Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 21, 2010 Moderators Share Posted January 21, 2010 They sided with the makers of "Hillary: The Movie." In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns. This is just in time for the elections in the fall. What ramifications do you think this will have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 Big corporations have always been bankrolling politics, now they just don't have to be discreet about it anymore. Things are going to get ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 What ramifications do you think this will have? That McCain-Feingold will no longer restrict 1st amendment rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 21, 2010 Author Moderators Share Posted January 21, 2010 That McCain-Feingold will no longer restrict 1st amendment rights. Thanks. What do you expect to see different in the fall elections from the 2008 cycle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 Thanks. What do you expect to see different in the fall elections from the 2008 cycle? Different candidates. We also won't be voting for president either, so that's a big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 21, 2010 Author Moderators Share Posted January 21, 2010 Different candidates. We also won't be voting for president either, so that's a big difference. And you were blaming Kindness for the current poor state of HCBF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 And you were blaming Kindness for the current poor state of HCBF. Oh, were you expecting me to take you seriously? Fool me once, shame on me...Fool me forty seven times...uh, won't get fooled again. Why don't you go post a youtube there, Thrustmaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rpsands Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 I don't know that the act had any impact in the first place, certainly not on the presidential election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ender_rpm Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 I don't know that the act had any impact in the first place, certainly not on the presidential election. I kinda agree. The biggest difference is now the corps and unions can run "Vote for Jimmy" ads,rather than just "Don't vote for Johny" ads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 It's troubling to me that the Court feels that corporations and similar entities should enjoy the same status as individuals when it comes to political spending. This has the potential (IMO) to turn political races into contests of who can get the most corporate support, completely shutting out the voices of the electorate. In short, he with the most money wins, and corporations can now be legally regarded as "he." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 I think it means politicians will care even less for the average person and even more for the folks that line their pockets. Also heard today on NPR that China is about to surpass Japan as the world's second largest economy. How much of our debt does China own, anyway? I think we may witness the fall of the western democracy sometime in the not so distant future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 21, 2010 Author Moderators Share Posted January 21, 2010 It's troubling to me that the Court feels that corporations and similar entities should enjoy the same status as individuals when it comes to political spending. This has the potential (IMO) to turn political races into contests of who can get the most corporate support, completely shutting out the voices of the electorate. In short, he with the most money wins, and corporations can now be legally regarded as "he." Corporations have always been a legal "person." Why would they not be regarded in that way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 21, 2010 Author Moderators Share Posted January 21, 2010 Oh, were you expecting me to take you seriously? Fool me once, shame on me...Fool me forty seven times...uh, won't get fooled again. Why don't you go post a youtube there, Thrustmaker. You should go spend some time reading up on Honduras, Prince Peanuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pickdust Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 Corporations have always been a legal "person." Why would they not be regarded in that way? Not true. Yes its been that way for a long time but it was not always so. The Supremes granted corporations the legal status of "individual", among other rights, in the early 1800s (1819 I think). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 21, 2010 Author Moderators Share Posted January 21, 2010 Not true. Yes its been that way for a long time but it was not always so. The Supremes granted corporations the legal status of "individual", among other rights, in the early 1800s (1819 I think). Thanks for the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 I agree with this decision. I was in favor of McCain Feingold at first, but after doing some research and reading more educated opinions I changed my mind. The SCOTUS made the right call. Now Chuck Schumer is calling for a hearing on this "Un-American" SCOTUS decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chaos5522 Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 Now Chuck Schumer is calling for a hearing on this "Un-American" SCOTUS decision. Chuck Schumer is a media whore who will take any and all opportunities to put himself on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jasper383 Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 Do candidates have to publicly disclose where their money is coming from? If so, I am in favor of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jasper383 Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 I think it means politicians will care even less for the average person and even more for the folks that line their pockets. I'm not sure about this. Do you think that if Exxon, for example, gives a candidate $1 billion for his/her campaign, and everybody knows about it, that will help or hurt them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 21, 2010 Author Moderators Share Posted January 21, 2010 I agree with this decision. I was in favor of McCain Feingold at first, but after doing some research and reading more educated opinions I changed my mind. The SCOTUS made the right call. Now Chuck Schumer is calling for a hearing on this "Un-American" SCOTUS decision. He must think this is a decision that will favor the Republicans? I'm not sure why else he would say something so stupid. Also, the posts underneath the article you linked are very funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 I'm not sure about this. Do you think that if Exxon, for example, gives a candidate $1 billion for his/her campaign, and everybody knows about it, that will help or hurt them? People are so locked into party lines these days that I don't even think it would matter how much a candidate got and from where. We'll also be hard-pressed to find a candidate that takes the "high road" and won't take this money. In the end we'll be stuck with the same two options... A Republican and a Democrat both of whom took of money from various lobbying companies from their respective side of the fence. Yes, I am politically jaded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 Corporations have always been a legal "person." Why would they not be regarded in that way? What part of when it comes to political spending was unclear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 21, 2010 Author Moderators Share Posted January 21, 2010 What part of when it comes to political spending was unclear? But that's the part that drove the SCOTUS decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures." " There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether." Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. "The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others. "In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added. This is laughable. If they aren't members of our society, why do they get taxed? In a simplistic sense taxation without representation started a revolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted January 21, 2010 Members Share Posted January 21, 2010 This is laughable. If they aren't members of our society, why do they get taxed? In a simplistic sense taxation without representation started a revolution. And we have now gone around the bend. Goodnight, ladies and gentlemen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 21, 2010 Author Moderators Share Posted January 21, 2010 And we have now gone around the bend. Goodnight, ladies and gentlemen.Okay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.