PDA

View Full Version : Legal Massive SCOTUS decision related to corporations and campaign finance


Pages : [1] 2

alnorth
01-21-2010, 08:40 AM
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has just overruled the prior SCOTUS decision in Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and has effectively killed the part of the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002" restricting ads from corporations.

I'm not a lawyer, but a quick glance to me seems that this court has recognized a 1st amendment right to political speech for all unions, for-profit, and non-profit corporations. The fact that they could form a PAC is irrelevant, they should be able to spend money on ads from the general corporate or union funds.

No clue if this also does anything to any spending limits, but it appears (for example) that if the Coca-Cola Bottling company wants to run an ad asking voters in Georgia to vote for a particular guy in 2010, now they can.

Personally, I have no problem with this. I am sympathetic to the fear that corporations can buy favors, but they can do that anyway, and we could have laws requireing all corporate-paid ads make it clear who paid for the ad. The voters are not completely stupid, I'd imagine seeing a guy supported only by corporate ads could be a turn-off.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 08:47 AM
Now the politicians on both sides will be even more beholden to the Corporations that finance their campaigns. This is a fuckin disgrace. I am sick of this shit.

KC native
01-21-2010, 08:49 AM
Now the politicians on both sides will be even more beholden to the Corporations that finance their campaigns. This is a ****in disgrace. I am sick of this shit.

This all the way.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 08:51 AM
Money is free speech. Corporations should be able to do with their money as they please. IF you don't like what they spend their money on then it's an opportunity for you to NOT spend money with them.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 08:52 AM
Money is free speech. Corporations should be able to do with their money as they please. IF you don't like what they spend their money on then it's an opportunity for you to NOT spend money with them.

Nice pie in the sky idea I guess.

alnorth
01-21-2010, 08:58 AM
Just finished reading a bit more. There was one small thing the liberal justices concurred on and Thomas dissented on, and I was trying to figure out what that was all about.

It appears that the only thing that survives is a ban on corporations and unions directly giving money to a candidate. They can only spend it on their own ads they create, but as far as that goes, its open season. I dont think theres even a money limit on these corporate ads, if a Bank wants to dump a billion on the next presidential race for an ad they created, I think they now can.

bkkcoh
01-21-2010, 09:00 AM
Money is free speech. Corporations should be able to do with their money as they please. IF you don't like what they spend their money on then it's an opportunity for you to NOT spend money with them.

I don't have any issues with the advertising as long as they show verifiable facts, if they don't they need to be held accountable for it.

Not telling the whole truth is just as bad as telling a lie also.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 09:01 AM
Just finished reading a bit more. There was one small thing the liberal justices concurred on and Thomas dissented on, and I was trying to figure out what that was all about.

It appears that the only thing that survives is a ban on corporations and unions directly giving money to a candidate. They can only spend it on their own ads they create, but as far as that goes, its open season. I dont think theres even a money limit on these corporate ads, if a Bank wants to dump a billion on the next presidential race for an ad they created, I think they now can.

This country is going in the shitter.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 09:01 AM
Nice pie in the sky idea I guess.

It's not when you realize the only person's actions and beliefs you can control is your own. That's the problem these days...people think they have the right to force people to do things their way and its just not the case. Telling people what the can drive, what they can eat, and where they can spend their money. It's fucking tyranny.

wild1
01-21-2010, 09:01 AM
They still got their money into politics as much as ever. This might be better from a transparency standpoint, right?

I'd rather that instead of them funneling money through surrogates and PACs, which they would do otherwise, they just be able to advertise directly but require the ads to be clearly marked.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 09:02 AM
if a Bank wants to dump a billion on the next presidential race for an ad they created, I think they now can.

And that factiod will be in their annual report and cause them to lose investors and customers.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 09:03 AM
I don't have any issues with the advertising as long as they show verifiable facts, if they don't they need to be held accountable for it.

Not telling the whole truth is just as bad as telling a lie also.

I agree. Slander and Libel are still illegal in most states. Enforce the laws we already have and believe me we have all the laws we need.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 09:04 AM
It's not when you realize the only person's actions and beliefs you can control is your own. That's the problem these days...people think they have the right to force people to do things their way and its just not the case. Telling people what the can drive, what they can eat, and where they can spend their money. It's ****ing tyranny.

This decision will make that worse in my opinion.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 09:04 AM
They still got their money into politics as much as ever. This might be better from a transparency standpoint, right?

I'd rather that instead of them funneling money through surrogates and PACs, which they would do otherwise, they just be able to advertise directly but require the ads to be clearly marked.

An excellent point. Making things illegal doesn't stop it...it just pushes it in the darkness where no one can see.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 09:05 AM
So it's basically legalized corruption... tit for tat.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 09:06 AM
This decision will make that worse in my opinion.

How so? Do you think the populace so stpuid that they can't understand or figure it out for themselves? Give you brothers and sisters more credit. As long as we continue to have the free exchange of information then ultimately those that cheat the people will lose.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 09:08 AM
How so? Do you think the populace so stpuid that they can't understand or figure it out for themselves? Give you brothers and sisters more credit. As long as we continue to have the free exchange of information then ultimately those that cheat the people will lose.

At this point? Absolutely.

BucEyedPea
01-21-2010, 09:09 AM
For an egalitarian philosophy that the left advocates they sure don't care for equality under the law.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 09:16 AM
At this point? Absolutely.

Then you underestimate your countrymen.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 09:16 AM
For an egalitarian philosophy that the left advocates they sure don't care for equality under the law.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Brock
01-21-2010, 09:18 AM
What's the big deal, they already run the government.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 09:20 AM
Then you underestimate your countrymen.

The masses in this country are zombies.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 09:21 AM
What's the big deal, they already run the government.

I agree. This seals the deal though.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 09:23 AM
The masses in this country are zombies.

No they aren't. If I had that view I would want complete control too, but I don't.

BigRedChief
01-21-2010, 09:31 AM
Money is free speech. Corporations should be able to do with their money as they please. IF you don't like what they spend their money on then it's an opportunity for you to NOT spend money with them.I'm okay with this. As long as its clear that "X" corporation paid for the ad or gave the candidate the money to buy the ad. I believe thats already the law.

You started to see this with the astro turf organizations. Yes, they had some real people associated with them but their financial backing came from a for profit organization. I don't see anything wrong with a citzen using a corporations money to further their personal political goals.

That being said....Surely we can all see the inert danger of corporations and the money they can throw at an issue to the political process.

wild1
01-21-2010, 09:33 AM
An excellent point. Making things illegal doesn't stop it...it just pushes it in the darkness where no one can see.

That's not a good reason to do something in itself, of course.

I just think if the truth is that this ad campaign is paid for by the AFL-CIO it should be stated and printed on the screen at the end. Right now they just pour cash into some proxy that they created, i.e. "working people for happiness and prosperity", and you don't know who's really behind it.

oldandslow
01-21-2010, 09:38 AM
i am on the other side of this...Unions, Corps, etc. pouring money into a campaign does much more harm than good and guarantees voice only for those with large wallets.

Bad decision, imo. But, as Brock noted, we have been moving closer and closer to oligarchy for a long time.

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 09:48 AM
I'll need to read it later. I don't get why corporations or unions have free speech rights. They're not real people, they're just created by statute.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 09:53 AM
I'm okay with this. As long as its clear that "X" corporation paid for the ad or gave the candidate the money to buy the ad. I believe thats already the law.

You started to see this with the astro turf organizations. Yes, they had some real people associated with them but their financial backing came from a for profit organization. I don't see anything wrong with a citzen using a corporations money to further their personal political goals.

That being said....Surely we can all see the inert danger of corporations and the money they can throw at an issue to the political process.

There is no getting around having to inform your own self about the issues from a multitude of sources.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 09:54 AM
That's not a good reason to do something in itself, of course.

I just think if the truth is that this ad campaign is paid for by the AFL-CIO it should be stated and printed on the screen at the end. Right now they just pour cash into some proxy that they created, i.e. "working people for happiness and prosperity", and you don't know who's really behind it.

IT doesn't matter who's behind it, but the content within. The internet is the great equalizer even with all it misinformation.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 09:57 AM
I'll need to read it later. I don't get why corporations or unions have free speech rights. They're not real people, they're just created by statute.

Except Unions and Corporations are comprised of people. The people have a right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 09:58 AM
Except Unions and Corporations are comprised of people. The people have a right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Then they should do it as individuals (which they have the right to do), not entities.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 10:00 AM
Then they should do it as individuals (which they have the right to do), not entities.

They need to be able to do what they want as a group

You need to re-read the first amendment. You either agree with it...or you don't.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 10:06 AM
It doesn't say anything about multi-billion dollar corporatons rigging elections by spending billions on advertising and then expecting laws to be enacted, adjusted or repealed in return.

Jenson71
01-21-2010, 10:06 AM
Except Unions and Corporations are comprised of people. The people have a right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Corporations still had the ability to spend money on candidates. I mean, we obviously know they collectively spend millions. But from McCain-Feingold, they had to do it through a PAC.

Brock
01-21-2010, 10:07 AM
Corporations still had the ability to spend money on candidates. I mean, we obviously know they collectively spend millions. But from McCain-Feingold, they had to do it through a PAC.

So what difference does this make?

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 10:08 AM
It doesn't say anything about multi-billion dollar corporatons rigging elections by spending billions on advertising and then expecting laws to be enacted, adjusted or repealed in return.

And it doesn't say they can't either.


We are talking about Political Factions. James Madsion wrote our Constitution. He also wrote Federalist Paper #10. Which is about liberty, self interests, utopia, and political factions. He didn't have an answer either. If you haven't read federalist paper 10...I recommend doing so. It might bring you peace. It did for me.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 10:10 AM
Corporations still had the ability to spend money on candidates. I mean, we obviously know they collectively spend millions. But from McCain-Feingold, they had to do it through a PAC.

McCain-Feingold is unconsititutional and needs to be removed. It's an abomination and sponsered by two crooks. It effectively says you have to pay money to and register with the government to exercise political speech.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 10:13 AM
<CENTER>The Federalist No. 10

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)

Daily Advertiser
Thursday, November 22, 1787
[James Madison]

</CENTER>To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
PUBLIUS

Jenson71
01-21-2010, 10:15 AM
So what difference does this make?

Well there were oversights on the PACs, they were subject to the Election Commission, and if they were misused, they were subject to fines.

alnorth
01-21-2010, 10:19 AM
So what difference does this make?

There's actually a lot of difference. Currently corporations can only directly pay for administrative costs of the PAC, they still have to raise money from individuals at $5,000 each.

Now if a company doesn't like a congressman in their home state, they can write a check for a few million on an ad directly asking voters not to vote for him. (several times an hour, every day, for the last 30 days of an election)

Jenson71
01-21-2010, 10:27 AM
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Here's the ruling and dissents. Thomas dissented (in part) because he felt the striking down of one section of McCain-Feingold wasn't enough.

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 10:40 AM
Except Unions and Corporations are comprised of people. The people have a right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sure, they have the right to assemble and FORM the corporation.

But it seems odd that a creature of statute -- which is all a corporation is -- can have indelible rights under the Constitution. Obviously the PEOPLE that comprise the corporation do have their own individual freedom of speech rights. But the organization? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Uncle_Ted
01-21-2010, 10:42 AM
Waiting for conservatives to come in screaming about judicial activism in 3... 2... oh wait, nevermind, that won't happen.

It's only "judicial activism" when a court decides against their pet issues. :rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-21-2010, 10:43 AM
I'll need to read it later. I don't get why corporations or unions have free speech rights. They're not real people, they're just created by statute.

Because of an incorrectly interpreted decision during the gilded age that gave them protection under the 14th Amendment

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Uncle_Ted
01-21-2010, 10:47 AM
Sure, they have the right to assemble and FORM the corporation.

But it seems odd that a creature of statute -- which is all a corporation is -- can have indelible rights under the Constitution. Obviously the PEOPLE that comprise the corporation do have their own individual freedom of speech rights. But the organization? Doesn't make any sense to me.

If nothing else, it will be funny to pull out all these arguments next time some conservative starts whining about the "double taxation" of corporations.

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 10:47 AM
Meanwhile, I trust you boys are mindful that the government of China could form a corporation here in the US and then pump in a gazillion dollars for last minute advertising of their choice.

Or Bin Laden, or whoever...

FREE SPEECH!

I don't get it. And FTR I would hold the same position for a union.

Earthling
01-21-2010, 10:56 AM
Meanwhile, I trust you boys are mindful that the government of China could form a corporation here in the US and then pump in a gazillion dollars for last minute advertising of their choice.

Or Bin Laden, or whoever...

FREE SPEECH!

I don't get it. And FTR I would hold the same position for a union.

Excellent point!

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 11:01 AM
Meanwhile, I trust you boys are mindful that the government of China could form a corporation here in the US and then pump in a gazillion dollars for last minute advertising of their choice.



They already did--- how do you think Al Gore's 2000 campaign was financed?

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 11:07 AM
Waiting for conservatives to come in screaming about judicial activism in 3... 2... oh wait, nevermind, that won't happen.

It's only "judicial activism" when a court decides against their pet issues. :rolleyes:

The first amendment is clear.

BigRedChief
01-21-2010, 11:13 AM
Meanwhile, I trust you boys are mindful that the government of China could form a corporation here in the US and then pump in a gazillion dollars for last minute advertising of their choice.

Or Bin Laden, or whoever...

FREE SPEECH!

I don't get it. And FTR I would hold the same position for a union.I agree its a slippery slope but the first amendament does apply, imho and I don't want anyone for any reason dicking around with the 1st amendment.

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 11:15 AM
The first amendment is clear.

