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

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
There are some people on this forum who fear 1984. There are other people who fear Jennifer Government.

Perhaps they should be afraid of both.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
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?

Nope. Wrong then. Wrong now.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Hey look its a fascist.

That's Mr. Fascist to you, buddy.

You must respect your Corporate Overlords as they complete their takeover of America.

Our good friend, Mr. Fascist, is simply a brown-nosing boot-licking lackey wrapping himself in the flag and his logical fallacies.





--
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
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.

You really don't understand the issue with corporations. They are not a 'group of people' like any other group.

They are a legal entity with attributes not part of any people - the people who run them have laws ordering them to do certain things, and not act as people'.

If a group of people, to re-use my analogy, are sitting and talking about the issue of mountaintop mining, they are citizens who can look at the issue and weigh the environemntal benefits of not doing it against the economic benefits of doing it, and discuss and reach an opinion. THese same people running a public corporation are ordered by the law not to ask any questions about society. However bad the issue is for society, they are legally mandated to only ask what's best for the profits of stockholders.

Now, add that to the fact that there might be no resources on the side of society but a few guys in t shirts who are holding signs, while there are undreds of millions of dollars to be made for the corporation.

How is this balance good for siociety, for the corporation to dominate the politics and force through its profit smashing any societal interests?

YOu should watch the movie (and read the book) "The Corporation".

I'd also recommend the book "Unequal Protections".
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,317
0
0
If only you could find the root of the problem and simply remove the reason there is so much incentive for companies or special interests to contribute.... say by limiting the resources the federal government has to redistribute in the first place?

The vast majority of large corporate/special interest donations are bribes, plain and simple. By helping secure the political career of an individual they are to cement the support of a person in political power in a way that will ultimately justify the expense by providing access to grants, contracts, etc... We can play the campaign finance game like we have the income tax game and turn it into a morass of impossible to understand regulations and loopholes or simply work to reduce the concentration of federal power and eliminate the incentive that makes it an issue at all.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
If only you could find the root of the problem and simply remove the reason there is so much incentive for companies or special interests to contribute.... say by limiting the resources the federal government has to redistribute in the first place?

The vast majority of large corporate/special interest donations are bribes, plain and simple. By helping secure the political career of an individual they are to cement the support of a person in political power in a way that will ultimately justify the expense by providing access to grants, contracts, etc... We can play the campaign finance game like we have the income tax game and turn it into a morass of impossible to understand regulations and loopholes or simply work to reduce the concentration of federal power and eliminate the incentive that makes it an issue at all.

If they can afford it at a federal level, what convinces you that they can't at a local or state level?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
If only you could find the root of the problem and simply remove the reason there is so much incentive for companies or special interests to contribute.... say by limiting the resources the federal government has to redistribute in the first place?

The vast majority of large corporate/special interest donations are bribes, plain and simple. By helping secure the political career of an individual they are to cement the support of a person in political power in a way that will ultimately justify the expense by providing access to grants, contracts, etc... We can play the campaign finance game like we have the income tax game and turn it into a morass of impossible to understand regulations and loopholes or simply work to reduce the concentration of federal power and eliminate the incentive that makes it an issue at all.

The mistake you make is imagning it's all about the corporations simply gettin money from the government.

THat's wrong and simplistic.

A certain amount is that - Medicare Part D, for example - but that's a minority.

Another huge area is regulation - the government allowing the corporations to harm the public interst. Dont regulate Enron. Don't require extensive drug testing. Don't limit Wall Street's leveraged risk taking.

There are other areas as well.

THe problem is ideologues with fantasies of the libertarian small government, as you sound like, think it's all about small goverment and freeing the corporations. It's a recie for catastrophe.

The basic issie isn't to cripple overnment - which is what corporations want and you play in to their hands - it's about who the government represents - the pubiic or the powerful.
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,317
0
0
If they can afford it at a federal level, what convinces you that they can't at a local or state level?

