Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Mir
Topic Author
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:17 pm

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...ations22-2010jan22,0,4141508.story

The court has decided to overturn a ban on corporate campaign donations, saying that it violated the 1st Amendment. The result is that corporations will be free to contribute as much as they would like to political campaigns (and we'll likely see it starting with the 2010 midterms), though they must do it indirectly (which isn't difficult at all), and the contributions must be publicized (i.e. those messages at the end of ads that say who paid for the ad).

How could anyone in their right mind think that this is a good idea? If you think the current system is corrupt, just wait until people get elected on the back of millions of dollars in corporate campaign donations. Very disappointed in Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito - I don't care what your political leanings are, giving companies a louder voice than people is a slap in the face to the electoral process.

Thoughts?

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8600
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:27 pm

Quoting Mir (Thread starter):
don't care what your political leanings are, giving companies a louder voice than people is a slap in the face to the electoral process.

Companies don't have any voice. They are a piece of paper. It's people behind them that do, and they have rights. It's people that lobby, not corporations.

This sounds a lot like Buffett saying he pays 15% in taxes to the government, while his secretary pays something like 30%, without disclosing that the companies he owns are separate taxable entities and pay a heck of a lot more. Separate legal entities, but that's only a technicality.

Quoting Mir (Thread starter):
How could anyone in their right mind think that this is a good idea?

Go the other way around, ban companies that give money to politicians from getting government contracts. Not gonna fix everything, but it's not like the current policy did either (more strict European policies have not taken politicians out of bed with corporations either). This way you don't violate the first amendment, which is a pretty good thing.

[Edited 2010-01-21 11:40:26]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Mir
Topic Author
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:10 pm



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1):
Go the other way around, ban companies that give money to politicians from getting government contracts.

I'd be fine with that. But it would never happen.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:11 pm

If unions can pour money into campaigns, why couldn't corporations?
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:20 pm



Quoting Mir (Thread starter):
saying that it violated the 1st Amendment.

That's all they needed to say. It is the responsibility of the voter to be informed. Just because someone is shouting doesn't mean you have to listien or that if you do decide to listen you don't owe it to yourself to find out if the shouting is true or not.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Mir
Topic Author
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:25 pm



Quoting Mham001 (Reply 3):
If unions can pour money into campaigns, why couldn't corporations?

Unions can't. Both corporations and unions have been (up until this decision) prevented from donating to campaigns. The ban on corporations started in 1907, the ban on unions started in the 40s.

Interestingly, the decision today only really addresses corporations - it's not clear whether unions are affected the same way, though I'd assume that they are.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
mNeo
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:12 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:28 pm

I never understood why there isnt a cap on election expenditures. Set a certain amount of money per candidate, increase it for inflation every year and stop this buying of our politicians. They are supposed to be public servants and with the millions that the companies are giving away those could be money put back into the economy, not for bumper stickers and 30 sec TV ads.
Powered by Maina
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:57 pm



Quoting MNeo (Reply 6):
I never understood why there isnt a cap on election expenditures.

Because the Supreme Court seems to think that spending money is a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:04 pm

Who knew "free speech" would cost you $1 million an election cycle if you want your voice heard. That darned inflation!
 
User avatar
fr8mech
Posts: 8182
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:32 pm



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 7):
Because the Supreme Court seems to think that spending money is a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.

It is protected speech. When you buy a shirt with a slogan on it...it's protected. When you use your money to tattoo yourself, it's protected. When you donate money to a politcal party or religious organization...it's protected.

Quoting DXing (Reply 4):
It is the responsibility of the voter to be informed.

I couldn't agree more. It is up to us to be informed. Up to us to understand what's on the table and what's at stake. If you're dumb enough (or we're dumb enough, collectively) to listen to the loudest or sweetest voice, that's our problem.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away, or may not come at all.
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. ~B. Murray
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9309
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:39 pm



Quoting MNeo (Reply 6):
They are supposed to be public servants and with the millions that the companies are giving away those could be money put back into the economy, not for bumper stickers and 30 sec TV ads.

