80% of Americans against the Freedom of Speech

[CrimsonWhite]

Oh I read it and tell me how a corporation is considered a "group of people." Does everyone employed by that corporation get approval over what money goes where? How about every stock holder? I'll answer that for you. No. So therefore, how is a corporation donating money from the general fund anything other than potentially thousands of people paying for the political ideals of a few?

The same can be said of unions, but then again unions have been using their "voice" for decades without anyone batting an eye (at least nobody that is a union supporter).

-TSO

Yeah, I think union money should disappear from elections as well.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

In the economic relm it is. My checkbook is the way I express my opinion that peanut butter cups are superior to broccoli, and Snow leopard is better than Vista.

That is complete bullshit, but it sounds good.

How so?

If I give $25 that is (when I had wages ) two hours of my day in the form a of check. If I go out and ring doorbells for two hours, it is worth the same amount of hours to me.

Corporations have no real existence, but they do have oxen to be gored. They need to protect themselves against those who would hurt their political interests.

And remember, it wasn't all corporations. Unions, which are a form of corporation, were exempt.


We really can't pick and choose and say "this is a good guy, he can talk all he wants. That person is bad, they have to shut up." I mean, I would like the power to gag william Joyce and give Jillian a bullhorn, but that is not the way freedom works.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Yeah, I think union money should disappear from elections as well.

We both know that will never happen.

-TSO

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Yeah, I think union money should disappear from elections as well.

We both know that will never happen.

-TSO

A guy can dream though.

 

[rdean]

Yeah, I think union money should disappear from elections as well.

We both know that will never happen.

-TSO

A guy can dream though.

Unions make up about, I'm guessing, 11 or 12% of all the workers in the US. They get their money from the people that belong to those unions in form of dues.

Can you compare the small amount of money that comes from Unions with the money that comes from Corporations?

 

[Xenophon]

Just goes to show how good propaganda can turn people away from their own rights.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

We both know that will never happen.

-TSO

A guy can dream though.

Unions make up about, I'm guessing, 11 or 12% of all the workers in the US. They get their money from the people that belong to those unions in form of dues.

Can you compare the small amount of money that comes from Unions with the money that comes from Corporations?

The principle is the same. Unions get that money from dues. Dues that are supposed to be used for organization, health care, and such. Every union member may not agree with the politics that the union supports, but still wind up paying for it.

The real difference is that unions almost always support Democratic candidates. Corporations go both ways. That is why those on the left tend to overlook the hypocrisy in crying foul at one and cashing the checks of the other.

 

[California Girl]

Money isn't speech. Simple as that.

But money talks, so surely it is entitled to free speech.

 

[Immanuel]

So now bribing politicians is an element of free speech?
Who woulda thunk it.

Except they are not permitting bribery. There is a difference... okay a fine line... between a campaign contribution and a bribe. Sometimes that line is microscopic. But despite the politically correct, anti-corporate rhetoric out there, this decision did not allow bribery. It allows corporations to make contributions to candidates.

I'm sure that a corporation caught bribing an official with a contribution to the politicians campaign would suffer severe penalties just as they would today. Of course, catching them is the problem.

Immie

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Just goes to show how good propaganda can turn people away from their own rights.

My rights aren't going anywhere. The janitor making 9 bucks an hour at GE is losing anything either. Myself and the Janitor can still donate and exercise our individual rights to free speech.

 

[bk1983]

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

Now that's scary.

What is scary is the conclusion you concocted from the article.

 

[rdean]

A guy can dream though.

Unions make up about, I'm guessing, 11 or 12% of all the workers in the US. They get their money from the people that belong to those unions in form of dues.

Can you compare the small amount of money that comes from Unions with the money that comes from Corporations?

The principle is the same. Unions get that money from dues. Dues that are supposed to be used for organization, health care, and such. Every union member may not agree with the politics that the union supports, but still wind up paying for it.

The real difference is that unions almost always support Democratic candidates. Corporations go both ways. That is why those on the left tend to overlook the hypocrisy in crying foul at one and cashing the checks of the other.

Corporations go both ways? Not usually.

Everyone knows "Freddie/Fannie" gave much more money to Obama than McCain. Now why would a corporation do that?

Freddie/Fannie gave a direct contribution to McCain.

The employees of Freddie/Fannie gave parties for raising contributions, office collections and individual collections. They "bundled" the money together and sent it as coming from "Freddie/Fannie".

The company I work for did the same thing. Employees sent contributions to Obama and the company sent contributions to McCain, but both used the company name.

Republicans howled that "Freddie/Fannie" gave so much for Obama, but the company itself, as far as I know, didn't give Obama anything. It came from the employees, but was listed as coming from "Freddie/Fannie".

 

[uptownlivin90]

The beauty of it all is, the 80% of people against this ruling are probably the same people that the corporations will be targeting in their new campaign commercials this comming election year and the 80% that we're told it's the government's job to protect from evil corporations.

The same evil corporations that 80% help fund and keep alive.

The same evil corporations that the 80% will believe whatever they say and follow them unconditionally because they're all idiots.

Yes. 86% of democrats. 81% of independants. 76% of republicans are complete idiots. Sounds just about right.

The problem isn't corporations putting money into campaigns, it's the American citizen being to lazy to think critically and investigate shit and fact check before they vote. So they let the media tell them how to vote.

Should the government be there to swoop in and protect them from the corporations that would look to take advantage of the lazy and uneducated average American "swing" voter?

