80% of Americans against the Freedom of Speech

[Darkwind]

Where do you get the notion that the company is using your money? The corporation is using its money to protect its own interest. If you do not like the way a company is using its resources to look after its own interests, you sell your interest in the company and find one that does support your own interests. I simply don't know where you are coming from with this.

It isn't as if you are talking about compulsive dues to keep your job like you find in a union.

If you invest in a corporation, then you own part of that corporation, and the money it is using to "protect it's own interests" is YOUR money.

But in most cases you would only know the corporation was spending the money to support the candidate until AFTER the money had already been spent.

Besides, Mutual funds often invest in a broad, changing array of corporations. There's a good chance you'll have know idea it's your money supporting their efforts.

People who invest in a company understand that they do not get a say in how the company conducts business unless they purchase a controlling stake in the company. This is understood right from the beginning. Your ownership is silent.

The money that the company is using to protect its interests is the COMPANIES money. They pay you a dividend to use it AS THEY SEE FIT. This is the way that market works.

If you do not wish to invest in a company, don't do so. If you do not like a companies politics, avoid them.

But most important. Do NOT use the stock market as a political tool. The stock market is there for you to make money. End of purpose.

Trying to jeopardize the entire free speech clause of the United States because you don't like the way a company you invest in advertises is not sound thinking.

Have the left gotten so far down the road of narcissism that they think that they get to have a say in anything they touch?

 

[Darkwind]

To pull resources so that they can influence elections more so then the average individual. It's a game, we can collect more money as a collective body. The benefits are pretty cut and dry.

Now why should corporations not be allowed to fund campaigns?

They have the ability to pool resources outside of the Corporation.

There is no need to use the corporation for that purpose.

The question is, why would shareholders in a corporation find it more beneficial to use the corporation as a funnel for funding rather than a 527 that they grouped together to form?

Because shareholders understand that they are putting their money in a company in the hopes that the company grows and when the company grows, they pay them back in dividends for using the invested money to grow and expand? Do you think perhaps that might be why companies go public?

 

[Darkwind]

Really? Companies should lose the right to protect themselves from adversaries looking to put them out of business because people are to lazy to research a company they agree with?

Companies should not have to make campaign donations to stop other companies from putting them out of business!!!

Don't you see the endless cycle we've created here? We have to stop the madness!

One company pays for a candidate, which forces another company to pay for a candidate.

It cancels each other out as far as competition goes, and the politicians and lobbyists profit like there's no tomorrow, siphoning off money that Corporations could be using for other things.

But then, once the politicians are in the pockets of the Corporate Boards, it also gives rise to other effects besides trying to get a competitive edge.

Companies should not be allowed to make a larger campaign donation then any other citizen, period. All donations should be capped at $100 USD.

 

[Vast LWC]

People who invest in a company understand that they do not get a say in how the company conducts business unless they purchase a controlling stake in the company. This is understood right from the beginning. Your ownership is silent.

Correct, but up until now, investors did not have to worry about their money being used for political purposes.

The money that the company is using to protect its interests is the COMPANIES money. They pay you a dividend to use it AS THEY SEE FIT. This is the way that market works.

No, it's YOUR money, because in purchasing a share of the company, you become a partial owner of the company.

This is the way it's worked up until now. That is the problem with this court decision, it makes it necessary for people to either have a say in what the company they invest in does, or not invest in any company for fear their investment will be misused.

If you do not wish to invest in a company, don't do so. If you do not like a companies politics, avoid them.

But if you wouldn't know what a company's politics were until it decided to exhibit them.[/Quote]

But most important. Do NOT use the stock market as a political tool. The stock market is there for you to make money. End of purpose.

Trying to jeopardize the entire free speech clause of the United States because you don't like the way a company you invest in advertises is not sound thinking.

Have the left gotten so far down the road of narcissism that they think that they get to have a say in anything they touch?

That philosophy "The stock market is there for you to make money. End of purpose." is precisely what's wrong with Wall Street today.

It's all about your personal short term bottom line, not about investing in corporations you think will be good for the country, or corporations you believe in.

Have the right become so elitist that they think that they should use shareholder funds for their own purposes?

 

[Vast LWC]

Companies should not be allowed to make a larger campaign donation then any other citizen, period. All donations should be capped at $100 USD.

Now THAT we can both agree on.

An excellent solution.

 

[Vast LWC]

Because shareholders understand that they are putting their money in a company in the hopes that the company grows and when the company grows, they pay them back in dividends for using the invested money to grow and expand? Do you think perhaps that might be why companies go public?

And they're supposed to be using that money to grow and expand, not to line the pockets of various politicians and lobbyists.

 

[Darkwind]

Because shareholders understand that they are putting their money in a company in the hopes that the company grows and when the company grows, they pay them back in dividends for using the invested money to grow and expand? Do you think perhaps that might be why companies go public?

And their supposed to be using that money to grow and expand, not to line the pockets of various politicians and lobbyists.

That is called, "Moving the goal posts".

We are not talking about campaign contributions. We are talking about companies purchasing advertising space with another company to advocate on their own behalf.

If you wish to talk about companies contributing money directly to politicians and campaigns, that is fine. I think you will find that we have nothing to debate about as I oppose anyone giving any candidate or campaign any money above $100 USD. I also stand on the notion that no one can give more then $100 USD more then once in any election cycle for that particular political seat.

 

[Vast LWC]

Because shareholders understand that they are putting their money in a company in the hopes that the company grows and when the company grows, they pay them back in dividends for using the invested money to grow and expand? Do you think perhaps that might be why companies go public?

And their supposed to be using that money to grow and expand, not to line the pockets of various politicians and lobbyists.

That is called, "Moving the goal posts".

We are not talking about campaign contributions. We are talking about companies purchasing advertising space with another company to advocate on their own behalf.

If you wish to talk about companies contributing money directly to politicians and campaigns, that is fine. I think you will find that we have nothing to debate about as I oppose anyone giving any candidate or campaign any money above $100 USD. I also stand on the notion that no one can give more then $100 USD more then once in any election cycle for that particular political seat.

Excellent, then we are in complete agreement about contributions.

However, making a commercial for a campaign is effectively giving said campaign that commercial's worth of funding, since they would otherwise have to spend the money on the commercial space themselves.

 

[Darkwind]

Correct, but up until now, investors did not have to worry about their money being used for political purposes.

They still don't.

No, it's YOUR money, because in purchasing a share of the company, you become a partial owner of the company.

It is the companies money. If you read the contract, the company agrees to give you a return on the money should they become successful. They do not however, guarantee that they will be successful and that you will get your money back. This is called risk. They will take your money, but if they do not grow or fail to grow or go out of business, you lose the money. A point of fact, you don't own the money. You own the stock and the value of that stock. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is the way it's worked up until now. That is the problem with this court decision, it makes it necessary for people to either have a say in what the company they invest in does, or not invest in any company for fear their investment will be misused.

The court decision has no bearing whatsoever upon how a company is invested, what it does with those monies that it is invested with nor does it alter the agreement between the investor and the company. Simply put, you can invest with a company, but it give you no say in how the company conducts its business. If you do not like the companies politics, seek investment opportunities elsewhere.

But if you wouldn't know what a company's politics were until it decided to exhibit them.

If at anytime you decide you do not like the company you are invested in, you can sell your shares and go elsewhere. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to stay with that company.

That philosophy "The stock market is there for you to make money. End of purpose." is precisely what's wrong with Wall Street today.

It's all about your personal short term bottom line, not about investing in corporations you think will be good for the country, or corporations you believe in.

Have the right become so elitist that they think that they should use shareholder funds for their own purposes?

In fact, there is nothing wrong with using the Stock Market for your personal, short-term gain, nor is there anything wrong with people investing in companies that may bring a new and exciting product to market. It is what drives the engine of the world.

Let us not get into a class warfare discussion cause that is a losing argument for the left.

Discussions on limiting the wealth of individuals is a waste of time.

 

[Darkwind]

And their supposed to be using that money to grow and expand, not to line the pockets of various politicians and lobbyists.

That is called, "Moving the goal posts".

We are not talking about campaign contributions. We are talking about companies purchasing advertising space with another company to advocate on their own behalf.

If you wish to talk about companies contributing money directly to politicians and campaigns, that is fine. I think you will find that we have nothing to debate about as I oppose anyone giving any candidate or campaign any money above $100 USD. I also stand on the notion that no one can give more then $100 USD more then once in any election cycle for that particular political seat.

Excellent, then we are in complete agreement about contributions.

However, making a commercial for a campaign is effectively giving said campaign that commercial's worth of funding, since they would otherwise have to spend the money on the commercial space themselves.

