Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[goldcatt]

Person hood is still unrelated to Speech. It has no bearing. It is a tangent.

I'm sorry you still don't get it. Only people enjoy individual protected rights under the Constitution. Not plants, not animals, not objects tangible or intangible.

Incorrect.

Since we have a right to freedom of association (part and parcel of our freedom of speech conjoined with our freedom to peacably assemble and our right to petition the government for redress of grievances), it follows inexorably that these rights pertain not just to individuals, but to associations, like corporations.

For example, if the government decided that it really liked Microsoft, could it just take over Microsoft?

Would it require a derivative lawsuit by the shareholders against the government to try to prevent it? Or could Microsoft bring suit in its own name?

The correct answer is Microsoft could bring suit in its own name. The RIGHTS they would be seeking to vindicate would include their right to the enjoyment of their own property. Their right to bring suit (one nominally associated with "personhood") has LONG been recognized and there exist no legitimate and valid reasons to disturb that powerful legal fiction.

Corporations may sue and be sued, they may own property and sell it; they may enter into contracts; they may do a wide array of things exactly as any human being could to utilize those other rights. Why on Earth would it be a good idea to deny them their right to speech?

I am shocked to have to inform some libs of this, but maybe they do need the reminder.

If you deny THEM the right to speak, you deny us all (collectively as well as individually) of our right to HEAR what they might have to offer.

There is no right to hear.

 

[Modbert]

By the way, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or beaten to death in this thread, but...

With this decision by the SCOTUS, China and other countries will now be allowed to give unlimited funds to any candidate of their choosing.

Now, I don't think I need to point out the problem of that.

 

[goldcatt]

Congress shall make no law ... ; 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.

In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.

The Commission is made up of six members, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Each member serves a six-year term, and two seats are subject to appointment every two years. By law, no more than three Commissioners can be members of the same political party, and at least four votes are required for any official Commission action. This structure was created to encourage nonpartisan decisions. The Chairmanship of the Commission rotates among the members each year, with no member serving as Chairman more than once during his or her term.
About the FEC

Does this mean the FEC itself is unconstitutional?

I think not.

a⋅bridge
/əˈbrɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-brij]

–verb (used with object), a⋅bridged, a⋅bridg⋅ing.

1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

Doesn't the elimination of legal regulation of campaigns effectively cut off and limit the speech of those who can't financially afford equal access to "speak" publicly???

The law existed to protect us from such abridgment.

With this ruling, the financial powers that be can now legally diminish, curtail, and reduce in scope the authority of the people.

That's basically the antidistortion doctrine in the Austin decision, which was the law prior to this decision overturning it.

 

[Big Fitz]

With this decision by the SCOTUS, China and other countries will now be allowed to give unlimited funds to any candidate of their choosing.

Now this is not good. They SHOULD be banned from influencing elections. Although we know they bought Clinton, Gore and Bush. Whatta surprise.

 

[Liability]

By the way, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or beaten to death in this thread, but...

With this decision by the SCOTUS, China and other countries will now be allowed to give unlimited funds to any candidate of their choosing.

Now, I don't think I need to point out the problem of that.

Your claim is flatly untrue.

You cannot support it.

 

[Liability]

I'm sorry you still don't get it. Only people enjoy individual protected rights under the Constitution. Not plants, not animals, not objects tangible or intangible.

Incorrect.

Since we have a right to freedom of association (part and parcel of our freedom of speech conjoined with our freedom to peacably assemble and our right to petition the government for redress of grievances), it follows inexorably that these rights pertain not just to individuals, but to associations, like corporations.

For example, if the government decided that it really liked Microsoft, could it just take over Microsoft?

Would it require a derivative lawsuit by the shareholders against the government to try to prevent it? Or could Microsoft bring suit in its own name?

The correct answer is Microsoft could bring suit in its own name. The RIGHTS they would be seeking to vindicate would include their right to the enjoyment of their own property. Their right to bring suit (one nominally associated with "personhood") has LONG been recognized and there exist no legitimate and valid reasons to disturb that powerful legal fiction.

Corporations may sue and be sued, they may own property and sell it; they may enter into contracts; they may do a wide array of things exactly as any human being could to utilize those other rights. Why on Earth would it be a good idea to deny them their right to speech?

I am shocked to have to inform some libs of this, but maybe they do need the reminder.

If you deny THEM the right to speak, you deny us all (collectively as well as individually) of our right to HEAR what they might have to offer.

There is no right to hear.

^ Stupidest thing you have posted to date.

Yes there is a right to hear.

The right to speak entails the right to be heard and that entails the right to hear speech.