That is "being put back into the economy." When you buy a bumper sticker or contract a TV ad, the supplier or broadcaster doesn't set the money on fire. They pay wages, buy supplies, buy products/services, invest it in new business opportunities, etc.

Quoting Mir (Thread starter):
How could anyone in their right mind think that this is a good idea?

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly recognizes the right of citizens to peaceably assemble and petition the government. I can't imagine how that doesn't apply to corporations, partnerships, unions, etc. This is long overdue.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
Lufthansa411
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:54 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:50 pm



Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 9):
I couldn't agree more. It is up to us to be informed. Up to us to understand what's on the table and what's at stake. If you're dumb enough (or we're dumb enough, collectively) to listen to the loudest or sweetest voice, that's our problem.

I agree with that, but there are a LOT of problems this opens up.

This now puts politics firmly in the hands of large corporations/unions who will be looking out for their own self interests, leaving ordinary citizens from all political viewpoints out in the cold. With this new law, it is now possible for a corporation to spend billions advertising for a candidate who shares their views. The average American household ($52000) is not going to be able to spend anything close to that to donate to causes that they feel strongly about. At the end of the day, it is the very amendment that the SCOTUS said was being violated that is going to suffer.
Nothing in life is to be feared; it is only to be understood.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:56 pm



Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 11):
This now puts politics firmly in the hands of large corporations/unions who will be looking out for their own self interests, leaving ordinary citizens from all political viewpoints out in the cold. With this new law, it is now possible for a corporation to spend billions advertising for a candidate who shares their views.

Corporations and unions that have no vote. It still falls back to the individual citizen to be informed and to differentiate between hyperbole and fact. I know it calls for personal responsibility and those are bad words for some since it demands that they take some time out of their busy schedule of voting on American Idol, keeping up with the Kardashians, and what's new with housewives of Atlanta but there it is. Sometimes you have to spend some time actually researching something that might affect you far more than a TV show.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:57 pm



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 8):
Who knew "free speech" would cost you $1 million an election cycle if you want your voice heard. That darned inflation!

Your number's a bit off. Obama spent $730 million on his campaign. McCain spent $333 million.

In addition to that, Unions and other organizations spent at least $141 million supporting Obama. McCain supporters spent a further $20 million. And those are just the ones that disclosed. ACORN spent tens of millions supporting Obama, and they are not included.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php?cycle=2008

Frankly I don't know who will benefit more from more corporate involvement. Historically I think they give more to the Democrats. Maybe historically they tend to be more easily bought, I don't know...
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:58 pm

Good, now the sheeple can stop talking and just let the corporations handle things. Work begins at 7AM.

By the way, if money is speech, and money is protected, I wonder if assault is speech, and assault should be protected.
 
Lufthansa411
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:54 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:11 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 12):
Corporations and unions that have no vote. It still falls back to the individual citizen to be informed and to differentiate between hyperbole and fact. I know it calls for personal responsibility and those are bad words for some since it demands that they take some time out of their busy schedule of voting on American Idol, keeping up with the Kardashians, and what's new with housewives of Atlanta but there it is. Sometimes you have to spend some time actually researching something that might affect you far more than a TV show.

They may not not pull a lever in a voting booth on election day, but the executives/board members/leadership do vote for what they support, and advertising is around because of the power that it holds. Put the two together, and you can influence almost anyone without even knowing it. Everyone is not an expert in every area, and everyone certainly does not know every little loophole etc. that can be used by corporations/unions.

Product placement is a perfect example. How many times in an evening when watching that ordinary TV program do you see a product that a firm has payed to place in the show. Subtle, almost like mind control. Now, taking your example above, imagine those people watching American Idol that are drinking out of Obama branded glasses instead of Coke glasses paid for by the DNC, or a picture of Palin hanging on the wall next to the dining room table of one of the housewives in Atlanta paid for by the RNC. Yes, there needs to be personal responsibility. At the same time, I look at these major interest groups like terrorist groups - They will always be one step ahead, and ordinary people with just be reactionary.

I'm trying to keep an open mind about what this ruling will do, but my gut reaction is that it takes power away from the people, and makes the USA much more the way ancient Rome was- an Oligarchy. And we all know what happened in ancient Rome.
Nothing in life is to be feared; it is only to be understood.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:36 pm



Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 15):
Everyone is not an expert in every area, and everyone certainly does not know every little loophole etc. that can be used by corporations/unions.

But they have every responsibility to know what and who they are voting for. No amount of deceptive advertising can hide the truth from someone who looks to find it.

Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 15):
Yes, there needs to be personal responsibility. At the same time, I look at these major interest groups like terrorist groups - They will always be one step ahead, and ordinary people with just be reactionary.

The ordinary person is almost always reactionary in the political world. Look at the past year. The electorate voted in President Obama based on a public perception that he would govern from the center. As the months passed they realized that it wasn't so and in individual special elections they are making their displeasure known.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9309
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:45 pm



Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 15):
They may not not pull a lever in a voting booth on election day, but the executives/board members/leadership do vote for what they support, and advertising is around because of the power that it holds. Put the two together, and you can influence almost anyone without even knowing it.

Corporations already advertise 24/7/365. They could already do everything you fear if it were not for one fact that escapes liberals: people are not so easily manipulated.

Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 15):
I'm trying to keep an open mind about what this ruling will do, but my gut reaction is that it takes power away from the people, and makes the USA much more the way ancient Rome was- an Oligarchy.

There are over 50,000 elected positions in the United States at every level of government. We are no where close to becoming an oligarchy.

What often goes unappreciated - until times like now when the public is anti-establishment - is that states and local governments exercise considerable control over the federal government. Often times, the fed's only control over state/local governments is to tax them and then offer the money back with strings attached. They can always say no, and lately an increasing number of them have been doing just that.

Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 15):
And we all know what happened in ancient Rome.

They stopped maintaining a credible defense
They stopped investing in infrastructure
They discouraged productivity
They engaged in reckless debauchery

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of liberal policies  Wow!
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:45 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
Frankly I don't know who will benefit more from more corporate involvement. Historically I think they give more to the Democrats. Maybe historically they tend to be more easily bought, I don't know...

Meh. It wasn't stopping any corporation before. They'd just divert the cash to a PAC or outside group so their fingerprints weren't on it, just like United Health Care, owns the Llewellyn Group whom Republicans and FOX touted 24/7 for 3 months about their white paper and studies that said the end of the world would come if healthcare reform happened.

But the American electorate is too stupid to figure it all out, and why a multi-billion $$$ insurance company might be against any regulations on it. No, instead the FOX crowd squawked like a Tourette's patient "death panels", "socialist", "government takeover", "communist".

“Commitments the voters don't know about can't hurt you.” - Ogden Nash

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

"We need more people speaking out. This country is not overrun with rebels and free thinkers. It's overrun with sheep and conformists." - Bill Maher
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:55 am



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 18):
But the American electorate is too stupid to figure it all out, and why a multi-billion $$$ insurance company might be against any regulations on it. No, instead the FOX crowd squawked like a Tourette's patient "death panels", "socialist", "government takeover", "communist".

Remember that the insurance industry supported the Democrats.
Democrats haven't been this angry since we took away their slaves.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22178
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:37 am



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 18):

Meh. It wasn't stopping any corporation before.

Or churches, for that matter. Heck, it's obvious that LDS illegally funded the Prop 8 campaign and yet it passed and was upheld on the first challenge. Apparently it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15652
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:48 am

It is very unfortunate that this decision is based on the problems, due to now vacated campaign laws a well funded right wing organization had when they wanted to buy TV time to show a heavily biased 'documentry' they funded and had produced for them against Hillary Clinton during her run for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination in 2008. There was a conflict with our 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech, particularly political speech presented in the case. Further, there was an issue of freedom of speech for unions.

