Post Reply
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
Switch to Forum Live View on " yesterdays u s supreme 'judicial activist' 5-4 court ruling ".
5 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2010 - 5:09PM #31
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

Jan 27, 2010 -- 4:36PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jan 27, 2010 -- 12:42PM, davelaw40 wrote:


Jan 27, 2010 -- 9:45AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jan 27, 2010 -- 12:32AM, davelaw40 wrote:


the 2 grand limitation is patently unconstitutional as well



So, the constitution is geared to corruption?



nope, its geared to NO limits on speech



It apparently affects the ability to distinguish human speech from money.


Good that we have a wild wide ocean that separates my country from that!




 


so if I give money to a cause; you should not be able to infer that I support that cause?

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2010 - 5:19PM #32
coachbob
Posts: 2,125

Jan 27, 2010 -- 4:36PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Good that we have a wild wide ocean that separates my country from that!




I'll second that

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2010 - 5:41PM #33
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Jan 27, 2010 -- 5:09PM, davelaw40 wrote:


so if I give money to a cause; you should not be able to infer that I support that cause?



Inference is not forbidden. You can also infer that you had too much money for getting into a lower tax category - that you want to create obligations on part of the money receiver - or that you are too lazy to support the cause with a real human investment.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2010 - 5:47PM #34
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

maybe; btw see my latest post on the NASA thread

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 28, 2010 - 12:44PM #35
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,671

Jan 26, 2010 -- 2:17PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Now the problem is, these 'corporate persons' are not limited to two  grand.  They can donate whatever they want to a political campaign.  And sadly, it isn't too hard to buy a candidate for a million bucks.  Which means that your natural personhood, and your rights, are co-opted by corporations that will have a vested interest in the legislation passed by the candidate.  It doesn't take much to understand how that works, Nepenthe.  If a legislator is bought and paid for by, oh, health insurance companies, how likely do you think he will be to vote on health care reform? If a legislator is bought and paid for by arms merchants, how likely do you think he will be to vote to end a pointless war? If your legislator is bought and paid for by media corporations, how likely do you think it will be that he votes for fairness in media?



Number one - campaign donations are severly limited, as they have been for awhile now.  That was not changed with this decision.  This decision addressed the point of a group of people wanting to air a movie. But, because it concerned a particular politician, in some magical pre-election time frame, they were barred, by federal law, from showing that movie.  This has nothing to do with money, corporations as persons, etc.  It has everything to do with "Congress shall make no law". 


Number two - and I have already said this, lobbying already rules those who represent us in D.C.  I have not seen one bill introduced to stop this.  Obama has done little to nothing to stop this.  Yet he is outraged by the SCOTUS decision, when he himself has several former lobbyists working in his white house!  With the health care bill alone, we have heard of several "back-room" deals designed for the sole purpose of "vote-buying".  From the union exemption thing to something about Nebraska getting all of it's Medicare paid for and other such non-sense.


Number three - almost forgot, just read about it today.  That little McCain law that was over-ruled, well I didn't realize that there was an exemption for media outlets.  How nice that some can enjoy free speach benefits while it was denied to others.

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 28, 2010 - 1:14PM #36
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

Jan 28, 2010 -- 12:44PM, Nepenthe wrote:


Jan 26, 2010 -- 2:17PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


Now the problem is, these 'corporate persons' are not limited to two  grand.  They can donate whatever they want to a political campaign.  And sadly, it isn't too hard to buy a candidate for a million bucks.  Which means that your natural personhood, and your rights, are co-opted by corporations that will have a vested interest in the legislation passed by the candidate.  It doesn't take much to understand how that works, Nepenthe.  If a legislator is bought and paid for by, oh, health insurance companies, how likely do you think he will be to vote on health care reform? If a legislator is bought and paid for by arms merchants, how likely do you think he will be to vote to end a pointless war? If your legislator is bought and paid for by media corporations, how likely do you think it will be that he votes for fairness in media?



Number one - campaign donations are severly limited, as they have been for awhile now.  That was not changed with this decision.  This decision addressed the point of a group of people wanting to air a movie. But, because it concerned a particular politician, in some magical pre-election time frame, they were barred, by federal law, from showing that movie.  This has nothing to do with money, corporations as persons, etc.  It has everything to do with "Congress shall make no law". 


Number two - and I have already said this, lobbying already rules those who represent us in D.C.  I have not seen one bill introduced to stop this.  Obama has done little to nothing to stop this.  Yet he is outraged by the SCOTUS decision, when he himself has several former lobbyists working in his white house!  With the health care bill alone, we have heard of several "back-room" deals designed for the sole purpose of "vote-buying".  From the union exemption thing to something about Nebraska getting all of it's Medicare paid for and other such non-sense.


Number three - almost forgot, just read about it today.  That little McCain law that was over-ruled, well I didn't realize that there was an exemption for media outlets.  How nice that some can enjoy free speach benefits while it was denied to others.




No.  Number one ... there are no more limits on how much corporations can give to PACS  to advance a candidate.  That's PRECISELY why people are so up in arms about it.  They are also reviewing the Michigan Chamber of Commerce case, and if they overturn that decision, corporations will be able to give to candidates directly in an unlimited fashion.


Number two.  Everyone should be outraged by the decision, and by corporate personhood as equal to natural personhood.  Every bill has 'back room deals' that go on to pass it; it is a credit to the transparency of this Congress (and the media) THAT YOU EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT.  


Number three.   If you take a look at the first amendment, the ONLY 'profession' that is specifically protected is the press.  Newspapers are free to endorse candidates (unless they elect to follow a nonprofit business plan - like churches, if the government covers your taxes for you, you can't pick sides).  Don't like it? Amend the constitution.  There is nothing IN the constitution about protecting the rights of non-natural persons, the fourteenth amendment is pretty damn clear about what that means, and corporations fall into that legal fiction called 'corporate personhood'.  


Do you really WANT businesses buying your legislature? What's in it for you, Nepenthe?

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 28, 2010 - 1:36PM #37
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,671

This is the first amendment.


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.


No matter how I feel, or how any human in existence feels, congress made a law that restriced free speech.  Now, they ARE allowed to do this when there is a threat to public safety.  But it has not been proven anywhere, either through history or analyzing foreign democracies, that free speech by a group of people is harmful to a society.  And yes, a corporation is nothing more than a group of people with like minded interests.  Here are some of Justice Kenndey's quotes, taken from John Stossel, who argues far better than I:


"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."


"Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it."


"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers."


As a Libertarian, the only angle I am looking at this whole situation is this:  how much power are we going to give the federal government in controlling what we say and hear.

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 28, 2010 - 1:48PM #38
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

No.  Congress made a law that restricted corporations from buying candidates (Tillman Act, 1907).  There is nothing in that act that restricts each individual employed by, or shareholders of, said corporation from spending their own cash to contribute to an individual campaign.  


The fourteenth amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Okay.  Where are corporate 'persons' in this definition? Answer: Nowhere.  The only place where corporations are 'persons' comes from the very first act of Congress in which corporations are permitted limited protections to enter into contracts and buy property - that is, so that the decision is vested in one natural person on behalf of the 'corporation'.  


Each natural person involved with a corporation (or a union, or a lobbying firm, or a special interest group) already HAS all the rights of personhood.  They don't need them doubled because of their involvement in these organizations, and that is where the Supreme Court is heading.  

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook