Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[Oddball]

The key there is in "some" instances. And in "some" instances it's a necessity.

But they were never seen as full citizens or as enjoying the protection for political speech, only for corporate speech.

Still the question begs:

What if the corporation known as "New York Times" endorses political candidates?

 

[blu]

This overturns 100 years of precedent.

It's a sad, sad day for democracy.

It upholds 124 years of legal precedent....You just don't like that it didn't go your way.

Foo.

businesses aren't people. I am glad you support legal bribery

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Does the phrase "Congress shall make no law" mean anything??????

Congress restricts speech all the time.

 

[blu]

The key there is in "some" instances. And in "some" instances it's a necessity.

But they were never seen as full citizens or as enjoying the protection for political speech, only for corporate speech.

Still the question begs:

What if the corporation known as "New York Times" endorses political candidates?

then they get labeled as biased media like they already do. its the same as fox endorsing Rs and msbnc endorsing Ds

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This overturns 100 years of precedent.

It's a sad, sad day for democracy.

It upholds 124 years of legal precedent....You just don't like that it didn't go your way.

Foo.

businesses aren't people. I am glad you support legal bribery

he'll keep taking Santa Clara out of context ... taking things out and leaving untouched aspects he is incapable of understanding. he smokes lots of dope.

 

[Oddball]

The key there is in "some" instances. And in "some" instances it's a necessity.

But they were never seen as full citizens or as enjoying the protection for political speech, only for corporate speech.

Still the question begs:

What if the corporation known as "New York Times" endorses political candidates?

then they get labeled as biased media like they already do. its the same as fox endorsing Rs and msbnc endorsing Ds

I didn't ask how they got labeled. I asked in the context of one of those eeeeevvvviiill corporations --this time in the guise of a media corporation-- trying to affect the outcome of elections.

C'mon.....It's not like we don't already know the answer.

 

[goldcatt]

Still the question begs:

What if the corporation known as "New York Times" endorses political candidates?

then they get labeled as biased media like they already do. its the same as fox endorsing Rs and msbnc endorsing Ds

I didn't ask how they got labeled. I asked in the context of one of those eeeeevvvviiill corporations --this time in the guise of a media corporation-- trying to affect the outcome of elections.

C'mon.....It's not like we don't already know the answer.

Then it falls under freedom of the press, in the case of the New York Yimes OR Fox News.

 

[Vast LWC]

Obama got $200MM from overseas corporations and individuals, why shouldn't American companies have the same ability to buy a candidate?

Another lie Frank?

Sigh.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

then they get labeled as biased media like they already do. its the same as fox endorsing Rs and msbnc endorsing Ds

I didn't ask how they got labeled. I asked in the context of one of those eeeeevvvviiill corporations --this time in the guise of a media corporation-- trying to affect the outcome of elections.

C'mon.....It's not like we don't already know the answer.

Then it falls under freedom of the press, in the case of the New York Yimes OR Fox News.

Wrong the Press has no inherent right to openly side for one candidate or another. That does not fall under Freedom of the Press at all.

 

[Avatar4321]

Either way you look at it, whether you agree with it or not, Pandora's Box has been opened. The floodgates have been sprung and the results are going to be devastating.

Are you joking? McCain-Fiengold was passed less than 8 years ago. Repealing parts of it only returns campaigning to pre-MF levels.

 

[Oddball]

then they get labeled as biased media like they already do. its the same as fox endorsing Rs and msbnc endorsing Ds

I didn't ask how they got labeled. I asked in the context of one of those eeeeevvvviiill corporations --this time in the guise of a media corporation-- trying to affect the outcome of elections.

C'mon.....It's not like we don't already know the answer.

Then it falls under freedom of the press, in the case of the New York Yimes OR Fox News.

So the 1st Amendment doesn't count if you're not a media racketeer?

Interesting.

 

[Oddball]

I didn't ask how they got labeled. I asked in the context of one of those eeeeevvvviiill corporations --this time in the guise of a media corporation-- trying to affect the outcome of elections.

