Corporations, unions, now allowed to spend more to purchase candidates and elections - Page 2

Sauron · #26 01-22-2010, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yguy

If as an individual he wants to throw megabucks at a candidate, and some smaller corporation wants to back his opponent with a similar amount, is there some reason Gates should be able to do it and not the corporation?

Because corporations aren't people. They don't vote in elections, do they? Then why would a non-voting entity be entitled to teh same right of expression as a voting entity?

There. That was easy.

Watser? · #27 01-22-2010, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Quote:

Originally Posted by yguy

If as an individual he wants to throw megabucks at a candidate, and some smaller corporation wants to back his opponent with a similar amount, is there some reason Gates should be able to do it and not the corporation?

Because corporations aren't people. They don't vote in elections, do they? Then why would a non-voting entity be entitled to teh same right of expression as a voting entity?

There. That was easy.

Actually I don't think either of them should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on buying candidates.

Sauron · #28 01-22-2010, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watser?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Quote:

Originally Posted by yguy

If as an individual he wants to throw megabucks at a candidate, and some smaller corporation wants to back his opponent with a similar amount, is there some reason Gates should be able to do it and not the corporation?

Because corporations aren't people. They don't vote in elections, do they? Then why would a non-voting entity be entitled to teh same right of expression as a voting entity?

There. That was easy.

Actually I don't think either of them should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on buying candidates.

Agreed. But corporations shouldn't be allowed to spend *any* money, because they're an artificial entity.

Pinecone · #29 01-22-2010, 01:00 AM

To further my understanding of what just happened. The corporations can spend money from their profits?

Example: My electric company can charge more per kilowatt to buy a politician that will fight for dirty coal, so that in effect my rates go up and I'm actually buying the dirty coal politician while at the same time I have less money now to contribute to my clean energy candidate. Is this what is going on?

Sauron · #30 01-22-2010, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinecone

To further my understanding of what just happened. The corporations can spend money from their profits?

Example: My electric company can charge more per kilowatt to buy a politician that will fight for dirty coal, so that in effect my rates go up and I'm actually buying the dirty coal politician while at the same time I have less money now to contribute to my clean energy candidate. Is this what is going on?

Yes.

Remember that whenever some wingnutter complains that their union dues are being used to fund political campaigns or candidates that they disagree with.

Watser? · #31 01-22-2010, 01:10 AM

Ok, well if you put it like that, that is pretty fucked up.

godfry n. glad · #32 01-22-2010, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Getfed

That's a deep argument, rigorist.

You're new here, aren't you, Getfed?

Jug Pilot · #33 01-22-2010, 02:02 AM

Since we’re Fascists now, does this mean the Buses will run on time?

Crumb · #34 01-22-2010, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yguy

I think we can assume Bill Gates has a few bob that ain't workin' too hard at any given time. If as an individual he wants to throw megabucks at a candidate, and some smaller corporation wants to back his opponent with a similar amount, is there some reason Gates should be able to do it and not the corporation?

And if Gates can't do it, how would you square that with the first amendment?

Spending money to buy advertising is not free speech, therefore it is not protected by the first amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Agreed. But corporations shouldn't be allowed to spend *any* money [on political campaigns], because they're an artificial entity.

Agreed. And since the rights and responsibilities are completely artificial and strictly codified by the law then these issues are entirely irrelevant to the bill of rights and the federal and state governments should be free to regulate how they are allowed to spend their money.

yguy · #35 01-22-2010, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

Quote:

Originally Posted by yguy

I think we can assume Bill Gates has a few bob that ain't workin' too hard at any given time. If as an individual he wants to throw megabucks at a candidate, and some smaller corporation wants to back his opponent with a similar amount, is there some reason Gates should be able to do it and not the corporation?

And if Gates can't do it, how would you square that with the first amendment?

Spending money to buy advertising is not free speech

Because...?

godfry n. glad · #36 01-22-2010, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

Quote:

Originally Posted by yguy

I think we can assume Bill Gates has a few bob that ain't workin' too hard at any given time. If as an individual he wants to throw megabucks at a candidate, and some smaller corporation wants to back his opponent with a similar amount, is there some reason Gates should be able to do it and not the corporation?

And if Gates can't do it, how would you square that with the first amendment?

Spending money to buy advertising is not free speech

Because...?

What a maroon.

Read the fucking sentence, wideguy.

Spending money and buying advertising are not free at all...If it were free, they wouldn't have to spend or buy.

viscousmemories · #37 01-22-2010, 03:53 AM

I had my first US Govt. class tonight and my prof brought up this judgement. Needless to say (?) he appeared to be displeased.

I know that I am displeased.

godfry n. glad · #38 01-22-2010, 04:48 AM

I think many of us are displeased. The question is what to do about it.

Perhaps the SCotUS needs a couple additional justices and another chance?

Perhaps it's time to impeach and try the justices remaining on the SCotUS bench who brazenly violated the US Constitution in the Bush v. Gore debacle?

Perhaps a Constitutional amendment to 'depersonalize' corporations?

You do know that now that the corporations have the power to buy and sell Congresscritters with abandon, the next thing will be to have Congress proclaim all corporate donations to political campaigns as tax credits.

California Tanker · #39 01-22-2010, 05:37 AM

Quote:

500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns" would fare any better than the legislation SCOTUS shot down today.

Taxing a Constitutional right? I agree with you there, that's not going to last.

Given the whole 'bundling' business, it does seem simpler to just let the entities simply pay out of pocket. "UAW is not allowed to donate $1m. So we'll collect 250,000 individual $4 donations and submit them all at once"

There are already so many loopholes, might as well not have a law until it they figure out how to fix it properly.

NTM

The Man · #40 01-22-2010, 05:53 AM

Abolish the corporation as a legal entity. There, I've fixed nearly all of America's most pressing problems.

Not that it'll happen, mind you, but a man can dream.

Angakuk · #41 01-22-2010, 07:05 AM

You sir, are an imposter. The real "The Man" would never say anything like that.

The Man · #42 01-22-2010, 07:49 AM

Guilty as charged. I have usurped his likeness for the sake of further distributing my own propaganda against him.

godfry n. glad · #43 01-22-2010, 07:54 AM

California Tanker · #44 01-22-2010, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Because corporations aren't people. They don't vote in elections, do they? Then why would a non-voting entity be entitled to teh same right of expression as a voting entity?

So foreign nationals legally resident in the US have no right to expression because they can't vote?

NTM

Qingdai · #45 01-22-2010, 08:42 AM

One dollar, one vote!

The Man · #46 01-22-2010, 08:45 AM

Foreign nationals still have citizenship in their home country, and can influence the elections there; thus one can conclude that they are entitled to free speech here (although in Rupert Murdoch's case one can argue this has done far more harm than good). Corporations have no votes anywhere. They also don't perform jury duty, aren't eligible for the draft, and so on. Most importantly they are an institution established for the sole purpose of delivering profits to their shareholders, and thus their exercise of free speech is under no obligation to be beholden to the constraints of conscience. Indeed, many noted business leaders, for example Peter Drucker, explicitly advocated firing managers who took on social responsibility for any reason other than making the company look good.

The simple fact is that a corporation behaves like a sociopath. There's no reason it should have any say in our national elections.

California Tanker · #47 01-22-2010, 09:38 AM

I would submit that what foreign nationals can and cannot do in their home countries probably should have very little bearing on their legal status and rights in the US.

NTM

Sauron · #48 01-22-2010, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Quote:

Because corporations aren't people. They don't vote in elections, do they? Then why would a non-voting entity be entitled to teh same right of expression as a voting entity?

So foreign nationals legally resident in the US have no right to expression because they can't vote?

NTM

I'll defer to our resident lawyers, but here is my understanding:

The US Bill of Rights enumerates rights enjoyed by our citizens. Last time I checked, foreign nationals - by definition - are not our citizens.

There has been a precedent to extend such rights to foreign nationals, but it is only a precedent, an extension of state courtesy by the USA. It makes for good press, and obviously we hope our own citizens abroad are afforded similar rights wherever they reside. And as a nation that generally encourages immigration, granting such privileges usually provides a favorable contrast for the foreign national to consider.

But foreign nationals do not possess Constitutional guarantees such as free speech, freedom of assembly, etc. as a *right*. They are generally granted as a privilege. For that matter, legal residency is not a right; it is a privilege.

None of which matters to my example of corporations, however. A foreign national *can* vote -- either in his home country, or here if he becomes naturalized. A corporation can never vote. That is the result of being an artificial entity (in point of fact, corporate personhood didn't even exist until the latter half of the 1800s).

Sauron · #49 01-22-2010, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I would submit that what foreign nationals can and cannot do in their home countries probably should have very little bearing on their legal status and rights in the US.

NTM

Except that a foreign national's status within their home country very much informs what they are allowed to do here, and what obligations will be placed on them by the US government.

US Dual Citizenship

256 colors · #50 01-22-2010, 01:28 PM

None of us should be surprised that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the corporations, because the policy of "corporate personhood" has existed since 1886. Corporate personhood debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is more info here: Corporate Personhood-Demeaning Our Bill of Rights - Reclaim Democracy.org

A google search will lead you to more groups that are working to change this policy. I was surprised to learn that the ACLU supports corporate personhood.

If corporate personhood did not exist, SCOTUS could not have made the decision it made yesterday. However, this policy has been in place for over 100 years.