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

[Linflas]

Bullshit. If a ruling about free speech benefited liberals you'd be full of outrage.

Funny I am conservative and defended the ruling regarding flag burning. I don't see free speech as benefiting conservatives or liberals, it benefits all Americans.

 

[spidey07]

Bullshit. If a ruling about free speech benefited liberals you'd be full of outrage.

Funny, this ruling benefits Unions who are liberal democrats biggest supporters and yet I'm still perfectly fine with it.

That's the thing about free speech, you either believe in it or you don't. I do.

 

[Throckmorton]

Does everyone realize this allows foreign owned companies to contribute to political candidates?

And you wingnuts thought Obama was a Manchurian Candidate? Get ready for actual ones, and it won't involve brainwashing.

 

[Michael]

Does everyone realize this allows foreign owned companies to contribute to political candidates?

And you wingnuts thought Obama was a Manchurian Candidate? Get ready for actual ones, and it won't involve brainwashing.

The ruling does not touch the laws about donating directly to candidates (corporations cannot).

It is about advertising (speech).

Michael

 

[chucky2]

Why can't Congress just pass a law for itself that members, and prospective members, will not accept more than such and such from any one entity? Would not that solve a Corp. trying to buy a politician?

Chuck

 

[nobodyknows]

And the Dems have shown that they put the poor ahead of their donors?

They are both the same coin.

So two wrongs makes a right?

Why should a coporation be able to donate money to a politcians It's not allowed to vote so why should it be able to contribute? That should be up to the individuals and even then amounts should be severly limited.

Edit: I think we are heading in the direction of shooting judges. It's happened before.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

However I do no pledge allegiance to no damn coporations. They are not a person and should not have the same rights as a person. How anybody, let a alone a Supreme Court Justice could think otherwise is beyond me.

 

[spidey07]

Why can't Congress just pass a law for itself that members, and prospective members, will not accept more than such and such from any one entity? Would not that solve a Corp. trying to buy a politician?

Chuck

As mentioned, Corporations CANNOT donate to candidates. If you've ever donated to a particular candidate you have to swear and sign that you are doing it as a private person with your own private money under penalty of law.

 

[spidey07]

so two wrongs makes a right?

Why should a coporation be able to donate money to a politcians it's not allowed to vote so why should it be able to contribute? That should be up to the individuals and even then amounts should be severly limited.

corporations cannot donate to politicians!

 

[nobodyknows]

corporations cannot donate to politicians!

OH really?

The Supreme Court on Thursday opened wide new avenues for big-moneyed interests to pour money into politics in a decision that could have a major influence on the 2010 midterm elections and President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.


The long-awaited 5-4 decision overruled all or parts of two prior rulings by the court that allowed governments to restrict corporations and unions from spending their general funds on ads expressly urging a candidate’s election or defeat. But the decision upheld disclosure requirements for groups like the one that brought the case.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31786.html#ixzz0dMq1Bu86

 

[ayabe]

corporations cannot donate to politicians!

*wink wink*

Don't be so fucking naive.

 

[spidey07]

OH really?

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.

The Supreme Court on Thursday opened wide new avenues for big-moneyed interests to pour money into politics in a decision that could have a major influence on the 2010 midterm elections and President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.


The long-awaited 5-4 decision overruled all or parts of two prior rulings by the court that allowed governments to restrict corporations and unions from spending their general funds on ads expressly urging a candidate’s election or defeat. But the decision upheld disclosure requirements for groups like the one that brought the case.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz0dMq1Bu86

 

[Mursilis]

People need to stop saying corporations have the same rights as citizens - it's just simplistic and wrong. Yes, in some situations, corporations do have the same legal rights (ex: they may enter into contracts, and be parties to lawsuits), but in other ways, corporations do NOT have legal rights which citizens enjoy (ex: they may not vote, and they may not hold elected office). If you consider yourself intelligent enough to discuss issues like the legal rights of corporations, please hold yourself to that same standard and get the facts (even the complicated ones) right.

 

[spidey07]

People need to stop saying corporations have the same rights as citizens - it's just simplistic and wrong. Yes, in some situations, corporations do have the same legal rights (ex: they may enter into contracts, and be parties to lawsuits), but in other ways, corporations do NOT have legal rights which citizens enjoy (ex: they may not vote, and they may not hold elected office). If you consider yourself intelligent enough to discuss issues like the legal rights of corporations, please hold yourself to that same standard and get the facts (even the complicated ones) right.

Read this again. Then read it again. Then read it some more. I bolded the important parts to make it easier. This isn't about rights - congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The reason the SC struck down the mccain/feingold deal was because it is very clearly violated the 1st amendment.

"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."

 

[Robor]

Funny, this ruling benefits Unions who are liberal democrats biggest supporters and yet I'm still perfectly fine with it.

That's the thing about free speech, you either believe in it or you don't. I do.

You believe it in this instance because you know corporations will now be free to donate more money to the GOP.

 

[nobodyknows]

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.