Or should this democracy sink or swim based on how dedicated the PEOPLE are to their rights and their freedoms?

Is it the government's job to "protect" people from being told lies by big corporations? I don't think so. You have every right to make informed decisions, to fact check, the look up information and to make an informed decision. Unfortunetly people in this nation don't, and THAT'S the problem. Not the corporations, corporations have about as much power over elections as American voters let them. It's not the government's job to insure that people are not influenced by corporations with money, it's the people's job.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The problem isn't corporations putting money into campaigns, it's the American citizen being to lazy to think critically and investigate shit and fact check before they vote. So they let the media tell them how to vote.

No, the problem is that every nominee from now on will be already bought & paid for by some special interest or another, even more so than they are now. If a good nominee refuses corporate money, we will never hear from them... they won't have the resources to fight & be heard. We will never have someone looking out for Americans' rights, but only for the interests of an entity that only cares about profit. The American people should get a vote on this one. This is seriously bad.

 

[Immanuel]

The problem isn't corporations putting money into campaigns, it's the American citizen being to lazy to think critically and investigate shit and fact check before they vote. So they let the media tell them how to vote.

No, the problem is that every nominee from now on will be already bought & paid for by some special interest or another, even more so than they are now. If a good nominee refuses corporate money, we will never hear from them... they won't have the resources to fight & be heard. We will never have someone looking out for Americans' rights, but only for the interests of an entity that only cares about profit. The American people should get a vote on this one. This is seriously bad.

So how is that different than what we had before this ruling?

Immie

 

[Mr. Peepers]

So how is that different than what we had before this ruling?

Seriously? Do you really have to ask this question? A corporation has no limits in how much money they can throw at a candidate now. It is sheer bribery, pure and simple. And if that person is elected, there will be even more pressure than ever to do that corporation's bidding. Very few (if any) of us REAL persons have that kind of power or voice. Personally, I don't think corporations should:

A. Be considered persons. We need to repeal that from the constitution. It wasn't supposed to be there in the first place.

B. Be able to contribute ANY money to campaigns. Not one red cent. They are NOT individual persons.

 

[uptownlivin90]

There are ALWAYS candidates that represent the interests of the people in EVERY election. I'm absolutely convinced however that the people of this nation don't want somebody that represents their interests in office. They want someone with alot of money and who can woe them with their fast talk and campaign commercials. It's a sick twisted cycle, and it's certainly not the fault of the corporations. Again corporations can't vote. Money can't buy you an election. It can only buy you the minds of stupid people.

Nobody said this ruling was a "good thing" and anybody who thinks this ruling is a "good thing" is just as out of their minds as anybody else. I'm saying this is reality. The state shouldn't be restricting corporations from using their money as they please. Americans now have a challenge, daddy government isn't there to protect you anymore.

Stop voting these bought off ceeps into office. Then you can talk big shit about the corporations. Ron Paul made millions and millions upon millions in his campaign: it translated into almost no votes. People talk all kinds of shit about "if we had the money they did" if you people had the money that the corporations did the same idiots you elect now would still be in office. We'd still be voting in the "lesser of two evils", and we'd be in the same state we've always been in.

Everybody has their scapegoats to blame when it comes to why our government is broken. Truth is though corporations and unions alike can't steal elections. Only the stupid voters who believe them can.

Vote people in to do the job you want them to do, if they don't do it, vote them out. I turn campaign commercials off or ignore them, they mean absolutely nothing. It's either your interests or somebody elses and it's pretty clear what politicians are working for who. One day I believe that people will wise up and when they do about 75% of congress will be wiped the hell out of the job.

 

[Immanuel]

So how is that different than what we had before this ruling?

Seriously? Do you really have to ask this question? A corporation has no limits in how much money they can throw at a candidate now. It is sheer bribery, pure and simple. And if that person is elected, there will be even more pressure than ever to do that corporation's bidding. Very few (if any) of us REAL persons have that kind of power or voice. Personally, I don't think corporations should:

A. Be considered persons. We need to repeal that from the constitution. It wasn't supposed to be there in the first place.

B. Be able to contribute ANY money to campaigns. Not one red cent. They are NOT individual persons.

The point is that they had that kind of power BEFORE this ruling. They simply managed it through K Street lobbyists instead of campaign ads.

Nothing has changed... nothing at all.

Immie

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Vote people in to do the job you want them to do, if they don't do it, vote them out.

How are we supposed to do this when there is no chance of seeing or hearing these people? TV ads cost money. Campaign stumping costs money. Everything costs money. Then you have the corporations themselves with their marketing teams. Americans are truly as stupid as I think most of them are if they take this lying down.

The point is that they had that kind of power BEFORE this ruling. They simply managed it through K Street lobbyists instead of campaign ads.

Nothing has changed... nothing at all.

Wanna bet?

 

[Immanuel]

Vote people in to do the job you want them to do, if they don't do it, vote them out.

How are we supposed to do this when there is no chance of seeing or hearing these people? TV ads cost money. Campaign stumping costs money. Everything costs money. Then you have the corporations themselves with their marketing teams. Americans are truly as stupid as I think most of them are if they take this lying down.

The point is that they had that kind of power BEFORE this ruling. They simply managed it through K Street lobbyists instead of campaign ads.

Nothing has changed... nothing at all.

Wanna bet?

Nope, but I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Immie