I fail to see how that makes much sense since there wasn't even such a thing as a "corporation" as we understand it today at the time that the Constitution was adopted.

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 11:18 AM
I agree its a slippery slope but the first amendament does apply, imho and I don't want anyone for any reason dicking around with the 1st amendment.

I'm rarely a fan of slippery slope arguments.

My point is that the VERY EXISTENCE of a corporation, or a union, is only allowed BY LAW.

A law that I deal with frequently. And those laws tell the corporation what it can do, what it can't do, and how it can act. It deals with the relationship between owners and the entity, and the appointment and removal of management.

Now the SCOTUS has vested these things with Constitutional rights? It's completely nonsensical to me. In fact, every state in the union coudl, tomorrow, remove all corporations from the board. Wipe them out. No such thing anymore. Obviously they won't do it and it would be messy, but they only exist pursuant to the laws of their jurisdiction of incorporation.

How do they have vested Constitutional rights? It makes no sense to me.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 11:19 AM
I fail to see how that makes much sense since there wasn't even such a thing as a "corporation" as we understand it today at the time that the Constitution was adopted.

The are still an assembled group of people petitioning their government. It right there in black and white. Call it a corporation, a barrel full of monkeys, a herd of heffers, the UAW or LaRaza....it's a group of people...it's in the first amendment.

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 11:28 AM
The are still an assembled group of people petitioning their government. It right there in black and white. Call it a corporation, a barrel full of monkeys, a herd of heffers, the UAW or LaRaza....it's a group of people...it's in the first amendment.

A political advertisement in support of or against another individual is not a petition of government.

And neither the Constitution in general, nor the First Amendment in particular, ever contemplated retained earnings, the corporate shield against liability etc. ad infinitum.

Frankly, the best solution to this issue would be to have every state amend its corporate statutes to prohibit politically-oriented advertising. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

Jenson71
01-21-2010, 11:32 AM
The first amendment is clear.

If it's so clear, we could be literalists about it. And then speech = donating is quite a stretch, no?

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 11:32 AM
Meanwhile, I trust you boys are mindful that the government of China could form a corporation here in the US and then pump in a gazillion dollars for last minute advertising of their choice.



Jackass this might ring a bell

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented no threat to the United States. Chinese missiles "couldn’t hit the side of a barn," notes Timothy W. Maier of Insight magazine. Few could reach North America and those that made it would likely miss their targets.

Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.

China probably has suitcase nukes as well. These enable China to strike by proxy – equipping nuclear-armed terrorists to do its dirty work while the Chinese play innocent. Some intelligence sources claim that China maintains secret stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, for just such contingencies.

In 1997, Clinton allowed China to take over the Panama Canal. The Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa leased the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, on the east and west openings of the canal, respectively, thus controlling access both ways.

A public outcry stopped Clinton in 1998 from leasing California's Long Beach Naval Yard to the Chinese firm COSCO. Even so, China can now strike U.S. targets easily from its bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas.

How did the Chinese catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed – or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness is to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose.

As a globalist, Clinton promotes "multipolarity" – the doctrine that no country (such as the USA) should be allowed to gain decisive advantage over others.

To this end, Clinton appointed anti-nuclear activist Hazel O'Leary to head the Department of Energy. O'Leary set to work "leveling the playing field," as she put it, by giving away our nuclear secrets. She declassified 11 million pages of data on U.S. nuclear weapons and loosened up security at weapons labs.

Federal investigators later concluded that China made off with the "crown jewels" of our nuclear weapons research under Clinton’s open-door policy – probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes.

Meanwhile, Clinton and his corporate cronies raked in millions.

In his book "The China Threat," Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz describes how the system worked.

Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clinton's campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs. Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.

"We like your president. We want to see him re-elected," former Chinese intelligence chief Gen. Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung.

Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton's way.

Clinton's top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China.

Clinton recieved funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them James and Mochtar Riady, who own the Indonesian Lippo Group; John Huang; Charlie Trie; Ted Sioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others.

Commerce Secretary Ron Brown served as Clinton's front man in many Chinagate deals. When investigators began probing Brown's Lippo Group and Chinagate connections, Brown died suddenly in a suspicious April 1996 plane crash.

Needless to say, China does not share Clinton's enthusiasm for globalism or multipolarity. The Chinese look out for No. 1.

"War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it," said Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian in 2000. "The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war."

Bill Clinton has given them a good start.

For more columns by Richard Poe, Click here.

Richard Poe is a New York Times best-selling author and cyberjournalist. For more information on Poe and his writings, visit his Web site, www.richardpoe.com. He may be reached at richardpoe@aol.com.






http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/26/214938.shtml

KC native
01-21-2010, 11:42 AM
Jackass this might ring a bell

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented no threat to the United States. Chinese missiles "couldn’t hit the side of a barn," notes Timothy W. Maier of Insight magazine. Few could reach North America and those that made it would likely miss their targets.

Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.

China probably has suitcase nukes as well. These enable China to strike by proxy – equipping nuclear-armed terrorists to do its dirty work while the Chinese play innocent. Some intelligence sources claim that China maintains secret stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, for just such contingencies.

In 1997, Clinton allowed China to take over the Panama Canal. The Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa leased the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, on the east and west openings of the canal, respectively, thus controlling access both ways.

A public outcry stopped Clinton in 1998 from leasing California's Long Beach Naval Yard to the Chinese firm COSCO. Even so, China can now strike U.S. targets easily from its bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas.

How did the Chinese catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed – or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness is to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose.

As a globalist, Clinton promotes "multipolarity" – the doctrine that no country (such as the USA) should be allowed to gain decisive advantage over others.

To this end, Clinton appointed anti-nuclear activist Hazel O'Leary to head the Department of Energy. O'Leary set to work "leveling the playing field," as she put it, by giving away our nuclear secrets. She declassified 11 million pages of data on U.S. nuclear weapons and loosened up security at weapons labs.

Federal investigators later concluded that China made off with the "crown jewels" of our nuclear weapons research under Clinton’s open-door policy – probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes.

Meanwhile, Clinton and his corporate cronies raked in millions.

In his book "The China Threat," Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz describes how the system worked.

Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clinton's campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs. Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.

"We like your president. We want to see him re-elected," former Chinese intelligence chief Gen. Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung.

Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton's way.

Clinton's top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China.

Clinton recieved funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them James and Mochtar Riady, who own the Indonesian Lippo Group; John Huang; Charlie Trie; Ted Sioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others.

Commerce Secretary Ron Brown served as Clinton's front man in many Chinagate deals. When investigators began probing Brown's Lippo Group and Chinagate connections, Brown died suddenly in a suspicious April 1996 plane crash.

Needless to say, China does not share Clinton's enthusiasm for globalism or multipolarity. The Chinese look out for No. 1.

"War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it," said Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian in 2000. "The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war."

Bill Clinton has given them a good start.

For more columns by Richard Poe, Click here.

Richard Poe is a New York Times best-selling author and cyberjournalist. For more information on Poe and his writings, visit his Web site, www.richardpoe.com. He may be reached at richardpoe@aol.com.






http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/26/214938.shtml


Every once in a while I need to pause and remind myself that you're really, REALLY dumb.

.

ClevelandBronco
01-21-2010, 11:49 AM
Frankly, the best solution to this issue would be to have every state amend its corporate statutes to prohibit politically-oriented advertising. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

What part of "unconstitutional" escapes your grasp?

Hydrae
01-21-2010, 11:55 AM
Because of an incorrectly interpreted decision during the gilded age that gave them protection under the 14th Amendment

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

My reading recently pointed out that the protections enjoyed by corporations as entities was not part of the decision. One of the justice's made a comment before they even undertook the case that corporations should be considered individuals with the rights commiserate thereof and since this was a known value it would not be part of their consideration. To the best of my limited understanding this has never really been put into law in any fashion.

Also, corporations before this time were limited in scope and length of life. They were also expressly forbidden to be involved in the political process.

alnorth
01-21-2010, 12:00 PM
What part of "unconstitutional" escapes your grasp?

To be fair, Amnorix does have a point, which you might not be seeing.

His argument is that a corporation is not a person. Living, breathing, thinking, working, people have constitutional rights. Corporations do not have constitutional rights. Or, at least they didnt until some very early decisions started giving these artificial non-living things constitutional rights. If you are going to do that, this decision absolutely makes a lot of sense.

The point Amnorix is making, is that giving a non-living artificial man-made thing like a corporation constitutional rights is like giving an electronic unthinking, man-made robot constitutional rights.

alnorth
01-21-2010, 12:05 PM
Anyway, my response to Amnorix is that he may have a pretty good legal argument, but I'm still fine with it because the ends justify the means.

Right now, extremely wealthy individuals like Soros and Buffett (or to a lesser extent, rich people who can afford $25,000/plate dinners) have far more political power close to the election than some of the most massive corporations like Ford or Visa. Instead of the people being drowned out by a wealthy few, now we have the people looking on as the wealthy few compete with unions and corporations.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 12:06 PM
Right now, extremely wealthy individuals like Soros and Buffett (or to a lesser extent, rich people who can afford $25,000/plate dinners) have far more political power close to the election than some of the most massive corporations like Ford or Visa. Instead of the people being drowned out by a wealthy few, now we have the people looking on as the wealthy few compete with unions and corporations.

But Soros is a progressive so it's ok.

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj296/hco12345/fail.gif

Hydrae
01-21-2010, 12:15 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 12:17 PM
Anyway, my response to Amnorix is that he may have a pretty good legal argument, but I'm still fine with it because the ends justify the means.

Right now, extremely wealthy individuals like Soros and Buffett (or to a lesser extent, rich people who can afford $25,000/plate dinners) have far more political power close to the election than some of the most massive corporations like Ford or Visa. Instead of the people being drowned out by a wealthy few, now we have the people looking on as the wealthy few compete with unions and corporations.

Presumably you're not a strict constructionist or anything. I doubt I'll see Scalia going off on one of his "original intent" rants in this case, will I?

I'm very leery about giving corporations or other non-persons constitutional rights. Currently, corporations do NOT have the benefit of the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. If they were granted that right, it's almost impossible to see how prosecutors could dig deeply into corporate malfeasance issues, since usually the only source for the necessary documents, etc. would be the corporation themselves.

And getting the corporation's documents is the only way we get to prosecute the individuals leading those corporations and directly taking the actions that break the law.

Ultimately, however, the whole line of argument just makes no sense to me at all.

And your argument regarding wealthy individuals doesn't matter much to me either. There's fantastically wealthy people on both sides of the aisle, and they DO have their freedom of speech rights, and can spend their own dollars (no tax advantages, no personal liability shield) on whatever they want.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 12:19 PM
I'm very leery about giving corporations or other non-persons constitutional rights.

What about unions?

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 12:21 PM
Unions are basically dead in this country.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 12:23 PM
If it's so clear, we could be literalists about it. And then speech = donating is quite a stretch, no?

It's attached to a letter. I se eyou point, but that's the beauty of it all. Strict vs loose interpretation.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 12:24 PM
Unions are basically dead in the country.

Their time has passed. I think all they do is drive up costs for the consumer, but I support their right to form.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 12:26 PM
So we don't have much to worry about with Unions influencing political campaigns.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 12:26 PM
So we don't have much to worry about with Unions influencing political campaigns.

I think we do.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 12:29 PM
I wonder what the police and fire fighters think of their unions? But that's a different argument.

Hydrae
01-21-2010, 12:30 PM
I find this to be an interesting argument related to the "corporate person."

The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts.

Source: http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

mikey23545
01-21-2010, 12:30 PM
Now the politicians on both sides will be even more beholden to the Corporations that finance their campaigns. This is a ****in disgrace. I am sick of this shit.

Ahh, yes...Let's go back to the good ol' days when only the UNIONS could run attack ads on every Republican they could find...

There's nothing worse than a level playing field for liberals...

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 12:31 PM
I think we do.

AFL CIO, SIEA, NEA... TEAMSTERDS

Huge commie party contributors.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 12:32 PM
AFL CIO, SIEA, NEA...

Huge commie party contributors.

They make up about 10% of workers in america. Compared to 30% in their hayday.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 12:33 PM
I'm still waiting for the genius Amnorix to explain to me what the difference is between Exxon and the NEA, or goldman sachs for that matter.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 12:34 PM
They make up about 10% of workers in america. Compared to 30% in their hayday.

We're talking about the money, not the number of people.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 12:34 PM
The decline of Unions also has something to do with the decline of the middle class in this country.

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 12:37 PM
The decline of Unions also has something to do with the decline of the middle class in this country.

Unions do not create a middle class.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 12:38 PM
Unions do not create a middle class.

What do you think of the police and firefighters unions?

Garcia Bronco
01-21-2010, 12:41 PM
What do you think of the police and firefighters unions?

The same problem I have with any Union that seeks to increase their sphere of influence. and keeps un-motivated or unqualified people in positions they shouldn't be in.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 12:43 PM
In my experience (Architectural Engineering Field), the quality of work performed by Union Contractors has ALWAYS been superior to non unionized Contractors.

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 12:44 PM
What about unions?


Already stated. Same thing.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6466093&postcount=47

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 12:46 PM
In my experience (Architectural Engineering Field), the quality of work performed by Union Contractors has ALWAYS been superior to non unionized Contractors.

Some unions are a very good thing. They can regulate standards and their workforce, and provide a convenient and beneficial means of employer/employee communications. I have myself seen/heard of employers that were GLAD they had a union to deal with. In some instances, the union leaders were weak and they didn't do a good job on behalf of their constituents, but the point is that under the right circumstances they can be beneficial.

I really dislike unionization in other sectors, including governmetn and most importantly teachers. If I could get rid of one union, it would absolutely be teachers unions, which I see very little benefit to and a whole lot of detriment from.

patteeu
01-21-2010, 12:48 PM
Waiting for conservatives to come in screaming about judicial activism in 3... 2... oh wait, nevermind, that won't happen.

It's only "judicial activism" when a court decides against their pet issues. :rolleyes:

It's judicial activism if a judicial interpretation results in a state of affairs that is inconsistent with the expectations of those who drafted/ratified that which is being interpreted. In this case, the court is rejecting a "modern" interpretation of the first amendment in favor of the traditional view (championed by Garcia Bronco here). Therefore it's not activism.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 12:49 PM
Based in Washington, DC, the 3.1 million-member National Education Association (NEA) is the largest labor union in the United States. It represents public school teachers and support personnel; faculty and staffers in colleges and universities; retired educators; and college students preparing to become teachers. The NEA's mission is "to advocate for education professionals and to unite our members and the nation to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world."

The NEA pursues these goals through its 14,000+ local affiliate organizations (which are active in fundraising, conducting professional workshops, and negotiating teacher contracts); its 51 state affiliates (which "lobby legislators for the resources schools need"); and its Washington, DC-based national headquarters (which "lobbies Congress and federal agencies on behalf of its members and public schools, supports and coordinates innovative projects, works with other education organizations and friends of public education, [and] provides training and assistance to its affiliates").


As of 1957, the NEA had more than 700,000 members. (By way of comparison, in 1907 the union's membership had stood at 5,044; in 1917 it was fewer than 9,000; and by the World War II era it was just over 200,000.)


Today the NEA is a member organization of the America Votes coalition of get-out-the-vote organizations. America Votes is itself a member of the so-called Shadow Party, a nationwide network of activist groups whose agendas are ideologically Left, and which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. NEA's fellow America Votes coalition members include: ACORN, America Coming Together, the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations); AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees); the American Federation of Teachers; the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (renamed the American Association for Justice); the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund; Democracy For America; EMILY's List; the League of Conservation Voters; the Media Fund; the MoveOn.org Voter Fund; the NAACP National Voter Fund; NARAL Pro-Choice America; People for the American Way; the Planned Parenthood Action Fund; the Service Employees International Union; the Sierra Club; USAction; and 21st Century Democrats.

Of the $341 million the NEA received from September 2004 to August 2005, some $295 million came from member dues. In turn, many of those revenues were used to promote political agendas and candidates -- almost all of them Democrats. For several decades the NEA has been among the largest contributors of money and personnel to the Democratic Party and its candidates. Between 1990 and 2008, 93 percent of the union's political donations went to Democrats. (And virtually all of the rest went to the most liberal Republicans running in primaries, not in general elections, to tilt the political playing field even farther left).

As reporter Lowell Ponte puts it, "The astronomical amount of political money thus coerced from workers is the lifeblood of [the] Democratic Party.... The NEA functions as a giant money-laundering machine for the Democrats. Democrats impose laws that let the union take a big piece of every employee's paycheck, which in public schools comes from the taxpayers. And the unions pay for this power and privilege by splitting this taxpayer money with partisan Democrat politicians to keep the machine operating. Public schools are an ultimate example of this synergy, not only because they are government monopolies but also because already-taxed parents are required by law to school their children, to offer their offspring as hostages to this money-extorting government-union machine." Because the NEA works so closely with the Democratic Party, it promotes the leftist ideologies and worldviews reflected in its aforementioned resolutions.

Studies have shown that as few as 40 percent of NEA members are Democrats, the remaining 60 percent splitting evenly between Republicans and independents. According to the NEA's own internal polling, half of the union's members identify themselves as conservative. Yet the NEA, like other unions, claims an absolute right to spend dues as it sees fit, regardless of the viewpoints of the teachers it nominally represents.

The NEA has a permanent, paid, full-time staff of at least 1,800 United Service (UniServ) employees who function as political operatives -- more than the Republican and Democratic Parties combined. In a presidential election year, this army of union foot soldiers is tantamount to a political donation of more than $100 million to Democrats. They are trained at radical boot camps, paid and typically given graduate school credit for attending. One NEA handbook is titled Alinsky for Teacher Organizers and teaches activists how to use the confrontation and pressure tactics of the late radical leftist Saul Alinsky.

As Joel Mowbray reports in a Capital Research Center study, the Virginia-based Landmark Legal Foundation (LLF) in recent years has investigated the NEA for possible illegal use of tax-exempt funds. According to LLF President Mark Levin, the NEA has "kept information from its dues-paying members and the general public that clearly shows improper use of tax-exempt money to influence elections."

LLF's investigation traces its path back to the 1996 presidential election, when the NEA was a key constituent of a "National Coordinated Campaign Steering Committee" (NCCSC) whose function was to help Democrats win as many national, state, and local elections as possible; to determine campaign strategy for Democratic candidates at all levels of government; and to coordinate spending on their behalf. Joining the NEA on this Committee were the AFL-CIO, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the 1996 Clinton-Gore Campaign, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Leadership Campaign Committee, the Democratic Governors Association, and EMILY's List.

Because the NEA is a tax-exempt organization, the federal government places certain restrictions on how the union may use its immense revenues. Specifically, the government requires that whatever funds a union earmarks for political activities designed to influence an election, must be disclosed on IRS Forms 990 and 1120-POL. The latter of these must be filed by any tax-exempt group whose political expenditures exceed $100 in a single calendar year, and requires some disclosure about the details of those donations.

Yet from 1994-96 the NEA reported that it spent no money at all on politics. This is because an honest disclosure of its political expenditures would have entitled union members, if they objected to having their mandatory dues used to finance Democrat causes, to recover the portion of those dues that had been so earmarked. Also, union revenues used for partisan political purposes were taxable in certain cases.

Contrary to its claim that its political expenditures were nonexistent, the NEA not only spent millions of dollars on issue ads and get-out-the-vote drives for Democrats, but it also coordinated its campaign strategies with the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Confirming this was a key piece of evidence acquired by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) -- an unsigned Coordinated Campaign memo from Democratic Rep. Bob Etheridge. This memo stated: "When the DNC and its national Partners including … the AFL-CIO and the NEA … agree on the contents of a plan, each national partner will give their funding commitment to the state."

In other words, if the NEA disapproved of a particular state strategy, it could prevent its "partners" -- the DNC and AFL-CIO -- from funding it, and the measure could effectively be stopped. This was akin to a veto power over Democratic Party political action plans. In other words, the NEA dictated terms to the DNC, not vice versa.

"Those of us who have long dismissed the National Education Association as a tool of the Democratic Party have been badly mistaken," wrote columnist William McGurn in 2001 in the Wall Street Journal. "Apparently it's just the opposite ... it's the Democratic Party that is the tool of the NEA."


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=7428&category=79

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 12:53 PM
Some unions are a very good thing. They can regulate standards and their workforce, and provide a convenient and beneficial means of employer/employee communications. I have myself seen/heard of employers that were GLAD they had a union to deal with. In some instances, the union leaders were weak and they didn't do a good job on behalf of their constituents, but the point is that under the right circumstances they can be beneficial.


This is true. For one thing, when I go to a union jobsite, they all speak english. I can communicate with them. They are able to read installation instructions for the work being done. They are able to read the drawings and specifications. They have training programs for the workers etc. There is usually a strong superintendent overseeing the work. Stuff like that.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 12:54 PM
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on Teachers unions. I've heard good and bad things about them.

alnorth
01-21-2010, 12:57 PM
I really dislike unionization in other sectors, including governmetn and most importantly teachers. If I could get rid of one union, it would absolutely be teachers unions, which I see very little benefit to and a whole lot of detriment from.

Yep, I believe that unions for government employees should simply not be allowed for a simple reason: they dont have to care about bankrupting their employer, because they can always print/borrow more money.

With a traditional union, if the union goes too far the employer could summon them to a private little meeting, open all their books, and lay out the facts of life. "Hey, we are in serious trouble, we cant afford a strike, but we also can not afford to give you what you want. Here's the proof. We can talk again when things get better, but your killing us. If we dont figure this out soon, every single one of you will lose your jobs."

That happened with the airlines, they had a very frank and honest discussion, the unions understood the company was in deep s***, and they compromised. The local teachers union wouldnt give a crap that tax revenue is down, our needs are what they are, they are not negotiable ("its for the children!") YOU need to shoulder all the burden of compromise by raising taxes or borrowing money.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 12:59 PM
Yep, I believe that unions for government employees should simply not be allowed for a simple reason: they dont have to care about bankrupting their employer, because they can always print/borrow more money.

With a traditional union, if the union goes far the employer could summon them to a private little meeting, open all their books, and lay out the facts of life. "Hey, we are in serious trouble, we cant afford a strike, but we also can not afford to give you what you want. Here's the proof. We can talk again when things get better, but your killing us. If we dont figure this out soon, every single one of you will lose your jobs."

That happened with the airlines, they had a very frank and honest discussion, the unions understood the company was in deep s***, and they compromised. The local teachers union wouldnt give a crap that tax revenue is down, our needs are what they are, they are not negotiable ("its for the children!") YOU need to shoulder all the burden of compromise by raising taxes or borrowing money.

Good points.

BigRedChief
01-21-2010, 01:01 PM
A political advertisement in support of or against another individual is not a petition of government. Neither are pornos but they are covered under the 1st amendment.

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 01:04 PM
It's judicial activism if a judicial interpretation results in a state of affairs that is inconsistent with the expectations of those who drafted/ratified that which is being interpreted. In this case, the court is rejecting a "modern" interpretation of the first amendment in favor of the traditional view (championed by Garcia Bronco here). Therefore it's not activism.

How can you possibly rely on a "traditional" view of what the Founders would have thought about the free speech rights of entities that didn't even exist at that time?

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 01:06 PM
Yep, I believe that unions for government employees should simply not be allowed for a simple reason: they dont have to care about bankrupting their employer, because they can always print/borrow more money.

With a traditional union, if the union goes too far the employer could summon them to a private little meeting, open all their books, and lay out the facts of life. "Hey, we are in serious trouble, we cant afford a strike, but we also can not afford to give you what you want. Here's the proof. We can talk again when things get better, but your killing us. If we dont figure this out soon, every single one of you will lose your jobs."

That happened with the airlines, they had a very frank and honest discussion, the unions understood the company was in deep s***, and they compromised. The local teachers union wouldnt give a crap that tax revenue is down, our needs are what they are, they are not negotiable ("its for the children!") YOU need to shoulder all the burden of compromise by raising taxes or borrowing money.

Correct. Stated more simply, unions generally exist to balance out the usual extremely employer-oriented weighting of the balance of power, where the employer has every impetus to keep costs down and working conditions as inexpensive as possible.

The same balance of power and impetus regarding profit motives does not exist in the government sector, by and large.

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 01:06 PM
Neither are pornos but they are covered under the 1st amendment.


Ok. What does that have to do with anything here?

Amnorix
01-21-2010, 01:12 PM
BRC has reminded me of some important free speech concepts, however, that I haven't really needt o think about since law school, such as that New York Times case. Speech relating to public figures, etc.

Clearly there is precedent for first amendment rights accruing to corporations in at least some circumstances.

BigRedChief
01-21-2010, 01:12 PM
Ok. What does that have to do with anything here?It's all 1st amendament rights. Free speech covers a helluva lot legally.

BigRedChief
01-21-2010, 01:15 PM
clearly there is precedent for first amendment rights accruing to corporations in at least some circumstances.hey, I don't like it either. Letting corperations buy our elections more easily can't be good for the average john doe but it would seem under the 1st amendament they have that right.

patteeu
01-21-2010, 01:20 PM
How can you possibly rely on a "traditional" view of what the Founders would have thought about the free speech rights of entities that didn't even exist at that time?

A corporation is just a specific type of a collection of individuals. You can't deny free speech rights to a collection of individuals without denying it to the individuals themselves. A newspaper is typically dependent on the efforts of a group of individuals. It would be ludicrous to restrict what a newspaper can publish simply because it wasn't the product of a single individual.

IOW, we're not really talking about rights of corporations here, we're talking about individual rights to assemble and speak their minds.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 01:25 PM
hey, I don't like it either. Letting corperations buy our elections more easily can't be good for the average john doe but it would seem under the 1st amendament they have that right.

Yeah things always work out much better when Soros is pulling all the strings

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj296/hco12345/fail.gif

alnorth
01-21-2010, 01:59 PM
A corporation is just a specific type of a collection of individuals. You can't deny free speech rights to a collection of individuals without denying it to the individuals themselves. A newspaper is typically dependent on the efforts of a group of individuals. It would be ludicrous to restrict what a newspaper can publish simply because it wasn't the product of a single individual.

IOW, we're not really talking about rights of corporations here, we're talking about individual rights to assemble and speak their minds.

That argument sort of works against you though. The freedom of the press is specifically mentioned seperately from freedom of speech for individuals. If "the press" is a living thing that also qualifies for constitutional rights, then it is redundant. The press would already have freedom of speech because it is a person.

The founding fathers clearly didn't consider applying constitutional rights to artificial non-living legal constructs. I also think the whole concept of companies being a living person having constitutional rights (but not all of them!) is stupid, but hey as long as we believe in stare decisis for ancient rulings, we already crossed that bridge early in the last century, so if companies get some of the other rights, they should probably get #1 too.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 02:04 PM
That argument sort of works against you though. The freedom of the press is specifically mentioned seperately from freedom of speech for individuals. If "the press" is a living thing that also qualifies for constitutional rights, then it is redundant. The press would already have freedom of speech because it is a person.