Of course, the Supreme court forgot the far more important individuals ability to have their 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech. Now corporations can effectively have created and pay for buy heavily biased ads for a candidate (most likely the Republicans) to support and bash those opposed to their views with total lies, protected by the 'First Amendment'.

This is considered by many to be one of the worst decisions of the US Supreme Court. That includes Bush v. Gore (2000), Plessy v. Ferguson (a 1890's decision that allowed racial 'separate but equal' facilities, access to government services and so on, overturned by the ending of the 1960's Civil rights laws) and even the 'Dred Scott' decision (a 1850's ruling of the USSC that a enslaved person is property and has no rights to freedom, overcome by the Civil War era Constitutional Amendments).

We have yet to know what horrors this decision will bring out. Perhaps what may have to happen is to amend the US Constitution to specifically state that Corporations or other forms of business organiations are not 'humans' and are allowed to have Constitutional rights including freedom of political speech.

[Edited 2010-01-21 17:49:38]
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 25325
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:55 am

Fair and justified decision.

Why should anyone that has an interest, or opinion be muzzled from expressing or protecting their views?
Let companies, unions, or other groups (hey the ACLU can run adds if they wish) be out there and spread their stance on key issues. Ultimately its just more election fodder, and let the electrorate decide if they believe it or support it.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:21 am



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
That is "being put back into the economy." When you buy a bumper sticker or contract a TV ad, the supplier or broadcaster doesn't set the money on fire. They pay wages, buy supplies, buy products/services, invest it in new business opportunities, etc.

Great so we can now look forward with confidence to the post Jan employment, GDP, business confidence data and who knows what else. Get in quick and buy USD, they will skyrocket with this manifestly productive decision.

Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 15):
ancient Rome was- an Oligarchy. And we all know what happened in ancient Rome.

I know what you mean, but the thing is we probably do not know what happened in Ancient Rome, just the outcomes!
 
Mir
Topic Author
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:36 am



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22):
Why should anyone that has an interest, or opinion be muzzled from expressing or protecting their views?

If the employees of a corporation want to individually express their views and donate to a political campaign, that's no problem. But a corporation is not a person, and should not be treated as such in the eyes of the law.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9309
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:24 am



Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
If the employees of a corporation want to individually express their views and donate to a political campaign, that's no problem. But a corporation is not a person, and should not be treated as such in the eyes of the law.

The 1st Amendment also applies to groups of persons, not just individuals. A corporation is ultimately a group of people. From the original text:

"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"

How can you provide individuals the right to free speech and the right to assemble, but not let them exercise their free speech because they have assembled?

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 21):
Of course, the Supreme court forgot the far more important individuals ability to have their 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech. Now corporations can effectively have created and pay for buy heavily biased ads for a candidate (most likely the Republicans) to support and bash those opposed to their views with total lies, protected by the 'First Amendment'.

Yeah, I'm sure the Democrats will receive no contributions from General Electric, General Motors, big insurance firms, trial law firms, etc. The Democratic Party maintains stunning ties with big business and does just about everything in their power to make life tough on small businesses. Ask your self who is really trying to conglomerate power in this country  banghead 

Liberals and Democrats are going bat **** crazy not because they think this ruling will amount to any significant change in American politics. They are making a fuss because they knew they were already going to get obliterated in November, and now they can claim that the election was "bought" with corporate money rather than admit their worldview was soundly, decisively, and rapidly rejected by the American public.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 25325
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:28 am



Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
But a corporation is not a person, and should not be treated as such in the eyes of the law.

Sure a corporation might not be singular person, however a company, union or other organizations quite clearly have vested interest in the effects in political outcomes.

As such let them share their views. They have a duty and incentive to do what is best for them and their shareholders or members and thus should vigorously be able to pursue their interest including in helping define or shape pertinent issues.
It ridiculous to think a company, union or organization should sit idly by as items that have large potential impact on them play out without being able to share or have their voice heard.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
Mir
Topic Author
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:33 am



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 25):
A corporation is ultimately a group of people.

