATTERS in the election, because the candidate is forced to raise vast sums only the corporotocarcy can deliver and compromise the public interest, so the candidates to run for the people and not capaigns and you get some say in who wins, not just choosing which of the two corporate-backed people who serve their corporate masters to pick. You understand the issue is the millions from the corporotocracy that run the system, not your tiny contributions.

Honestly, I have a huge problem with this part right here, this seems to be a horrible thing that we restrict peoples involvment in the political process to being no more than this level of participation. "I am sorry sir, but we have determined you have protested the war for more than $20K worth of time, you are not allowed to protest any more."

Protest the war all you want. It's about the campaigns for candidates.

And your tiny money is crushed with the defense contractors give millions to laugh at you and put teir guy in.

 

[Craig234]

You are happy that the FEC was allowed to prevent a group from promoting its political views? What about the word "Ad" makes this form of advancing their political views not "speech."

Because big corporate money funding the campaign is bad for democracy. You get that or you don't.

This wasn't a few people expressing their views. This is funding through systems for corporate donors.

Hillary should be facing people, not corporations who want her to violate the public interest and will spend millions to beat her if she won't.

 

[ElFenix]

i don't think ads are that effective. a good phrase that gets repeated on the news is much better. the big turning point for dude up in massachusetts was his response to the 'ted kennedy's seat' question, not an ad (and the lady's attack ads backfired).

the republican primary for texas governor is heating up and their ads back and forth are making me think i should vote for the democrat.

 

[Craig234]

Whatever works for you, Craig. Keep on dodging. How about the fact the ACLU also has argued the provision at issue of the Act (Sect. 203) is unconstitutional? Did you even read their amicus brief, which was very similar to the one they filed in 2002(?), when the BRCA was last before the Court? They argued it was unconstitutional back then, too. But I guess they're just a GOP mouthpiece organization, aren't they?

I'm not 100% in agreement with the ACLU, but they're right on this one.

Dodging? You're still dishonest, and really, an ass. I need to remember, horses and stripes.

My issue here is larger than the case. It's about the basic issue of corporate corrruption of democracy, resting on the Santa Clara decision.

No, I haven't read the ACLU brief. I'm somewhat interested, but not going to go looking for it now, you can pst the relevant excerpt if you want.

No one's talking about 'GOP mouthepiece' here, that's you being an... nevermind.

 

[Craig234]

i don't think ads are that effective. a good phrase that gets repeated on the news is much better. the big turning point for dude up in massachusetts was his response to the 'ted kennedy's seat' question, not an ad (and the lady's attack ads backfired).

the republican primary for texas governor is heating up and their ads back and forth are making me think i should vote for the democrat.

Give me a break. Don't nit pick the media strategy. Money influenced elections period. The need for corporate/union donations corrupts the system.

 

[piasabird]

If they can have limits on the amount of money an NFL team can spend then why not limit how much money these campaigns can actually spend. Limit air time by candidate. How much is too much? How about limiting the timeframe during which people can purchase air time and move the primaries closer to the actual election. I think a 2 year campaign for election is too long.