The founding fathers clearly didn't consider applying constitutional rights to artificial non-living legal constructs. I also think the whole concept of companies being a living person having constitutional rights (but not all of them!) is stupid, but hey as long as we believe in stare decisis for ancient rulings, we already crossed that bridge early in the last century, so if companies get some of the other rights, they should probably get #1 too.

To the detriment of society.

Uncle_Ted
01-21-2010, 03:12 PM
It's judicial activism if a judicial interpretation results in a state of affairs that is inconsistent with the expectations of those who drafted/ratified that which is being interpreted. In this case, the court is rejecting a "modern" interpretation of the first amendment in favor of the traditional view (championed by Garcia Bronco here). Therefore it's not activism.

It's activist because they took a narrow case and used it to overturn long-standing precedent on issues that were not present in the case.

patteeu
01-21-2010, 03:16 PM
It's activist because they took a narrow case and used it to overturn long-standing precedent on issues that were not present in the case.

That might be what you mean by judicial activism, but it's not what conservatives are usually talking about when they "come in screaming about" it so your sarcasm was misplaced.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 03:44 PM
Constitutional Amendment Considered In Response to the Decision

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/constitutional-amendment_n_431760.html

HonestChieffan
01-21-2010, 03:44 PM
This is good for the country and has to put to bed the ideas of the fairness doctrine.

ClevelandBronco
01-21-2010, 04:13 PM
To be fair, Amnorix does have a point, which you might not be seeing.

His argument is that a corporation is not a person. Living, breathing, thinking, working, people have constitutional rights. Corporations do not have constitutional rights. Or, at least they didnt until some very early decisions started giving these artificial non-living things constitutional rights. If you are going to do that, this decision absolutely makes a lot of sense.

The point Amnorix is making, is that giving a non-living artificial man-made thing like a corporation constitutional rights is like giving an electronic unthinking, man-made robot constitutional rights.

Thank you for rehashing his obvious and errant point.

HonestChieffan
01-21-2010, 04:31 PM
I'll need to read it later. I don't get why corporations or unions have free speech rights. They're not real people, they're just created by statute.

Yea, you should go read a bit.

alnorth
01-21-2010, 04:45 PM
Thank you for rehashing his obvious and errant point.

errant? What is the average height, weight, blood pressure, and favorite television program for an American corporation?

The concept of corporations being living people who have access to constitutional rights is hilariously stupid. The only reason this decision is at all tolerable is because the SCOTUS isnt breaking new ground. We've already started down this zany path long ago.

I basically look at it as: "well, they already have access to some constitutional rights, so why the hell not give them the first?" That doesnt change the stupid nature of the original decisions eons ago.

alnorth
01-21-2010, 04:55 PM
Constitutional Amendment Considered In Response to the Decision

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/constitutional-amendment_n_431760.html

They are either delusional, high on drugs, or both.

A supermajority in congress and 3/4 of the states voting to ban corporations from participating in elections? No way in hell does that happen, we cant even scratch together enough support for a balanced budget amendment.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 04:56 PM
errant? What is the average height, weight, blood pressure, and favorite television program for an American corporation?

The concept of corporations being living people who have access to constitutional rights is hilariously stupid. The only reason this decision is at all tolerable is because the SCOTUS isnt breaking new ground. We've already started down this zany path long ago.

I basically look at it as: "well, they already have access to some constitutional rights, so why the hell not give them the first?" That doesnt change the stupid nature of the original decisions eons ago.

Why do politicians form caucusus? Parties?

whatsmynameagain
01-21-2010, 05:00 PM
Money is free speech. Corporations should be able to do with their money as they please. IF you don't like what they spend their money on then it's an opportunity for you to NOT spend money with them.

should corporations have a voice in our elections? is that a constitutional right?

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 05:04 PM
should corporations have a voice in our elections? is that a constitutional right?

I think anybody who pays taxes should have a voice in our elections.

patteeu
01-21-2010, 05:13 PM
should corporations have a voice in our elections? is that a constitutional right?

People, including shareholders who voluntarily enter into collective action, have a right to free speech. Congress shouldn't be outlawing any political speech.

whatsmynameagain
01-21-2010, 05:15 PM
I think anybody who pays taxes should have a voice in our elections.

the workers have all the right in the world. from what i understand these ads they can put on tv dont even have to say who is behind them, who will be accountable?

alnorth
01-21-2010, 05:26 PM
Why do politicians form caucusus? Parties?

This isnt a bad episode of Voltron or Captain Planet. A group of people dont combine forces to create a super-person who itself has constitutional rights.

A company does not have the right to privacy, they dont have the rights against search that people do, etc. To say they should is silly except for the fact that a few brain-dead old men who are now long dead in the ground said they should.

A person is a living being with opinions, a right to life and freedom, etc. A company is fundamentally a piece of paper filed in a back-room drawer in some secretary of state's office.

I'm fine with the outcome itself, but the legal reasoning behind it is about as silly as some of those animal rights nuts insisting that monkeys should have some constitutional rights.

whatsmynameagain
01-21-2010, 05:26 PM
People, including shareholders who voluntarily enter into collective action, have a right to free speech. Congress shouldn't be outlawing any political speech.

we have no political speech. we live in a time where corporations are controlling everything and now even more so. its cute to think your a conservative and im a liberal and we hate the policies that each other's party represents and that we can vote to get certain policies we want. when in fact the corporations have bought these people(politicians) to put their plans in action. they keep us arguing while they set up shop any which way they like.

i dont regret electing obama, i believe he had better intentions(same with george) but once he got to the white house he realized he was just a little pawn. his pacifism has become so obvious and its the control from the corporations that have done this. corporations hold them over the barrel with, if you do this NO MORE CHEESE FOR YOU its going to THIS GUY. we are all being fucked, HARD!

alnorth
01-21-2010, 05:31 PM
People, including shareholders who voluntarily enter into collective action, have a right to free speech. Congress shouldn't be outlawing any political speech.

They do. As individuals, who can form political organizations if needed to pool money. Companies are not people and should not be entitled to constitutional rights.

Again, I'm fine with the outcome, but the method is crazy. If it were up to me and I had the power to do so, this all would be enacted through legislation.

What other constitutional rights do companies (who now apparently live, eat, and watch their favorite football team on sundays) supposedly have? Should auditors and government regulators need a search warrant? Probable cause to suspect fraud before looking into anything?

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 05:33 PM
This isnt a bad episode of Voltron or Captain Planet. A group of people dont combine forces to create a super-person who itself has constitutional rights.

A company does not have the right to privacy, they dont have the rights against search that people do, etc. To say they should is silly except for the fact that a few brain-dead old men who are now long dead in the ground said they should.
A person is a living being with opinions, a right to life and freedom, etc. A company is fundamentally a piece of paper filed in a back-room drawer in some secretary of state's office.

I'm fine with the outcome itself, but the legal reasoning behind it is about as silly as some of those animal rights nuts insisting that monkeys should have some constitutional rights.

Sounds like you have alot of contempt for a few "old men". I'm not looking to be jerkoff, but what makes your opinion more valid than there's?

As far as the rest of your comments, sounds like you wish we had some political utopia where money wasn't a variable.

I mean, if that was the case, who would have ever become president besides maybe Lincoln, Grant, Truman and Eisenhower? Certainly neither Roosevelt, Kennedy, or Reagan, or either Bush, or Clinton or B.O.

I'm just not sure how you expect to make your ideal a reality.

Thig Lyfe
01-21-2010, 05:37 PM
This decision is so terrible, I think it gave me cancer!

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs176.snc3/20342_251627766611_30298201611_3753506_986449_n.jpg

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 05:40 PM
If it were up to me and I had the power to do so

OK, it's up to you and you have all the power---

Who gets to spend/contribute money and why?

whatsmynameagain
01-21-2010, 05:42 PM
This decision is so terrible, I think it gave me cancer!

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs176.snc3/20342_251627766611_30298201611_3753506_986449_n.jpg

These corporations are definately a cancer....i dont care what side they appear to be for, they are all about the benjis and could careless how they have to obtain them.

whatsmynameagain
01-21-2010, 05:43 PM
OK, it's up to you and you have all the power---

Who gets to spend/contribute money and why?

we should have set amounts that politicians can use either from our government or a ceiling set by our government. only the people should have influence on elections, its our fucking country, not the corporations.

alnorth
01-21-2010, 05:43 PM
Sounds like you have alot of contempt for a few "old men". I'm not looking to be jerkoff, but what makes your opinion more valid than there's?

As far as the rest of your comments, sounds like you wish we had some political utopia where money wasn't a variable.

I mean, if that was the case, who would have ever become president besides maybe Lincoln, Grant, Truman and Eisenhower? Certainly neither Roosevelt, Kennedy, or Reagan, or either Bush, or Clinton or B.O.

I'm just not sure how you expect to make your ideal a reality.

At some point, a professional opinion is so insane you don't really need to be a certified expert for your opposing opinions to count. Kind of like the old saying "I dont have to use LSD to know drugs are bad". We arent debating the merits of different types of heart medicine, presuming we know better than doctors.

It is blindingly obvious that "corporations are people" is a stupid concept. Lets try another example. I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the constitution we all have a right to exist. Absent a murder conviction, the government does not have the right to arbitrarily eliminate you, correct? If the government one day decided that everyone who is registered to vote in North Dakota should be shot in the head tomorrow, that would probably violate a constitutional right somewhere.

Not corporations. We have the ability to eliminate all corporations, as a legal construct, forever without violating the constitution. They did not even exist here when the document was ratified. Tomorrow, we could pass laws in all 50 states stating that corporations are abolished. Seriously. That all companies must be owned by one person who employs everyone that works for it, he or she personally receives all profit, and gets none of the legal protections of the corporate veil. (So for the purpose of political ads, its put out by this owner as an individual) Kind of like a handyman who doesnt form any sort of LLC or corp, just pays a few buddies to help him at his jobs, only at a much larger scale.

If a corporation does not even have the right to exist, how could you say it has constitutional rights? It is fine for the court to basically rule this way under stare decisis, but if this had been some kind of unexpected case of first impression and they ruled this way, it would be almost indefensible.

patteeu
01-21-2010, 05:44 PM
They do. As individuals, who can form political organizations if needed to pool money. Companies are not people and should not be entitled to constitutional rights.

Again, I'm fine with the outcome, but the method is crazy. If it were up to me and I had the power to do so, this all would be enacted through legislation.

What other constitutional rights do companies (who now apparently live, eat, and watch their favorite football team on sundays) supposedly have? Should auditors and government regulators need a search warrant? Probable cause to suspect fraud before looking into anything?

Why should they have to form a second collective for this one activity when they've already formed one that could handle it? What makes a corporate collective less deserving of the ability to make these political statements than the second organization that you propose?

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 05:48 PM
If a corporation does not even have the right to exist, how could you say it has constitutional rights?

OK, you made your case and it's a good one. But the only way you are going to see your reality is if ALL MONEY is removed from political campaigns. And that's never going to happen. Nobody can win a national election without financing. Money is like water, it will find it's level.

alnorth
01-21-2010, 05:50 PM
OK, it's up to you and you have all the power---

Who gets to spend/contribute money and why?

I'd basically make it the way it is now, allowing corporations to run political ads, if for no other reason than to balance rich individuals. The difference is that people have the right via the constitution, and we pass special legislation for corps.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 05:51 PM
Why should they have to form a second collective for this one activity when they've already formed one that could handle it? What makes a corporate collective less deserving of the ability to make these political statements than the second organization that you propose?

Exactly. Al thinks that he can legislate the flow of money. It's absurd.

alnorth
01-21-2010, 05:51 PM
OK, you made your case and it's a good one. But the only way you are going to see your reality is if ALL MONEY is removed from political campaigns. And that's never going to happen. Nobody can win a national election without financing. Money is like water, it will find it's level.

Yeah, again I'm actually fine with the outcome, which is why I'm not too terribly upset. I'm just annoyed at the process to reach this outcome, and wonder if there are any unexpected side-effects of "corps are people"

alnorth
01-21-2010, 05:54 PM
Exactly. Al thinks that he can legislate the flow of money. It's absurd.

You are wrong about my motives. I have a legal objection to the process used to reach this outcome, which is itself something I'm fine with.

Kind of like if the Supreme Court ruled that we have the freedom of speech because the galactic Overlord Xenu told them so during a dream the night before they announced the opinion.

Umm... ok, wonderful I agree with the decision, but I'd feel better if you mentioned the first amendment as the justification instead.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 05:54 PM
I'd basically make it the way it is now, allowing corporations to run political ads, if for no other reason than to balance rich individuals. The difference is that people have the right via the constitution, and we pass special legislation for corps.

Well... I just think your putting up hurdles, not roadblocks. Allowing some money but not all money is just creating coruption.

I mean, it's kind of like the way our tax laws are now. They are absurd. And you are just trying to make political financing absurd.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 05:55 PM
Yeah, again I'm actually fine with the outcome, which is why I'm not too terribly upset. I'm just annoyed at the process to reach this outcome, and wonder if there are any unexpected side-effects of "corps are people"

OK, "corps are not people".

That's going to stop them from financing a political campaign or candidate?

alnorth
01-21-2010, 05:56 PM
Why should they have to form a second collective for this one activity when they've already formed one that could handle it? What makes a corporate collective less deserving of the ability to make these political statements than the second organization that you propose?

I'm fine with the outcome. We have laws for these political organizations, we can have laws for corps too. Giving corporations access to constitutional rights is absurd.

alnorth
01-21-2010, 05:57 PM
OK, "corps are not people".

That's going to stop them from financing a political campaign or candidate?

nope, and I dont care if they do. As long as we have full disclosure ("the following advertisement was paid for by Whole Foods") finance away, I think the people are smart enough to decide if they like a candidate who has corporate support.