No, a corporation is a legal status.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 25):
"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"

How can you provide individuals the right to free speech and the right to assemble, but not let them exercise their free speech because they have assembled?

Petitioning the government for redress of grievances (which I agree that corporations are entitled to do) is not the same as funding political campaigns.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:21 am



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 1):
Companies don't have any voice.

Wrong. A few years back, the SCOTUS ruled that money is speech, and with this ruling, it means that corporations have more of voice than you and I ever could dream of-because they can throw money around now like it's candy to influence elections on the Federal level.

This decision makes the individual lose his political voice almost completely. You don't have money, you don't have a voice in influencing anything. This was one of the worst decisions the SCOTUS has handed down in a long, long time. It basically will be a field day of special interest of the likes you've never seen.

Quoting DXing (Reply 4):
It is the responsibility of the voter to be informed. Just because someone is shouting doesn't mean you have to listien or that if you do decide to listen you don't owe it to yourself to find out if the shouting is true or not.

[rotfl}

And that from someone who buys into all the GOP propoganda. You don't take the time to find out if it's true, but you expect others' to? Uh, OK.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22):
Fair and justified decision.

Now I know it was one of the worst decisions of all time, if someone like you says it is "fair and justified." It's only fair and justified if you have loads of money. You, as an individual, just lost one of the last vestiges of your ability to be heard, and you're applauding this.

Now I know this was a horrendous decision.

The Democrats have said they hope to somehow reverse this ruling through legislation. I hope for our sake as voters, they succeed.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
texan
Posts: 4071
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:34 am



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28):
The Democrats have said they hope to somehow reverse this ruling through legislation.

From what I've read of the opinion so far, the majority might have left open a way to do it. I'm not positive about that yet, but I'll see what I can come up with tomorrow after finishing at least the majority opinion (majority opinion is a little over 40 pages, Stevens's dissent is around 90 pages. And Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas also filed opinions. It could take me a couple days to get through all the opinions and make sense of what everybody is saying).

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:22 am



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22):
Why should anyone that has an interest, or opinion be muzzled from expressing or protecting their views?

 laughing   laughing   laughing 


Excellent! I wonder how soon before a Chinese, North Korean, or Iranian "business" starts a corporation in the US with 2 or 3 employees deposits a few billion dollars, and buys up 50% of the airwaves to advertise their position to push for, or rally against a candidate friendly or hostile to them?

Maybe Cantonese or Mandarin should become the official language of the US?
 
pnqiad
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:05 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:17 pm

US Constitution does not define a corporation or other non-person entity as a "person". It was essentially the result of SCOTUS ruling in 1800s (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) that corporations were granted a status as a person.

It was amazing to see that the current SCOTUS accepted that precedent as settled law but conveniently chose to ignore 100+ years of Congressional action and intent and court rulings (including its own - constituting precedence) when extending the "money as speech" protections to corporations.

Another problem with the ruling is that these same corporations may not be majority US citizen / permanent resident controlled - but can still muddle the political process by pouring money but individuals who are not citizens or PR cannot donate money to political campaigns.

What happened to the "strict interpretation of the constitution" business? Framers of the constitution never intended for a "person" to mean a corporation or a non-person legal entity. If anything, the real "strict interpretationists" would have struck down the blanket corporation as person precedence rather than extending those protections unfettered.

It remains ironic that real persons still face a limit on how much they can directly donate to a political campaign each season but now the corporations and unions have no such limit.

While a little over the top, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann had a special comment yesterday and the scenarios he described yesterday may never happen - but certainly gives you something to think about:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34981476...tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14448
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:18 pm



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly recognizes the right of citizens to peaceably assemble and petition the government. I can't imagine how that doesn't apply to corporations, partnerships, unions, etc. This is long overdue.

I have to agree. The employees and shareholders of any corporation are arguably an assembled group of individuals with common interest. That simply can't be shot down legally.

