Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[CrusaderFrank]

In his dissent to the 5-to-4 ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens highlighted the burden placed on states.

“The court operates with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress’s most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics,” he wrote. “It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well."

cough cough roe v. wade cough

 

[goldcatt]

i didnt' put the full text....



how do corps get around that?

They do as Toyota does, they Incorporate here, Airbus, Honda, you name it are all for the purposes of taxes and law are American companies. That is why Toyota here is called Toyota North America, which is an actual American company. The individuals in that company do not matter for the purpose of a company wishing to express its political desires here as long as there is no law that bars the company from doing so and given the recent decision it appears that "Free Speech" for companies when it comes to campaigns is the order of the day.

yet, in order to disperse funds for political speech, the law could require proof of no foreign ownership. for example, who are the majority shareholders. if you read scalia's concurrance, his issue is with chilling speech is in terms of assocating with others, not whether a corporation is foreign owned. and, IMO, the court did not even remotely address the issue. i wouldn't be surprised if someone brings this up.

i don't know if i am right, but it certaintly raises a novel theory and throws a monkey wrench into the ruling.

I don't think under this ruling it can require proof of ownership. If the corporate entity is a person in its own right, then it has its own nationality determined separately from its owners. Unless they're going to backtrack on their own ruling right away, I can't imagine how any statute regarding foreign ownership could stand. Unless they were really serious about corporate political rights deriving from this whole "group of individuals" association nonsense, in which case I have no idea how they'll fashion a coherent body of law from this.

And if the corporation is now in law nothing more than an association of individuals, what does that do for the limited liability aspect of the separate corporate entity? Are they truly no longer separate?

They did, after all, not only misuse Santa Clara in the opinion but also relied on free press and association cases to support a free speech issue. Maybe to keep up the fiction they'll have to split several more fictitious hairs?

 

[antagon]

Actually it was a poorly written law, struck down by the SCOTUS. Even the ACLU gets that.

Of course the ACLU would support this decision. That's their purpose, to support civil liberties.

Of course, now that the Court has determined that corporations are individual entities with the same rights, we can tax them like individual entities, using normal income tax brackets, as opposed to the non-taxes they are currently paying.

We can base this new tax status on whether they decide to engage in politics or not.

As discussed in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndividual-then-it-must-be-taxed-that-way.html

corporations pay plenty tax, buddy. arent you satisfied they cant vote? their only means of influence is the lobbying politicians and lobbying the public via free speech. free speech and no taxation without representation is what this bitch was founded on, no?

 

[Intense]

Actually it was a poorly written law, struck down by the SCOTUS. Even the ACLU gets that.

The First Amendment could not be more clear.

And the bribery could not be more clear.

Why not keep ACORN out of this argument???

 

[Intense]

Actually it was a poorly written law, struck down by the SCOTUS. Even the ACLU gets that.

Of course the ACLU would support this decision. That's their purpose, to support civil liberties.

Of course, now that the Court has determined that corporations are individual entities with the same rights, we can tax them like individual entities, using normal income tax brackets, as opposed to the non-taxes they are currently paying.

We can base this new tax status on whether they decide to engage in politics or not.

As discussed in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndividual-then-it-must-be-taxed-that-way.html

There goes your 401K.

 

[Intense]

Why do We keep making the same mistakes assuming that the Republic does fine on Auto-Pilot? It Doesn't.

why ? because that's what the corporate owned media and government tell us.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR3KwODDzeY]YouTube - Bill Hicks - Go Back to Bed America[/ame]

Snip those strings.

 

[Intense]

and their common purpose is to make money. they have no other purpose in forming that group - nobody denies that - that is the very definition of corporation.

in that case the only thing a corporation should be allowed to say is " I WANT MORE MONEY ! "

According to Who?

What do you suppose is the purpose of creating corporations - to advance human rights ?

Mass Production, Mass Distribution, Joint Effort, Advancement of Ideas?
In many cases Corporations contribute greatly to Humanity. What would You substitute that did not involve the barrel of a gun pointing at You, Jail-Cells, Kangaroo Courts, and Mass Graves.

Ever take the time to ask Yourself Who is trashing the Free Market and Free Trade, and to What End?

Totalitarianism does not equal Utopia.

 

[Intense]

You're a fucking idiot.

We don't have any free speech in this country you moron.

All they did is legalize bribery.

You are beyond clueless. You are retarded.

We have no free speech?

Then what the hell is all this discussion I see about a Supreme Court decision? if we have no free speech, we wouldn't be entitled to discuss a determination of THE GOVERNMENT.

Did somebody stop you from claiming that I was a "fucking idiot?" Seems to me I just read it, so it LOOKS like nobody stopped you from spewing your ignorance.

I have often been highly critical of President Obama and Dingy Harry Reid and Shrieker Pelousy, and lots of libs around these parts had been harshly (and irrationally) critical of our former President and Vice President. Nobody got arrested and nobody prevented any of us from sharing our views.

But to morons like you, "we have no free speech."

You clueless talking-point addicted dork.

we do not have free speech.

free speech doesn't mean there are some things you can say. it doesn't mean you can sometimes criticize your government. it means you can say ANYTHING, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. we don't have that.

i was recently banned from a forum for "hate speech" and before that i was banned from another forum for "promoting pedophilia" etc. you cannot protest in America WITHOUT A PERMIT to protest ( does that make sense to you ? )

and what the fuck is a "designated free speech zone" ? isn't that what the whole of America was supposed to be ?

instead of waking up and fighting for REAL free speech - like the right to protest ( outside the designated free speech zones ) the government WITHOUT A PERMIT that the government itself must give you - no instead of that you want to fight for the rights of the most ruthless, powerful, oppressive entities which are both non-human, fundamentally immoral and immortal.

Start Your Own Forum. Your venue may be pulled out from under you, not your voice. Tell it somewhere else. You have the Right to Voice, it's up to You how and where You get through. Action has consequence, You can't force People to listen or read. You can better articulate. Develop and learn in People Skills. You might also consider the distinction between Private Property and Public Property regarding what You can and can't do.

 

[goldcatt]

According to Who?

What do you suppose is the purpose of creating corporations - to advance human rights ?

Mass Production, Mass Distribution, Joint Effort, Advancement of Ideas?
In many cases Corporations contribute greatly to Humanity. What would You substitute that did not involve the barrel of a gun pointing at You, Jail-Cells, Kangaroo Courts, and Mass Graves.

Ever take the time to ask Yourself Who is trashing the Free Market and Free Trade, and to What End?

Totalitarianism does not equal Utopia.

No. The entire purpose for creating a corporation is to create a separate - and fictitious - entity that functions as an umbrella against personal responsibility for business actions. Any sole proprietorship can do any of the things a corporation can in a business sense.

There are good reasons for incorporation, I'm not against it. But don't kid yourselves about the nature and purpose of the corporate construct. Its sole reason for existence is to keep the individual and the business separate.

 

[Intense]

Of course it does. Political speech is an individual right. A corporation, or a union for that matter, is not an individual and is and has always been separate from the individuals associated with it. The corporate entity itself is not entitled to the rights bestowed on it by the Court yesterday, all the blathering and tangents about wealth and the group of individuals aside.

It's a poorly written fiction of an opinion that misuses citations and skims over the fact of what a corporate entity really is, not to mention the reason we as individuals enjoy protected political speech. What's not to hate about it?

You could not be more wrong on the matter. If You were right, what is to stop Government from stopping or censoring Political Speech in Book or Print, that is produced Through Corporate Entities, Voice when carried over Corporate Provided and Maintained Airways, Internet, Any Public or Private Place that is Incorporated, under Corporate Control, or benefited by their funding? Your claim is beyond reason. Study The American Revolution. Freedom of Speech and The Press is Rooted in The Message, Content, Not the Source. You got off the elevator on the wrong floor. Find the Elevator.

Yes, and who is the source of the message and content in a book or publication? The author, who is an individual or in the case of a collaboration, a group of individuals.

The corporation producing the book is the creator of the paper pages it is printed on, the ink for printing, the binding, the distribution, the marketing....but not the content. Even in the editing process the author has the final say. Sorry my friend, but that dog don't hunt.

What Corporate Idea was not born of an Individual?
I'm arguing for the free expression of Ideas. Let the argument stand or fall on It's own merit.
You are arguing for recently enacted arbitrary censorship, that prohibits and obstructs legitimate argument arbitrarily, with imbalance and favor for some, and disfavor for others with No Regard for the Argument or the Truth, or Fairness, or Justice.

that dog don't hunt.
Good Dog! We'll have that muzzle off in a minute!

In all fairness, Companies that I find offensive I don't support. It is in Their interest to always keep Our concerns in mind, it is a matter of self preservation, survival.

