Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2248
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

Post by Upsetter » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:59 pm

The only application of the laws struck down to a book would be to postpone its release till after an election if the publisher chose to try and release it during the 30-60 day ban on corp interference in elections. That is what the movie ran afoul of, it was made no problem, it was released in theaters just fine, but then they wanted to make a hard advertising run on it and run it for free on cable on demand immediately prior to the primary. They sought out an advisory opinion from the fec and were shot down as it ran afoul of the above mentioned portion of the campaign finance laws. It is notable that the decision went way beyond the arguments the parties made, much less appealed on (the challenge was as applied, the decision decided to invalidate the entire law, most of which wasnt even at issue), which was more shocking than breaking the two case precedent. After this decision, scalia and the other judicial activism whiners better never utter a word again, this was a clear cut case of judicial activism regardless of its merits from a 1st amendment perspective.

User avatar
BigCliff
Posts: 5925
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 am
Location: SanAntonyo

Re: Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

Post by BigCliff » Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:13 am

Plow wrote:
BigCliff wrote:
Plow wrote:The Democrats give terrorist full rights why not foreign corporation?
If you're so right about all this, why do you have to keep making shit up?
What's made up?
Giving terrorists full rights. Trying a foreigner in our courts does not give them full rights, any more that treating an illegal immigrant in an emergency room does.

I do agree with Rycho's idea that if Unions can spend freely then corporations should be able to as well. (Though I'm pretty sure corporations have a bit more means to hold influence.)
Buy better hooks and bourbon.

Image

User avatar
Plow
Posts: 5059
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Deep South Everywhere

Re: Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

Post by Plow » Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:15 am

Postponing free speech is restricting (abridging) free speech. It’s just temporary censorship and unacceptable IMO.
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.
The ruling was a clear case of upholding the intent of the constitution and not judicial activism. I’m surprised it was not unanimous.
Better Reds than dead...

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2248
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

Post by Upsetter » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:08 am

Plow wrote:The ruling was a clear case of upholding the intent of the constitution and not judicial activism. I’m surprised it was not unanimous.
As I said, regardless of the merits of the decision from a constitutional perspective, the SCt has long held to an edict of deciding cases narrowly if possible, rather than unnecessarily launching into making new law or repealing laws where resolving the case in front of them doesnt require it. To do otherwise is the definition of judicial activism, or so says scalia and the whiners. Kennedy's opinion has a very long, very contrived analysis of several different reasons why they couldnt resolve the case narrowly rather than invalidate a whole set of laws. Most of law invalidated had nothing to do with the movie at issue or the specific provision that its on demand run ran afoul of. Moreover, the appellants, citizens united, had dropped a facial challenge to the law prior to applying for certiorari to the SCt, so there was no challenge against the constitutionality of the whole set of laws. Their appeal was an as applied challenge specific to their situation. The Court chose to expand the case beyond the issues presented to arrive at the decision they issued. It was a sound decision based on 1st amendment law, and i think we should deal with corps whitewashing our elections differently, BUT this decision was the very definition of judicial activism. As I said, I better not hear anymore about it anymore. The whiners have, once again, proven themselves hypocrits. Personally, I think the whole notion of judicial activism is overblown, so I am sick of hearing about it, and this decision should spell the end of it from the hypocrits, but it probably wont.

Willi
Posts: 965
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 2:38 pm

Re: Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

Post by Willi » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:20 am

Rhyacophila wrote: I honestly believe that if you're going to let the unions buy ads for their pocket-liners; the corps oughta be able to do the same.
The McCain/Feingold bill applied to unions as wells as corps.

Willi

Willi
Posts: 965
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 2:38 pm

Re: Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

Post by Willi » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:24 am

Upsetter wrote: i think we should deal with corps whitewashing our elections differently,
And the Unions and the other special interest groups...............

Based on the ruling, I don't see how it is possible to get the big $$$ out or to even limit them.
How would you foresee doing this?

Willi

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2248
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

Post by Upsetter » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:23 pm

Willi wrote:Based on the ruling, I don't see how it is possible to get the big $$$ out or to even limit them.
How would you foresee doing this?
I would attack this issue from a corporate personhood standpoint. I would seek to destroy the bullshit line of precedent dating back to the 1870's that created it, when a court bought and sold by the railroads denied any arguments in front of it regarding the application of the 14th amendment to corporations, and simply declared that it did. The original decision, known as santa clara, was one of the five worst SCt decisions in our nation's history and paved the way for all of the destructive behavior by corporations. It gave a statutory animal, the corporation, constitutional rights that it should never have had and tied govt's hands in effectively regulating them.

The reason why this recent decision stands is because of corporate personhood, destroy that and the whole issue can be revisited from a proper angle, regulating an artificial entity that exists only by leave of the state and confers specific benefits for the purposes for which it was created: doing business. We can then create any number of hoops for a corp that wants to engage in the political sphere to jump thru because it will be an imminently regulatable entity, versus a natural person with inalienable constitutional rights. If the people who stand behind the limited liability shield of a corp want to participate politically, they are free to do so on their own, as a natural person, if they want to participate as a group, they can as well, but with their own money and without limited liability protections against charges of slander and libel.

I think that if you eliminate that protection, you will eliminate alot of the incentive for corp money, which is disinformation and mudslinging against candidates who they think will be bad for their business. In the instance of the hilary movie, by forming a corp, they would be able to avoid potential liability for a movie that definitely danced a fine line w/slander and libel. I dont know if people would be slinging that kind of mud if their personal fortunes might be on the line for lying to win political points. And that would be true for all sides of the political spectrum.

Here is a helpful link to bring you up to speed on the issue: http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

User avatar
ditchdoc
Posts: 3075
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Flatlands of Kansas

Re: Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

Post by ditchdoc » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:06 pm

Hell, let's just give every corporation a vote, now that they seem to have the same rights as humans. How about corporations in America owned by foreign countries? How about corporations owned by Saudi's and the Chinese? Taiwan? Japan? That will make everything ever so much better.

We Are fucked. Again.
Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is forever.

User avatar
m.b.
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: U.S.-occupied Texas

Re: Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

Post by m.b. » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:15 pm

corporations, like unions, are groups of like minded individuals with similar interests and ideas. the difference between corporations and the unions of today is that corporations are groups of hardworking individuals who create goods and services, turn profits, and provide much of the tax money obama and his congress is wasting, while unions are (for the most part) groups of lazy individuals who want everything given to them (so they don't have to work hard) and provided by the government off the backs of those taxpaying individuals (and their corporations) .

if unions can do it, why should these like-minded individuals not be allowed to voice their opinions and give support to candidates who are looking out for their interests?


ditch, the fact that you think "we are fucked" because these groups of individuals can now exercise free speech is scary.

and as far as foreign corporations,...if they are paying US taxes (the vast majority are), then why shouldn't they be able to influence? or is taxation without representation ok? they pay taxes but can't vote. if they were illegal immigrants you liberal democrats would be screaming that they are being taken advantage of and should be given equal rights.

you don't see the hypocrisy there?
III

Willi
Posts: 965
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 2:38 pm

Re: Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

Post by Willi » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:35 pm

m.b. wrote: if unions can do it, why should these like-minded individuals not be allowed to voice their opinions and give support to candidates who are looking out for their interests?
?
Like I said earlier the McCain/Feingold Bill applied to unions as well as corps. The intent was reduce (not get rid of) the big money influence (from whatever source) in our Federal elections.

Willi

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2248
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

Post by Upsetter » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:41 pm

m.b. wrote:corporations, like unions, are groups of like minded individuals with similar interests and ideas.
Not likely, in both instances. More to my argument though, why not just form a group of likeminded individuals sans incorporating for purposes of electioneering? What is the difference from a representation standpoint for those people, given the compelling interest everyone else has in not getting our voices drowned out by the hundreds of millions of dollars corps and unions dump into electioneering? If you can show me how corporate electioneering isnt simply a form of double-representation, where people act collectively using corp money, while they are simultaneously able to act individually, giving them a greater presence than just individuals, not to mention the huge coffers they spend from, coffers meant for specific purposes defined in the articles of incorporation, then maybe I will be sympathetic. In my view, a corporation's interests are already covered by the individuals who hold an interest in a corporation, eg shareholders, employees and customers.
m.b. wrote:if unions can do it, why should these like-minded individuals not be allowed to voice their opinions and give support to candidates who are looking out for their interests?
I think unions should be barred as well, their membership is fully capable of representing themselves too. If union members want to band together, sames as corporate employees, etc, form a group that doesnt avail itself of limited liability protections and huge coffers obtained for purposes other than electioneering, eg the purposes for which they were chartered. I doubt you will see a single business' corporate charter include lobbying or electioneering as part of the purpose for that corporation's existence. I feel corps pay taxes for the benefits and protections conferred upon those who incorporate. Those people can petition the govt on their own acct or as a group till the cows come home, they shouldnt be allowed to take money from the corp to boost their voice above all others.
m.b. wrote:and as far as foreign corporations,...if they are paying US taxes (the vast majority are), then why shouldn't they be able to influence? or is taxation without representation ok? they pay taxes but can't vote.
I suppose then you were down with the playas from dubai buying the new york port authority then? Thought bush shouldnt have intervened in the interest of national security? So, have I got this right: your down for throwing civil liberties out the window chasing dipshit terrorists who try to blow up a plane with a panty bomb (aka, who gives a shit small fry), but are willing to give up the whole ship to their "rich off our oil dependency" overlords when they show up with truckloads of cash looking to own us? Ooosh.

User avatar
ditchdoc
Posts: 3075
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Flatlands of Kansas

Re: Government for the $$, by the $$ and of the $$

Post by ditchdoc » Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:17 pm

if unions can do it, why should these like-minded individuals not be allowed to voice their opinions and give support to candidates who are looking out for their interests?


ditch, the fact that you think "we are fucked" because these groups of individuals can now exercise free speech is scary.

What is really scary is that you think corporations are a group of "like-minded" individuals. Hardly. The people who will make the decisions regarding political spending will be a very small group of individuals using huge amounts of money to influence public elections, for their own greedy ends. We'll be right back to the days of the robber barons. And I have extreme objections to your portrayal of unions as being a bunch of lazy people who want everything given to them. Unions came about because of those same corporate types who ran roughshod over the very people who keep them in business. I am a member of the International Association of Fire fighters, and several hundred of those lazy individuals who want everything given to them died on 9/11, and die every day. There are and have been corrupt unions--no doubt about it, but it's absolute bullshit that unions, in general, are somehow corrupt or without merit. Frankly, if things don't get better, economically, for the middle class, you may see a resurgence of unionism.
Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is forever.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CC Riebeeck and 8 guests