Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[theHawk]

The people themselves do. The fictional entity does not. Or rather now it does, but it should not.

So in other words a collection of people should not have a voice. And what exactly is a "fictional entity"? Are you now trying to say that companies and unions don't really exist?

Of course a collection of people should have a voice. But a corporation exists solely on paper, as a result of filing another piece of paper and paying a State a fee. Don't make the mistake of confusing the legal entity that is a "corporation" with the people who happen to own pieces of it, or do work under its auspices.

I see, so a collection of people can have a voice, but if they file a piece of paper and pay a state fee, then they somehow lose constitutional rights.

Yea, that makes a lot of sense....



Pop quiz, should the New York Times News Corporation have a right to voice their own opinion during an election?

 

[Yurt]

Who is allowed to own an American corporation?

hmmm....interesting point given:

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection
with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or
expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in
connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political
committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national
shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national
party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a
State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal
account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the
organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

Section

hmmm

 

[goldcatt]

So in other words a collection of people should not have a voice. And what exactly is a "fictional entity"? Are you now trying to say that companies and unions don't really exist?

Of course a collection of people should have a voice. But a corporation exists solely on paper, as a result of filing another piece of paper and paying a State a fee. Don't make the mistake of confusing the legal entity that is a "corporation" with the people who happen to own pieces of it, or do work under its auspices.

I see, so a collection of people can have a voice, but if they file a piece of paper and pay a state fee, then they somehow lose constitutional rights.

Yea, that makes a lot of sense....



Pop quiz, should the New York Times News Corporation have a right to voice their own opinion during an election?

The people who file that piece of paper lose no rights. The piece of paper, however, should not obtain theirs.

Edited to add: And it's already been pointed out that any media corporation is covered under freedom of the press, not of speech alone. Which is a separate clause, a separate jurisprudence, and a separate right.

 

[theHawk]

Who is allowed to own an American corporation?

hmmm....interesting point given:

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection
with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or
expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in
connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political
committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national
shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national
party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a
State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal
account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the
organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

Section

hmmm

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

There is a difference between a company running its own ads giving their own opinion versus directly contributing to the party or candidate. Those restrictions were left in place.

What this boils down to is are corporations allowed to pay for ads to be aired that voice their opinion. I think any company doing so during an election would be especially careful of the messages they air, out of fear of backlash from their consumers.

 

[Truthmatters]

Who is allowed to own an American corporation?

hmmm....interesting point given:

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection
with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or
expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in
connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political
committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national
shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national
party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a
State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal
account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the
organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

Section

hmmm

But its not "him" giving the money its the corporation "he" owns giving the money.


This decision makes it so the Bin Ladin family could pick our president if they invested enough in the right places.

 

[theHawk]

Of course a collection of people should have a voice. But a corporation exists solely on paper, as a result of filing another piece of paper and paying a State a fee. Don't make the mistake of confusing the legal entity that is a "corporation" with the people who happen to own pieces of it, or do work under its auspices.

I see, so a collection of people can have a voice, but if they file a piece of paper and pay a state fee, then they somehow lose constitutional rights.

Yea, that makes a lot of sense....



Pop quiz, should the New York Times News Corporation have a right to voice their own opinion during an election?

Thge people who file that piece of paper lose no rights. The piece of paper, however, should not obtain theirs.

Obtain theirs? You act as if it takes away their rights. The right of freedom of speech is extended to all.

You also failed to answer my question. Do News Corporations have the right to freedom of speech?

 

[goldcatt]

Who is allowed to own an American corporation?

hmmm....interesting point given:

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection
with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or
expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in
connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political
committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national
shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national
party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a
State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal
account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the
organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

Section

hmmm

Well now, that's one VERY interesting point. Didn't Stevens touch on that issue in his dissent?

 

[theHawk]

Who is allowed to own an American corporation?

hmmm....interesting point given:

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection
with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or
expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in
connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political
committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national
shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national
party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a
State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal
account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the
organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

Section

hmmm

But its not "him" giving the money its the corporation "he" owns giving the money.


This decision makes it so the Bin Ladin family could pick our president if they invested enough in the right places.

Didn't they already accomplish that in the 2008 Presidential election?

 

[goldcatt]

I see, so a collection of people can have a voice, but if they file a piece of paper and pay a state fee, then they somehow lose constitutional rights.

Yea, that makes a lot of sense....



Pop quiz, should the New York Times News Corporation have a right to voice their own opinion during an election?

Thge people who file that piece of paper lose no rights. The piece of paper, however, should not obtain theirs.

Obtain theirs? You act as if it takes away their rights. The right of freedom of speech is extended to all.

You also failed to answer my question. Do News Corporations have the right to freedom of speech?

*sigh* You fail to see the difference between the individuals who create or own the entity and the entity itself. They are two different things. They have to be in order to confer the benefit for which they were created, which is limitation of personal liability.

And you're right, I didn't answer your NYT question initially - see edit.

 

[Truthmatters]

You dont seem to get the idea that we can now have our elections determined by foreign entities.

 

[theHawk]

Edited to add: And it's already been pointed out that any media corporation is covered under freedom of the press, not of speech alone. Which is a separate clause, a separate jurisprudence, and a separate right.

I see, so certain types of corporations can have those rights, while others can't. What's wrong with letting everyone have the same rights?

 

[theHawk]

You dont seem to get the idea that we can now have our elections determined by foreign entities.

How so? The court ruling expressely held in place the ban on contributions by foreigners.

 

[Navy1960]

Who is allowed to own an American corporation?

hmmm....interesting point given:

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection
with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or
expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in
connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political
committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national
shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national
party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a
State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal
account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the
organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

Section

hmmm

Well now, that's one VERY interesting point. Didn't Stevens touch on that issue in his dissent?

The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell , it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question.
J. Stevens

 

[Truthmatters]

the corporation is NOT the person who owns it you fool

 

[goldcatt]

Edited to add: And it's already been pointed out that any media corporation is covered under freedom of the press, not of speech alone. Which is a separate clause, a separate jurisprudence, and a separate right.

I see, so certain types of corporations can have those rights, while others can't. What's wrong with letting everyone have the same rights?

Freedom of speech and of press are separate and divsible rights, Hawk. Having one does not necessarily include having the other.

Look at it this way. A corpoation (or a union for that matter) is a tool created by humans to serve a purpose. Only instead of being a hammer you can swing or a computer you can program, it's a legal shell that can own property and conduct activities in its own name at the bidding of its owners.

Should tools have protected political rights, or should that be restricted to their owners?

 

[Truthmatters]

Any foreign national with enough money to own stock in a controling amount can now effect our elections.

They are not the corporation and will not be checked for the citizenship of their major stock holders.

 

[Navy1960]

Wait, so what you are saying then it is okay for Ford to advertise for a candidate but not Toyota even though Toyota employs Americans, and builds cars in the United States? Cannot have it both ways here, you advocate for Free Speech for companies and unions in this nation, then you have to support it for ALL those companies doing business here as they are people are they not?

 

[theHawk]

the corporation is NOT the person who owns it you fool

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Corporations can't make contributions....you fool.

 

[goldcatt]

You dont seem to get the idea that we can now have our elections determined by foreign entities.

How so? The court ruling expressely held in place the ban on contributions by foreigners.

BUT foreign individuals can and are owners of domestic corporations. And since a corporation is a separate entity from its owners...can you see where this is going? Anyone around the world who can fill out a paper, pay a fee and open a PO Box in Delaware now has the Constitutionally protected ability to (indirectly of course) participate in and affect our political process.

 

[Navy1960]

A wholly owned subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America is the holding company for all of its parent's North American operations, covering sales, engineering, and manufacturing subsidiaries from offices in New York, Miami, and Washington, DC. It oversees functions related to government and regulatory affairs, energy, economic research, philanthropy, advertising, corporate communications, and investor relations. Through its manufacturing operations, Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Toyota builds vehicles and parts at 13 plants in North America. Toyota has invested more than $21 billion in its North American operations, which began in 1957

Toyota Motor North America Inc | Company profile from Hoover's



An example of a foreign company that is fully able to under this new ruling to advertise for candidates now. Want a better one...


Boeing has lost the long-awaited and lucrative Air Force refueling tanker contract to a competing bid based on an Airbus airplane, Air Force officials said Friday.

The newly named KC-45A plane will be produced by a partnership between Europe's EADS and Northrop Grumman, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said.
Boeing news | EADS/Northrop trumps Boeing in Air Force tanker competition | Seattle Times Newspaper