Not to mention that all public entities, particularly those in the private sector, are taking a risk when they endorse political candidates and/or groups.

That said, I also agree with the notions that caps on overall campaign spending and a general ban on federal or state contracting with donors would be wise countermeasures in the spirit of checks and balances.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:02 pm



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28):
And that from someone who buys into all the GOP propoganda. You don't take the time to find out if it's true, but you expect others' to? Uh, OK.

So in other words you are admitting that when you walk into the voting booth you haven't taken the time to look at whose on the ballot and what issues are up for consideration. Why don't I have any trouble believing that.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 14448
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:07 pm



Quoting PNQIAD (Reply 31):

It remains ironic that real persons still face a limit on how much they can directly donate to a political campaign each season but now the corporations and unions have no such limit

That's exactly why total spending caps would be a reasonable countermeasure.

Quoting PNQIAD (Reply 31):
While a little over the top

A little? This is Olbermann we're talking about. 30 seconds in I saw all I needed to see.

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 30):
I wonder how soon before a Chinese, North Korean, or Iranian "business" starts a corporation in the US with 2 or 3 employees deposits a few billion dollars, and buys up 50% of the airwaves to advertise their position to push for, or rally against a candidate friendly or hostile to them?

This already happens. Tough in North Korea's case but the Chinese have plenty of corporate agents operating on US soil. For an example of Iranian influence, look no further than Press TV's broadcasting in the UK (they are essentially funded by the propaganda arm of the Iranian Foreign Ministry) and all the hand-wrangling that has brought.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9309
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:01 pm



Quoting PNQIAD (Reply 31):
While a little over the top, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann had a special comment yesterday and the scenarios he described yesterday may never happen - but certainly gives you something to think about:

A little? He called a group of peaceful protesters "poor, dumb, manipulated bastards" and a former vice presidential candidate a "tool." They guy is locked in a binary orbit with Glen Beck somewhere beyond Pluto.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
pnqiad
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:05 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:10 pm



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 34):
A little? This is Olbermann we're talking about. 30 seconds in I saw all I needed to see.



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 35):
A little? He called a group of peaceful protesters "poor, dumb, manipulated bastards" and a former vice presidential candidate a "tool." They guy is locked in a binary orbit with Glen Beck somewhere beyond Pluto.

I agree that he is over the top -but the issues he mentioned do not go away - hyperbole or not.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10153
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:10 pm

We've seen a lot of advertising related to health care reform - at one time the insurance companies were estimated to be spending $1 million a day.

Basically means that the bans didn't work, so the CS might as well toss the laws.

On the other hand it might be smart to change any tax laws that allows tax deductions on corporate political payments.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23569
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:27 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 4):
It is the responsibility of the voter to be informed. Just because someone is shouting doesn't mean you have to listien

*cough*rushlimbaugh*cough*foxnews*cough*

Corporations are not people. But, corporations can buy advertising that say "vote for Smith because XYZ" which only gives half the story. Then, the masses will keep that in mind when they step into the voting booth. Do you (on the right) honestly believe people will sit there and take the time to read the other side of an argument? No. If they did, there would be no incumbants. Half of the laws we have in place would never have been passed. But, people, by and large, don't look at the full story. Just what they are told.

Welcome to the corporate states of America! We the people just lost our voice and our vote!
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9309
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:50 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 38):
Corporations can buy advertising that say "vote for Smith because XYZ" which only gives half the story. Then, the masses will keep that in mind when they step into the voting booth. Do you (on the right) honestly believe people will sit there and take the time to read the other side of an argument?

Yes, I do not subscribe to the liberal notion of people as sheeple.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 38):
If they did, there would be no incumbants

Incumbents get re-elected because incumbents are often well-liked in their districts. The public loves it when their representative brings home money for bike trails, a bingo hall, or a new airport but hate it when any one of the other 434 representatives do it. That is why opinion polls for Congress as a whole hover below 30% while each individual representative is quite popular

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
We've seen a lot of advertising related to health care reform - at one time the insurance companies were estimated to be spending $1 million a day.