Maybe you are that dumb but I'm not. They are POLITICAL ADS, not product ads. It's no different then contributing to the canidate of your choice. Acutally it's worse because they can lie through their teet (novel conept, a coporation lying, huh) and the canidate that benifits can claim he had nothing to do with it.

On top of that they are doing it with money made off the backs of people who may not even support their views. It's assinine to the extreme.

 

[spidey07]

You believe it in this instance because you know corporations will now be free to donate more money to the GOP.

This has nothing to do with donating money, nothing has changed in that respect. Why is this so difficult for you people to understand? How am I failing to make it any more clear?

This is whether a corporation or union can use their general fund to pay and run political ADs.

 

[nobodyknows]

This has nothing to do with donating money, nothing has changed in that respect. Why is this so difficult for you people to understand? How am I failing to make it any more clear?

This is whether a corporation or union can use their general fund to pay and run political ADs.

Do you really think people are so stupid they can't see through this for what it really is? Our Supreme Court just sent us up the creek without a paddle.

What good can come of this?

How can this do anything but make special interests even more powerful?

What about the people who are working for the coporation but disagree with the coporations politics?

 

[spidey07]

Do you really think people are so stupid they can't see through this for what it really is? Our Supreme Court just sent us up the creek without a paddle.

What good can come of this?

How can this do anything but make special interests even more powerful?

What about the people who are working for the coporation but disagree with the coporations politics?

What good can come from it? The people that wanted to advertise their movie are not being censored by the Federal Government. The SC isn't supposed to rule on consequences, and it is very clear the law was unconstitutional.

The argument can even be made that this is good for small business as they can put their voices out there as well. And another thing, businesses aren't going to run ads that piss off their customers which if it's political it'll piss off about 1/2 the people.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The pattern across many politicians of our nation proves you wrong. For one example, Republicans put the interests of wealthy donors ahead of their poor constiuents every day.

And the Dems have shown that they put the poor ahead of their donors?

They are both the same coin.

So two wrongs makes a right?

Why should a coporation be able to donate money to a politcians It's not allowed to vote so why should it be able to contribute? That should be up to the individuals and even then amounts should be severly limited.

Edit: I think we are heading in the direction of shooting judges. It's happened before.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

However I do no pledge allegiance to no damn coporations. They are not a person and should not have the same rights as a person. How anybody, let a alone a Supreme Court Justice could think otherwise is beyond me.

By leaving out my quote of Craig - the meaning was lost.
His normal MOA is to blame the Republicans for everything - the Dems are infallible.
I questioned his statement - the Dems are just as bad no matter what he states.

I do agree that a corporation (as an entity) should not have rights for voting.
However, corporations are allowed to advertise and market themselves.
How does one formally draw the line - they can support people that they feel are beneficial to their company. It is up to the owners of the company to determine where it is best for their $$ to be invested.
If they want to invest in a politician that they feel is beneficial to their vision; they should be able to.

But I feel that theirs should be treated as a single voice and subjected to the same limits of a person who donates.

The obvious use of soft money via PACs to get around limits on contributions is flawed. That is a flaw in the laws governing PACs; the corporations are just using what the laws allow.

Kill the extra transparent PACs and the problem gets solved.
Also, pull the tax exempt status of non-profits, churches and such that use the "pulpit" to preach politics.

But what would that do to the rights of moveon.org and similar groups on all ranges of the spectrum.

 

[Craig234]

By leaving out my quote of Craig - the meaning was lost.
His normal MOA is to blame the Republicans for everything - the Dems are infallible.

You lie too much. Simple people need extreme straw men.

 

[Steeplerot]

One of those news days that make you wonder how long we have before US workers are all either lobbyists or collections agents for China/India.

 

[Craig234]

The argument can even be made that this is good for small business as they can put their voices out there as well. And another thing, businesses aren't going to run ads that piss off their customers which if it's political it'll piss off about 1/2 the people.

That sure explains the hundreds of millions they gove already under these rules (and it's not small business).

 

[kage69]

His normal MOA is to blame the Republicans for everything - the Dems are infallible.
I questioned his statement - the Dems are just as bad no matter what he states.

Either you've exercised a generous amount of cherrypicking with his posts, or you are flat out lying. Which is it? I can think of several threads off the top of my head where Craig has done what most self-proclaimed conservatives are unable to: hold "his side" up to the same standard by which he judges the other side.

Either way you feel about this issue, involving some creative dishonesty doesn't help your position.

 

[theeedude]

This is just one more reason I got rid of my television and am not getting it back.
Also, now a corporation can not just bribe politicians with contributions, but also threaten to run ads against them to get their way. Great step forward for our already corrupt democracy, taxpayers are going to get screwed over and over again for the benefit of the oligarchy.

 

[spidey07]

This is just one more reason I got rid of my television and am not getting it back.
Also, now a corporation can not just bribe politicians with contributions, but also threaten to run ads against them to get their way. Great step forward for our already corrupt democracy, taxpayers are going to get screwed over and over again for the benefit of the oligarchy.

Corporations cannot donate to politicians.