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

[Ozoned]

Obama got it right on the Supreme Court Ruling: it threatens his agenda. Read his comments:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23/obama-weekly-address-vide_n_434082.html

Fixed your post.

How is it that you and Obama are able to recognize influence that comes from special interest groups, but it is assumed that the rest of us dumbass hayseeds are not able to see it?

 

[Atreus21]

A good question is: To whom is free speech afforded?

We certainly know that it's afforded to individuals. So why not to associations of individuals?

 

[cubeless]

Obama got it right on the Supreme Court Ruling: it threatens or democracy. Read his comments:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23/obama-weekly-address-vide_n_434082.html

sure... until the other side gets more money than he does, then he'll about face like he did in the last election... and we'll get another brilliant speech about why he can't do what he said he was going to do...

 

[nobodyknows]

Read the first amendment. Congress shall make no law.

What you're saying is if some company puts out a political book we should burn and ban it.

Where did I say that?

Now answer the fucking questions or quit your fucking trolling.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally Posted by senseamp
Indirectly through their employee contributions they can, but now they won't even need to, they can just run ads supporting politicians directly. Channel taxpayer money to me and I'll run ads for you, don't do it and I will run ads against you. What exactly do you expect to happen when you set up the system this way?

Answer the qestions Spidey

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally Posted by Sclamoz
Should they be able to in your opinion? If money = free speech then isn't this a restriction on free speech?

Answer the qestions Spidey

 

[nobodyknows]

Answer the questions spidey

So the politician creates the ads he wants and the coporations pays for the air time. Are you really this fucking stupid?

Answer the qestions Spidey

 

[ProfJohn]

Can someone explain why George Carlin is listed as a 'tag' for this thread?

 

[ProfJohn]

Now let's compare with Roe v Wade: That didn't REPLACE or CHANGE any laws. It invalidated laws in about half the states, didn't invalidate federal law, and didn't repudiate SCOTUS precedent. But you of course refer to Roe v Wade as judicial activism.

I hope you understand that even people who support the Roe v Wade decision think of it as having a shaky legal foundation.

The court created a right that did not exist before. And many people feel that they reached the right outcome, but in the wrong way.

As a clerk to Justice Blackmun, who wrote the Roe v Wade decision, said:
"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible....Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."

 

[Craig234]

Fixed your post.

How is it that you and Obama are able to recognize influence that comes from special interest groups, but it is assumed that the rest of us dumbass hayseeds are not able to see it?

And the virtual 100% rate of righties getting my position wrong when they claim what it is has another lie added.

 

[Craig234]

sure... until the other side gets more money than he does, then he'll about face like he did in the last election... and we'll get another brilliant speech about why he can't do what he said he was going to do...

Irrelevant attacks to the point.

 

[Craig234]

A good question is: To whom is free speech afforded?

We certainly know that it's afforded to individuals. So why not to associations of individuals?

Public corporations are not associations of individuals.

They are legal entities whose boards are legally bound in their views to not consider society's good.

The men who run them may be rich but their wealth dwarfs to the wealth of the corporation they run, whose interests are often at odds with the interest of the American people.

Unconstitutionally prohibiting the people from limiting their role in politics ovehwlems the public.

 

[ProfJohn]

Public corporations are not associations of individuals.

They are legal entities whose boards are legally bound in their views to not consider society's good.

The men who run them may be rich but their wealth dwarfs to the wealth of the corporation they run, whose interests are often at odds with the interest of the American people.

Unconstitutionally prohibiting the people from limiting their role in politics ovehwlems the public.

1. Corporations ARE associations of individuals because they are OWNED by an association of individuals.

2. Their boards are legally bound to consider the good of their share holders who happen to be members of society.

3. If you want to talk about groups acting against the public good lets talk about public unions putting a stranglehold on governments for their own benefit and to the detriment of the tax payers who are forced to pay higher taxes due to these unions. There is absolutely NO public good in unions advocating higher taxes on the public in order to keep their own high levels of pay and benefits.

 

[Atreus21]

Public corporations are not associations of individuals.

They are legal entities whose boards are legally bound in their views to not consider society's good.

The men who run them may be rich but their wealth dwarfs to the wealth of the corporation they run, whose interests are often at odds with the interest of the American people.

Unconstitutionally prohibiting the people from limiting their role in politics ovehwlems the public.

Public or private, of what are these corporations made up if not individuals?

And is the freedom of speech only granted if said speech is good for society? Who decides what is good for society?

 

[Ozoned]

Public or private, of what are these corporations made up if not individuals?

And is the freedom of speech only granted if said speech is good for society? Who decides what is good for society?

Well, in this case, the SCOTUS didn't decide what is good or bad for society. That is not their job.

 

[nobodyknows]

1. Corporations ARE associations of individuals because they are OWNED by an association of individuals.

2. Their boards are legally bound to consider the good of their share holders who happen to be members of society.

3. If you want to talk about groups acting against the public good lets talk about public unions putting a stranglehold on governments for their own benefit and to the detriment of the tax payers who are forced to pay higher taxes due to these unions. There is absolutely NO public good in unions advocating higher taxes on the public in order to keep their own high levels of pay and benefits.

You're funny!! I think you just answered your own question:

Can someone explain why George Carlin is listed as a 'tag' for this thread?

Seeing all you righties trying to justify "judicial activism" is fucking hilarious. I would love to hear what George Carlin would have had to say about this. I'd bet he could have made a funny skit tying "corporate free speech" in with "family values".

 

[nobodyknows]

Public or private, of what are these corporations made up if not individuals??

Does that giv e the coporation the right to speak for people who own stock or work for a corporation but disagree with it's political views?

Does an imagined entity have rights to free speech? It has no brain or morals so why should it get free speech rights?

My God, I can't believe people are this dense!!

 

[Rainsford]

Money can be speech, as long as the person giving the money is treating it that way. If some right-wing corporation wants to support the Republican party because the board believes in Republican views, more power to them.

The problem is that often companies AREN'T treating their donations as speech, they are treating them as bribes. There is NOTHING about "free speech" I can see in donating identically huge sums to BOTH candidates, which is something companies often do.

The other problem with non-capped donations is that it gives too much power to organizations that donate at the expense of people. Sure, a few million people could donate as much as a giant company or large union, but the union or company speak with one voice, so it's MUCH easier for them to trade money for influence than it is for us little guys to do so.

I'm conflicted about this decision, to be honest. I don't like the idea of laws limited how you can contribute to causes you believe in...but I also don't like the idea of huge companies and/or unions being able to effectively buy the government.

 

[Carmen813]

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.

9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

/conspiracy theory time

If the "people" referred to in these amendments doesn't mean individuals, but can also mean corporations, then wouldn't it technically be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass any law regulating a corporation? No more FDA, FCC, ect.

 

[Sclamoz]

Fixed your post.

How is it that you and Obama are able to recognize influence that comes from special interest groups, but it is assumed that the rest of us dumbass hayseeds are not able to see it?

Well give yourself a pat on the back becauase you are no dumbass hayseed. You were complaining about companies influencing Obama before he was even president!

I wonder how many people that support this ruling have bitched about the dems connections w/ unions,acorn, fannie & freddie, banks and financial industry etc in the past?

You simply need to take a look at Obama's largest contributors to understand what direction the Obama nation would take. It's just more of the same, only different somehow,,,,changed??

His contributors are 99% individuals with an average donation size of less than $100.

You compare that with McCain, his contributors are 93% individuals with an average donation size of about $2000.

So what are you saying here?

Not true Maybe 50% @200 or less

The 200 dollar contribution doesn't have any leverage. The bigger contributions do.


Where the other 1/2 comes from
An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group at about 130, with many working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses - nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real-estate industry.
----------------------------------------------------------------

What I am getting at is that a supermajority of dems isn't going to radically change the direction of this country.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=228151&highlight=campaign&page=2

 

[TimT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

 

[nobodyknows]

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

I STRONGLY disagree. To give coporations legal status so the company may be treated as a "person" in conducting it's business is one thing, but to give them an unfettered political voice backed up my all the money they care to waste is another matter entirely. They are spending the profits of shareholders who strongly disagree with them??? It's like forcing people to donate to a political view they hate and would never contribute to otherwise. In a church no one is forcing you to put money into the collection plate, not so with coporations though.

That alone is reason enough to be illegal to do and that fact that a Supreme Court Justice can't figure out a simple thing like that just make me lose all hope for this country..

 

[werepossum]

I hope you understand that even people who support the Roe v Wade decision think of it as having a shaky legal foundation.

The court created a right that did not exist before. And many people feel that they reached the right outcome, but in the wrong way.

As a clerk to Justice Blackmun, who wrote the Roe v Wade decision, said:
"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible....Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."

So true. A much better foundation would have been private property rights - that each individual owns her body and, if sound mind, may do with it as she wishes. The right to privacy is a ridiculous foundation.

Does everyone bemoaning this (in my view excellent) decision not realize that McCain-Feingold is a relatively recent law? SCOTUS merely sent us back to the non-tortured legal foundation that existed before it. For that matter, has anyone noticed money being less important since it was written into law? Interested parties with money merely had to form not-for-profit foundations, donate money to those, and have them run the ads. Worse, it removed the funding source from the public eye; the Foundation for the Public Good might well be the DNC or George Soros.

When a government is as pervasive, powerful, and punitive as ours, there is no way to remove money from the system. What corporation (or individual with means) is going to sit by knowing that Congress (or nowadays, the Executive Branch) is likely to remove its livelihood? None - which is as it should be. The practical affect of this ruling on election financing will be nil, but a very important thing it does is set limits on how much government may limit rights for what it considers the public good. Today's liberals hate any limits on government power other than the military, but if you look at this through the lens of classical liberalism it's a good thing.

 

[Ozoned]

Well give yourself a pat on the back becauase you are no dumbass hayseed. You were complaining about companies influencing Obama before he was even president!

I wonder how many people that support this ruling have bitched about the dems connections w/ unions,acorn, fannie & freddie, banks and financial industry etc in the past?



http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=228151&highlight=campaign&page=2

Complaining?????

 

[spidey07]

Answer the qestions Spidey

I see that point and I don't have a problem with it. If you want to reform that aspect then reform it. But preventing a group of people from speaking isn't what this country is about. The law was unconstitutional - congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Remember I have no problem with unions also speaking freely.