80% of Americans against the Freedom of Speech

[Mr. Peepers]

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

I guess we'll see. Hopefully I'll be out of this country before it is completely sold. It's almost there now.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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.

Fundimentaly, we are all either adults who can make up our own minds and do our own thinking or we are little brain addled kids who need the government to wipe our noses.

I think we are adults, and we should step up to the plate of adult responsibility.

 

[goldcatt]

Free speech is the protected right to speak, but nobody has a protected right to an audience.

The ruling expanded free speech to include the right to buy as big an audience as you want for anyone who can afford it - as long as you're not an individual. The right to speak itself is not affected one tiny bit by the ruling, Supremie blather notwithstanding. It only creates the Constitutionally protected right to an audience, one that never existed before.

What it does do is legitimize even worse whoring by the people who are supposed to be representing the People.

And we're supposed to bend over and like it?

 

[Old Rocks]

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

Now that's scary.

Well, looks like we have a real CSA finally. The Corperate States of America. The great defenders of equality. Regardless of color, religion, or national origin, we all get to be slaves to corperate interests.

 

[Darkwind]

If you wish to prevent companies from protecting their own interests, you also have to prevent people from protecting their own interests.

If the objection is that a company is not a single individual, then two guys on the same neighborhood block can't take out any advertising on the local radio supporting this issue, that issue or any candidate.

The only real reason that the left are upset about this is because they wish to continue their assault on corporate America without the fear of the corporations fighting back.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you wish to prevent companies from protecting their own interests, you also have to prevent people from protecting their own interests.

If the objection is that a company is not a single individual, then two guys on the same neighborhood block can't take out any advertising on the local radio supporting this issue, that issue or any candidate.

The only real reason that the left are upset about this is because they wish to continue their assault on corporate America without the fear of the corporations fighting back.

But the objection is not that Corporations are not a single individual. Groups of people get together and give money to campaigns or fund commercials all the time. Their called 527's.

The objections are:

1. A corporation is funded by many individuals, many of whom probably do not feel the same way as the company's board.
   For instance, if the mutual fund I invest in holds stock in Company A, and Company A runs a campaign ad for David Duke, then they used my money to do so, without my consent.
   
2. A corporation may be partially owned by foreign entities wishing to influence the outcome of an American election.
   
3. A corporation provides a layer of obscurity to people who are supporting a candidate, but don't wish anyone to know that they are supporting them.
   
4. A corporation provides a buffer to legal ramifications for it's shareholders, reducing culpability for their actions through the corporation.

 

[Darkwind]

If you wish to prevent companies from protecting their own interests, you also have to prevent people from protecting their own interests.

If the objection is that a company is not a single individual, then two guys on the same neighborhood block can't take out any advertising on the local radio supporting this issue, that issue or any candidate.

The only real reason that the left are upset about this is because they wish to continue their assault on corporate America without the fear of the corporations fighting back.

But the objection is not that Corporations are not a single individual. Groups of people get together and give money to campaigns or fund commercials all the time. Their called 527's.

The objections are:

1. A corporation is funded by many individuals, many of whom probably do not feel the same way as the company's board.
   For instance, if the mutual fund I invest in holds stock in Company A, and Company A runs a campaign ad for David Duke, then they used my money to do so, without my consent.
2. A corporation may be partially owned by foreign entities wishing to influence the outcome of an American election.
3. A corporation provides a layer of obscurity to people who are supporting a candidate, but don't wish anyone to know that they are supporting them.
4. A corporation provides a buffer to legal ramifications for it's shareholders, reducing culpability for their actions through the corporation.

Of your entire list, only number two has any possible validity. The reality is, the Constitution allows for the freedom of assembly and to use that assembly in speech. A corporation, company, union or anything else that is made up of people, assembled together for common cause, has protected speech under the Constitution.

And in reality, we are not talking about a corporation or union or anything like that giving money directly to a candidate or a politician. I happen to think that giving money directly to a campaign or candidate should be limited to a specific amount. What we are talking about here is the right of any entity to protect its own interests. I think that anyone and anything should have that right.

 

[Vast LWC]

Of your entire list, only number two has any possible validity. The reality is, the Constitution allows for the freedom of assembly and to use that assembly in speech. A corporation, company, union or anything else that is made up of people, assembled together for common cause, has protected speech under the Constitution.

And in reality, we are not talking about a corporation or union or anything like that giving money directly to a candidate or a politician. I happen to think that giving money directly to a campaign or candidate should be limited to a specific amount. What we are talking about here is the right of any entity to protect its own interests. I think that anyone and anything should have that right.