 

[Intense]

What do you suppose is the purpose of creating corporations - to advance human rights ?

Mass Production, Mass Distribution, Joint Effort, Advancement of Ideas?
In many cases Corporations contribute greatly to Humanity. What would You substitute that did not involve the barrel of a gun pointing at You, Jail-Cells, Kangaroo Courts, and Mass Graves.

Ever take the time to ask Yourself Who is trashing the Free Market and Free Trade, and to What End?

Totalitarianism does not equal Utopia.

No. The entire purpose for creating a corporation is to create a separate - and fictitious - entity that functions as an umbrella against personal responsibility for business actions. Any sole proprietorship can do any of the things a corporation can in a business sense.

There are good reasons for incorporation, I'm not against it. But don't kid yourselves about the nature and purpose of the corporate construct. Its sole reason for existence is to keep the individual and the business separate.

I'm a DBA, I'm small enough to be so. Corporations that involve Stocks and Public Ownership are a whole different animal. There is so much more to it, than protecting personal assets. Maybe you could look into History?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually it was a poorly written law, struck down by the SCOTUS. Even the ACLU gets that.

Of course the ACLU would support this decision. That's their purpose, to support civil liberties.

Of course, now that the Court has determined that corporations are individual entities with the same rights, we can tax them like individual entities, using normal income tax brackets, as opposed to the non-taxes they are currently paying.

We can base this new tax status on whether they decide to engage in politics or not.

As discussed in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndividual-then-it-must-be-taxed-that-way.html

corporations pay plenty tax, buddy. arent you satisfied they cant vote? their only means of influence is the lobbying politicians and lobbying the public via free speech. free speech and no taxation without representation is what this bitch was founded on, no?

Si, pedro, so corporations can be taxed exactly as all other individuals.

 

[Vast LWC]

corporations pay plenty tax, buddy. arent you satisfied they cant vote? their only means of influence is the lobbying politicians and lobbying the public via free speech. free speech and no taxation without representation is what this bitch was founded on, no?

1) Corporations do not pay "plenty of tax". They pay next to no taxes thanks to corporate tax breaks and loopholes. And hell, if you're right, and they pay "Plenty of tax", then legislation like this would make no difference, right? LOL.

2) Shareholders of corporations sure as hell can vote, and they have plenty of representation. Are you suggesting we give those shareholders MORE votes??? That would really be unconstitutional. And of course, giving corporations votes as individuals would be another decision for the Supreme Court, one that I'm sure even this loaded court would never make.

3) As far as "No taxation without representation", see the 700,000 people of Washington DC.

Or consider how each person in Wyoming has 4 times as much representation per person as a person in California.

As soon as we work out those issues with ACTUAL people, we can move on to corporate representation, K?

And finally:

4) As we all know, being able to spend millions of dollars to buy media airtime is much more effective than any single vote a corporation would be able to cast.

 

[del]

You're a fucking idiot.

We don't have any free speech in this country you moron.

All they did is legalize bribery.

You are beyond clueless. You are retarded.

We have no free speech?

Then what the hell is all this discussion I see about a Supreme Court decision? if we have no free speech, we wouldn't be entitled to discuss a determination of THE GOVERNMENT.

Did somebody stop you from claiming that I was a "fucking idiot?" Seems to me I just read it, so it LOOKS like nobody stopped you from spewing your ignorance.

I have often been highly critical of President Obama and Dingy Harry Reid and Shrieker Pelousy, and lots of libs around these parts had been harshly (and irrationally) critical of our former President and Vice President. Nobody got arrested and nobody prevented any of us from sharing our views.

But to morons like you, "we have no free speech."

You clueless talking-point addicted dork.

we do not have free speech.

free speech doesn't mean there are some things you can say. it doesn't mean you can sometimes criticize your government. it means you can say ANYTHING, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. we don't have that.

i was recently banned from a forum for "hate speech" and before that i was banned from another forum for "promoting pedophilia" etc. you cannot protest in America WITHOUT A PERMIT to protest ( does that make sense to you ? )

and what the fuck is a "designated free speech zone" ? isn't that what the whole of America was supposed to be ?

instead of waking up and fighting for REAL free speech - like the right to protest ( outside the designated free speech zones ) the government WITHOUT A PERMIT that the government itself must give you - no instead of that you want to fight for the rights of the most ruthless, powerful, oppressive entities which are both non-human, fundamentally immoral and immortal.

you can't have what you don't understand, apparently.

dope

 

[Truthmatters]

Corporate personhood for foreigners who may want to harm this country.

The Bin Ladin family can now get the representation they really need in the American system.

Good going right leaning 5 of the 9.

Maybe they were right about this "new world order" bullshit they used to say about the Bush family.

 

[Vast LWC]

corporations pay plenty tax, buddy. arent you satisfied they cant vote? their only means of influence is the lobbying politicians and lobbying the public via free speech. free speech and no taxation without representation is what this bitch was founded on, no?

1) Corporations do not pay "plenty of tax". They pay next to no taxes thanks to corporate tax breaks and loopholes. And hell, if you're right, and they pay "Plenty of tax", then legislation like this would make no difference, right? LOL.

2) Shareholders of corporations sure as hell can vote, and they have plenty of representation. Are you suggesting we give those shareholders MORE votes??? That would really be unconstitutional. And of course, giving corporations votes as individuals would be another decision for the Supreme Court, one that I'm sure even this loaded court would never make.

3) As far as "No taxation without representation", see the 700,000 people of Washington DC.

Or consider how each person in Wyoming has 4 times as much representation per person as a person in California.

As soon as we work out those issues with ACTUAL people, we can move on to corporate representation, K?

 

[goldcatt]

You could not be more wrong on the matter. If You were right, what is to stop Government from stopping or censoring Political Speech in Book or Print, that is produced Through Corporate Entities, Voice when carried over Corporate Provided and Maintained Airways, Internet, Any Public or Private Place that is Incorporated, under Corporate Control, or benefited by their funding? Your claim is beyond reason. Study The American Revolution. Freedom of Speech and The Press is Rooted in The Message, Content, Not the Source. You got off the elevator on the wrong floor. Find the Elevator.

Yes, and who is the source of the message and content in a book or publication? The author, who is an individual or in the case of a collaboration, a group of individuals.

The corporation producing the book is the creator of the paper pages it is printed on, the ink for printing, the binding, the distribution, the marketing....but not the content. Even in the editing process the author has the final say. Sorry my friend, but that dog don't hunt.

What Corporate Idea was not born of an Individual?
I'm arguing for the free expression of Ideas. Let the argument stand or fall on It's own merit.
You are arguing for recently enacted arbitrary censorship, that prohibits and obstructs legitimate argument arbitrarily, with imbalance and favor for some, and disfavor for others with No Regard for the Argument or the Truth, or Fairness, or Justice.

that dog don't hunt.
Good Dog! We'll have that muzzle off in a minute!

In all fairness, Companies that I find offensive I don't support. It is in Their interest to always keep Our concerns in mind, it is a matter of self preservation, survival.

Not in the least. I'm arguing that individual rights must be vigilantly defended but for individuals, not fictitious legal entities that only exist on paper. I'm sorry if you don't understand the distinction.

 

[Vast LWC]

Sorry about the double post.

 

[Truthmatters]

fictitious legal entities that only exist on paper that can be owned by any human with enough money to buy them even if they HATE this country and want it to die.

 

[goldcatt]

Mass Production, Mass Distribution, Joint Effort, Advancement of Ideas?
In many cases Corporations contribute greatly to Humanity. What would You substitute that did not involve the barrel of a gun pointing at You, Jail-Cells, Kangaroo Courts, and Mass Graves.

Ever take the time to ask Yourself Who is trashing the Free Market and Free Trade, and to What End?

Totalitarianism does not equal Utopia.

No. The entire purpose for creating a corporation is to create a separate - and fictitious - entity that functions as an umbrella against personal responsibility for business actions. Any sole proprietorship can do any of the things a corporation can in a business sense.

There are good reasons for incorporation, I'm not against it. But don't kid yourselves about the nature and purpose of the corporate construct. Its sole reason for existence is to keep the individual and the business separate.

I'm a DBA, I'm small enough to be so. Corporations that involve Stocks and Public Ownership are a whole different animal. There is so much more to it, than protecting personal assets. Maybe you could look into History?

Stocks and public ownership are simply a mechanism for raising capital. All forms of businesses have their own means of raising capital. The size and scope of a small percentage of corporations makes it highly regulated and complicated, but the vast majority of domestic corporations are closely held and not publicly owned. Or do you really equate your average sub-S with Wal Mart?