The reason we insisted on making the right to freedom of speech part of the bill of rights was not for the empty purpose of flapping our gums.

It was because we wanted to make sure that we could ALL hear what was being discussed -- and to insure that we could make the government hear us.

 

[Liability]

So by your reasoning the USSC ought to strike down the law against a Criminal Conspiracy, after all, it too is an association of people guaranteed free speech.

Your assertion is stupid since you made the false claim "by [my] reasoning."

You cannot speak for me. You can barely speak at all you're so retarded.

No, idiot. A criminal association has no right to freely speak about plotting to commit a criminal act.

A corporation, in exercising free speech, is not plotting to commit a crime.

Some folks (I deem them to be slow studies) take the unsupportable position that the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Speech is an "absolute." It isn't. It never was. Good God in heaven you libs are tedious.

You have no right to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire or you reasonably and honestly believe there is a fire.

You have no right to share military intelligence secrets with the nation's enemies, either.

And, no, of course you may not plot and conspire to overthrow this Government by force and violence, you moron.

And if Exxon were to attempt to make THAT the "speech" they tried to offer, their right to free speech wouldn't extend that far in THEIR case, either.

But if I want choose to advocate that the AGW Faither's theory is bullshit and that legislation based on that imbecility is a bad idea, then yes, Exxon SHOULD have the right to say as much, too.

You're too funny. I'm not sure if you need an enema or a valium - I suspect both. I would dissect your post if inclined to root out your profane insults to discover if you made a valid point, if I felt your were worth it. You're not, and I suspect you've gotten that reaction from others throughout your miserly life.

Fuck off, Fly Catcher. We all already know that you are nothing but a cowardly pussy unwilling to engage because you lack any of the skills or tools needed to engage.

I couldn't give a rat's ass that you object to my use of the "profane" especially since you resort to it yourself without hesitation you sissy hypocrite.

In any event, you are a pussy and your posts have never included anything of value. So, run away, You might as well. Nobody will care. Nobody will even notice.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm sorry you still don't get it. Only people enjoy individual protected rights under the Constitution. Not plants, not animals, not objects tangible or intangible.

Incorrect.

Since we have a right to freedom of association (part and parcel of our freedom of speech conjoined with our freedom to peacably assemble and our right to petition the government for redress of grievances), it follows inexorably that these rights pertain not just to individuals, but to associations, like corporations.

For example, if the government decided that it really liked Microsoft, could it just take over Microsoft?

Would it require a derivative lawsuit by the shareholders against the government to try to prevent it? Or could Microsoft bring suit in its own name?

The correct answer is Microsoft could bring suit in its own name. The RIGHTS they would be seeking to vindicate would include their right to the enjoyment of their own property. Their right to bring suit (one nominally associated with "personhood") has LONG been recognized and there exist no legitimate and valid reasons to disturb that powerful legal fiction.

Corporations may sue and be sued, they may own property and sell it; they may enter into contracts; they may do a wide array of things exactly as any human being could to utilize those other rights. Why on Earth would it be a good idea to deny them their right to speech?

I am shocked to have to inform some libs of this, but maybe they do need the reminder.

If you deny THEM the right to speak, you deny us all (collectively as well as individually) of our right to HEAR what they might have to offer.

There is no right to hear.

Technically, what I think you're meaning is that...

... Everyone has the right to speak their mind (within the constitutional limits)
... They do not have a right to a microphone
... The do not have a right to an audience.

 

[goldcatt]

Incorrect.

Since we have a right to freedom of association (part and parcel of our freedom of speech conjoined with our freedom to peacably assemble and our right to petition the government for redress of grievances), it follows inexorably that these rights pertain not just to individuals, but to associations, like corporations.

For example, if the government decided that it really liked Microsoft, could it just take over Microsoft?

Would it require a derivative lawsuit by the shareholders against the government to try to prevent it? Or could Microsoft bring suit in its own name?

The correct answer is Microsoft could bring suit in its own name. The RIGHTS they would be seeking to vindicate would include their right to the enjoyment of their own property. Their right to bring suit (one nominally associated with "personhood") has LONG been recognized and there exist no legitimate and valid reasons to disturb that powerful legal fiction.

Corporations may sue and be sued, they may own property and sell it; they may enter into contracts; they may do a wide array of things exactly as any human being could to utilize those other rights. Why on Earth would it be a good idea to deny them their right to speech?

I am shocked to have to inform some libs of this, but maybe they do need the reminder.

If you deny THEM the right to speak, you deny us all (collectively as well as individually) of our right to HEAR what they might have to offer.

