Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

[rushmc 18]

Quote

It's a pretty fucked up decision.

I'd actually join one of the Tea Bag parties in protesting this travesty if they ever had the balls to do it.

Here's my problem with the situation. If "money is speech" then this gives the person with the most money the most media power. "Ok, cool. So what?", you ask. Well, the people with the most money on the planet don't live in this country. Further, they are the major holders of one of the biggest sources of news and information in this country. They control the news, they can now buy any politician they want and while they may have the money, we have the man power and silly willingness to fight their conflicts for them . . . that THEY created.

Here's the ugly potential, with this the next President could be under the control of Aramco.

Fuck that. I want my country back. I want it working for US, not some assholes in Saudi Arabia.

Not that we might not have had a couple in the past, but for fuck sake at least it was a little more subtle.

My reply to lawrocket fits your post to a tee

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

If we can handle Nazis and nutty religious people protesting at funerals, we can tolerate free speech before elections.

You're missing my point. The insane Supreme Court decision on thursday gives foreign owned companies more "freedom of speech" and more rights than actual human US citizens.

If you don't think there's something fundamentally wrong with that, I don't know what to say.

You feel pretty good about Roe v Wade dont you? I dont but you would say it is right and to suck it up.

How about Kelo? Agree with that?

Difference is the law just struck down gave an anvantage to one side. Now that advantage is gone. That is a good thing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

My reply to lawrocket fits your post to a tee

One question. Say "World Corp" based in "Richestontheplanetstan" was supporting candidate Commie Libbystein for President as well as half of the candidates for Congress. World Corp offers to pay premium prices to buy up all of the advertising airtime on our major networks and newspapers, leaving none available to any other candidates. Is that acceptable to you?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

If we can handle Nazis and nutty religious people protesting at funerals, we can tolerate free speech before elections.

You're missing my point. The insane Supreme Court decision on thursday gives foreign owned companies more "freedom of speech" and more rights than actual human US citizens.

If you don't think there's something fundamentally wrong with that, I don't know what to say.

I personally view criminal sanctions against somebody for airing political views to be fundamentally wrong.

"Hmm. I'd like to point out how candidate x's policies would destroy me, but it would be a felony."

You do not see that as a fundamental problem? Even though I have problems with unions I do not believe that they should be prevented from airing political viewpoints - simply because they are unions.

I also see a benefit - perhaps politicians don't need to spend as much time and money getting money from the corporations. The corporation can just say what it wants to say.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

My reply to lawrocket fits your post to a tee

One question. Say "World Corp" based in "Richestontheplanetstan" was supporting candidate Commie Libbystein for President as well as half of the candidates for Congress. World Corp offers to pay premium prices to buy up all of the advertising airtime on our major networks and newspapers, leaving none available to any other candidates. Is that acceptable to you?

Yes. I would have a problem with that.

My subjective belief is that I have a bigger problem with, if you say anything the power of the government willbe brought down upon you for committing such a crime."

There is a solution. Amend the Constitution to strike the first amendment.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

There is a solution. Amend the Constitution to strike the first amendment.

They could clarify the term "speech".

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

There is a solution. Amend the Constitution to strike the first amendment.

Or amend it to clarify that it applies to American citizens and legal residents. It could then be left up to the legislatures what expression liberties are accorded to visitors and or non human legal entities.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

There is a solution. Amend the Constitution to strike the first amendment.

They could clarify the term "speech".

What? The conveyance of an idea? It seems that the whole discussion of the problems with this lie with the potential threats that people see as a result of free speech.

Should we simply arrest anybody and hold them hostage because there is the possibility that this person could cause a car accident?

Should we disarm police because they may engage in an injustified shooting?

Should we presume people guilty and make them prove innocence? This would make it much easier to ensure that the guilty not go free.

Speedy trial before a jury? Screw that. It may interfere with peoples' work schedules.


These rules are placed there so that we allow people to engage in the free exchange of ideas without the threat of government punishment. Imagine speaking out against the Iraq war during an election cycle. Imagine being idrankwhat, a Personal Corporation, and commenting on this very board. You would have committed a felony.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

My reply to lawrocket fits your post to a tee

One question. Say "World Corp" based in "Richestontheplanetstan" was supporting candidate Commie Libbystein for President as well as half of the candidates for Congress. World Corp offers to pay premium prices to buy up all of the advertising airtime on our major networks and newspapers, leaving none available to any other candidates. Is that acceptable to you?

I didn't see where the 'equal coverage' aspect was reversed in any of the precises I've read on the decision - do you have info to the contrary?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

One question. Say "World Corp" based in "Richestontheplanetstan" was supporting candidate Commie Libbystein for President as well as half of the candidates for Congress. World Corp offers to pay premium prices to buy up all of the advertising airtime on our major networks and newspapers, leaving none available to any other candidates. Is that acceptable to you?

