WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right?

[cawacko]

Now you are making shit up.

OK, let me go slow.

1) You give a Corporation money by buying stock. This is commonly known as investing.

2) That corporation uses the investment to do various things, like buy land, build cars, or pay politicians to look out for their interests, usually through lobbyists.

Thus, money funneling.

You as an investor do not have a say in how the company spends its money. So how are the bin Laden's as investors going to have political influence?

 

[cawacko]

What I want to know is where is John McCain here? He should be screaming and banging on the door of the SCOTUS as we speak.

and what would that do? make for some nice attempted grandstanding?

 

[del]

What I want to know is where is John McCain here? He should be screaming and banging on the door of the SCOTUS as we speak.

he's probably one of those whack jobs that believes in the integrity of the process.

 

[Vast LWC]

You as an investor do not have a say in how the company spends its money. So how are the bin Laden's as investors going to have political influence?

Yes you do. That's what stockholder meetings are all about.

And if you're on the board, or have a puppet on the board, then you have a very large say.

 

[Truthmatters]

Because they OWN us huh?

We can do nothing to harm them NO matter what they do to the American people and no matter what country they live in and what they believe.

They now will ALL have the ability to flood our elections and keep themselves from ever having to answer to the American people from ANYTHING they do to us.

They are the same corporations who will have endelss money to flood our elections with any lie they wish to make people believe.

Can someone translate this for me please?

The OP says we should never try to tell the Dow members anything that would make them react like they did the last couple of days.

 

[cawacko]

You as an investor do not have a say in how the company spends its money. So how are the bin Laden's as investors going to have political influence?

Yes you do. That's what stockholder meetings are all about.

And if you're on the board, or have a puppet on the board, then you have a very large say.

Ok. If you are one of thousands of shareholders your ability to tell the CEO or board that you believe the company should back a certain politician(s) and have that be listened to is not very high.

Additionally what you are describing is how its always been. Yesterday's ruling is not going to change that strucutre. And one person on a board does not equal control. To get the CEO or the board as a whole to do what you want you need a majority of the board, not just one individual.

So you still haven't said how the bin Laden's are going to be ruling us or running us.

 

[cawacko]

Because they OWN us huh?

We can do nothing to harm them NO matter what they do to the American people and no matter what country they live in and what they believe.

They now will ALL have the ability to flood our elections and keep themselves from ever having to answer to the American people from ANYTHING they do to us.

They are the same corporations who will have endelss money to flood our elections with any lie they wish to make people believe.

Can someone translate this for me please?

The OP says we should never try to tell the Dow members anything that would make them react like they did the last couple of days.

Who are the Dow members? Are those publicly traded companies?

 

[Big Fitz]

It seems this thread has diverged from it's original intent... just like Judicial Activism diverges from original intent created in the Constitution.

Ironic.

 

[bobbcat]

So, it's your assertion that blanketing the media would not have an effect on public opinion?

As if there has not been any 'blanketing the media' already that has the potential to affect public opinion. At least now there can be some healthy competition in that arena. Again, why should the political sphere of influence be confined to a select few?

 

[saveliberty]

I do not see this problem as a first amendment violation. Corporations can't vote. Why should they have influence over that vote by funneling money to elections? Seems like common sense to me.

Further, if parity is considered a good thing in an election, how is allowing companies to channel vast sums of money to candidates helping that fairness? Reducing the ability of companies, unions and PAC to fund an election forces candidates to focus their message and approach voters more directly.

 

[Big Fitz]

One thing to consider... which I thought was quite funny, but...

If you follow the direction of this line of thought, when can corporate individuals run for office?

I would like to have "President Godiva Chocolates".

Press secretary: Fox News Channel....

Secretary of the Interior: AGM

National Security Advisor: Smith & Wesson Firearms

 

[Vast LWC]

Ok. If you are one of thousands of shareholders your ability to tell the CEO or board that you believe the company should back a certain politician(s) and have that be listened to is not very high.

Additionally what you are describing is how its always been. Yesterday's ruling is not going to change that strucutre. And one person on a board does not equal control. To get the CEO or the board as a whole to do what you want you need a majority of the board, not just one individual.

So you still haven't said how the bin Laden's are going to be ruling us or running us.

In stockholder meetings and votes, it's all about how much stock you own. A person who owns one share does not have the same voice as a majority shareholder.

Let's say the Bin Laden family, including a few far-flung members that are American citizens take over a majority share of American Express.

Soon afterwards, the board appoints, let's say, Joe Schmoe (Whose mother's maiden name was Bin Laden), as the CEO.

Then Joe (Bin Laden) Schmoe uses the profits from the sale of the majority stock to finance the launch a Senatorial campaign for a "Good Friend" of the Bin Laden family.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

They have us all duped again. The Supreme Court is neither "Liberal" nor "Conservative." Foreign Terrorists should not receive U.S. Constitutional Rights. They do have rights as human beings but they do not deserve to be protected by our U.S. Constitution. That was a ludicrous Left Wing ruling by a supposed "Conservative" or "Right Wing" Supreme Court. Left Wingers are still dancing in the streets over that awful ruling. It all just seems to be a game at this point. They simply throw a bone to both sides in a back and forth manner. This latest ruling is perceived to be a "Right Wing" decision by all the hysterical Leftists so look for the next big Supreme Court ruling to go in favor of the Left. Seems pretty rigged to me. Just my humble observation anyway.

 

[Vast LWC]

They have us all duped again. The Supreme Court is neither "Liberal" nor "Conservative." Foreign Terrorists should not receive U.S. Constitutional Rights. They do have rights as human beings but they do not deserve to be protected by our U.S. Constitution. That was a ludicrous Left Wing ruling by a supposed "Conservative" or "Right Wing" Supreme Court. Left Wingers are still dancing in the streets over that awful ruling. It all just seems to be a game at this point. They simply throw a bone to both sides in a back and forth manner. This latest ruling is perceived to be a "Right Wing" decision by all the hysterical Leftists so look for the next big Supreme Court ruling to go in favor of the Left. Seems pretty rigged to me. Just my humble observation anyway.

So, in your opinion, the right-wing exists to represent the interests of Corporations?

I'm glad one of you finally admitted it outright.

 

[Vast LWC]

And of course, here's another big problem with this:

A Corporation is run by it's largest shareholders. Often these shareholder make up a minority of the total.

Which means that the largest shareholders are possibly making decision that 90% of the total shareholders don't agree with, and using their money to do so.

 

[cawacko]

Ok. If you are one of thousands of shareholders your ability to tell the CEO or board that you believe the company should back a certain politician(s) and have that be listened to is not very high.

Additionally what you are describing is how its always been. Yesterday's ruling is not going to change that strucutre. And one person on a board does not equal control. To get the CEO or the board as a whole to do what you want you need a majority of the board, not just one individual.

So you still haven't said how the bin Laden's are going to be ruling us or running us.

In stockholder meetings and votes, it's all about how much stock you own. A person who owns one share does not have the same voice as a majority shareholder.

Let's say the Bin Laden family, including a few far-flung members that are American citizens take over a majority share of American Express.

Soon afterwards, the board appoints, let's say, Joe Schmoe (Whose mother's maiden name was Bin Laden), as the CEO.

Then Joe (Bin Laden) Schmoe uses the profits from the sale of the majority stock to finance the launch a Senatorial campaign for a "Good Friend" of the Bin Laden family.

The ruling we are discussing from two days ago would have zero impact on the senario you just described above.

And if the bid Laden's were the largest shareholder of American Express and sold a large chunk of that if would be known in the financial world and if someone running for the Senate had a maiden name of bin Laden that would be known as well.

 

[cawacko]

And of course, here's another big problem with this:

A Corporation is run by it's largest shareholders. Often these shareholder make up a minority of the total.

Which means that the largest shareholders are possibly making decision that 90% of the total shareholders don't agree with, and using their money to do so.

No that is not true. To own a controlling interest in a corporation you need to own more half of the voting shares of that stock. There is an exception where some companies need 2/3rds shareholder approval to pass something so someone holding only 34% of the shares can block something from getting passed. But a 10% shareholder cannot tell the other 90% what to do. That is just false.

 

[Big Fitz]

They have us all duped again. The Supreme Court is neither "Liberal" nor "Conservative." Foreign Terrorists should not receive U.S. Constitutional Rights. They do have rights as human beings but they do not deserve to be protected by our U.S. Constitution. That was a ludicrous Left Wing ruling by a supposed "Conservative" or "Right Wing" Supreme Court. Left Wingers are still dancing in the streets over that awful ruling. It all just seems to be a game at this point. They simply throw a bone to both sides in a back and forth manner. This latest ruling is perceived to be a "Right Wing" decision by all the hysterical Leftists so look for the next big Supreme Court ruling to go in favor of the Left. Seems pretty rigged to me. Just my humble observation anyway.

So, in your opinion, the right-wing exists to represent the interests of Corporations?

I'm glad one of you finally admitted it outright.

As a conservative, I represent:

1. The right to Life, Liberty and Property for all men.
2. Equality of Opportunity, not results.
3. Equality under the law and abolishment of special rights.
4. Absolutist ethics and morality as the foundation of society, not moral relativism and situational ethics.
5. Fostering a political environment for the most freedom possible to all men barring the infringement on the rights of others.
6. Limiting government's influence and power in every individual citizen's life to the barest minimum possible.
7. Protecting the nation from enemies within and without who desire to end these freedoms for all American Citizens.
8. Encouraging charity through dint of personal desire, not threat of government force.
9. Granting that all men have the right to keep what they earn
10. Protecting the freedom of association, and right to help or NOT help those a man sees fit.

Those are things I represent as a conservative at my fundamental core.

 

[rdean]

Why?

Because if any corporate "individual" wants to be part of the political process, they must bear the responsibilities of an actual individual.

If corporations want to use their massive amounts of wealth to control society, then they must contribute to society like everyone else.

The following is a partial list of some of the bigger names that are contributing to relief efforts. At the bottom is the complete list as compiled by the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

American Express - $250,000
Amgen - $2 million
AT&T Foundation - $50,000
Bank of America - $2 million
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - $1 million
Campbell Soup - $200,000
Canon - $220,000
Cisco Foundation - $250,000
Citigroup - $2 million
Coca-Cola - $1 million
Comcast - $950,000 (in kind services)
ConocoPhillips - $1 million
Dell - $500,000
Discover Financial Services - $100,000
Dow Chemical - $500,000
FedEx - $2 million
General Electric - $2.5 million
Go Daddy - $500,000
General Mills Foundation - $250,000
General Motors - $100,000
Google - $1 million
Home Depot Foundation - $100,000
Honda - $300,000
John Deere Foundation - $250,000
Jolie-Pitt Foundation - $1 million
JP Morgan Chase - $1 million
Kellogg Corporation - $250,000
Lance Armstrong Foundation - $250,000
Lowe’s - $1 million
Major League Baseball - $1 million
Microsoft - $1.25 million
Morgan Stanley - $1 million
Motorola - $100,000
National Basketball Association - $1 million
National Football League - $500,000
National Football League Players Association - $500,000
Nestle - $1 million
Panasonic - $110,000
Pepsi - $1 million
Scottrade - $100,000
Sprint - $50,000
Staples - $100,000
Starbucks Foundation - $1 million
Target - $500,000
The Shell Oil Company - $100,000
Toyota - $500,000
Toys R Us - $150,000
UPS Foundation - $1 million
US Bancorp - $100,000
Verizon Foundation - $100,000
Walgreens - $100,000
Wal-Mart - $100,000
Wal-Mart Foundation - $600,000
Walt Disney Corporation - $100,000
Wells Fargo - $100,000
Western Union Foundation - $250,000

January 20, 2010 - Complete list of donors to Haiti earthquake recovery

Haiti earthquake relief: Private corporations and trusts donate millions of dollars

The money to Haiti is a good thing. I'm not complaining about that, but presenting it this way may be a misrepresentation.

During the last election, Republicans went after Obama for receiving tens of thousands from Fannie Mae. And that's true, he did, but from the employees. John McCain actually received money from the company itself.

Employees held private fundraisers and gave individual donations. That money was "bundled" together and contributed under the name "Fannie Mae" because it came from the employees, but was NOT given directly from the company itself. Money the company gave out went to John McCain.

So saying money came from this corporation or that corporation may be somewhat misleading. Just thought I would point that out.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

How much bailout cash did your Hopey Changey give to GE? GE owns media outlets such as NBC. Do you really think it's just a coincidence that NBC has become the biggest Hopey Changey Boot-Licker in the Media? I'm still shocked that they got away with giving GE all that bailout money. Watching this President and Democrats railing against the "Evil Corporations" is just plain laughable. Point is,Corporations are a fact of life and do employ much of our nations' work force. Demonizing them the way the Left does just seems so immature and naive. They really should investigate the whole GE fiasco in my opinion.