No more so then any other entity or individual standing on a soap box and saying that this is right or that is wrong and that this person is who I think can fix what I think is wrong or this person can continue to promote what i think is right.

The cartoon above makes the case is a very simple way.

Turn off the message if you don't like it.

 

[goldcatt]

Free speech is the protected right to speak, but nobody has a protected right to an audience.

The ruling expanded free speech to include the right to buy as big an audience as you want for anyone who can afford it - as long as you're not an individual. The right to speak itself is not affected one tiny bit by the ruling, Supremie blather notwithstanding. It only creates the Constitutionally protected right to an audience, one that never existed before.

What it does do is legitimize even worse whoring by the people who are supposed to be representing the People.

And we're supposed to bend over and like it?

No one can compel you to listen. We have the off button.

To me it seems as if the issue was not corporate rights to speech. It was which corporations had right to speech. And unions have the right to compel membership, which corporations don't.

You're missing the point here, which is that money is not speech.

All other arguments aside (and there's a thread somewhere a few of us went over and over and over it on for days. I'm not going there again. ) there is a fundamental flaw in assuming money spent to broadcast a message equals or deserves the same protection as the message itself.

You have the right to say anything you want, you are guaranteed the right to support the candidate of your choice, you are not guaranteed the right to a megaphone. The decision addresses only the megaphone and equates it with the message itself. That's ludicrous.

Step back and look at it, what is the end result here? Can anybody say anything they couldn't before?

 

[Darkwind]

Free speech is the protected right to speak, but nobody has a protected right to an audience.

The ruling expanded free speech to include the right to buy as big an audience as you want for anyone who can afford it - as long as you're not an individual. The right to speak itself is not affected one tiny bit by the ruling, Supremie blather notwithstanding. It only creates the Constitutionally protected right to an audience, one that never existed before.

What it does do is legitimize even worse whoring by the people who are supposed to be representing the People.

And we're supposed to bend over and like it?

No one can compel you to listen. We have the off button.

To me it seems as if the issue was not corporate rights to speech. It was which corporations had right to speech. And unions have the right to compel membership, which corporations don't.

You're missing the point here, which is that money is not speech.

All other arguments aside (and there's a thread somewhere a few of us went over and over and over it on for days. I'm not going there again. ) there is a fundamental flaw in assuming money spent to broadcast a message equals or deserves the same protection as the message itself.

You have the right to say anything you want, you are guaranteed the right to support the candidate of your choice, you are not guaranteed the right to a megaphone. The decision addresses only the megaphone and equates it with the message itself. That's ludicrous.

Step back and look at it, what is the end result here? Can anybody say anything they couldn't before?

No, I think that is incorrect.

You are entitle to your soapbox. You are entitled to a megaphone on your soap box. You are not entitled to force people to stand at your soapbox.

The decision addresses the right of any entity to advocate for its own interests. To rule any other way would be to say that you have a right to stand before a judge in a court of law, but you don't have the right to say anything in your defense.

 

[Vast LWC]

OK, fine, let's say that your complete and utter disregard for the fraudulent nature of using shareholder's funds to put forth a political agenda is in any way a decent way for a corporation to act.

The fact that such behavior is so repugnant was my point, not that it is illegal. That is why it was one of my reasons why people are unhappy about corporate funding.

But what about the minority of voting shareholders that may not agree with the political message, but aren't necessarily informed of the decision to support a candidate until the quarterly report?

 

[goldcatt]

No one can compel you to listen. We have the off button.

To me it seems as if the issue was not corporate rights to speech. It was which corporations had right to speech. And unions have the right to compel membership, which corporations don't.

You're missing the point here, which is that money is not speech.

All other arguments aside (and there's a thread somewhere a few of us went over and over and over it on for days. I'm not going there again. ) there is a fundamental flaw in assuming money spent to broadcast a message equals or deserves the same protection as the message itself.

You have the right to say anything you want, you are guaranteed the right to support the candidate of your choice, you are not guaranteed the right to a megaphone. The decision addresses only the megaphone and equates it with the message itself. That's ludicrous.

Step back and look at it, what is the end result here? Can anybody say anything they couldn't before?

No, I think that is incorrect.

You are entitle to your soapbox. You are entitled to a megaphone on your soap box. You are not entitled to force people to stand at your soapbox.

The decision addresses the right of any entity to advocate for its own interests. To rule any other way would be to say that you have a right to stand before a judge in a court of law, but you don't have the right to say anything in your defense.

Not at all. You have the right to speak. Please explain to me where the First Amendment guarantees the right to be heard?

 

[Darkwind]

You're missing the point here, which is that money is not speech.

All other arguments aside (and there's a thread somewhere a few of us went over and over and over it on for days. I'm not going there again. ) there is a fundamental flaw in assuming money spent to broadcast a message equals or deserves the same protection as the message itself.

You have the right to say anything you want, you are guaranteed the right to support the candidate of your choice, you are not guaranteed the right to a megaphone. The decision addresses only the megaphone and equates it with the message itself. That's ludicrous.

Step back and look at it, what is the end result here? Can anybody say anything they couldn't before?

No, I think that is incorrect.

You are entitle to your soapbox. You are entitled to a megaphone on your soap box. You are not entitled to force people to stand at your soapbox.

The decision addresses the right of any entity to advocate for its own interests. To rule any other way would be to say that you have a right to stand before a judge in a court of law, but you don't have the right to say anything in your defense.

Not at all. You have the right to speak. Please explain to me where the First Amendment guarantees the right to be heard?

No where. But cutting off their right to speak does not safeguard someones right to not listen.

 

[goldcatt]

That's what the case is about, after all. Not the right to speak but the right to be heard. Which does not exist and never has.

Which also means it should be perfectly reasonable to regulate the nonexistent right to be heard in an effort to curb some of the raging corruption some of the people defending this decision complain about on other threads. McCain-Feingold was a halfassed attempt at a law, but this decision means there will be no more that might get it right.

 

[Darkwind]

OK, fine, let's say that your complete and utter disregard for the fraudulent nature of using shareholder's funds to put forth a political agenda is in any way a decent way for a corporation to act.

The fact that such behavior is so repugnant was my point, not that it is illegal. That is why it was one of my reasons why people are unhappy about corporate funding.

But what about the minority of voting shareholders that may not agree with the political message, but aren't necessarily informed of the decision to support a candidate until the quarterly report?

Where do you come up with the whole notion of fraudulent use of shareholders funds? When you purchased your shares of stocks, did it come with a disclaimer that the company would have to consult with you before they appropriated that money in the interests of the the company?

I don't know what you find repugnant about it. If you purchase a game for your Xbox360 and later find out that the company you purchased the game from used the profits from your purchase to advocate for a tax break for all gaming companies, do you find that you have been defrauded? Have they defrauded you in any way?

 

[goldcatt]

No, I think that is incorrect.

You are entitle to your soapbox. You are entitled to a megaphone on your soap box. You are not entitled to force people to stand at your soapbox.

The decision addresses the right of any entity to advocate for its own interests. To rule any other way would be to say that you have a right to stand before a judge in a court of law, but you don't have the right to say anything in your defense.

Not at all. You have the right to speak. Please explain to me where the First Amendment guarantees the right to be heard?

No where. But cutting off their right to speak does not safeguard someones right to not listen.

But you're making the same mistake. The right to be heard is NOT the same as the right to speak. There is nothing regarding the speech itself, the message, that is even addressed.

So where does the First Amendment protect the right to an audience?

 

[Darkwind]

That's what the case is about, after all. Not the right to speak but the right to be heard. Which does not exist and never has.

Which also means it should be perfectly reasonable to regulate the nonexistent righ to tbe heard in an effort to curb some of the raging corruption some of the people defending this decision complain about on other threads. McCain-Feingold was a halfassed attempt at a law, but this decision means there will be no more that might get it right.

No it was not.

The case was about the right of an entity to advocate upon its own behalf. It is outside the realm of credulity to believe that a court would rule on behalf of a company to force people to listen to their message. No one was being forced to listen before, they are not being forced to listen now.

I don't care if a company spends every last dim they have on an ad that is run on 85% of the TV channels 60% of the time. I can still turn the TV off.

 

[Darkwind]

Not at all. You have the right to speak. Please explain to me where the First Amendment guarantees the right to be heard?

No where. But cutting off their right to speak does not safeguard someones right to not listen.

But you're making the same mistake. The right to be heard is NOT the same as the right to speak. There is nothing regarding the speech itself, the message, that is even addressed.

So where does the First Amendment protect the right to an audience?

No, I am not.

The court ruling did not say that companies have the right to force people to listen to them.