C'mon.....It's not like we don't already know the answer.

Then it falls under freedom of the press, in the case of the New York Yimes OR Fox News.

Wrong the Press has no inherent right to openly side for one candidate or another. That does not fall under Freedom of the Press at all.

Sure they do and it does.

But the paper masthead tells us who is endorsing this or that candidate.

 

[Avatar4321]

People can disagree. There are people who agree with the results of Roe, who also think it makes bad law.

The decision now is the law of the land. The decision was more a political one than a judicially principled one.

It is a rallying cry of the dupes of the GOP that judicial activism is bad for America. If this wasn't judicial activism nothing is or ever was.

The GOP started seeding the courts for this day way back since Ronald Reagan was President.

So your saying the GOP and Ronald Reagan seeded the courts to overturn McCain Fiengold which the GOP signed into law 22 years later? Are you serious?

 

[Avatar4321]

Ooh here's a good point...

When combined with the prior SCOTUS ruling on corporate eminent domain a few years back...

Corporations can literally appoint people to steal your property, and then have them hand it over to them!

Of course, you are completely wrong. But I think it's interesting the only ways you can think up for a corporation to abuse government is through unconstitutional means liberals forced on the people to begin with. You are creating the problems. The solution is simple. Eliminate the bad liberal decisions and legislation. Then you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Oddball]

This overturns 100 years of precedent.

It's a sad, sad day for democracy.

It upholds 124 years of legal precedent....You just don't like that it didn't go your way.

Foo.

businesses aren't people. I am glad you support legal bribery

Which "corporation" ever signed a check or contract?

 

[goldcatt]

I didn't ask how they got labeled. I asked in the context of one of those eeeeevvvviiill corporations --this time in the guise of a media corporation-- trying to affect the outcome of elections.

C'mon.....It's not like we don't already know the answer.

Then it falls under freedom of the press, in the case of the New York Yimes OR Fox News.

So the 1st Amendment doesn't count if you're not a media racketeer?

Interesting.

Freedom of the press IS the First Amendment, Dude. It's a different jurisprudence, but it's most definitely First Amendment.

 

[Avatar4321]

Does the phrase "Congress shall make no law" mean anything??????

Not to Congress

 

[Vast LWC]

Still the question begs:

What if the corporation known as "New York Times" endorses political candidates?

then they get labeled as biased media like they already do. its the same as fox endorsing Rs and msbnc endorsing Ds

I didn't ask how they got labeled. I asked in the context of one of those eeeeevvvviiill corporations --this time in the guise of a media corporation-- trying to affect the outcome of elections.

C'mon.....It's not like we don't already know the answer.

I do admit that this is a decent argument, that media has way too much power. But in all fairness there were always competing media sources that had different points of view, and they would rise and fall based on accuracy and popularity.

The same would not be true of corporations that have the ability to work behind the scenes, propping up figureheads that won't betray their true intentions, but will always act in the interest of the ruling corporate oligarchy over the interest of the individual.

And this is the true big step toward Fascism, not that crap that Glenn Beck was spouting.

Fascism is, by definition, the marriage of corporations and government.

 

[goldcatt]

Then it falls under freedom of the press, in the case of the New York Yimes OR Fox News.

Wrong the Press has no inherent right to openly side for one candidate or another. That does not fall under Freedom of the Press at all.

Sure they do and it does.

But the paper masthead tells us who is endorsing this or that candidate.

Of course they have that right, and the people have the right to give it whatever credence they choose. Freedom to engage in political opinion is a long-standing protection of the press. They had political cartoons and op-ed pieces in Washington's day, after all.

 

[Oddball]

Then it falls under freedom of the press, in the case of the New York Yimes OR Fox News.

So the 1st Amendment doesn't count if you're not a media racketeer?

Interesting.

Freedom of the press IS the First Amendment, Dude. It's a different jurisprudence, but it's most definitely First Amendment.

So is freedom of speech.

How do you fight a newspaper or other media corporation, should they work to put you out of business?