There is no right to hear.

^ Stupidest thing you have posted to date.

Yes there is a right to hear.

The right to speak entails the right to be heard and that entails the right to hear speech.

The reason we insisted on making the right to freedom of speech part of the bill of rights was not for the empty purpose of flapping our gums.

It was because we wanted to make sure that we could ALL hear what was being discussed -- and to insure that we could make the government hear us.

There is no right to hear, or to be heard.

The Constitution does not force anyone to give you access to any forum, platform, or audience. Nor does it force anyone providing a forum or platform to open it up for you so you can listen in.

Now I understand why trolls don't get it. You're confusing the right to talk endlessly with the right to force people to listen to you, which fits the goals of the troll. Sorry to deflate your ego and your dreams, but you have no Constitutionally protected right to an audience - no matter how much you talk or how much money you have to pay for one.

 

[goldcatt]

Incorrect.

Since we have a right to freedom of association (part and parcel of our freedom of speech conjoined with our freedom to peacably assemble and our right to petition the government for redress of grievances), it follows inexorably that these rights pertain not just to individuals, but to associations, like corporations.

For example, if the government decided that it really liked Microsoft, could it just take over Microsoft?

Would it require a derivative lawsuit by the shareholders against the government to try to prevent it? Or could Microsoft bring suit in its own name?

The correct answer is Microsoft could bring suit in its own name. The RIGHTS they would be seeking to vindicate would include their right to the enjoyment of their own property. Their right to bring suit (one nominally associated with "personhood") has LONG been recognized and there exist no legitimate and valid reasons to disturb that powerful legal fiction.

Corporations may sue and be sued, they may own property and sell it; they may enter into contracts; they may do a wide array of things exactly as any human being could to utilize those other rights. Why on Earth would it be a good idea to deny them their right to speech?

I am shocked to have to inform some libs of this, but maybe they do need the reminder.

If you deny THEM the right to speak, you deny us all (collectively as well as individually) of our right to HEAR what they might have to offer.

There is no right to hear.

Technically, what I think you're meaning is that...

... Everyone has the right to speak their mind (within the constitutional limits)
... They do not have a right to a microphone
... The do not have a right to an audience.

And if nobody ever hears what they have to say, oh well. They still couldn't be punished for saying it.

Thank you.

 

[editec]

By the way, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or beaten to death in this thread, but...

With this decision by the SCOTUS, China and other countries will now be allowed to give unlimited funds to any candidate of their choosing.

Now, I don't think I need to point out the problem of that.

Yup.

But still many here see no problem with that so long as those foreignors have a lot of money.

Money = FREE SPEECH is not only a policy which turns our to be anti-democratic, it's also a policy that is obviously anti-American.

 

[Old Rocks]

Government of the corperations, by the corperations, for the corperations.

 

[Annie]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeGlzEavpTM&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Citizens United (Hillary: the Movie) v. Federal Election Commission[/ame]

 

[Truthmatters]

When Is a Corporation Like a Freed Slave? | Mother Jones


HAHAHAHAHAHA it aint game over yet

 

[Big Fitz]

Your right to be heard ends with my right to walk away. Castro may be able to force people to stand in the hot Caribbean sun for 6 hour speeches by the barrel of a gun, but you can't.

 

[goldcatt]

Your right to be heard ends with my right to walk away. Castro may be able to force people to stand in the hot Caribbean sun for 6 hour speeches by the barrel of a gun, but you can't.

And nobody has a duty to hand him a bullhorn and a soapbox either. Or to let him into their meeting or their rally, or hand over air time on demand, or give away newspapers without charge simply because he has a right to read what's being said in them.

More to the point, any one of us can call up our Congresscritter and ask for a meeting, but we can always be told "no". When it comes to hearing and being heard, you're on your own.

He can still talk to himself all he wants, though.

 

[Big Fitz]

More to the point, any one of us can call up our Congresscritter and ask for a meeting, but we can always be told "no". When it comes to hearing and being heard, you're on your own.

Make sure they know the sign "Proceed at your own risk" is present when they do that. Most likely he loses voters every time a congresscritter does this.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/102854-the-father-of-corporate-personhood.html

Not if corporations can tell lies all day long right before an election.

 

[goldcatt]

More to the point, any one of us can call up our Congresscritter and ask for a meeting, but we can always be told "no". When it comes to hearing and being heard, you're on your own.

Make sure they know the sign "Proceed at your own risk" is present when they do that. Most likely he loses voters every time a congresscritter does this.

Yep. Having the right to do something doesn't mean doing it is right.

 

[Truthmatters]

How true goldcatt