While my comments focus on the issue at a federal level they certainly apply anywhere (state/local) you have a trough full of tax dollars to pass out.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
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.

Let's be fair. At least one lefty in one of the McCain-Feingold threads yesterday called this judicial activism.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
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.

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...
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Another huge area is regulation - the government allowing the corporations to harm the public interst. Dont regulate Enron. Don't require extensive drug testing. Don't limit Wall Street's leveraged risk taking.

How is that even honest? Was the Enron scandal about an unregulated corporation, or a corporation that violated laws and regulations already in existance? Passing laws does NOTHING to protect the public - enforcing laws does. Neither party has much interest in the kind of follow-through that enforcement requires.
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,317
0
0
The mistake you make is imagning it's all about the corporations simply gettin money from the government.

THat's wrong and simplistic.

A certain amount is that - Medicare Part D, for example - but that's a minority.

Another huge area is regulation - the government allowing the corporations to harm the public interst. Dont regulate Enron. Don't require extensive drug testing. Don't limit Wall Street's leveraged risk taking.

There are other areas as well.

THe problem is ideologues with fantasies of the libertarian small government, as you sound like, think it's all about small government and freeing the corporations. It's a recipe for catastrophe.

The basic issue isn't to cripple government - which is what corporations want and you play in to their hands - it's about who the government represents - the pubiic or the powerful.

Actually I think there are a LOT of non corporate interests with their hands in the public pockets thanks to their considerable investments in political candidates... the education lobby, labor unions, climate researchers, etc... I think progressives get so caught up in their anti-corporation rhetoric they fail to see the bigger picture. No matter where you stand on the issues having a large concentration of wealth in the hands of public officials who are legally allowed to accept large "with strings" contributions creates a situation that's bad for the people.

The reason real finance reform will never have teeth is because a voting majority who would have to effect change are themselves benefiting from the status quo. Sure we'll see a patch or two (with loopholes of course) to give the newsies something to write about but at the end of the day the problem will remain.

Craig you need to learn to think for yourself, this big-evil corporate straw man argument that some poly-sci 101 prof stuck in your head shows how single dimensional your thinking is. As an example take a look at the non partisan Open Secrets website where campaign contributions can be tracked by industry/donor/recipient/etc...

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index_stfed.php

Note that the largest aggregate national contributions to political candidates have actually NOT been from corporations but from labor representing entities like the NEA (Education Lobby - public school monopolies woo woo!) and tribal gaming organizations...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
How is that even honest? Was the Enron scandal about an unregulated corporation, or a corporation that violated laws and regulations already in existance? Passing laws does NOTHING to protect the public - enforcing laws does. Neither party has much interest in the kind of follow-through that enforcement requires.

A fair question. The answer is both - and it's true for many, many situations, this was just an example.

For examplle, using the Enron example of corporate inflence. There are books on things, Ill pick one.

After they were caught ands so clearly guilty, the government angle is that a "sweetheart deal" was drafted requiring government approval with California that would be a 'negotiated settlement' letting them off easy.

Now, the background includes that Enron's CEO was Bush's #1 political donor - and the fact California was a Democratic state wasn't lost on Enron. On the one hand, the pain to Californians cause da big problem for California's Democratic governor. On the other hand, private citizen Arnold Schwarzeneggar was one of some dozens of 'friends of Enron' secretly invited to a get together for Enron to discuss the crisis of getting caught in California. Most did not accept, Arnold went to the meeting.

CA's governor refused to sign the sweetheart deal, and the governor's signrature was required.

A Republican-launched recall campaign was launched - and following the old 'blame the victim' logic of voters, they were ready to get rid of the governor who was Enron's enemy, over the Enron problem partly

And the replacement candidate was - Schwarzeneggar - who promptly signed the sweetheart deal for Enron when elected.

Read the last part of my last post on this - the issue is who the government represents.
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,317
0
0
Read the last part of my last post on this - the issue is who the government represents.

