Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[del]

Get your facts straight and use proper English when discussing them. Corporations can NOT give money to Individual Candidates. Claiming they can is a LIE.

True. But a person using a corporation, or a group of individuals in any other association, now, can combine their efforts, their energy, their speech (and their assets to disseminate their speech). And a DVD like the "Hillary" one at issue in the case the SCTOUS just decided -- pure political speech -- CAN be made and diostributed and heard and seen by anybody interested in doing so. And the FEC cannot, now, threaten to arrest, prosecute, imprison and bankrupt such individuals, associations or corporations (which ARE just associations of people) for having the temerity, in the United States of America, to engage in POLITICAL speech!

Right, so any corporation with enough money to buy or ruin a candidate can make any kind of propaganda and put it on the air and there is no limit on how much they can spend.

Billions will spent and the richest of all will get their candidate elected and that politician will vote to help that corporation make even more billions and all the money that was distributed to the top 5% during the Bush admin will seem like a mere bag of shells.

ALL the money will be distributed to the top and the middle class will disappear altogether.

Without the middle class, there is no democracy. Without the middle class we are a third world country. Without manufacturing we are a third world country.

yup, just like a union or a 527.

it's the end of the world.

 

[Vast LWC]

And, if we're going to tax them at income tax rates, we need to make a new top tier bracket for people who make 1 billion dollars a year or more!

Well this could work out well.

Of course corporations could opt out as long as they don't make any political donations in any form.

 

[MajikMyst]

I'm betting that not ONE single conservative in this thread who defends the scotus decision has yet to bitch about the usurping of judicial power over the congressional and has mentioned nary a single ACTIVIST JUDGES battle cry over this process...

Yes!! How bout those activist judges?? Taking power away from the people and giving it to coporate and special interest groups??

This is a travisty of a ruling!! Where is the out cry? Where is the pound for freedom and power to the people?? Where is it??

The silence is deafening from the neotards.. The single most determental ruling that is taking away their freedom and they don't even know it..

Under a thuderous applause they vote their rights and freedoms away..

Hey, where are all the WTO, Illuminati, New World Order, Bilderberg Group folks???

Ummmm... Looking for the latest copy of Obama's Birth Certificate?? Either that or planning a tea party against Girl Scouts.. I guess they didn't like the cookies..

 

[uscitizen]

Corporations express the collective investment goals of shareholders. The legal stricture known as fiduciary responsibility confines all but closely held corporations to this singular goal. By shutting off other values to focus solely on pursuit of profit in inherently amoral economic competition, corporations are by their nature amoral as well. Despite image-enhancing claims of corporate citizenship, they have no consciences to express, only earnings per share. They differ from people not only in form and size but, most importantly, in their fundamental character: People—including corporate executives, employees, and shareholders—have inherent worth and dignity; corporations in and of themselves do not.

Thus, as big corporations' power to influence our government grows in relation to the power of We the People as expressed through democracy, the power of the amoral grows in relation to the power of the moral.
Tom Stites

Yeah about like a bullhorn in a bus though.

 

[uscitizen]

True. But a person using a corporation, or a group of individuals in any other association, now, can combine their efforts, their energy, their speech (and their assets to disseminate their speech). And a DVD like the "Hillary" one at issue in the case the SCTOUS just decided -- pure political speech -- CAN be made and diostributed and heard and seen by anybody interested in doing so. And the FEC cannot, now, threaten to arrest, prosecute, imprison and bankrupt such individuals, associations or corporations (which ARE just associations of people) for having the temerity, in the United States of America, to engage in POLITICAL speech!

Right, so any corporation with enough money to buy or ruin a candidate can make any kind of propaganda and put it on the air and there is no limit on how much they can spend.

Billions will spent and the richest of all will get their candidate elected and that politician will vote to help that corporation make even more billions and all the money that was distributed to the top 5% during the Bush admin will seem like a mere bag of shells.

ALL the money will be distributed to the top and the middle class will disappear altogether.

Without the middle class, there is no democracy. Without the middle class we are a third world country. Without manufacturing we are a third world country.

yup, just like a union or a 527.

it's the end of the world.

I group unions with corps as far as freedom of "speech" about political contributions goes.