If you want to freeze out narrow, special interest groups like corporations and unions, the regulation of free speech is not the answer.

Try putting a cap on ALL federal expenditures at 10% of GDP per year, essentially cutting the government by two-thirds. When you have a massive government that drips with money, of course lobbying is going to be a lucrative industry. Starve the beast and there's no incentive to spend $1 million a day on lobbying efforts.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:51 pm



Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
Unions can't. Both corporations and unions have been (up until this decision) prevented from donating to campaigns. The ban on corporations started in 1907, the ban on unions started in the 40s.

And yet, corporations and more openly, unions, have been attempting to influence campaigns forever. In California, the teachers union blankets the waves with ads every time a law or proposition comes along that might influence their special interest. Corporations donate to PACs.
I'm not getting the hysteria. If anything, it will give more transparency.
 
texan
Posts: 4071
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:11 pm



Quoting Mir (Thread starter):
If you think the current system is corrupt, just wait until people get elected on the back of millions of dollars in corporate campaign donations.

That was happening even before this ruling, though. There were enough loopholes in the PAC laws that corporations donated to them nearly at will to influence elections. Corporations will still likely use PACs to influence elections instead of using the corporation's name. Thinking solely as a marketing person, would you rather have a political idea expressed by Texaco or Citizens United for Responsible Energy Use? We'll just have to wait and see.

On the other hand, we could use this as a springboard to force candidates to reveal their corporate donors. The current restrictions aren't enough! They should be forced to wear suits, skirts, blouses, and dresses emblazoned with their corporate sponsors, just like in NASCAR. "Well, I'd like to thank the Wal-Mart ExxonMobil Tyson Chicken Smith & Wesson National Republican Party. They really done us good and put us in a good position here. And if you like my hair, you should think about switching to Head & Shoulders."

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
texan
Posts: 4071
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:21 pm

Now THIS is interesting: CEOs to Hill - Quit Calling Us for Campaign Cash.

Basically, around 40 CEOs, including Delta and Hasbro, have sent a letter to Congressional leaders to approve taxpayer financing of political campaigns!

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:02 pm



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 39):
Yes, I do not subscribe to the liberal notion of people as sheeple.

Neither do most liberals, my friend. We also don't subscribe to the notion of people as cannon fodder for unnecessary conflicts, like Iraq.

Conservatives, I believe, see people as expendable assets, whether for a war or for corporations to walk all over. That's what I believe.

Quoting DXing (Reply 33):
So in other words you are admitting that when you walk into the voting booth you haven't taken the time to look at whose on the ballot and what issues are up for consideration.

I didn't mention me. I vote only on issues and candidates I know about. I was talking about you and your GOP lip-synching that you always do on here. If I don't know an issue or a candidate, I don't vote. It's a wasted vote if you don't have a clue, far as I'm concerned.

And that's why, DXing, I have voted for Republicans in the past. Never for president, but I have for Governor, Senator and other offices.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Ken777
Posts: 10153
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:03 pm



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 39):
Try putting a cap on ALL federal expenditures at 10% of GDP per year, essentially cutting the government by two-thirds.

So what goes first? The VA? Medicare and Social Security?

Now that corporations can donate as much as they want you KNOW that their goodies won't be cut a bloody penny?

How about all this money that is wasted on flu vaccines? Think of all the missiles we can buy if we don't waste money on vaccines!

And there is a lot of money to be made selling off national parks. There's probably oil under those parks and we need to get some royalties from American oil companies. Drill, Baby, Drill.

If we can get some good oil & gas royalties going from the national parks then it'll be possible to drop the tax rate to the same level as the lowest tax rate. SOrry, middle class wage/salary earners need not apply.

Sarcasm off
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5537
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:07 pm



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 39):
Yes, I do not subscribe to the liberal notion of people as sheeple.