The outcome is fine, the process to reach that outcome is stupid. What other rights do these "people" now have?

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 05:58 PM
You are wrong about my motives. I have a legal objection to the process used to reach this outcome, which is itself something I'm fine with.

Kind of like if the Supreme Court ruled that we have the freedom of speech because the galactic Overlord Xenu told them so during a dream the night before they announced the opinion.

Umm... ok, wonderful I agree with the decision, but I'd feel better if you mentioned the first amendment as the justification instead.

Well Al, I can see that you have made up your mind that you are smarter than everybody else, so there really is no reason to add anything else to this conversation cough lecture so have a great night and who knows maybe tomorrow we all wake up and the world is perfect.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 06:05 PM
Hey here's a great idea, Al...

Why don't we just outlaw advertising and marketing altogether? No more pushing product! Because that's all a politician is, a product. So let's outlaw it, Al.

KCTitus
01-21-2010, 06:21 PM
we have no political speech. we live in a time where corporations are controlling everything and now even more so. its cute to think your a conservative and im a liberal and we hate the policies that each other's party represents and that we can vote to get certain policies we want. when in fact the corporations have bought these people(politicians) to put their plans in action. they keep us arguing while they set up shop any which way they like.

i dont regret electing obama, i believe he had better intentions(same with george) but once he got to the white house he realized he was just a little pawn. his pacifism has become so obvious and its the control from the corporations that have done this. corporations hold them over the barrel with, if you do this NO MORE CHEESE FOR YOU its going to THIS GUY. we are all being ****ed, HARD!

I read this and cant help but laugh at myname's avatar is that of a large multinational corporation. It's kind of ironical

alnorth
01-21-2010, 06:25 PM
Well Al, I can see that you have made up your mind that you are smarter than everybody else, so there really is no reason to add anything else to this conversation cough lecture so have a great night and who knows maybe tomorrow we all wake up and the world is perfect.

Let me ask you this. Under the presumption that the basis for this decision is not mind-blowingly stupid, would you support the right of corporations to vote?

The right to vote is one of our most basic and cherished rights, closely intertwined with the first amendment. If a corporation has the first amendment right to free speech, then these "people" ought to have the right to register to vote in the 2010 election. I wonder if the crosstabs will show us the corporate vote in this year's exit polling.

whatsmynameagain
01-21-2010, 06:25 PM
I read this and cant help but laugh at myname's avatar is that of a large multinational corporation. It's kind of ironical


i should change it to boulevard as its all i can drink now, ipa is so good. i dont think the beer companies are going to be changing much except the drinking age but your right. im not worried about the beer companies right now. is it ok for corporations that profit from the us government, via guaranteed contracts, to place these ads?

alnorth
01-21-2010, 06:26 PM
Hey here's a great idea, Al...

Why don't we just outlaw advertising and marketing altogether? No more pushing product! Because that's all a politician is, a product. So let's outlaw it, Al.

I think you have me confused with some sort of angry liberal. I havent voted for a Democrat in a presidential election in my adult life. (came close once or twice)

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 06:28 PM
Let me ask you this. Under the presumption that the basis for this decision is not mind-blowingly stupid, would you support the right of corporations to vote?

The right to vote is one of our most basic and cherished rights, closely intertwined with the first amendment. If a corporation has the first amendment right to free speech, then these "people" ought to have the right to register to vote in the 2010 election. I wonder if the crosstabs will show us the corporate vote in this year's exit polling.

No really, Al, you've got yourself a clever argument, and I'm really, really, really impressed with the cleverness of it even though I'm sure somebody else thought of it first and you've just run with it further----

What the frig does advertising a product have to do with voting? Besides nothing? Where does the Constitution give anybody a right to advertise a product?

BucEyedPea
01-21-2010, 06:30 PM
Let me ask you this. Under the presumption that the basis for this decision is not mind-blowingly stupid, would you support the right of corporations to vote?

The right to vote is one of our most basic and cherished rights, closely intertwined with the first amendment. If a corporation has the first amendment right to free speech, then these "people" ought to have the right to register to vote in the 2010 election. I wonder if the crosstabs will show us the corporate vote in this year's exit polling.

Corporations are made up of people who have interests one being their livlihoods like anyone else. The Constitution refers to "owners" as well as "people" too.

BucEyedPea
01-21-2010, 06:32 PM
The whole system needs to be freed up but require full disclosure.

BucEyedPea
01-21-2010, 06:33 PM
The outcome is fine, the process to reach that outcome is stupid. What other rights do these "people" now have?

Liberty and property. It's worth protecting to them too.
As the left likes to say corps benefit from our infrastructure. But the infrastructure benefits from them too. The people benefit from them as well. Why shouldn't they be able to participate in the process instead of just being picked over for goodies as if it's something to be milked?

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 06:35 PM
There's this really clever American flag instead of stars they have corporate symbols. Clever!

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 06:36 PM
No more corporate sponsors. Period. For sports, charities, or political candidates. Escpecially this worthless jackass
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj296/hco12345/fail.gif

BucEyedPea
01-21-2010, 06:37 PM
Just finished reading a bit more. There was one small thing the liberal justices concurred on and Thomas dissented on, and I was trying to figure out what that was all about.

It appears that the only thing that survives is a ban on corporations and unions directly giving money to a candidate. They can only spend it on their own ads they create, but as far as that goes, its open season. I dont think theres even a money limit on these corporate ads, if a Bank wants to dump a billion on the next presidential race for an ad they created, I think they now can.

Do you think any corp would spend that much on an election?
Why do they often give some to each party and not one in an election then?
They do it to protect themselves.

BucEyedPea
01-21-2010, 06:41 PM
Also Mr. North, the First Amendment is written to just read that the "govt" can't "infringe speech." It doesn't say on who or what....just that they can't do it period. It was a valid strict construction reading of the actual words.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 06:48 PM
They are either delusional, high on drugs, or both.

A supermajority in congress and 3/4 of the states voting to ban corporations from participating in elections? No way in hell does that happen, we cant even scratch together enough support for a balanced budget amendment.

I know it won't happen, but it would be so fuckin awesome if it did.

whatsmynameagain
01-21-2010, 07:19 PM
No more corporate sponsors. Period. For sports, charities, or political candidates. Escpecially this worthless jackass
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj296/hco12345/fail.gif

you cant blame him, he is just doing what everyone who gets his job does. i really like obama and felt he had some good ideas but special interests wont ever let them happen. the healthcare plan was bought and paid for and im really happy its not happening now. they could come up with something good if they wanted to but big business needs its money, LEON NEEDS PAID!

whatsmynameagain
01-21-2010, 07:20 PM
I know it won't happen, but it would be so ****in awesome if it did.

Stephen Tyler called, fucker kept screaming "DREAM ON"

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 07:22 PM
Stephen Tyler called, ****er kept screaming "DREAM ON"

Unfortunately you're correct.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 07:23 PM
you cant blame him, he is just doing what everyone who gets his job does. i really like obama and felt he had some good ideas but special interests wont ever let them happen. the healthcare plan was bought and paid for and im really happy its not happening now. they could come up with something good if they wanted to but big business needs its money, LEON NEEDS PAID!

You are correct here as well.

KCTitus
01-21-2010, 07:55 PM
i should change it to boulevard as its all i can drink now, ipa is so good. i dont think the beer companies are going to be changing much except the drinking age but your right. im not worried about the beer companies right now. is it ok for corporations that profit from the us government, via guaranteed contracts, to place these ads?

sure it's ok...if it's ok for Acorn, SEIU, AFSCME and other labor unions to place ads, lobby or otherwise encourage their members to support candidates, etc. I think it's just fine.

I havent fully read the opinion, but the quotes Ive heard have been absolutely amazing...a breath of fresh air.

We need to get over the fears we have and give everyone the freedom they're guaranteed. It's time to start moving away from the Federal Government knows all and knows best how you should live your life.

I dont have any problems with corporations running ads. In fact, I have confidence in the American people that they will do the right thing. Tuesday was proof of that.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 07:40 AM
It's not the corporation that's being protected here, it's the speech.

Those who are bemoaning the amount of money that some corporations can bring to bear on the political discussion would be the same people complaining that the rich have an unfair speech advantage over the poor if free speech were limited to that produced by individuals acting independently and they'd be seeking ways to limit the rich so that they didn't drown out the poor.

Corporations and other organizations give the poor the chance to band together and produce political speech that can compete for mindshare with wealthy individuals.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 07:42 AM
Things were so much better when Oprah, Joy Behar, and David Letterman got to pick the next president.

penchief
01-22-2010, 07:51 AM
I've tried to read this entire thread. And although the debate has been healthy and good points have been made I think the overall impact of this decision is what is ultimately important. I tried to stay away from responding to this decision because my disillusionment is too strong. The ramifications could be fatal to our democracy. I say this because we already see the impact that corporate influence has had when it comes to public policy.

Corporations already run this country. They've forced their way into every aspect of our lives. Medicare is now a corporate welfare program. The corporate pushback against sensible health care reform first watered down the legislation and will eventually kill any chance it had.

If a law or regulation conflicts with the interests of the corporate establishment it has been under duress for some time now. It doesn't matter if the law promotes or protects the public welfare. Corporate lackeys in congress have been doing their bidding for the past three decades. All this decision does is seal the deal. It will be the last nail in the coffin of "we the people." Might as well get your Haliburton flags ready. Old Glory doesn't mean shit anymore.

IMO, the constitution and the bill of rights were drafted to promote and protect the rights of the individual, the will of the people, and the general welfare. Nowhere does it say that the powerful few get to make the rules. In fact, it is my opinion that the constitution and the bill of rights were designed to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the weakest among us from the impositions of the most powerful among us.

Be prepared for more of the same. Lower wages and more expensive health care. Less corporate taxes and a further crumbling infratructure. More corporate profit but a lower standard of living. More deregulation leading to more hazardous products, more environmental degradation, and more dangerous workplaces. More wars for profit and more private armies. And more wild west bank robberies on Wall Street. And considering that the corporate media spoon feeds its distortions of the truth on a mass scale, it's almost impossible to shout down the lies.

All of this is sure to continue happening and at a quicker pace once corporations are able to freely purchase their own representatives in what was supposed to be a people's government. And once the Supreme Court finishes the job of watering down the legal protections that the common man has been afforded by the constitution there will be no recourse available to defend ourselves against corporate supremacy.

Oh, the corporate establishment will pay lip service to the ideal of America but we might as well kiss America's ass goodbye.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 07:54 AM
I've tried to read this entire thread. And although the debate has been healthy and good points have been made I think the overall impact of this decision is what is ultimately important. I tried to stay away from responding to this decision because my disillusionment is too strong. The ramifications could be fatal to our democracy.

Since McCain-Feingold, have our elections been cleaner?

patteeu
01-22-2010, 08:02 AM
If both Frankie and penchief think this decision could be fatal to our democracy, the Court must have gotten this one right. :toast:

patteeu
01-22-2010, 08:05 AM
... we might as well kiss America's ass goodbye.

That message is so 14 1/2 months ago.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 08:08 AM
That message is so 14 1/2 months ago.

Pat, I'm just curious...

Didn't groups like Swiftboat Veterans benefit from McCain-Feingold? You would think the looney left would be suporting the SCOTUS decision.

penchief
01-22-2010, 08:10 AM
Since McCain-Feingold, have our elections been cleaner?

Nothing has slowed the takeover. I think the only way to restore this country to the people is to have publicly funded elections and get rid of lobbying. Somehow government has to be about good public policy instead of bought-and-paid-for policy.

We the people aren't citizens anymore. We're marks. We're dollar signs. We're corporate prey.

mlyonsd
01-22-2010, 08:11 AM
Not sure what to think about this.

One point though....I think if politicians are hell bent on pushing agenda's like cap and trade corporations should be able to speak up and point out how damaging some politicians act.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 08:11 AM
Nothing has slowed the takeover. I think the only way to restore this country to the people is to have publicly funded elections and get rid of lobbying.

B.O. said he would do that.

penchief
01-22-2010, 08:29 AM
B.O. said he would do that.

Well that's what this country needs.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 08:30 AM
Well that's what this country needs.

But B.O. lied.

Why did he lie? Why does he always lie?

patteeu
01-22-2010, 08:31 AM
Pat, I'm just curious...

Didn't groups like Swiftboat Veterans benefit from McCain-Feingold? You would think the looney left would be suporting the SCOTUS decision.

Their solution to the unintended consequences of government interference like this is never to reduce the government interference. It's always more government interference.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 08:32 AM
Nothing has slowed the takeover. I think the only way to restore this country to the people is to have publicly funded elections and get rid of lobbying. Somehow government has to be about good public policy instead of bought-and-paid-for policy.

We the people aren't citizens anymore. We're marks. We're dollar signs. We're corporate prey.

I rest my case.

penchief
01-22-2010, 08:41 AM
I rest my case.

Of course you do.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 08:44 AM
Their solution to the unintended consequences of government interference like this is never to reduce the government interference. It's always more government interference.welll I think more government interferance and regulation is needed on Wall street to prevent this BS from happening again. They are just back to their old ways. Who cares about risky bets, as long as I get this years bonus's, we are gold.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 08:50 AM
I'll say the same thing I've always said in this arena --

The answer to speech is ALWAYS more speech. It's pretty much a direct ripoff of Justice Holmes, but chilling speech is a direct route to totalitarian government.

I question whether or not Corporations should have 1st amendment rights, but legal precedent clearly establishes that they do. As such, I'm appalled that 4 justices actually ruled against this case. If they want to overturn any rulings granting 1st amendment rights to corporations, I can live with that. But absent that, there's simply no legal backing for these laws and the 4 liberal justices simply voted party line. I find that wholly unacceptable.