Given the ad dollar flow right now, it would probably be great! For once money would flow into the US.

Not a realistic scenario, however.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

They could clarify the term "speech".

What? The conveyance of an idea?

SPAM is nothing more than the conveyance of an idea. If it were not for filters and moderators you and I would never be able to have an exchange such as this one. I would never hear lawrocket's take on this decision if I had to sift through 100,000 messages to maybe stumble across yours or especially the new jumper who just joined the forum. He could have the intellect of Thomas Jefferson and we'd never get exposed to it because Pfizer wants to sell me a drug.

I like Justice Stevens' quote:

"While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Given the ad dollar flow right now, it would probably be great! For once money would flow into the US.

Great. Then we'd have an ignorant populace being "represented" in Washington by corporate lobbyists.

Heyyyyyy......wait a minute.....

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

They could clarify the term "speech".

What? The conveyance of an idea?

SPAM is nothing more than the conveyance of an idea. If it were not for filters and moderators you and I would never be able to have an exchange such as this one. I would never hear lawrocket's take on this decision if I had to sift through 100,000 messages to maybe stumble across yours or especially the new jumper who just joined the forum. He could have the intellect of Thomas Jefferson and we'd never get exposed to it because Pfizer wants to sell me a drug.

I like Justice Stevens' quote:

"While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

Stevens has every right to be wrong. He is in the minority in this case and he is wrong IMO

The unions now have compition. The left hates this

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I didn't see where the 'equal coverage' aspect was reversed in any of the precises I've read on the decision - do you have info to the contrary?

I've got an idea. Why don't we continue this discussion by using the commercial airtime during the Superbowl!

[quade 3]

Quote

The unions now have compition. The left hates this

Good lord you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

You might want to check out exactly who it was that supported this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

The unions now have compition. The left hates this

Good lord you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

You might want to check out exactly who it was that supported this.

I know exatly what I am talking about. I know who brought the case

Regardless of the comments, the unions were able to use "voter education" adds. Every one else had to use other methods like move on

Next insult?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I didn't see where the 'equal coverage' aspect was reversed in any of the precises I've read on the decision - do you have info to the contrary?

I've got an idea. Why don't we continue this discussion by using the commercial airtime during the Superbowl!

I'll take that as a 'no', then.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

SPAM is nothing more than the conveyance of an idea.

Spam is commercial speech whose costs are primarily borne by the recipients, rather than the sender. That makes it an outlier from protected forms.

[quade 3]

Quote

How are orgs like the NRA, "corporate money?"

How is it not? The NRA is a corporation.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

How are orgs like the NRA, "corporate money?"

How is it not? The NRA is a corporation.

because only a liar would refer to something funded by millions of members as corporate money.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How are orgs like the NRA, "corporate money?"

How is it not? The NRA is a corporation.

because only a liar would refer to something funded by millions of members as corporate money.

So, you're denying it's a corporation? Really?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How are orgs like the NRA, "corporate money?"

How is it not? The NRA is a corporation.

because only a liar would refer to something funded by millions of members as corporate money.

So, you're denying it's a corporation? Really?

It's a 501(c)(4). It's formal name is the National Rifle Association of America. I don't know if that falls into my common understanding of a corporation any more than I think AAA is a corporation...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 3]

You guys might wanna look up the term in a dictionary then, maybe wikipedia and if you don't like that, maybe check in with a lawyer or two. Yes, it's absolutely a corporation.

BTW, it files as a 501(c)(4) specifically so it can get around campaign contribution laws. That's one of the main advantages of filing any corporation as a 501(c)(4), but they're still corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)#501.28c.29.284.29

The "hilarious" thing about 501(c)(4) corporations is the category is supposed to give tax exempt status to non-profit "social welfare" organizations.

OMG, the NRA is socialist!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Stevens has every right to be wrong. He is in the minority in this case and he is wrong IMO

The unions now have compition. The left hates this

How is Stevens wrong? And why aren't the tea partiers more vocal about this? After all, they claim that they want to take Washington back from the special interests. This decision will help solidify the special interest hold on our government.
I don't care if Boss Tweed has a (D) or an (R) behind his name. I don't want him running the show.

[quade 3]

Quote

And why aren't the tea partiers more vocal about this? After all, they claim that they want to take Washington back from the special interests.

The answer ought to be obvious, The Tea Party(s) are frauds whipped up by a corporation to begin with, promoted by its talking heads on its "news". Oh, at a certain level well down the food chain there are people that legitimately believe its a grass roots movement, but the reality is it's astroturf.

The day this decision came down any organization that really wanted to "take back America" would have been storming the gates.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver