Conservative Justices Sell The Nation to Corps

Originally posted by ziggystrange

Originally posted by jeffkingman
I know the problem, I know it sucks, but you can't start taking rights away just because some people can abuse it.

It really was a no-lose solution for the supreme court.

Either they rule against the film makers, and the whole thing turns into a big stink about them restricting our rights, or we go into where we're at now.

It's not the end of the word. Really.

Jeff,

You are saying that it's ok because it offers relief to something politically driven, and specifically designed to pervert elections, to make a ruling that changes the American system by giving foreign powers the ability to buy the vote with unlimited funds?

That is the most insane, and moronic defense I have heard yet.

Sorry friend but you are just refusing to see what it was that happened.

The world did not end, just the citizens ability to pick their representatives.

Completely absurd.

Ziggy Strange

Yes, yes, it would be a massive problem, but being about to buy advertisements for a campaign doesn't mean much in a country that's become so desensitized to advertisement.

I have faith that the average american citizen would care more about a movie poster than a poster for something they've already made their minds up on.

In my experience, I've found that advertisements don't really help with peoples' decisions on a president. A lot of time the decision is already made before election season starts.

When corporations start dishing out bribes, and start twisting things to their own end is when we should change things.

I again go back to my second post: We can't limit rights just because someone can abuse them. It's like saying we should take guns away because people can buy a gun and go on a shooting rampage. It's silly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think corporations should be able to screw with elections, but at the same time I'd rather they blow their metric #ton of money on advertising than let them sit on their asses and get even richer than they where two minutes ago.

Originally posted by jeffkingman

J - I know the problem, I know it sucks, but you can't start taking rights away just because some people can abuse it.

J - It really was a no-lose solution for the supreme court.

J - Either they rule against the film makers, and the whole thing turns into a big stink about them restricting our rights, or we go into where we're at now.

J - It's not the end of the word. Really.


Z - You are saying that it's ok because it offers relief to something politically driven, and specifically designed to pervert elections, to make a ruling that changes the American system by giving foreign powers the ability to buy the vote with unlimited funds?

Z - That is the most insane, and moronic defense I have heard yet.

Z - Sorry friend but you are just refusing to see what it was that happened.

Z - The world did not end, just the citizens ability to pick their representatives.

Z - Completely absurd.

Ziggy Strange

J - Yes, yes, it would be a massive problem, but being about to buy advertisements for a campaign doesn't mean much in a country that's become so desensitized to advertisement.

Z - You sound exactly, I mean frighteningly similar to a person I debated just a couple of days ago. Just like you, he had just registered. But let me respond.

Z - Buying advertisement before a campaign is not the problem. It's who now can spend however much they want in our political process. Whom in this case being foreign agencies.

J - I have faith that the average american citizen would care more about a movie poster than a poster for something they've already made their minds up on.

Z - Irrelevant, faith has no bearing on any of this. Do you know someone named Jaundice?

J - In my experience, I've found that advertisements don't really help with peoples' decisions on a president. A lot of time the decision is already made before election season starts.

Z - Really? I thought the reason billions were spent was because they sway opinions. Specially the ones that are full of lies, and deception. But what exactly is the experience you mention?

J - When corporations start dishing out bribes, and start twisting things to their own end is when we should change things.

Z - That's exactly what Jaundice would have said. 2 falsehoods are required in NLP to establish the concept as plausible. You so cleverly omit the fact that Corporations and other groups have been bribing politicians or their equivalents since the beginning of time.

J - I again go back to my second post: We can't limit rights just because someone can abuse them.

Z - I agree you can't limit rights, however we were given a tool with which to disambiguate what rights are specifically in a given scenario when we encounter ambiguities. Yelling fire in a crowded theater comes to mind.

J - It's like saying we should take guns away because people can buy a gun and go on a shooting rampage. It's silly.

Z - Very well placed mention of the second amendment, very clever. But this conversation has nothing to do with that. This is another tactic my friend Jaundice used. It's purpose is to validate a negative truism by introducing a divisive issue to press emotional buttons. Who trained you, I'd get my money back.

J - Don't get me wrong, I don't think corporations should be able to screw with elections, but at the same time I'd rather they blow their metric #ton of money on advertising than let them sit on their asses and get even richer than they where two minutes ago.

Z - So it's preferable that they become propaganda machines, rather than profitable enterprises. Engels, or Trotsky might have said that drunk one night, but never wrote it. Are you a confused Marxist caught somewhere between Engels and Trotsky?

Ziggy Strange

Z - You sound exactly, I mean frighteningly similar to a person I debated just a couple of days ago. Just like you, he had just registered. But let me respond.

Z - Buying advertisement before a campaign is not the problem. It's who now can spend however much they want in our political process. Whom in this case being foreign agencies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it didn't allow direct contributions to campaigns, and only allowed stuff like advertising?

Z - Irrelevant, faith has no bearing on any of this. Do you know someone named Jaundice?

I do not. I can see how it would seem kind of goofy that two people registered just to argue this, but this is an important thing that just happened, so I'm not surprised people are signing up just to argue one way or the other.

But faith does have to have some importance. If (and excuse me for making such a crazy comparison, but it's the best one I can think of atm) we don't have faith that people wont go crazy with guns, or that people wont try to hijack every plane we get on then we'll constantly be living in fear taking things away because we can't trust ourselves with it.

Z - Really? I thought the reason billions were spent was because they sway opinions. Specially the ones that are full of lies, and deception. But what exactly is the experience you mention?

I get REALLY into politics. Whenever we get close to an election, I'm always "that guy" that wont shut up about it. I go out of my way to talk to people and get my favorite candidate out there. Commercials don't have nearly as much sway as a person talking to you in person.

Z - That's exactly what Jaundice would have said. 2 falsehoods are required in NLP to establish the concept as plausible. You so cleverly omit the fact that Corporations and other groups have been bribing politicians or their equivalents since the beginning of time.

And regular people bribe politicians. Should we limit them too?

Z - So it's preferable that they become propaganda machines, rather than profitable enterprises. Engels, or Trotsky might have said that drunk one night, but never wrote it. Are you a confused Marxist caught somewhere between Engels and Trotsky?

Nah.
I'm just saying if I had to choose between letting them blow their money on commercials I'll barely ever see, or taking their rights away, I'll pick the commercials.

Oh, the world is ending! Oh, this is so horrible! Yada, yada, yada!

Quit the bi*ching and do something. You can start by going to the Fair Elections NOW website and reading about it.

Originally posted by inthesticks
Oh, the world is ending! Oh, this is so horrible! Yada, yada, yada!

Quit the bi*ching and do something. You can start by going to the Fair Elections NOW website and reading about it.

Did you read the OP?

This is a thread meant to confront Conservatives, and Republicans for electing the Presidents the appointed the Justices that did this.

It's also meant to rebut the arguments they pose.

Why are you here?

You are the one that is obstructing the flow of the tread.
Discuss it, or go to some other thread, this one will end when it does,or get closed.

Ziggy Strange

Originally posted by jeffkingman



J - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it didn't allow direct contributions to campaigns, and only allowed stuff like advertising?

Z - Not so fast, this undid over 100 years of regulation, how far the implications go, is too soon to tell.

J - I do not. I can see how it would seem kind of goofy that two people registered just to argue this, but this is an important thing that just happened, so I'm not surprised people are signing up just to argue one way or the other.

Z - It was the use of intentional obfuscation techniques, but you could just have gotten lucky, or you are a natural.

J - But faith does have to have some importance. If (and excuse me for making such a crazy comparison, but it's the best one I can think of atm) we don't have faith that people wont go crazy with guns, or that people wont try to hijack every plane we get on then we'll constantly be living in fear taking things away because we can't trust ourselves with it.

Z - There you go again, talking faith (religion, morality) in the context of guns (second amendment), and now you add terrorism, and fear. You must be a natural.


J - I get REALLY into politics. Whenever we get close to an election, I'm always "that guy" that wont shut up about it.

Z - As you can see here, me too.

J - I go out of my way to talk to people and get my favorite candidate out there. Commercials don't have nearly as much sway as a person talking to you in person.

Z - Correct maybe. It depends on the demographics.

J - And regular people bribe politicians. Should we limit them too?

Z - Yes it's illegal.

J - Nah.
I'm just saying if I had to choose between letting them blow their money on commercials I'll barely ever see, or taking their rights away, I'll pick the commercials.

Z - I guess you are a confused Marxist, you just don't see it yet.


Ziggy Strange



[edit on 22-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

Ziggy,

I found this article that I think is relevant
but has more information on specifics.

Not sure how to post and source yet. Hope it's ok.

Newsweek

Stuart Taylor Jr.
The End of Restraint

Alito, Roberts, and judicial modesty.
Published Jan 22, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Feb 1, 2010


The End of Restraint

From the article...

The Supreme Court's five conservatives are properly protective of American citizens' First Amendment rights to spend as much of their money as they wish on political speech, both individually and by funding nonprofit advocacy groups. But this was no justification for the court's blockbuster, precedent-smashing Jan. 21 decision unleashing corporate executives to pour unlimited amounts of stockholders' money—without their consent—into ads supporting or attacking federal candidates. Indeed the 5–4 decision would allow any big company to spend a fortune attacking candidates whom many, or even most, of its stockholders would rather support. And corporations—including multinationals controlled by foreigners—will spend money on elections not to advance the political views of their stockholders, but to seek economic advantage.

Continued

So the court's decision strikes me as a perverse interpretation of the First Amendment, one that will at best increase the already unhealthy political power of big businesses (and big unions, too), and at worst swamp our elections under a new deluge of special-interest cash. More ominously still, Citizens United v. FEC lends credence to liberal claims that all five of the more conservative justices are "judicial activists," the same imprecation that conservatives have for so long—and often justifiably—hurled at liberal justices.

Judicial activists—at least as I define them—are judges who are unduly eager to aggrandize their own power and impose their own policy preferences on the electorate. They invoke farfetched interpretations of the Constitution to sweep aside democratically adopted laws and deeply rooted societal traditions. I'd hoped that Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who came across in their confirmation hearings as believers in judicial modesty, would bring a healthy dose of restraint to a court long populated by activists, and would thereby shun sharp lurches to the ideological right. It appears that I misjudged them.

for more see the link above.

In all fairness he goes on to criticize other Justices.

From the article sourced above.

The court could, and should, have exempted nonprofit ideological groups without disturbing the ban on business corporations and union campaign spending. But all nine justices passed up the opportunity to carve out such a pragmatic, principled decision. The liberals thereby demonstrated that they are all too ready to sacrifice the First Amendment rights of real citizens who want to pool their money for election spending. But the conservatives—all too eager to expand the political power of big business in the guise of protecting First Amendment rights—are in the driver's seat.

For more see link above

He still says the blame for this lies with the Conservatives.


CyberStray

reply to post by ziggystrange


Did you read the OP? This is a thread meant to confront Conservatives, and Republicans for electing the Presidents the appointed the Justices that did this.

Yes, I read the OP and yes, I know this was thread was meant to confront conservatives and Republicans for electing the Presidents the appointed the Justices that did this.

It's also meant to rebut the arguments they pose.

McCain/Feingold Finance Reform was UNCONSTITUTIONAL - period. What the SCOTUS did was reverse parts of it. That is FACT whether you like it or not.

Now, do I think corporations should have the same standing as a real, live person? Hell no! But that was done long before any of us were even born, so I don't know that there is anything we can do about it now.


Why are you here?

I am here because I have as much right to read and post here as you do!
And I am SICK to death of the whining when there is a solution IF we can all get over pointing fingers and JOIN TOGETHER and try to stop the corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle in DC. The republicans have done some pretty disgusting unconstitutional stuff, as have the democrats. There is plenty of blame to go around, so stop acting like everything is the fault of conservatives.

You want to stop the corporations, unions, special interests from buying votes? Well, so do I and I am willing to spend the time and effort to try and find out how we can do that. Fair Elections NOW is a start. Is it perfect? NO, but it's a start.

You are the one that is obstructing the flow of the tread. Discuss it, or go to some other thread, this one will end when it does,or get closed.

Oh please, how am I obstructing the flow of the thread. Because I linked a website that offers a solution.

So, are you more interested in constantly slamming Conservatives OR working toward a solution?





Ziggy Strange

Originally posted by inthesticks



I - Yes, I read the OP and yes, I know this was thread was meant to confront conservatives and Republicans for electing the Presidents the appointed the Justices that did this.

Z - But that did not stop you from taking up an off topic argument.

I - McCain/Feingold Finance Reform was UNCONSTITUTIONAL - period. What the SCOTUS did was reverse parts of it. That is FACT whether you like it or not.

Z - That's not all they did, and "that" is the problem.

I - Now, do I think corporations should have the same standing as a real, live person? Hell no! But that was done long before any of us were even born, so I don't know that there is anything we can do about it now.

Z - I do, we can reverse this ruling and restore the laws passed by Congress via due process. Corporations are now Super Citizens.

I - I am here because I have as much right to read and post here as you do!
And I am SICK to death of the whining when there is a solution IF we can all get over pointing fingers and JOIN TOGETHER and try to stop the corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle in DC. The republicans have done some pretty disgusting unconstitutional stuff, as have the democrats. There is plenty of blame to go around, so stop acting like everything is the fault of conservatives.

Z - You have the right to read, and post as long as you are on topic and within T & C . A look at your threads and posts tells as much about your politics as it does mine. You are here to boost your party identification.
I'm here to discredit you. But I do it on topic, unlike you. As to you being sick and tired of whining, that's hypocritical given all the whining in the last year has been Conservative/ Right/ Libertarian / Tea Party / Birther.

J - You want to stop the corporations, unions, special interests from buying votes? Well, so do I and I am willing to spend the time and effort to try and find out how we can do that. Fair Elections NOW is a start. Is it perfect? NO, but it's a start.

Z - Your way is not the only way, I don't believe in Conservative ideals. This thread has a purpose, as does the site you listed. I agree we should go there and participate. But I'm not done exposing ignorant people who are still as we debate, blaming everything including this on Obama.


I - Oh please, how am I obstructing the flow of the thread. Because I linked a website that offers a solution.

Z - Just by being off topic, and ranting about the shortcomings of the entire posting group on this thread. It's called thread derailment. You can kill a thread through logic, but not by whining off topic.

I - So, are you more interested in constantly slamming Conservatives OR working toward a solution?

Z - At this time I want to slam everyone responsible for Electing, and supporting the Presidents that appointed the 5 Justices, specially Roberts.


Z - I do want a solution, but if we just follow along the berry patch like you suggest, the perps are going to get away and do it again. I want it on the record that all these Conservative ideals, and Republican concepts, actually led us to Americas greatest Constitutional crisis.


Ziggy Strange


[edit on 23-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

Maybe I'm missing something here.

I am incorporated.

Why am I NOT entitled to 1st amendment rights that some other persons/corporations were entitled to before yesterday?

(in most countries, a corporation is legally a "person")

Why did these media corporations enjoy the right to spend or publish freely about their preferred candidates, but not me?


"First tier" media corporations (exempt from "campaign finance" restrictions prior to 1/21/10):
Time Warner
Disney
Bertelsmann
Viacom
News Corporation
TCI
General Electric
Sony
Columbia
TriStar Pictures
Seagram
Universal
CBS
New York Times Co.
Hearst
Comcast
Gannett
CNN
Headline News
CNNfn
TBS
TNT
Turner Classic Movies
Comedy Central
Court TV
HBO
Cinemax
PrimeStar
Warner Brothers
New Line Cinema
Time
People
Sports Illustrated
Time-Life Books
Warner Music Group
Six Flags
Capital Cities/ABC
Miramax
Buena Vista
Fairchild Publications
Chilton Publications;
Hyperion Books
Hollywood Records
Mammoth Records
Walt Disney Records
Univision

"Second Tier" media corporations:
# Westinghouse
# Advance Publications
# Gannett
# Cox Enterprises
# Times-Mirror
# Comcast
# McGraw Hill
# Reader's Digest
# Knight-Ridder
# Dow Jones
# New York Times Co.
# Tribune Co.
# Hearst
# Washington Post Co.
# Cablevision
# DirecTV (Owned by General Motors)
# DreamWorks
# Thomson
# Rogers Communications
# Hollinger
# Cisneros Group
# Globo
# Clarin
# Televisa
# Havas
# Reed Elsevier
# EMI
# Hachette
# Reuters
# Kirch Group
# Granada Group
# BBC
# Axel Springer
# Canal Plus
# CLT
# Pearson PLC
# United News & Media
# Carlton Communications
# Mediaset
# Kinnevik
# Television Francais 1
# Verlagsgruppe Bauer
# Wolters Kluwer
# RCS Editori Spa
# VNU
# Prisa Group
# Antena 3
# CEP Communications
# NHK
# Fuji Television
# Nippon Television Network
# Cheil Jedang
# Tokyo Broadcasting System
# Modi
# Asahi National Broadcasting Co.
# Toho Company
# PBL
# TVB International
# Chinese Entertainment Television
# Asia Broadcasting and Communica-tions Network
# ABS-CBN
# Doordarshan
# Chinese Central Television


These "media corporations" were exempt from the McCain- Feingold and prior restrictions.

Why? What makes them so special?

There is no reason for one "group" of people to have special privileges under the Constitution at the expense of others.

In the U.S., a "corporation" is a "person." Learn something.

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 23-1-2010 by jdub297]

Originally posted by jdub297
[edit on 23-1-2010 by jdub297]

J - Maybe I'm missing something here. I am incorporated.

Z - You are missing the significance of the problem. Most of all you are missing the significance of the problem to you specifically. I'm incorporated in 2 states, 6 Corps in all. Sure I want as much as I can get. Both in assets, and my ability to donate, as I wish. Self interest, Capitalism. I get it.

J - Why am I NOT entitled to 1st amendment rights that some other persons/corporations were entitled to before yesterday?

Z - Precisely because of yesterdays decision, your rights just were made null and void, unless you are an international conglomerate. You had some rights before under the law, now under the law, your rigths are superceded by anyone with more money than you. All the protections legally legislated for you since 1902, were wiped away in one stroke. You don't get it yet but you will. The biggest thing you don't consider is that now, foreign interests only need to own, or purchase American Corporations/stocks, and buy the elected officials, legally.

J - (in most countries, a corporation is legally a "person")

Z - True

J - Why did these media corporations enjoy the right to spend or publish freely about their preferred candidates, but not me?
"First Tier"
snip
"Second Tier"
snip
These "media corporations" were exempt from the McCain- Feingold and prior restrictions.

Z - They are Media Corporations. They have more "reach" than you, and you had less "regulation" than they did. Is that fair? I don't know. I think I understand why they would be subject to laws given the nature of media. Now they have less regulation than you do. You should be freaking out.

J - Why? What makes them so special?

Z - The Press had demonstrated a penchant for slander, and libel, as well as character assassination, also fraudulent practices, and other criminal activities. The system worked, and began regulating what the media could and could not do. Precedents were set, even in the SCOTUS. The Media evolved, so did the laws. However the Freedom of the Press had to be maintained. The Press needed special deferment from some of the laws governing other type of Corporations, or there would not have been freedom of the press.

J - There is no reason for one "group" of people to have special privileges under the Constitution at the expense of others.

Z - Not true. It is not written in it, but it is embodied in the spirit in which it was written. It is a living document. Intended to evolve as we do.

A child has privileges at the expense of others. To assure "due process" moneyless arrestees facing trial, have to be given free counsel. Without representation there would be no justice. Negating the suspects right to a fair trial is unconstitutional. Those are the types of reasons why some have more rights than others at times.

J - In the U.S., a "corporation" is a "person." Learn something.

Z - In the U.S., a "corporation" is a "Legal person" Learn something. Legal Person Corporation


J - Deny ignorance!

Z - Practice what you preach

Ziggy Strange

reply to post by ziggystrange

J - Why did these media corporations enjoy the right to spend or publish freely about their preferred candidates, but not me?
"First Tier"
snip
"Second Tier"
snip
These "media corporations" were exempt from the McCain- Feingold and prior restrictions.

Z - They are Media Corporations. They have more "reach" than you, and you had less "regulation" than they did. Is that fair? I don't know. I think I understand why they would be subject to laws given the nature of media. Now they have less regulation than you do. You should be freaking out.

You have no idea what the SCOTUS decided, do you?

Media corporations have been free to spend for or on behalf of a candidate or campaign all along. Now, ANY corporation can do so.

Strictly in compliance with any rational reading of the 1st amendment.

J - Why? What makes them so special?

Z - The Press had demonstrated a penchant for slander, and libel, as well as character assassination, also fraudulent practices, and other criminal activities. The system worked, and began regulating what the media could and could not do. Precedents were set, even in the SCOTUS. The Media evolved, so did the laws. However the Freedom of the Press had to be maintained. The Press needed special deferment from some of the laws governing other type of Corporations, or there would not have been freedom of the press.

This is nonsense. "The freedom of the press" is in your imagination. The 1st amendment speaks in terms of "freedom of speech," primarily and of the press, secondarily.

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.

MY RIGHTS have at least as much precedence as Rupert Murdoch's or Chris Matthews'.

J - There is no reason for one "group" of people to have special privileges under the Constitution at the expense of others.

Z - Not true. It is not written in it, but it is embodied in the spirit in which it was written. It is a living document. Intended to evolve as we do.

More nonsense. "Res ipsa loquitor."

A child has privileges at the expense of others. To assure "due process" moneyless arrestees facing trial, have to be given free counsel. Without representation there would be no justice. Negating the suspects right to a fair trial is unconstitutional. Those are the types of reasons why some have more rights than others at times.

God, save us from our schools!

"some have more rights than others at times" is complete and utter nonsense. You have no idea what the rule of law, the Bill of Rights, or the law of Daylight Savings Time mean.

Get a life.

People who do not understand American History or Constitutional jurisprudence have no business on a thread such as this.

Deny Ignorance!

jw

[edit on 23-1-2010 by jdub297]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by ziggystrange
reply to post by jdub297

 

You are wrong on all points.

Actually, I'm quite on point and correct. You, however, are upset to be lost.

Your problem is you only know one way to debate,

The only way to debate is from fact and knowledge of circumstance.

By yelling, and calling people names.

This has not happened; I do not know your name and have no name for you.

I know many names for people like you, though. Not relevant here.

You don't understand squat. Posting pieces of the constitution hop scotch is a crutch. Means nothing. Get it!

Actually, I know all about the original suit, appellate decision and SCOT decision. I know what the regulations on campaign finance were before and after McCain-Feingold.

I also know that "media corporations" had free rein to spend as they saw fit for a candidate or cause, while I and my corporate self did not.

Now I can.

You are either ignorant, or plain dumb. For sure arrogant.

Your fear becomes evident in your inability to respond in substance and resort to ad hominem. How sad.

You ignore my explanation, and indict with baseless logic. Brilliant thinking Einstein.

???????????????

Freedom of the press is directly connected to freedom of speech, only an idiot would deny that. But to you is a gotcha moment. That's why I posted the link about legal person. To give you a taste of how you come off.

No "idiot" has denied that; can you show me where that happened? A corporation is a legal person.

You want to argue BS, when the issue at hand is just not what you are blabbing about. You understood nothing about the decision, or you are lying.

The "decision" is that all corporations stand on equal ground in political campaign expenditures. Did we miss something?

You think I ignored your last post to me, because I'm afraid to debate, You? Wrong again pal, your just too dense to debate.

You have no idea what I think. There is nothing to debate with you.

Your're a moron with delusions if intellectualism.

I'm a daddy, I work every day, and I think for myself. You are entitled to your own opinions; I'm quite happy with my status and abilities.

Go waste someone elses time, The last time you crossed the line I hit the alert button. Do it again and I'll do the same.

No one forced you to respond. If you do not like my posts, ignore them.

You obviously you ignore rules, just go off like a teed off 8 year old.

Get a life, and a brain. post all you want if you make sens I may respond otherwise, you can site and spin big mouth.

How sad.

My facts stand uncontested.

Deny ignorance!

jw

Originally posted by CyberStray
reply to post by jdub297

 

Dude,
You are full of it, and you just got owned.

You are sadly mistaken.
I am 100% supported by fact.
Did you go to school with Ziggy?

Deny ignorance!

jw

reply to post by jdub297


One example of your lack of understanding

"Campaign contributions ruling stymies states"

Ian Urbina, New York Times

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Linl to article

Sound constitutional to you?

Ziggy Strange

reply to post by jdub297


Another example.

Read the dissent at the bottom.

Money Talks


Money talks
Supreme Court decision will unleash special-interest dollars in elections
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Jan. 22, 2010, 8:26PM


Thanks to a sweeping and ill-considered 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority, corporations will now have the same rights as citizens to support candidates through independent expenditures. With this action, the court has effectively undermined the influence of individuals and parties on electoral outcomes, while vastly increasing the clout of business behemoths and their lobbyist representatives to influence and intimidate legislators to support their agendas. If the lawmaker doesn't play ball, he or she can be threatened with an unregulated financial blitz come election time.

The court's ruling came in a case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that centered on a conservative advocacy group's expenditures to publicize an anti-Hillary Clinton movie shortly before last year's Democratic presidential primaries. Current federal law bans such corporate expenditures for communications targeting individual candidates 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.

In its ruling, the majority reversed previous high court precedents backing federal and state laws banning direct payouts from corporate treasuries to influence elections. Although the ruling does not affect a ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates, it will likely stimulate further challenges to those statutes. Under current law, corporations can give regulated amounts of money through political action committees to officeholders and candidates.

The majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argues that corporations have the same guaranteed First Amendment rights as individuals. “By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others,” wrote Justice Kennedy, “the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker's voice.”

In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens criticized the notion that the framers of the Constitution had any intent to equate corporate and individual rights. “Unlike our colleagues,” wrote Stevens, “they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right of free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans they had in mind.” Justice Stevens dryly noted that while American democracy has imperfections, “few outside the majority on this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”

The ruling's real-world impact will be to increase the already bloated influence of corporate lobbyists in Congress and our state legislatures. A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in Washington should immediately begin crafting legislation to undo the damage inflicted by the court's decision.

End quote

You are trying to tell me you know everything.
Obviously you are factually challenged.

Ziggy Strange

You know, as much as I hate this, I just had this thought; if the World Bank and the IMF destroy whole nations, usually the poorer ones, with our help and through the economic and political structures...then technically haven't we been screwed at our own game?

My, how the tables have turned. Karma IS a bitch, isn't it?

reply to post by jdub297


Just a snippet from the Washington Post

Link to source

By Dan Eggen and Ben Pershing
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 23, 2010

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee head, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, are working with the White House to craft a new campaign finance bill. They are almost certain to call for strengthened disclosure requirements for companies that directly sponsor ad campaigns, and they may push for requiring shareholders to approve political expenditures by publicly traded companies. They are also studying ways to prohibit campaign spending by corporations such as American International Group or General Motors that received federal bailout money, as well as companies that have federal contracts or registered lobbyists.

Democrats are also eyeing restrictions on U.S. companies that are subsidiaries of foreign-owned corporations; they believe the public will be outraged by the possibility of foreign influence in U.S. election campaigns. The high court's majority opinion avoided addressing possible implications for foreign-owned firms, which are barred from direct participation in U.S. elections but can use their American subsidiaries to form political action committees.

The subsidiaries now appear free to spend as much as they wish on ads targeting specific U.S. election candidates, and critics said the opinion could be applied even more broadly.

"Do you really want the Chinese or any other country to be able to spend money on our elections?" Van Hollen asked.

Ziggy Strange