And the most interesting point in all this was the oral arguments. During the first round of oral arguments, Justice Kennedy (I think) asked if the Chamber of Commerce felt it had the right to ban these advertisements if they were put in book form...the answer was 'yes'. In the second round, Ginsburg (good ol' impartial Ruth) gave the Chamber a chance to save face and asked the question again, only this time saying something along the lines of "it's important that we clear up an ambiguous issue from last time"...she might as well have said "wink, wink" at the end. The Chambers response was along the lines of 'yes, we absolutely could ban this in book form. However, the government never has and never would prosecute for this sort of thing...' Roberts about lost it when she said that and the hearing was essentially over.

Look - if you don't give a rip what the Constitution says (i.e. Cannibal), fine, that's your right. But from a strictly legal perspective, this was absolutely a correct decision. Anything that constitutes a prior restraint on political speech is extraordinarily dangerous.

I'm glad to see that our Courts are a little less cavalier about manipulating the Constitution than our Congress is.

dirk digler
01-22-2010, 08:52 AM
Republican attorney Ben Ginsburg wrote up a good memo of what the effects of this decision will be. pretty interesting info.

From the memo's analysis of what the ruling means for key electoral players:
Candidates: The limits placed on the size of contributions to candidates places them at a significant disadvantage compared to corporations and unions that will now be able to spend unlimited amounts on express advocacy right through Election Day. Controlling the issues they want to run on will become a real challenge, as will having sufficient funds to portray their positions and images.

Political Parties: Unless the laws change, the political party as we know it is threatened with extinction. The parties do several things for their candidates and supporters – raise money and conduct independent expenditures, conduct voter contact programs and describe the party’s position on issues, often through issue advocacy. With the limits on the amounts and sources of funds they can accept, the parties will be bit players compared to outside groups that can now conduct those core functions with unlimited funds from any source.

Corporations and Unions: Freed from their First Amendment shackles, corporations and unions can now engage fully in the political process. The reality of what this means is sure to be hotly debated depending on the speaker’s outlook. Republicans see a coordinated and extremely well-funded union effort that gives over 98 percent of its funds to Democrats, while corporations’ political giving tends to incumbent heavy and more evenly divided. Democrats see the size of corporate treasuries compared to unions and believe they are about to get swamped.

501c4s and 501c6s: Likely to emerge as the biggest players in the 2010 and 2012 elections, ideological groups and trade associations also have been granted the ability to engage much more robustly in the political process. Meager disclosure requirements of their donors will make them a favorite repository of funds for independent expenditures.

Wealthy Individuals: Ever since the 2004 elections when McCain-Feingold took effect, wealthy individuals have engaged in considerable spending. The Court’s opinion has significantly loosened what they may say. The decision, combined with the D.C. Circuit’s Emily’s List opinion of last fall, also eliminates the chances of Federal Election Commission enforcement actions that harassed many conservative donors off the playing field in the last two cycles. See Ginsberg, Politico op-ed (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31669.html) from Jan. 21. The decision will also lead to a number of new outlets who can carry the messages that these donors have wanted carried.

527s: This vehicle of choice for many outside, independent communications in the last three cycles has been rendered obsolete for this purpose by the Court’s decision.

Vendors: The opinion should drastically increase the number of voices singing in the First Amendment choir. This is very good news for those who assist those efforts.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 08:54 AM
Their solution to the unintended consequences of government interference like this is never to reduce the government interference. It's always more government interference.

I rest my case.

Sad, isn't it?

The public's just too stupid. Evidently we should just remove any potential dissent and let good ol' Government take care of everything for us.

It's always 'more regulation'.

I think a lot of these folks need to do a little more study into world history and realize that totalitarianism has never once come with a closed fist. It's always an open palm and a scapegoat.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you your scapegoat - evil corporations!!!

Now just hand over your right to dissent to the Government and everything will be ooookaaaay.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 08:55 AM
But B.O. lied.

Why did he lie? Why does he always lie?

Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

patteeu
01-22-2010, 09:05 AM
welll I think more government interferance and regulation is needed on Wall street to prevent this BS from happening again. They are just back to their old ways. Who cares about risky bets, as long as I get this years bonus's, we are gold.

Are you saying that the problems you perceive on Wall Street are generated by government interference or are you taking the thread in a completely tangential direction?

mlyonsd
01-22-2010, 09:06 AM
I'll say the same thing I've always said in this arena --

The answer to speach is ALWAYS more speach. It's pretty much a direct ripoff of Justice Holmes, but chilling speach is a direct route to totalitarian government.

I question whether or not Corporations should have 1st amendment rights, but legal precedent clearly establishes that they do. As such, I'm appalled that 4 justices actually ruled against this case. If they want to overturn any rulings granting 1st amendment rights to corporations, I can live with that. But absent that, there's simply no legal backing for these laws and the 4 liberal justices simply voted party line. I find that wholly unacceptable.

And the most interesting point in all this was the oral arguments. During the first round of oral arguments, Justice Kennedy (I think) asked if the Chamber of Commerce felt it had the right to ban these advertisements if they were put in book form...the answer was 'yes'. In the second round, Ginsburg (good ol' impartial Ruth) gave the Chamber a chance to save face and asked the question again, only this time saying something along the lines of "it's important that we clear up an ambiguous issue from last time"...she might as well have said "wink, wink" at the end. The Chambers response was along the lines of 'yes, we absolutely could ban this in book form. However, the government never has and never would prosecute for this sort of thing...' Roberts about lost it when she said that and the hearing was essentially over.

Look - if you don't give a rip what the Constitution says (i.e. Cannibal), fine, that's your right. But from a strictly legal perspective, this was absolutely a correct decision. Anything that constitutes a prior restraint on political speach is extraordinarily dangerous.

I'm glad to see that our Courts are a little less cavalier about manipulating the Constitution than our Congress is.

Very well said.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 09:07 AM
Very well said.

Except for the fact that I evidently can't spell 'speech'....

Wow, I'm kindof a moron.

mlyonsd
01-22-2010, 09:09 AM
Except for the fact that I evidently can't spell 'speech'....

Wow, I'm kindof a moron.

The rest was so good I overlooked the spelling error. Don't let it happen again though.

penchief
01-22-2010, 09:14 AM
Sad, isn't it?

The public's just too stupid. Evidently we should just remove any potential dissent and let good ol' Government take care of everything for us.

It's always 'more regulation'.

I think a lot of these folks need to do a little more study into world history and realize that totalitarianism has never once come with a closed fist. It's always an open palm and a scapegoat.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you your scapegoat - evil corporations!!!

Not just hand over your right to dissent to the Government and everything will be ooookaaaay.

I'm advocating good government and good public policy and that is all. You might as well completely eliminate government if you want a Darwinian free-for-all. Free speech has nothing to do with the amount of money that can be spent on purchasing a private representative or buying public policy.

With freedom comes responsibility. And unless you are going to have regulations that curb the corruption that is spawned by the unlimited access to power that money affords you're not going to have freedom or democracy anyway. Which is exactly the track this country is on.

I'm as big an advocate of free speech as anyone can be. But I don't equate spending unlimited amounts of corporate money to drown out the other candidate as freedom of speech. IMO, such a definition doesn't serve the ideal that freedom of speech was intended to represent and it absolutely doesn't serve the interests of democracy.

JMO.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 09:16 AM
Except for the fact that I evidently can't spell 'speech'....

Wow, I'm kindof a moron.

"kind of" is two words. :Poke:

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 09:17 AM
"kind of" is two words. :Poke:

4321

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 09:22 AM
I'm advocating good government and good public policy and that is all. You might as well completely eliminate government if you want a Darwinian free-for-all. Free speech has nothing to do with the amount of money that can be spent on purchasing a private representative or buying public policy.

With freedom comes responsibility. And unless you are going to have regulations that curb the corruption that is spawned by the unlimited access to power that money affords you're not going to have freedom or democracy anyway. Which is exactly the track this country is on.

I'm as big an advocate of free speech as anyone can be. But I don't equate spending unlimited amounts of corporate money to drown out the other candidate as freedom of speech. IMO, such a definition doesn't serve the ideal that freedom of speech was intended to represent and it absolutely doesn't serve the interests of democracy.

JMO.

Yes it does - it absolutely does.

You're not talking kickbacks and bribes, you're talking political advertisements. These are at the core of what the framers were trying to protect - it's dissent in its most basic form.

Citizens are free to ignore political advertisements. Just as competing interests are free to run counter-advertising. Watchdog groups will be as prevelant as ever, pointing out who is spending what and where.

What you're saying is that we should effectuate policy designed to protect those who are too lazy to keep from being duped. Y'know what? Those people are going to get duped anyway (see: Obama, Barack). Anyone that wants to research corporate claims can. Anyone that wants to know who much money is spent on campaigns can.

This isn't the dark ages. We're well past the days of Monks copying bibles and local chieftans telling stories with no other available media. We have a wealth of information at our disposal at all times. There is simply no argument against allowing this speech when we have the internet available to so easily verify whatever claims are being made if people would just get off their asses and do it.

You can't protect people from themselves through restrictions on speech in a viable Democracy. You just cannot do it.

penchief
01-22-2010, 09:39 AM
Yes it does - it absolutely does.

You're not talking kickbacks and bribes, you're talking political advertisements. These are at the core of what the framers were trying to protect - it's dissent in its most basic form.

Citizens are free to ignore political advertisements. Just as competing interests are free to run counter-advertising. Watchdog groups will be as prevelant as ever, pointing out who is spending what and where.

What you're saying is that we should effectuate policy designed to protect those who are too lazy to keep from being duped. Y'know what? Those people are going to get duped anyway (see: Obama, Barack). Anyone that wants to research corporate claims can. Anyone that wants to know who much money is spent on campaigns can.

This isn't the dark ages. We're well past the days of Monks copying bibles and local chieftans telling stories with no other available media. We have a wealth of information at our disposal at all times. There is simply no argument against allowing this speech when we have the internet available to so easily verify whatever claims are being made if people would just get off their asses and do it.

You can't protect people from themselves through restrictions on speech in a viable Democracy. You just cannot do it.

I do understand your point but I just don't think it's realistic to expect people to be well informed when the flow of information is owned by the very same entities that are purchasing elections.

I agree that all of us should be more dilgent. But when we are being fed misinformation in continual large doses by those who can afford to do so it's kind of hard to make sound policy-based judgments. Especially when the average person is more concerned with how they are going to put food on the table or pay little Johnny's doctor bills now that the family deductable has increased to $5000 and the copay to 20%.

I don't completely discard your argument. I get it. I just don't think it's practical or realistic. To me it's a perfect example of corporate power using free speech as a trojan horse. Just like the 30-year deregulation mantra has led to unbridled corruption on Wall Street, this will further enable the corporate establishment to influence elections and dictate public policy at the peril of the people and to the demise of our country.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 09:50 AM
I do understand your point but I just don't think it's realistic to expect people to be well informed when the flow of information is owned by the very same entities that are purchasing elections.

I agree that all of us should be more dilgent. But when we are being fed misinformation in continual large doses by those who can afford to do so it's kind of hard to make sound policy-based judgments. Especially when the average person is more concerned with how they are going to put food on the table or pay little Johnny's doctor bills now that the family deductable has increased to $5000 and the copay to 20%.

I don't completely discard your argument. I get it. I just don't think it's practical or realistic. To me it's a perfect example of corporate power using free speech as a trojan horse. Just like the 30-year deregulation mantra has led to unbridled corruption on Wall Street, this will further enable the corporate establishment to influence elections and dictate public policy at the peril of the people and to the demise of our country.


Everything comes with its costs.

But free speech is the single most important liberty we have, IMO. Look at China, look at North Korea. Look at these nations where they have restrictions on media and look at how detrimental it is for the rank and file citizen. I'm aware that it's something of a strawman, it's certainly pushing an argument to its logical extreme if nothing else, but it's valid.

I would risk virtually anything to protect free speech.

And again, with the rise of the internet, Corporations don't control the flow of information anymore.

Oh, and at the risk of hijacking the thread - the American standard of living is higher than it's ever been. Yes, there is corruption in the financial sectors, but that same deregulation that begat corruption also fostered innovation that has allowed us to develop things like the internet. Would investments in computer technology have been nearly as robust with government restrictions? I don't believe they would have. Again, everything has its cost, but on the whole I think deregulation has been proven to be succesful as an aggregate.

penchief
01-22-2010, 10:03 AM
Everything comes with its costs.

But free speech is the single most important liberty we have, IMO. Look at China, look at North Korea. Look at these nations where they have restrictions on media and look at how detrimental it is for the rank and file citizen. I'm aware that it's something of a strawman, it's certainly pushing an argument to its logical extreme if nothing else, but it's valid.

I would risk virtually anything to protect free speech.

And again, with the rise of the internet, Corporations don't control the flow of information anymore.

Oh, and at the risk of hijacking the thread - the American standard of living is higher than it's ever been. Yes, there is corruption in the financial sectors, but that same deregulation that begat corruption also fostered innovation that has allowed us to develop things like the internet. Would investments in computer technology have been nearly as robust with government restrictions? I don't believe they would have. Again, everything has its cost, but on the whole I think deregulation has been proven to be succesful as an aggregate.

In this case what you call free speech may be the the death knell for all of our individual liberties. Once the fox is in the hen house every one of our legal protections will be vulnerable to the corporate agenda. As I said, we are no longer viewed upon as citizens. We as people are viewed as corporate fodder. All one has to do is recognize how the profit motive trumps everything that his holy.

Health care is a perfect example. Preserving profit margins drives the debate more than the ideal of preserving life and limb. Preserving profits for oil companies is more important than developing alternative energy sources or developing higher mileage cars. The list goes on and on. And its been corporate lackeys in congress who have enabled the greed agenda at the peril of human progress.