So you believe that a Corporation using my money to fund David Duke without my consent is perfectly OK? Because I have a BIG problem with that.

Nevermind my other points, which are perfectly true and valid concerns.

And the fault in this logic is contained in the sentence: "What we are talking about here is the right of any entity to protect its own interests.", which implies that a Corporation is a living entity, entitled to the rights of any citizen.

The shareholders of a corporation are in fact citizens, and can exercise their freedom of speech at any point either individually or as part of a declared 527.

There is no "Freedom of Speech" issue here. Every shareholder has complete freedom of speech. They just shouldn't be able to fund it through a corporation.

 

[Vast LWC]

Let me go further with that thought.

If all individual shareholders have the ability already to be involved in politics as much as they want, either individually or in a group...

Then why do they find it preferable to do so through a Corporation at all? Why would anyone want to do this? What are the benefits?

When you answer those question, you have your answer as to why Corporations should not be allowed to fund campaigns.

 

[Darkwind]

Of your entire list, only number two has any possible validity. The reality is, the Constitution allows for the freedom of assembly and to use that assembly in speech. A corporation, company, union or anything else that is made up of people, assembled together for common cause, has protected speech under the Constitution.

And in reality, we are not talking about a corporation or union or anything like that giving money directly to a candidate or a politician. I happen to think that giving money directly to a campaign or candidate should be limited to a specific amount. What we are talking about here is the right of any entity to protect its own interests. I think that anyone and anything should have that right.

So you believe that a Corporation using my money to fund David Duke without my consent is perfectly OK? Because I have a BIG problem with that.

Nevermind my other points, which are perfectly true and valid concerns.

And the fault in this logic is contained in the sentence: "What we are talking about here is the right of any entity to protect its own interests.", which implies that a Corporation is a living entity, entitled to the rights of any citizen.

The shareholders of a corporation are in fact citizens, and can exercise their freedom of speech at any point either individually or as part of a declared 527.

There is no "Freedom of Speech" issue here. Every shareholder has complete freedom of speech. They just shouldn't be able to fund it through a corporation.

Where do you get the notion that the company is using your money? The corporation is using its money to protect its own interest. If you do not like the way a company is using its resources to look after its own interests, you sell your interest in the company and find one that does support your own interests. I simply don't know where you are coming from with this.

It isn't as if you are talking about compulsive dues to keep your job like you find in a union.

 

[Darkwind]

Really? Companies should lose the right to protect themselves from adversaries looking to put them out of business because people are to lazy to research a company they agree with?

 

[uptownlivin90]

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.

During my time short time as a registered voter I've voted for 7 people, one of them Barack Obama, I have my own personal reasons for that and don't regret it for a moment. 6 out of 7 of the candidates I voted for I did not once see a campaign add for. This election I plan on voting third party (libertarian) for the governor of my state, because I'm sick and tired of the current governor and the Republicans don't have anybody worth voting for. I've got my plans down on who to vote for in all 2010 races. Haven't seen one campaign commercial.

If your stupid enough to base your vote off of campaign adds then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[Immanuel]

Of your entire list, only number two has any possible validity. The reality is, the Constitution allows for the freedom of assembly and to use that assembly in speech. A corporation, company, union or anything else that is made up of people, assembled together for common cause, has protected speech under the Constitution.

And in reality, we are not talking about a corporation or union or anything like that giving money directly to a candidate or a politician. I happen to think that giving money directly to a campaign or candidate should be limited to a specific amount. What we are talking about here is the right of any entity to protect its own interests. I think that anyone and anything should have that right.

So you believe that a Corporation using my money to fund David Duke without my consent is perfectly OK? Because I have a BIG problem with that.

Nevermind my other points, which are perfectly true and valid concerns.

And the fault in this logic is contained in the sentence: "What we are talking about here is the right of any entity to protect its own interests.", which implies that a Corporation is a living entity, entitled to the rights of any citizen.

The shareholders of a corporation are in fact citizens, and can exercise their freedom of speech at any point either individually or as part of a declared 527.

There is no "Freedom of Speech" issue here. Every shareholder has complete freedom of speech. They just shouldn't be able to fund it through a corporation.

Do you feel the same way about unions using union dues to support a candidate?

I may belong to a union but that does not mean that I want my dues supporting Nancy Pelosi. In fact, it is even worse with the unions. Employees working at a union shop are forced to pay union dues whether they want to be members. Shareholders of corporations choose to purchase shares of the corporation.