 

[goldcatt]

Right, so any corporation with enough money to buy or ruin a candidate can make any kind of propaganda and put it on the air and there is no limit on how much they can spend.

Billions will spent and the richest of all will get their candidate elected and that politician will vote to help that corporation make even more billions and all the money that was distributed to the top 5% during the Bush admin will seem like a mere bag of shells.

ALL the money will be distributed to the top and the middle class will disappear altogether.

Without the middle class, there is no democracy. Without the middle class we are a third world country. Without manufacturing we are a third world country.

yup, just like a union or a 527.

it's the end of the world.

I group unions with corps as far as freedom of "speech" about political contributions goes.

Appropriate. So did this decision.

 

[del]

Right, so any corporation with enough money to buy or ruin a candidate can make any kind of propaganda and put it on the air and there is no limit on how much they can spend.

Billions will spent and the richest of all will get their candidate elected and that politician will vote to help that corporation make even more billions and all the money that was distributed to the top 5% during the Bush admin will seem like a mere bag of shells.

ALL the money will be distributed to the top and the middle class will disappear altogether.

Without the middle class, there is no democracy. Without the middle class we are a third world country. Without manufacturing we are a third world country.

yup, just like a union or a 527.

it's the end of the world.

I group unions with corps as far as freedom of "speech" about political contributions goes.

well then you should be delighted that they both are treated equally by the law.

 

[Intense]

[3] But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men,(4) I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

[4] After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.



A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys,(5) and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1

The only thing I would change here, is the last Paragraph. I would substitute the file of Soldiers, with the files of the ranks of the Political Parties, mind dead, and marching on into self destruction, with not so much as a clue. Here are some more thoughts that Henry was so kind to share with Us. For those that would accuse Me of selectively cut and pasting, consider there is a point which should be obvious to reason, , the Links are here for Your Pleasure and edification .




........[17] They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

[18] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

[19] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher (8) was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.


Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 3


I have nothing to add or take away here.

 

[Avatar4321]

"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."

I don't know how clearer it can be. Black and white. Even a Lib can figure it out

if you really care so much about free speech and if you really think corporations are people then you will agree those corporate funded election ads should end with statements like:

" i am ExxonMobil, and i approve of this message! "

let's see how many people will want ExxonMobil as their senator etc.

maybe Liability would vote for them.

They already have to end their advertisements with that. But you guys seem to think that because corporations can spend money on advertising, people are just going to blindly follow them when they have to disclose that. It's ridiculous.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

It's the old libertarian (little "L") principle: I can swing my arms around all I want so long as my fist does not connect with your nose. If you honor the law as expressed in The First Amendment, you are led to the inescapable conclusion that The US Supreme Court came to the correct decision - whether it is personally distasteful or not.

-TSO

 

[Avatar4321]

Congress shall make no law... I didnt realize how much people hate that idea. Free speech is only allowed if it's the right kind of speech. Corporations saying something is just evil. but if its unions, LLCs, sole proprietorships, partnerships, or any group of people, their speech and money is allowed. After all, everyone loves the Unions having control of government. Who could oppose that?

We talk about wanting an informed electorate. And then you wont let certain groups of people speak out against incumbent politicians when they are attacked or allow them to voice their political opinions. How is that helping the public be informed?

McCain Fiengold was bad law. We knew it when it was passed. It still is. "Congress shall make no law" means exactly that. The Founders didnt create an exception to that amendment.

And you know what, if we actually followed the Constitution and limited the Federal government like we should have always been doing, no corporation or special interest group would have any reason to try to influence elections. Because they would know that they cant.

But no, we have to have an over intrusive government that treats the Constitution like a dish rag. So let's just violate it some more instead of fixing the real problems with our Republic.

Oh and money and power dont corrupt people. Corrupt people corrupt money and power.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

I hope this repeals the limiting of the amount of money an individual can donate to a campaign. Personally, I see limiting this as a way to skirt around my first amendment rights.

-TSO

 

[theHawk]

What a surprise, liberals screaming bloody murder because more people have the right to say what they want during an election.

 

[Truthmatters]

Corporations are NOT people

 

[goldcatt]

What a surprise, liberals screaming bloody murder because more people have the right to say what they want during an election.

What "People"? That's the point here. We're not talking about "People". We're talking about pieces of paper having rights.

 

[Oddball]

Corporations are NOT people

They ARE 14th Amendment "persons".

That's the law.....Like it or not (and just for the record, I don't), deal with it.

 

[Intense]

What a surprise, liberals screaming bloody murder because more people have the right to say what they want during an election.

What "People"? That's the point here. We're not talking about "People". We're talking about pieces of paper having rights.

We are talking about some pieces of paper having rights, and not others. Even to the point where They could not defend against false attack.

You don't like something a Corporation does, don't buy Their product, sell your stock. Voice your opinion.

 

[goldcatt]

Corporations are NOT people

They ARE 14th Amendment "persons".

That's the law.....Like it or not (and just for the record, I don't), deal with it.

Actually, it's not the law.

Santa Clara is in fact the law, but it was not decided on 14th Amendment grounds. It has been cited as such, but read the decision and you see it was decided under statutory grounds, not Constiutional ones. The 14th issues were never reached.

Read it for yourself, you've already posted the link so I know you know where to find it.

The fact that it's been misused and cited as Constitutional authority instead of a statutory decision is appalling, but doesn't change the fact that relying on it is a fiction.

 

[KissMy]

Corporations like GE & Westinghouse own NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, & CBS. The Government pays for NPR & PBS. So what difference does this law actually make? - NONE!

Obama gave GE $139 Billion of our tax dollars to spread propaganda throughout its vast media empire to buy our votes!

Government stripping us of our earnings & using them to buy the press is the real problem. What about freedom of the press. Why does government get more "free speech" than we the people do? Government even gets more "free speech" than corporations do!

Here is something to consider on this Kiss, Networks like NBC and CBS are subject to FCC rules, while yes it's true that for the most part the cable networks have morphed into nothing but opinion based news. Here is the difference. Lets say your G.E. and your bidding on a contract against Snecma based in France on a Govt. contract for aircraft engines and the two candidates for President support one or the other. Now those companies are free to spend as much money as they like on those commercial airwaves supporting the candidates that have their interests at heart. In the argument where G.E. owns the network, should they violate FCC rules they are subject to sanctions.

Section 399 [47 U.S.C. §399] Support of political candidates prohibited.
No noncommercial educational broadcasting station may support or oppose any candidate for political office.


The other thing too, the Govt. we have the ability to change if we so wish through voting, the problem with that is that many choose not to exercise that and we find ourselves in the position where Govt. is doing some of the things you posted because they understand that for the most part when there is apathy on the part of those that vote for them then they are free to do as they choose.

Government paid for media is subject to Government FCC regulation. Wow I really feel all cozy fuzzy warm & protected now. - NOT!!!

I am limited on how much I can spend on advertising but Obama takes my hard earned money by force & pays MSNBC to run a 24/7/365 propaganda channel that does not even fall under campaign regulation is not fair or free!!!

BTW - GE capital is a finance company that will become filthy rich & benefit the most from carbon swaps due to carbon cap & trade. They also invested heavy into "green projects" & sell windmills, solar panels, green jet engines. GE capital's MSNBC network ran a 24/7/365 propaganda campaign to get Obama elected to president just because he was the most active supporter of the carbon cap & trade government mandate.

GE capital gets government taxpayer money at zero percent interest & charges 8% interest loans to wind & solar projects bought from & built by GE. What a racket, these projects are subsidized by taxpayers.

 

[Oddball]

Corporations are NOT people

They ARE 14th Amendment "persons".

That's the law.....Like it or not (and just for the record, I don't), deal with it.

Actually, it's not the law.

Santa Clara is in fact the law, but it was not decided on 14th Amendment grounds. It has been cited as such, but read the decision and you see it was decided under statutory grounds, not Constiutional ones. The 14th issues were never reached.

Read it for yourself, you've already posted the link so I know you know where to find it.

The fact that it's been misused and cited as Constitutional authority instead of a statutory decision is appalling, but doesn't change the fact that relying on it is a fiction.

I've read it numerous times...Like it or not (and I don't) that's how the ruling has been applied.