Like I said in my first post. I think the most important thing about this decision is going to be the impact that it ultimately has on our representative government and our democracy. Our country will be at the mercy of the corporate agenda, IMO.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 10:08 AM
Health care is a perfect example. Preserving profit margins drives the debate more than the ideal of preserving life and limb.

You're right, healhtcare is a perfect example.

Healthcare was killed by an angry populace that looked beyond the rhetoric on both sides. Let's face it - the media, Congress and White House had a far bigger microphone than talk radio and Fox News. I know the Dems like to say that the outcry was trumped up scare tactics, but the pro-healthcare side of the aisle wasn't exactly a bunch of wall-flowers. They had their voice and it was just as loud or louder than the Limbaugh's of the world. There were messages coming from all sides. The population saw them both and stood up for itself.

It wasn't 'profit over health' it was liberty over additional government control.

And it was done when individuals chose to look at what was actually out there, rather than what either side told them was out there.

HonestChieffan
01-22-2010, 11:52 AM
You're right, healhtcare is a perfect example.

Healthcare was killed by an angry populace that looked beyond the rhetoric on both sides. Let's face it - the media, Congress and White House had a far bigger microphone than talk radio and Fox News. I know the Dems like to say that the outcry was trumped up scare tactics, but the pro-healthcare side of the aisle wasn't exactly a bunch of wall-flowers. They had their voice and it was just as loud or louder than the Limbaugh's of the world. There were messages coming from all sides. The population saw them both and stood up for itself.

It wasn't 'profit over health' it was liberty over additional government control.

And it was done when individuals chose to look at what was actually out there, rather than what either side told them was out there.

HC was killed by exposure to the light of day. Its a lousy piece of work. If there is to be any HC work that has real benefit it will need focus, be done incrementally one bill at a time and not be done behind closed doors with favors throughout.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 11:55 AM
HC was killed by exposure to the light of day. Its a lousy piece of work. If there is to be any HC work that has real benefit it will need focus, be done incrementally one bill at a time and not be done behind closed doors with favors throughout.

Absolutely.

That's my point - it wasn't this mythical profit motive that killed healthcare. Granted, the provit motive may have been the impetus behind some of the original outcry, that wasn't what actually killed it.

What killed it was individual citizens looking at what was in there and demanding that their congressmen do the same. When the answer didn't come, they balked. (Again - silly me, expecting accountability and action on the part of the general population)

Democracy worked perfectly in the case of healthcare. I'll gladly debate the merits of free speech and corporate intermedling through the perspective of the healthcare debate, you couldn't provide me with a better platform if you tried.

noa
01-22-2010, 04:38 PM
I think its important to remember that corporations still have fiduciary duties to their shareholders. If the board of directors decides to spend the company's money on political ads or donations, then it must be able to justify how the corporation will benefit from it. I think this is a good check on the fear that now corporate boards will just spend the company's money blindly to promote their own personal agendas.
And as long as the donations or spending does benefit the corporation, then I'm fine with it because the whole purpose of the corporation in the first place is to maximize profits for the shareholders. I think it would be interesting to see how a shareholder suit would play out if a corporation does go overboard on the political spending.

HonestChieffan
01-22-2010, 04:48 PM
The left of today would have stopped the federalist papers and jailed Ben Franklin

KCTitus
01-22-2010, 05:03 PM
I'm as big an advocate of free speech as anyone can be. But I don't equate spending unlimited amounts of corporate money to drown out the other candidate as freedom of speech. IMO, such a definition doesn't serve the ideal that freedom of speech was intended to represent and it absolutely doesn't serve the interests of democracy.

You cannot be an advocate if you wish to suppress speech. Impossible.

I think the real problem the left has is they have had a monopoly up to this point. They cannot survive in the arena of ideas...they must have a never ending drumbeat of mantra's and sound bites to shout down their opponents.

I mean, seriously, what is the statists only solution to every problem. Centralized Government. Every singled damned solution is the same. We've been there done that. Time to move forward to the brave new world.

|Zach|
01-22-2010, 05:59 PM
Funny you don’t see any conservatives railing against “judicial activists legislating from the bench” this week.

BucEyedPea
01-22-2010, 07:47 PM
Funny you don’t see any conservatives railing against “judicial activists legislating from the bench” this week.

Because the judicial activists were the dissenters and they lost. The strict constructionists aren't the judicial activists and there were more of them.

Here's what the First Amendment says:

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.

It only restrains the govt from abridging freedom of speech. It doesn't say who or what it can or can't abridge it on.

This is what the majority opinion of the court basically did:
“ In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

Reaper16
01-22-2010, 08:06 PM
And again, with the rise of the internet, Corporations don't control the flow of information anymore.
There are certainly a lot of people who will go onto the internet to loudly back up the interests of corporations. See such examples as, um, you right now.

ILChief
01-22-2010, 09:01 PM
Funny you don’t see any conservatives railing against “judicial activists legislating from the bench” this week.

It's only judicial activism when they don't agree with it.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 10:32 PM
Funny you don’t see any conservatives railing against “judicial activists legislating from the bench” this week.

Dope.

|Zach|
01-22-2010, 11:08 PM
It's only judicial activism when they don't agree with it.

:clap:

mlyonsd
01-23-2010, 05:54 AM
Because the judicial activists were the dissenters and they lost. The strict constructionists aren't the judicial activists and there were more of them.

Here's what the First Amendment says:


It only restrains the govt from abridging freedom of speech. It doesn't say who or what it can or can't abridge it on.

This is what the majority opinion of the court basically did:
“ In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

Bingo. Somebody gets it.

In this case it was the activists in the minority and an activist law was struck down.

BigRedChief
01-23-2010, 07:31 AM
It's only judicial activism when they don't agree with it.THIS!

headsnap
01-23-2010, 07:32 AM
THIS...

...is incorrect!

BigRedChief
01-23-2010, 07:40 AM
...is incorrect!You have your opinion. I have the facts. They changed something that had been held up/maintained in the courts for 120 years.

Baby Lee
01-23-2010, 07:46 AM
You have your opinion. I have the facts. They changed something that had been held up/maintained in the courts for 120 years.

Quite an act, eh? ;)

headsnap
01-23-2010, 07:46 AM
You have your opinion. I have the facts. They changed something that had been held up/maintained in the courts for 120 years.

Damn, McCain is OLD!!!!!

patteeu
01-23-2010, 08:11 AM
Funny you don’t see any conservatives railing against “judicial activists legislating from the bench” this week.

This errant notion was already addressed in post 86.

patteeu
01-23-2010, 08:13 AM
You have your opinion. I have the facts. They changed something that had been held up/maintained in the courts for 120 years.

I'm confused about what it is you think was held up/maintained for 120 years, but the current court just affirmed a concept that has been present in our constitution for over 220 years.

BigRedChief
01-23-2010, 08:43 AM
I'm confused about what it is you think was held up/maintained for 120 years,That corporations are not people and therefore don't have all the same rights as individual citizens.

Saul Good
01-23-2010, 08:45 AM
That corporations are not people and therefore don't have all the same rights as individual citizens.

Corporations can get married now? I disagree with that. Marriage should be between two people. The bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Halliburton.

HonestChieffan
01-23-2010, 08:59 AM
That corporations are not people and therefore don't have all the same rights as individual citizens.

Corporations were never people. they are treated as individuals, not people.

Baby Lee
01-23-2010, 10:17 AM
That corporations are not people and therefore don't have all the same rights as individual citizens.

The thing that might be confusing you is that the First Amendment doesn't say 'people' have free speech.

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.

By your thinking, Miramax doesn't have the right to distribute Michael Moore films, and Harper Collins doesn't have the right to publish 'Going Rogue.'

patteeu
01-23-2010, 12:23 PM
BTW, I'd just like to point out that the much-maligned (even by many conservatives) George W. Bush shares some of the credit for this. +1 for the Bush legacy.

Jenson71
01-23-2010, 12:29 PM
BTW, I'd just like to point out that the much-maligned (even by many conservatives) George W. Bush shares some of the credit for this. +1 for the Bush legacy.

It's these damn Catholics. What's up with that religion?

patteeu
01-23-2010, 12:43 PM
It's these damn Catholics. What's up with that religion?

It's amazing that there isn't more made out of the fact that so many SCOTUS justices are Catholic.

BucEyedPea
01-23-2010, 03:01 PM
That corporations are not people and therefore don't have all the same rights as individual citizens.

Corporations aren't being given anything rights here. It's just a restraint on the Fed govt is all.

DJ's left nut
01-23-2010, 04:03 PM
It's only judicial activism when they don't agree with it.

The fact that you don't understand the definition of the concept doesn't mean that a definition doesn't exist.

Usurping a legal entities rights to free political speech would have been judicial activism. The courts opinion did not create additional rights. It did not create additional protections.

This bill facially in violation of the first amendment. The SCOTUS did what it was supposed to do and pointed that out.

I defy you to in any way, shape or form contradict me on this. Give me a substantive argument as to how this is at all 'activism'. Don't give me some BS about how it will bring the Republic to it's knees (Frankie has already cornered the market on that brand of nonsense), give me a single bit of legal backing for upholding those sections of McCain Feingold.

I'm guessing you'll just tuck tail.

DJ's left nut
01-23-2010, 04:07 PM
You have your opinion. I have the facts. They changed something that had been held up/maintained in the courts for 120 years.

Once again - this bill is only a few years old. Hell, Corporations haven't been around for 120 years. This was a matter of first impression. I already pointed this out to Billay and he dodged it with his dipshit 'teflon' response. You read it as well and I notice you didn't jump in then.

Your position is pretty easy to support when you make shit up.

Now I'll extend you the same offer -- give me one single bit of legal support for upholding these sections of McCain Feingold.

Like I said - you've come to this gunfight unarmed. You simply lack the understanding of these concepts to bring anything to this discussion. You have your rhetoric and your talking points. You have no ability to substantiate any of them, you have no additional facts to bring to the table; in all reality you have no credibility in the debate.

Just walk away. You have absolutely nothing here.

DJ's left nut
01-23-2010, 04:10 PM
That corporations are not people and therefore don't have all the same rights as individual citizens.

Jesus, you're ignorant.

Corporations have had recognized 1st amendment rights for decades.

They are legal entities and the courts have used a selective incorporation approach to determine what Constitutional rights they do and do not have. For instance, Corporations do not have Equal Protection rights, nor do they have voting rights.

They absolutely DO have first amendment rights and have had them for a very long time.

It's stunning how exposed you are every time you write something down. Seriously, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. I mean this in the least insulting way possible -- you are stunningly ignorant of the facts and law behind this decision.

But hey, never let history get in the way of an agenda when you have your talking points.

mlyonsd
01-23-2010, 04:15 PM
I defy you to in any way, shape or form contradict me on this. Give me a substantive argument as to how this is at all 'activism'.

Thats so easy a caveman can do it.

"Corporations are evil".

The Mad Crapper
01-23-2010, 05:31 PM
Once again - this bill is only a few years old. Hell, Corporations haven't been around for 120 years. This was a matter of first impression. I already pointed this out to Billay and he dodged it with his dipshit 'teflon' response. You read it as well and I notice you didn't jump in then.

Your position is pretty easy to support when you make shit up.

Now I'll extend you the same offer -- give me one single bit of legal support for upholding these sections of McCain Feingold.

Like I said - you've come to this gunfight unarmed. You simply lack the understanding of these concepts to bring anything to this discussion. You have your rhetoric and your talking points. You have no ability to substantiate any of them, you have no additional facts to bring to the table; in all reality you have no credibility in the debate.

Just walk away. You have absolutely nothing here.

ROFL

BRC just got his head handed to him.

Royal Fanatic
01-24-2010, 11:38 AM
Thats so easy a caveman can do it.

"Corporations are evil".
Don't forget the other dream of the libs: If we could just eliminate all of the profits of the evil corporations, we'd have Nirvana.

"Bob" Dobbs
01-25-2010, 01:50 AM
After having skimmed through the thread, I'm not sure I see what the big deal is. Some are arguing that this decision will open the floodgates of corporate advertising into the political arena. If that is true, then what effect did "corporate advertising" have on the elections in 2000 and prior? I mean the portion of the law that was struck down has only been in place since 2002, so it must have been a HUGE problem before then, right? Can someone give some credible examples? If not, then it's much ado about nothing. JMO.

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 06:46 AM
After having skimmed through the thread, I'm not sure I see what the big deal is. Some are arguing that this decision will open the floodgates of corporate advertising into the political arena. If that is true, then what effect did "corporate advertising" have on the elections in 2000 and prior? I mean the portion of the law that was struck down has only been in place since 2002, so it must have been a HUGE problem before then, right? Can someone give some credible examples? If not, then it's much ado about nothing. JMO.you need to educate yourself. "Unlimited", is a game changer. Politics and the way we elect our leaders is going to change dramitically.

The debate is whether corporations should be allowed the same rights as individuals.

mlyonsd
01-25-2010, 07:02 AM
Don't forget the other dream of the libs: If we could just eliminate all of the profits of the evil corporations, we'd have Nirvana.

That's not quite right. The dream is if we could take most of the profits from a successful coporation we'd have Nirvana. Libs would really like corporations if they could steal all their money.

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 07:07 AM
Jesus, you're ignorant.

Corporations have had recognized 1st amendment rights for decades. name calling is the last resort of a limited mind.

They have restricted 1st amendment rights. Big difference. WTH you think the case was about? Lifting that restriction.

HonestChieffan
01-25-2010, 07:31 AM
I find it disturbing that anyone can support the restriction of speech. Of all of the freedoms we have this is the one that makes all the rest possible.