Immie

 

[uptownlivin90]

Let me go further with that thought.

If all individual shareholders have the ability already to be involved in politics as much as they want, either individually or in a group...

Then why do they find it preferable to do so through a Corporation at all? Why would anyone want to do this? What are the benefits?

When you answer those question, you have your answer as to why Corporations should not be allowed to fund campaigns.

To pull resources so that they can influence elections more so then the average individual. It's a game, we can collect more money as a collective body. The benefits are pretty cut and dry.

Now why should corporations not be allowed to fund campaigns?

 

[Darkwind]

Let me go further with that thought.

If all individual shareholders have the ability already to be involved in politics as much as they want, either individually or in a group...

Then why do they find it preferable to do so through a Corporation at all? Why would anyone want to do this? What are the benefits?

When you answer those question, you have your answer as to why Corporations should not be allowed to fund campaigns.

To pull resources so that they can influence elections more so then the average individual. It's a game, we can collect more money as a collective body. The benefits are pretty cut and dry.

Now why should corporations not be allowed to fund campaigns?

It isn't even that.

I know of no one who invests in a company for political clout. Everyone I know invests in a company to make money. Campaign ads have nothing to do with what company I decide to invest in.

Unless of course, I think that the govermentalists want to put a company out of business and I think that they can outspend that company in advocacy ads. I'll then go elsewhere.

Do you think that the government should have that kind of power?

I don't think that companies should be able to fund campaigns however; I think that campaign contributions should be capped at 100 dollars for everything and can only be a one time contribution.

 

[Vast LWC]

Where do you get the notion that the company is using your money? The corporation is using its money to protect its own interest. If you do not like the way a company is using its resources to look after its own interests, you sell your interest in the company and find one that does support your own interests. I simply don't know where you are coming from with this.

It isn't as if you are talking about compulsive dues to keep your job like you find in a union.

If you invest in a corporation, then you own part of that corporation, and the money it is using to "protect it's own interests" is YOUR money.

But in most cases you would only know the corporation was spending the money to support the candidate until AFTER the money had already been spent.

Besides, Mutual funds often invest in a broad, changing array of corporations. There's a good chance you'll have know idea it's your money supporting their efforts.

 

[Vast LWC]

Do you feel the same way about unions using union dues to support a candidate?

Yes, I do. And Unions were also covered by the same campaign finance that restrained corporations, now reversed.

I may belong to a union but that does not mean that I want my dues supporting Nancy Pelosi. In fact, it is even worse with the unions. Employees working at a union shop are forced to pay union dues whether they want to be members. Shareholders of corporations choose to purchase shares of the corporation.

Immie

Which is just another reason why the court's decision is just a fucking awful one.

 

[Vast LWC]

Really? Companies should lose the right to protect themselves from adversaries looking to put them out of business because people are to lazy to research a company they agree with?

Companies should not have to make campaign donations to stop other companies from putting them out of business!!!

Don't you see the endless cycle we've created here? We have to stop the madness!

One company pays for a candidate, which forces another company to pay for a candidate.

It cancels each other out as far as competition goes, and the politicians and lobbyists profit like there's no tomorrow, siphoning off money that Corporations could be using for other things.

But then, once the politicians are in the pockets of the Corporate Boards, it also gives rise to other effects besides trying to get a competitive edge.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Free speech is the protected right to speak, but nobody has a protected right to an audience.

The ruling expanded free speech to include the right to buy as big an audience as you want for anyone who can afford it - as long as you're not an individual. The right to speak itself is not affected one tiny bit by the ruling, Supremie blather notwithstanding. It only creates the Constitutionally protected right to an audience, one that never existed before.

What it does do is legitimize even worse whoring by the people who are supposed to be representing the People.

And we're supposed to bend over and like it?

No one can compel you to listen. We have the off button.

To me it seems as if the issue was not corporate rights to speech. It was which corporations had right to speech. And unions have the right to compel membership, which corporations don't.

 

[Vast LWC]

To pull resources so that they can influence elections more so then the average individual. It's a game, we can collect more money as a collective body. The benefits are pretty cut and dry.

Now why should corporations not be allowed to fund campaigns?

They have the ability to pool resources outside of the Corporation.

There is no need to use the corporation for that purpose.

The question is, why would shareholders in a corporation find it more beneficial to use the corporation as a funnel for funding rather than a 527 that they grouped together to form?