In the case of our current president:

RankIndustryTotal1
Lawyers/Law Firms$43,071,1292
Retired$42,934,2783
Education$22,915,4624
Misc Business$16,558,9995
Securities & Investment$14,808,875
Specifically:

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
In the case of our current president:

RankIndustryTotal1
Lawyers/Law Firms$43,071,1292
Retired$42,934,2783
Education$22,915,4624
Misc Business$16,558,9995
Securities & Investment$14,808,875
Specifically:

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084

Yes, skipping your previous post, on this one, these funds would largely not be donated if corporations were not legal persons, which is good for the people.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,837
2,622
136
Apparently a lot of the posters here are under the impression that the ban on corporate campaign spending arose with the McCain-Feingold Act of 1992. In fact the Supreme Court essentially made new law by overturning almost 100 years of precedent and statutes.

I thought conservatives were supposed to hate activist judges. But I guess they are activists only when you disagree with the rulings.

Personally I predict that the next election season will be both longer and more crammed full of negative, over the top ads than you could even imagine. Congrats to the Supreme Court for making such a major contribution to the quality of our lives, all in the name of Constitutional rights for entities that exist as a matter of legal fiction.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Apparently a lot of the posters here are under the impression that the ban on corporate campaign spending arose with the McCain-Feingold Act of 1992. In fact the Supreme Court essentially made new law by overturning almost 100 years of precedent and statutes.

I thought conservatives were supposed to hate activist judges. But I guess they are activists only when you disagree with the rulings.

Personally I predict that the next election season will be both longer and more crammed full of negative, over the top ads than you could even imagine. Congrats to the Supreme Court for making such a major contribution to the quality of our lives, all in the name of Constitutional rights for entities that exist as a matter of legal fiction.

Conservatives love The Constitution and free speech which is what this ruling was all about.
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
If a group of people, to re-use my analogy, are sitting and talking about the issue of mountaintop mining, they are citizens who can look at the issue and weigh the environemntal benefits of not doing it against the economic benefits of doing it, and discuss and reach an opinion. THese same people running a public corporation are ordered by the law not to ask any questions about society. However bad the issue is for society, they are legally mandated to only ask what's best for the profits of stockholders.

I'm sure I'll regret replying here, but what the heck ...

First, I have read the books you suggested a while ago, so skip adding that in your reply as if people would agree with you if they would only read them. They're interesting, but they are also opinion pieces, not "fact".

There are no laws that order the officers of a corporation not to ask questions about society. As a legal person, a corporation is required to follow all laws or face civil and criminal penalties. In your example, if there are environmental review laws or regulations, then the company would be required to follow them.

It may be possible that the people living near the mountain don't want a mine, but the laws and regulations allow for one. However, how is that any different than someone just moving in that has no connection to the specific place and deciding he wants to make a mine?

Legal precedent for a long, long time have emphasized that the main goal of a corporation is to make profit for its shareholders. These laws are to protect shareholders, in particular minority shareholders. This doesn't mean only short-term profits. There are plenty of examples where corporations have invested in schools and other projects to improve the quality of workers they will get.

Corporations were created to allow pooling of capital and to limit liability of the shareholders to the investment they made (unlike partnerships where liability tends to be unlimited). This has allowed my greater investment and much greater creation of wealth than the systems before it. Public companies are democratic even in that the Board is elected by the shareholders.

Corporations are run by people. Those people live where you live. Their kids attend the same schools and breath the same air. To act as if that is not true is too extreme. What corporations can do is give a lever that magnifies the efforts of those people.

Personally, I'm not in favour of unlimited spending by corporations in advertising during elections. I understand the reasoning the SCOTUS used and I think that Congress needs to pass a better law that reinstates protection and does not infringe on speech. However, corporations do deserve a right to speak. They pay taxes. the people that work for them depend on the corporations for their jobs. Laws and regulations governments pass effect them. To silence corporations is to silence important political speech.

Michael