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

[nick1985]

4 Justices who would ban books if they had just one more to side with them.

pretty much

 

[Sclamoz]

Explain your reasoning behind limiting free speech? What if I'm a small S-corp roofing business and want to voice my concerns? You're telling me I can't and shouldn't. Just admit it, you don't like the bill of rights. Fuck you communist. Thankfully the 2nd most important amendment protects us from people like you.

"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."

Right and if you as a person voice your opinion it is protected, a corporation is not a person and should not have the same protections. Notice how the founders use the words citizens or people or persons and not corporations?

 

[GroundedSailor]

Explain your reasoning behind limiting free speech? What if I'm a small S-corp roofing business and want to voice my concerns? You're telling me I can't and shouldn't. Just admit it, you don't like the bill of rights. Just where do you stand on The Bill of Rights? Thankfully the 2nd most important amendment protects us from people like you.

"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."

Right and if you as a person voice your opinion it is protected, a corporation is not a person and should not have the same protections. Notice how the founders use the words citizens or people or persons and not corporations?

See the links in my post (#149) as to how the corporations became 'persons' under the Supreme Court.

Sadly corporations have been given the same basic rights as citizens. So now the free speech rights apply to them as well.

 

[LongTimePCUser]

This really is not about free speech.
It is about the power of money.

Big corporations have lots of money and will use it to buy elected politicians.

If the Supreme Court can decide that a big corporation has the right of free speech and can use unlimited amounts of money to broadcast their requirements, then they should also grant them the right to vote and give them as many votes as the size of the corporations as measured by the equity in their balence sheet.

Individual voters are not currently allowed to give unlimited sums of money to their favorite political candidate. Why should a corporaton be allowed to spend an unlimited amount of money to run ads that support their chosen (and thoroughly bought) candidate.

 

[Sclamoz]

See the links in my post (#149) as to how the corporations became 'persons' under the Supreme Court.

Sadly corporations have been given the same basic rights as citizens. So now the free speech rights apply to them as well.

Yeah I've read the Santa Clara County V. Railroad case(I'll have to read the other). The origins of this notion of corporate person hood reinforces my opinion that corporations are in no way entitled to constitutional rights and our constitution never intended it.

Edit:

Here is a thorough breakdown on the subject.

http://www.theusconstitution.org/up.../CAC-Corporations-Narrative-12-3-09-draft.pdf

 

[ProgressiveAthe]

While I do support limits on contributions, I didn't think it was fair that corporations had a limit while entities such as unions did not. My union gives tons of my money to political things that have nothing to do with my job and things which I may not support.

 

[Craig234]

While I do support limits on contributions, I didn't think it was fair that corporations had a limit while entities such as unions did not. My union gives tons of my money to political things that have nothing to do with my job and things which I may not support.

My recollection was the law applying the same to coporations and unions. Was that not the case?

 

[spidey07]

Right and if you as a person voice your opinion it is protected, a corporation is not a person and should not have the same protections. Notice how the founders use the words citizens or people or persons and not corporations?

What you fail to understand is that corporations are PEOPLE! Collective interests. But you're falling for the "evil corporations are being all corporationy" mantra.

Answer again how an S-corp founded to provide protection from the government with 3 employees cannot exercise free speech?

If you disagree with this ruling you are against free speech, plain and simple. it really is that simple. How this was not 9-0 is beyond me.

 

[spidey07]

While I do support limits on contributions, I didn't think it was fair that corporations had a limit while entities such as unions did not. My union gives tons of my money to political things that have nothing to do with my job and things which I may not support.

Are you sure that isn't a PAC? I give freely to my company's PAC as it is in my best interest. Same as I personally give to candidates that I support.

Anybody against this ruling is against free speech. Period.

 

[Craig234]

What you fail to understand is that corporations are PEOPLE! Collective interests. But you're falling for the "evil corporations are being all corporationy" mantra.

Answer again how an S-corp founded to provide protection from the government with 3 employees cannot exercise free speech?

If you disagree with this ruling you are against free speech, plain and simple. it really is that simple. How this was not 9-0 is beyond me.

You really don't understand the difference between the corporation having people involved with it - owner, worker, officer, and so on - and the corporation itself being a legal person different than the real people.

No wonder you are so confused.

I'd recommend a book, but I don't buy bicycles for fish either. If anyone is interested, read Thom Hartmann's "Unequal Protections" about the history of corporate personhood.

 

[sandorski]

Are you sure that isn't a PAC? I give freely to my company's PAC as it is in my best interest. Same as I personally give to candidates that I support.

Anybody against this ruling is against free speech. Period.

BS

 

[Slick5150]

Are you sure that isn't a PAC? I give freely to my company's PAC as it is in my best interest. Same as I personally give to candidates that I support.

Anybody against this ruling is against free speech. Period.

I like how you make false arguments, then make ridiculous accusations about anybody that disagrees with your false argument.

Brilliant strategy.

If you disagree with this, you support the murder of puppies.

 

[soccerballtux]

Interesting to note the top-10 list of biggest money in politics:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php
Seven of the ten are Unions (who give pretty much 99%+ to dems, I know, shocking after the GM/Chrysler 55% giveaway and proposed exemption to private health insurance taxes), one is a far left leaning investment bank who's identity after the secret 100% payout debacle should be no surprise, the remaining two are a professional association and a telecom who have pretty balanced Dem/GOP giving.

Wow great link. Thanks.


On topic: Dangit. I supported this. If I'm understanding it correctly.

 

[Carmen813]

Are you sure that isn't a PAC? I give freely to my company's PAC as it is in my best interest. Same as I personally give to candidates that I support.

Anybody against this ruling is against free speech. Period.

I'm against free speech. I think people should spend more time listening.

Also, I'm a little drunk right now. God I love rum and coke...

 

[soccerballtux]

I'm against free speech. I think people should spend more time listening.

Also, I'm a little drunk right now. God I love rum and coke...

I love how everybody loves saying that when they're drinking, lol.
"I'M SO WASTEDDDD AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"

 

[Carmen813]

I love how everybody loves saying that when they're drinking, lol.
"I'M SO WASTEDDDD AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"

I get drunk on average once a year, so I intend to maximize my stupidity tonight! Let's hope I don't end up with a baby!

 

[shira]

So how come when a decision is made by the CONSERVATIVE wing of the SCOTUS that invalidates a law passed by congress, all the righties on ATPN hail it as a blow for freedom, but when a decision is made by the LIBERAL wing of the SCOTUS that invalidates a law passed by congress, all the righties accuse the liberals of engaging in judicial activism.

Please, righties, tell me what principle you're invoking in these two situations. I really, really want to know how you keep it all straight.

 

[sandorski]

I love how everybody loves saying that when they're drinking, lol.
"I'M SO WASTEDDDD AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"

The alternative is: I'M SO SOOOOOOOOBER, FML"

 

[JSt0rm]

What you fail to understand is that corporations are PEOPLE!

Hey look its a fascist.

 

[Craig234]

So how come when a decision is made by the CONSERVATIVE wing of the SCOTUS that invalidates a law passed by congress, all the righties on ATPN hail it as a blow for freedom, but when a decision is made by the LIBERAL wing of the SCOTUS that invalidates a law passed by congress, all the righties accuse the liberals of engaging in judicial activism.

Please, righties, tell me what principle you're invoking in these two situations. I really, really want to know how you keep it all straight.

I notived all it takes to turn righties into passionate defenders of books, when they don't read any and attack them every time they're mentioned as proving them wrong, is a liberal Supreme Court decision.

They are for books, defending the rights they never use the way a pimply faced geek who won't get laid for years insists on carrying a condom in his wallet. It's the principle.

Just be nice if they actually used the right a little more. (I don't have a position on the book issue, I'd have to look at this a bit more, it's the political motives of the people protesting I'm discussing).

These people regularly trample on rights as or more important all the time when it's in their interests - see my ACORN post, where the poor voting is not any concern to them.

 

[Robor]

I actually am saddened by the ruling.

While it was indeed the people who spoke up in Massachusetts on Tuesday, I firmly believe that once our representatives are in office, they listen to everyone BUT the people. This latest ruling will only enforce the fact that our elected representatives will listen to corporate interests ($$$) first, lobbyists second ($$/more of the former), and the People last.

Well put and totally agree. :thumbsup:

 

[daishi5]

I notived all it takes to turn righties into passionate defenders of books, when they don't read any and attack them every time they're mentioned as proving them wrong, is a liberal Supreme Court decision.

They are for books, defending the rights they never use the way a pimply faced geek who won't get laid for years insists on carrying a condom in his wallet. It's the principle.

Just be nice if they actually used the right a little more. (I don't have a position on the book issue, I'd have to look at this a bit more, it's the political motives of the people protesting I'm discussing).

These people regularly trample on rights as or more important all the time when it's in their interests - see my ACORN post, where the poor voting is not any concern to them.

This law apparently let George Soros advertise for a book against George Bush in Oct of 2004. But did not allow a group of citizens to advertise for a movie against Hillary Clinton in 2008. Do you believe that a law should allow one millionaire more of a voice than a group of people, just because those people needed corporate money to match the millionaires money?

 

[Carmen813]

What you fail to understand is that corporations are PEOPLE! Collective interests. But you're falling for the "evil corporations are being all corporationy" mantra.

Answer again how an S-corp founded to provide protection from the government with 3 employees cannot exercise free speech?

If you disagree with this ruling you are against free speech, plain and simple. it really is that simple. How this was not 9-0 is beyond me.

Hearing a Conservative argue about "collective" interests is...well...a new one.

 

[Craig234]

This law apparently let George Soros advertise for a book against George Bush in Oct of 2004. But did not allow a group of citizens to advertise for a movie against Hillary Clinton in 2008. Do you believe that a law should allow one millionaire more of a voice than a group of people, just because those people needed corporate money to match the millionaires money?

I haven't looked at the details carefully, but if my impressions are right, the opinions of the people who were trying to reduce the excessive corporate influence (bi-partisan) felt the issue was with tv ads, not books.

THe law was specifically written to restrict tv ads and not books. That's the reason. The anit-Hillary people had the same right to advertise a book, and Soros had the same restriction he could not buy tv ads.

You might disagree. But that's the situation and there's a case for it, just as anti-tobacco people outlawed tv ads but not print ads in another controversial first amendment action.

I'm cautious about any restriction on 'free speech'. I'm also very concened about our democracy not working because of corporate takeover.

I could look at this more and try to give you a more complete answer, but I'm just not that interested in this issue right now. I'm concerned about the larger issue of the personhood of corporations.

Sorry if that's disappointing, I usually try to answer something with a clearer position. There may not be any clean answers, only lesser evils, as long as corporations can corrupt the system.

But do note that this a somewhat narrow issue specific to corproate-funded products specific to candidates.

Taking a moment more on this, recall the Swift Boat liars backed by money having nothing to do with truth but with the corporate agenda wanting to beat a candate who would better represent the people, the corporate interests were able to play a big role in the campaign (they were later fined over $200,000 for vilolating election laws). I guess I'm for moderate reform - some restrictions on corruption where we can, but with a respect for the free speech despite its problems. We should err on the side of swift boaters speaking over censoring legitimate speech, just as we err to freeing the guilty over inprisoning the innocent.

We need to get rid of the 19th-centuryt legal error saying corporations are persons.

 

[daishi5]

We need to get rid of the 19th-centuryt legal error saying corporations are persons.

We are at a standstill, I don't see how a group of people made up entirely of citizens cannot enjoy the rights of citizens as a group. I believe they have been considered "legal persons" since before they had constitutional rights. Your problem is that they were granted constitutional rights, but I don't think you want to take away our right to sue a corporation, nor the governments right to punish them for crimes, which is part of their being "legal persons." I believe a group of people should enjoy the same constitutional protections they do as individuals, and I don't think we can go anywhere else on this.