There can be no freedom when expression is limited

DJ's left nut
01-25-2010, 08:47 AM
name calling is the last resort of a limited mind.

They have restricted 1st amendment rights. Big difference. WTH you think the case was about? Lifting that restriction.

Corporate 1st amendment rights were not limited until Austin; 1990 was significantly less than 120 years ago. Up to that point the legislature had not attempted to usurp corporate rights and when 1st amendment privileges were given to Corporations, they were unqualified. As such, the restriction of corporate 1st amendment rights is less than 20 years old and came about largely due to an unbalanced court.

And there's something strangely endearing about your ability to dodge (or miss) every point in a nearly 300 post thread and then have the stones to claim I'm the one with "a limited mind."

Son, this thread has been a bloodbath. You've had your ass handed to you at every turn. Calling you ignorant is similar to calling you male - I've simply applied the label that fits the facts. 'Ignorant' is not an insult in it's own right, it's a simple title applied to someone that is sorely lacking in factual backing.

Like I said - you really do not know what you're talking about. Perhaps a primer on the difference between an "opinion" and a "dumb ass statement lacking in factual support" is in order.

"I enjoy cloudy days more than sunny days" is an opinion. A wrong-headed one, IMO, but an opinion nontheless and one that I will certainly allow.

"I hate sunny days because the sun rises in the West" is a dumb ass statement lacking in factual support. You may believe it to be a valid opinion based on a complete lack of factual understanding, but the fact remains that this is nothing more than a stupid statement.

As is "this overturns 120 years of precedent..." and pretty much anything else you've added to this thread.

You're ignorant of the facts and law that led to the opinion - end of story.

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 11:13 AM
You're ignorant of the facts and law that led to the opinion - end of story.And I call BS. You don't have the correct facts. And again anyone that disagrees with your inaccuarte statements are ignorant?

There were restrictions in place way before 1990.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 11:23 AM
Corporate 1st amendment rights were not limited until Austin; 1990 was significantly less than 120 years ago. Up to that point the legislature had not attempted to usurp corporate rights and when 1st amendment privileges were given to Corporations, they were unqualified. As such, the restriction of corporate 1st amendment rights is less than 20 years old and came about largely due to an unbalanced court.

And there's something strangely endearing about your ability to dodge (or miss) every point in a nearly 300 post thread and then have the stones to claim I'm the one with "a limited mind."

Son, this thread has been a bloodbath. You've had your ass handed to you at every turn. Calling you ignorant is similar to calling you male - I've simply applied the label that fits the facts. 'Ignorant' is not an insult in it's own right, it's a simple title applied to someone that is sorely lacking in factual backing.

Like I said - you really do not know what you're talking about. Perhaps a primer on the difference between an "opinion" and a "dumb ass statement lacking in factual support" is in order.

"I enjoy cloudy days more than sunny days" is an opinion. A wrong-headed one, IMO, but an opinion nontheless and one that I will certainly allow.

"I hate sunny days because the sun rises in the West" is a dumb ass statement lacking in factual support. You may believe it to be a valid opinion based on a complete lack of factual understanding, but the fact remains that this is nothing more than a stupid statement.

As is "this overturns 120 years of precedent..." and pretty much anything else you've added to this thread.

You're ignorant of the facts and law that led to the opinion - end of story.

LMAO

DJ's left nut
01-25-2010, 11:49 AM
And I call BS. You don't have the correct facts. And again anyone that disagrees with your inaccuarte statements are ignorant?

There were restrictions in place way before 1990.

And the sun rises in the West...

I've asked you once already -- gimme the citations.

You can't. They don't exist. Austin was the first SCOTUS case to explore the limitation of corporate speech. I'm sorry your talking points haven't fed you a citation yet, but it's because there aren't any. Keep scouring Daily Koz, but they aren't going to bail you out either.

Call BS all you want, it only exposes you further.

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 12:55 PM
And the sun rises in the West...

I've asked you once already -- gimme the citations.

You can't. They don't exist. Austin was the first SCOTUS case to explore the limitation of corporate speech
Again, I'm not just talking about only SCOTUS cases. The congress has placed restrictions on limiting corporate donations for a helluva lot longer than 1990.

Amnorix
01-25-2010, 01:29 PM
Just curious if anyone here cared much if, during a contentious debate in Congress over something that affected Corporation X, if that corporation made it generally known that it would provide some extraordinary amount of funds (say 10x the reelection war chest of the Congressperson) for advertising in support of the opposing candidate of any Congressperson that voted the opposite of how Corporation X wanted the vote to go?

So far as I can tell, that would be a perfectly legal message for a corporation to send through their lobbyists.

And I can't see why in teh world we want a country that is MORE beholding to Wall Street and big money and needs MORE money to run an election campaign cycle, and is going to be held even more hostage to big business.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 01:30 PM
And I can't see why in teh world we want a country that is MORE beholding to Wall Street and big money and needs MORE money to run an election campaign cycle, and is going to be held even more hostage to big business.

How do you propose to stop it? How do you stop lobbying?

Chiefspants
01-25-2010, 05:24 PM
Does this mean that Stephen Colbert can now be legally sponsored by doritos in the next presidential election?!

Colbert/Stewart 12'

BigRedChief
01-25-2010, 10:24 PM
WTF? Is this true? The law will allow foreign corporations to give unlimited funds to whoever they want? China can just buy themselfs some candidates?

The Mad Crapper
01-26-2010, 04:26 AM
WTF? Is this true? The law will allow foreign corporations to give unlimited funds to whoever they want? China can just buy themselfs some candidates?

That precedent has already been set.

http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/da_kings_men/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/al-gore-oracle-32831.jpg

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 09:13 PM
A bi-partisan issue finally....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html


Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing


By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 2010; 4:38 PM

Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

The results suggest a strong reservoir of bipartisan (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicsglossary/legislative/bipartisanship/) support on the issue for President Obama (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama) and congressional Democrats, who are in the midst of crafting legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the high court's decision.

"If there's one thing that Americans from the left, right and center can all agree on, it's that they don't want more special interests in our politics," Sen. Charles Schumer (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Charles_E._Schumer) (D-N.Y.), who is spearheading the legislative effort, said in a statement after the poll was released Wednesday.

"We hope we can get strong and quick bipartisan support for our legislation, which passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."

Under legislation being drafted by Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Chris_Van_Hollen) (D-Md.), companies with foreign ownership or federal contracting ties would be limited in their ability to spend corporate money on elections.
The lawmakers also want to require companies to inform shareholders about political spending; to mandate special "political activities" accounts for corporations, unions and advocacy groups; and to require that corporate executives appear in political advertising funded by their companies.

Other likely proposals include banning participation in U.S. elections by bank bailout recipients.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Mitch_McConnell) (Ky.) and other Republican lawmakers have praised the high court ruling as a victory for free speech, however, and have signaled their intent to oppose any legislation intended to blunt the impact of the court's decision.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicsglossary/campaign-finance/FEC/), the high court ruled 5-4 that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech and can therefore use their profits to support or oppose individual candidates. The decision appears to open the door to unlimited spending by corporations, trade groups and unions in the weeks leading up to an election, which has been explicitly banned for decades.
Democrats have seized on the ruling as an example of judicial overreach and vowed to enact new limits on political spending by corporations, which have traditionally favored Republicans in their contribution patterns. Obama said in his State of the Union address that the ruling will "open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."
Republicans and business groups have rallied around the ruling, arguing that the decision merely levels the playing field with free-spending unions and other liberal interest groups.
Jeff Patch, communications director for the Center for Competitive Politics, which supports the court's decision, said the ruling's potential impact has been distorted by Obama and other Democratic critics.
"Campaign finance is an incredibly complex legal framework, and most Americans have an incentive to remain rationally ignorant about the laws and regulations at issue," Patch wrote in a news release (http://www.campaignfreedom.org/newsroom/detail/campaign-finance-polls-lack-context-and-clarity).
The poll, however, suggests there may be political risks for the GOP (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicsglossary/party-affiliated/Republican-Party/) in opposing limits that appear to be favored by the party's base.
Nearly three-quarters of self-identified conservative Republicans say they oppose the Supreme Court ruling, with most of them strongly opposed. Some two-thirds of conservative Republicans favor congressional efforts to limit corporate and union spending, though with less enthusiasm than liberal Democrats.

Indeed, the poll shows remarkably strong agreement about the ruling across all demographic groups, and big majorities of those with household incomes above and below $50,000 alike oppose the decision. Age, race and education levels also appeared to have little relative bearing on the answers.

The questions on corporate political spending were included as part of a poll conducted Feb. 4 to 8 by conventional and cellular telephone. The margin of sampling error for the for the full poll of 1,004 randomly selected adults is plus or minus three percentage points.

Jenson71
02-17-2010, 09:25 PM
WTF? Is this true? The law will allow foreign corporations to give unlimited funds to whoever they want? China can just buy themselfs some candidates?

The Soviets, in their extreme suspicion of Nixon, offered to pay the entire amount of Humphrey's campaign in 68. Coulda done it, cept he declined.

patteeu
02-18-2010, 06:43 AM
A bi-partisan issue finally....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html


Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing

...

It's reassuring to finally see a constitution-wielding, conservative court defending us from the tyranny of the mind-numbing populism of the majority.

BigRedChief
02-18-2010, 06:45 AM
It's reassuring to finally see a constitution-wielding, conservative court defending us from the tyranny of the mind-numbing populism of the majority.Protect us from ourselfs?

HonestChieffan
02-18-2010, 06:58 AM
Protect us from ourselfs?

That is sort of the idea of the Supreme Court....that pesky constitution thing.

BucEyedPea
02-18-2010, 07:48 AM
A bi-partisan issue finally....

Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing
You do realize we're not a democracy right?
You're advocating mob rule here. If the mob wants to take away a fundamental right it should be okay per you.

Boy you Obama folks really hate our Constitution.

patteeu
02-18-2010, 08:07 AM
Protect us from ourselfs?

The tyranny of the majority, which in this case apparently includes you but does not include me.

BigRedChief
02-18-2010, 08:51 AM
The tyranny of the majority, which in this case apparently includes you but does not include me.Where in the hell was my minority protection when Bush was producing the lost decade?;)

patteeu
02-18-2010, 08:57 AM
Where in the hell was my minority protection when Bush was producing the lost decade?;)

Lost decade? The decade was pretty fantastic until it started going downhill after democrats took over Congress. Full employment, relatively manageable deficits, auto companies run as private concerns, and solid economic growth seem like distant memories now.

If you're asking why Bush didn't veto McCain/Feingold in the first place, I agree with you.

BigRedChief
02-18-2010, 09:03 AM
Lost decade? The decade was pretty fantastic until it started going downhill after democrats took over Congress. Full employment, relatively manageable deficits, auto companies run as private concerns, and solid economic growth seem like distant memories now.

If you're asking why Bush didn't veto McCain/Feingold in the first place, I agree with you.
Trying to rewritie history like your hero Cheny. Not going to work. The record shows that the Republicans had control of the Presidency and congress for 6 years. It was a BS bubble. Smoke and mirrors. There was no real growth and prosperity. We are paying right now for those failed Bush policies. History will not be kind to George W. There are people already calling it the lost decade.

patteeu
02-18-2010, 09:05 AM
Trying to rewritie history like your hero Cheny. Not going to work. The record shows that the Republicans had control of the Presidency and congress for 6 years. It was a BS bubble. Smoke and mirrors. There was no real growth and prosperity. We are paying right now for those failed Bush policies. History will not be kind to George W. There are people already calling it the lost decade.

The only people calling it the lost decade are those who are desperately trying to divert attention from the people who are currently ruining the country. You know who I'm talking about.

mlyonsd
02-18-2010, 09:11 AM
Trying to rewritie history like your hero Cheny. Not going to work. The record shows that the Republicans had control of the Presidency and congress for 6 years. It was a BS bubble. Smoke and mirrors. There was no real growth and prosperity. We are paying right now for those failed Bush policies. History will not be kind to George W. There are people already calling it the lost decade.

I hope you're this fair when the fake 'recovery' the dems are trying to invent before 2010 is exposed for what it really is.

patteeu
02-18-2010, 09:21 AM
I hope you're this fair when the fake 'recovery' the dems are trying to invent before 2010 is exposed for what it really is.

Or when he looks back at the "glory days" of the Clinton administration which were just as bubble-bouyed as the first half of this decade.

morphius
02-18-2010, 09:40 AM
Or when he looks back at the "glory days" of the Clinton administration which were just as bubble-bouyed as the first half of this decade.
No doubt, Internet bubble was dying when he left office, toss in Enron, MCI Worldcom and the bubble created by a huge influx of day traders driving up IPO's well beyond any possible earnings... Yeah, Clinton left us in GREAT shape.

BigRedChief
02-18-2010, 10:09 AM
No doubt, Internet bubble was dying when he left office, toss in Enron, MCI Worldcom and the bubble created by a huge influx of day traders driving up IPO's well beyond any possible earnings... Yeah, Clinton left us in GREAT shape.ohhh I agree, it was the tech bubble that made the last term of Clinton boom. But some of that did survive to be beneficial in the long term. Keep employing people and generating tax revenue(Google, Amazon, Yahoo etc.).

But, the problem is what the hell do we make now? What do we export? Thats the core issue. What can we do better and cheaper than the rest of the world and still make a profit and create jobs in the homeland? What is that widget?

We may never have anything again but "fake" recoveries.:(

Radar Chief
02-18-2010, 10:14 AM
There are people already calling it the lost decade.

Ironically the few people calling it “the lost decade” are the same ones that made “Bush sucks, we’re not Bush” their entire campaign.

Edit: Repost, patt beat me to it.