You may not subscribe to it, but it's well proven. There are certainly some people who do their research, but a large chunk of the population believes whatever the TV tells them.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 39):
Starve the beast and there's no incentive to spend $1 million a day on lobbying efforts.

Except companies would lobby even harder to get what dollars are still available.



I don't really have a problem with this ruling as corporate America largely owns our government already.
 
slider
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:17 pm



Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
Unions can't. Both corporations and unions have been (up until this decision) prevented from donating to campaigns. The ban on corporations started in 1907, the ban on unions started in the 40s.

Unions have been violating Federal law for years in their political involvement. Goldwater used to rail against this—he was all for freedom of association, but did not condone the perversion of a union involuntarily using the dues of a man to be used in support of an agenda he may not agree with.

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 40):
I'm not getting the hysteria. If anything, it will give more transparency

This is a good point.

And I’ll add to it—if we have an engaged, involved electorate, it shouldn’t matter. I know the reality is that people are not fully involved, but at least there’s no subterfuge now. That has some validity because it might replace the shadowy 527 groups.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 43):
Conservatives, I believe, see people as expendable assets, whether for a war or for corporations to walk all over. That's what I believe.

I think your notion of conservatives is totally wrong. Conservatives believe in the innate value of the individual…hence the protections of liberty, freedom, opportunity for ALL. And true conservatism protects those rights at every end of the life spectrum because of the value of preserving individuals. And free speech applies to ALL of those individuals and groups of individuals.

I think there’s too much money in politics and hate campaign funding nonsense as it is. But fundamentally, SCOTUS essentially upheld the First Amendment. Imagine that.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8600
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:27 pm



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28):
Wrong. A few years back, the SCOTUS ruled that money is speech, and with this ruling, it means that corporations have more of voice than you and I ever could dream of-because they can throw money around now like it's candy to influence elections on the Federal level.

This decision makes the individual lose his political voice almost completely. You don't have money, you don't have a voice in influencing anything. This was one of the worst decisions the SCOTUS has handed down in a long, long time. It basically will be a field day of special interest of the likes you've never seen.

WRONG!

A corporation has never had, does not have, nor will it EVER have it's own voice. The corporation's "voice" is the voice of it's owners. And they have rights.

Like I said, corporations are paper. They do not have free will, they do not have a voice, they do not "do" anything. You don't throw Enron behind bars, you throw Skilling behind bars.

Your gag on people who assemble together is, and SHOULD always be illegal.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Ken777
Posts: 10153
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:39 pm



Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 45):
but a large chunk of the population believes whatever the TV tells them.

Or whatever pap Rush tosses out to the blindly faithful?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 47):
The corporation's "voice" is the voice of it's owners. And they have rights.

Owners would mean shareholders. The voice of corporations would be the executives lining up at bonus time. Far more important than taking care of the shareholders.

Quoting Slider (Reply 46):
I think your notion of conservatives is totally wrong. Conservatives believe in the innate value of the individual…hence the protections of liberty, freedom, opportunity for ALL. And true conservatism protects those rights at every end of the life spectrum because of the value of preserving individuals.

The innate value of the individual would mean universal care and development of individuals, including universal education and universal health care.

All I see these days are conservative Republicans calling for health insurance company care. I know that Bush/Cheney did jack squat about helping Veterans. And no child left behind was a PR stunt that didn't invest the funds that were needed. Maybe that money went to Iraq's War.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding

Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:40 pm



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 47):
WRONG!

A corporation has never had, does not have, nor will it EVER have it's own voice. The corporation's "voice" is the voice of it's owners. And they have rights.

I heartily disagree. SCOTUS has said that "money is speech". Who has more money than a multi-national? No one. If money is speech, then they have a louder voice than you or me ever could. That is power, and in a huge way. SCOTUS has affirmed that, and wrongly, I believe.

It's just another step that removes the common man from having any say in his/her government, and makes it so that only those with power and money have any influence. I think it was a bone-headed decision.
Work Right, Fly Hard

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cpd, directorguy, ltbewr, stackelberg, Thunderboltdrgn and 58 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos