Citizens United outcry

[The Rabbi]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

What fucking world do you live in? Union management votes before they make a political endorsement, not union membership. Do you actually believe that the NEA has a vote of all 3 million members before making decisions about how to spend money? It is not a democracy in any way, shape, or form. Neither is the SEIU with its 2 million or so members.

Maybe you and rdean could get together and see if between the two of you you can get in touch with reality.

Maybe YOU, QW, need to THINK before your fingers hit the keys..... unless you like living up to your screen name.

Pay attention: Unions ELECT their via campaigns like we have have for local and national political leadership, as opposed to corporations who's elections/appointments are NOT dependent upon ALL it's members (i.e., workers). So if the leadership does NOT act in the interest of the people they represent, then they can be voted out. That doesn't exist for corporations, now does it bunky? Shareholders may have a voice by voting with their wallets, but the workers sure as hell don't.

And neither union or corporation should be treated as an individual person, since as you and I agree, they would not be acting in unison via ALL members (management, workers, shareholders, etc.). This is why the Citizens United decision is so terribly wrong.

Hmm. How often have unions voted out their leadership?

So corporations should let their workers, who have no stake in the company vote, but unions should not let their employers vote? IN any case many big corporations have ESOPs so workers end up voting anyway.
And what does CU have to do with any of it? Why should Congress pass a law infringing on free speech, which is specifically prohibited by the Constitution?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Corporations are not people.

The people who run them can vote already IF they are citizens.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Corporations are associations of people. As such they ought to have the same rights, including political speech.

but they should be very limited as to how much money they can give to a Politician....VERY LIMITED....

 

[hipeter924]

Corporations are not people.

The people who run them can vote already IF they are citizens.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Corporations are associations of people. As such they ought to have the same rights, including political speech.

but they should be very limited as to how much money they can give to a Politician....VERY LIMITED....

You should have raised this point in the 1920s/1930s/1940s, too late now, they own/are/pay parts of the government.

 

[daveman]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

Since TM refuses to answer the question, perhaps you'd like to give it a shot:

The people in them already have rights.

The US was not designed to give corporations control over the government was it?

Then you similarly oppose 527s like MoveOn.org, correct?

 

[The Rabbi]

Corporations are not people.

The people who run them can vote already IF they are citizens.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Corporations are associations of people. As such they ought to have the same rights, including political speech.

but they should be very limited as to how much money they can give to a Politician....VERY LIMITED....

They are already forbidden to do so. Nothing changed there.

 

[MarcATL]

LoLing @ giving entities rights and freedoms that individual people already have.

CLASSIC!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Corporations are not people.

The people who run them can vote already IF they are citizens.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Corporations are associations of people. As such they ought to have the same rights, including political speech.

but they should be very limited as to how much money they can give to a Politician....VERY LIMITED....

They are, in theory. It is complicated because there is no way to prevent people in corporations from donating their own money, nor should there be. But we also need to make sure that money is actually being donated by individuals, and that minimum wage janitors are not donating large sums of money to candidates. Most people who make minimum wage cannot afford to donate $50, much less $5000.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LoLing @ giving entities rights and freedoms that individual people already have.

CLASSIC!

So,, if Congress passed a law forbidding the NAACP from speaking about racism you would have no problems at all?

Don't bother to answer, I already know how you would react to that.

 

[daveman]

LoLing @ giving entities rights and freedoms that individual people already have.

CLASSIC!

How 'bout you, Marc? No one else seems to want to touch this question:

The people in them already have rights.

The US was not designed to give corporations control over the government was it?

Then you similarly oppose 527s like MoveOn.org, correct?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Corporations are associations of people. As such they ought to have the same rights, including political speech.

but they should be very limited as to how much money they can give to a Politician....VERY LIMITED....

You should have raised this point in the 1920s/1930s/1940s, too late now, they own/are/pay parts of the government.

if i was around back then i would have....

 

[The Infidel]

Corporations are not people.

The people who run them can vote already IF they are citizens.

So now your a "birther"

 

[Harry Dresden]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Corporations are associations of people. As such they ought to have the same rights, including political speech.

but they should be very limited as to how much money they can give to a Politician....VERY LIMITED....

They are already forbidden to do so. Nothing changed there.

are they?....you sure?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

They are, in theory. It is complicated because there is no way to prevent people in corporations from donating their own money, nor should there be. But we also need to make sure that money is actually being donated by individuals, and that minimum wage janitors are not donating large sums of money to candidates. Most people who make minimum wage cannot afford to donate $50, much less $5000.

i am not referring to the individuals who work for the Company....im talking about the Company itself.....if some large Company donates millions to a politician's campaign,i have to feel the guy is now beholding to the Company....

 

[taichiliberal]

What fucking world do you live in? Union management votes before they make a political endorsement, not union membership. Do you actually believe that the NEA has a vote of all 3 million members before making decisions about how to spend money? It is not a democracy in any way, shape, or form. Neither is the SEIU with its 2 million or so members.

Maybe you and rdean could get together and see if between the two of you you can get in touch with reality.

Maybe YOU, QW, need to THINK before your fingers hit the keys..... unless you like living up to your screen name.

Pay attention: Unions ELECT their via campaigns like we have have for local and national political leadership, as opposed to corporations who's elections/appointments are NOT dependent upon ALL it's members (i.e., workers). So if the leadership does NOT act in the interest of the people they represent, then they can be voted out. That doesn't exist for corporations, now does it bunky? Shareholders may have a voice by voting with their wallets, but the workers sure as hell don't.

And neither union or corporation should be treated as an individual person, since as you and I agree, they would not be acting in unison via ALL members (management, workers, shareholders, etc.). This is why the Citizens United decision is so terribly wrong.

Hmm. How often have unions voted out their leadership?

Hmmm, depends on the union....are YOU saying that unions as a whole have elections for life? If so, where's your proof? And since for YEARS I've read periodicals regarding federal crime investigation into union corruption, or pivotal changing of the guard in unions, I'd say you're trying to insinuate something.

So corporations should let their workers, who have no stake in the company vote, but unions should not let their employers vote?

Who said that? I surely didn't...go back and read carefully and comprehensively what I wrote.

IN any case many big corporations have ESOPs so workers end up voting anyway.

Really? Elucidate on that, my friend....because unless you can produce FACTS (like end up voting on what, precisely?) you're just blowing smoke.

And what does CU have to do with any of it? Why should Congress pass a law infringing on free speech, which is specifically prohibited by the Constitution?

Since The Constitution DOES NOT mention corporations nor does it grant them "rights" of an individual. Congress grants corporations certain rights in regards to commerce, but does NOT identify them on par with a US citizen.

 

[taichiliberal]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

Since TM refuses to answer the question, perhaps you'd like to give it a shot:

The people in them already have rights.

The US was not designed to give corporations control over the government was it?

Then you similarly oppose 527s like MoveOn.org, correct?

Prior to the Citizen's United ruling, was MoveOn.org recognized as a US citizen with all subsequent rights granted by the Constitution?

Nope.

Is MoveOn.org a commercial corporation?

Nope.

Weren't the Swiftboaters a 527 group at one point?

Yep, and folk like YOU Dave defended the Swiftboaters to the death.

527 groups can't put money directly to advocate the election or defeat of any candidate, if the do the FEC gets after them, as they ruled in 2004.

So again Dave, the Citizens United decision oversteps the Constitution that does NOT mention corporations nor gives them rights as an individual US citizen..... but does regulate commerce.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

Since TM refuses to answer the question, perhaps you'd like to give it a shot:

Then you similarly oppose 527s like MoveOn.org, correct?

Prior to the Citizen's United ruling, was MoveOn.org recognized as a US citizen with all subsequent rights granted by the Constitution?

Nope.

Is MoveOn.org a commercial corporation?

Nope.

Weren't the Swiftboaters a 527 group at one point?

Yep, and folk like YOU Dave defended the Swiftboaters to the death.

527 groups can't put money directly to advocate the election or defeat of any candidate, if the do the FEC gets after them, as they ruled in 2004.

So again Dave, the Citizens United decision oversteps the Constitution that does NOT mention corporations nor gives them rights as an individual US citizen..... but does regulate commerce.

It still isn't. MoveOn.org does not have the right to vote, so it is obviously not a citizen. Matter of fact, neither is any other corporation. Do you have a brain, or do you just string soundbites together in the hope that no one notices how stupid you actually are?

 

[daveman]

Okay, let's just end all this BS about a corporation being treated as an individual regarding campaign contribution:

Unless there is a vote by members of the corporation to use part of their earnings to back a political candidate, the "corporation" is NOT representing all it's members....and WORKERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION.

Unions VOTE before they make a political endorsement.

NEITHER UNION OR CORPORATION ARE ON PAR WITH THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZEN, AS THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS APPLYING TO EACH.

Since TM refuses to answer the question, perhaps you'd like to give it a shot:

Then you similarly oppose 527s like MoveOn.org, correct?

Prior to the Citizen's United ruling, was MoveOn.org recognized as a US citizen with all subsequent rights granted by the Constitution?

Nope.

Is MoveOn.org a commercial corporation?

Nope.

Weren't the Swiftboaters a 527 group at one point?

Yep, and folk like YOU Dave defended the Swiftboaters to the death.

527 groups can't put money directly to advocate the election or defeat of any candidate, if the do the FEC gets after them, as they ruled in 2004.

So again Dave, the Citizens United decision oversteps the Constitution that does NOT mention corporations nor gives them rights as an individual US citizen..... but does regulate commerce.

How is donating to candidates "commerce"?

 

[Agit8r]

The people who wrote the Bill of Rights never intended for those rights to extend to corporations, regardless of what judicial activists want you to believe

"The antirepublican party, as it may be called, being the weaker in point of numbers, will be induced by the most obvious motives to strengthen themselves with the men of influence, particularly of moneyed, which is the most active and insinuating influence." -- James Madison; from A Candid State of Parties

 

[taichiliberal]

Since TM refuses to answer the question, perhaps you'd like to give it a shot:

​

Prior to the Citizen's United ruling, was MoveOn.org recognized as a US citizen with all subsequent rights granted by the Constitution?

Nope.

Is MoveOn.org a commercial corporation?

Nope.

Weren't the Swiftboaters a 527 group at one point?

Yep, and folk like YOU Dave defended the Swiftboaters to the death.

527 groups can't put money directly to advocate the election or defeat of any candidate, if the do the FEC gets after them, as they ruled in 2004.

So again Dave, the Citizens United decision oversteps the Constitution that does NOT mention corporations nor gives them rights as an individual US citizen..... but does regulate commerce.

It still isn't. MoveOn.org does not have the right to vote, so it is obviously not a citizen. Matter of fact, neither is any other corporation. Do you have a brain, or do you just string soundbites together in the hope that no one notices how stupid you actually are?

Man, you really are a windbag of quantum proportions, are you?

Pay attention, genius: DAVE brought up MoveOn.org as some sort of lame attempt to compare it to corporations that the Citizens United case ruling deemed were citizens in regards to donation to campaign commercials.

He was wrong, as I explained. NOTHING that I wrote stated anything about "right to vote"....seems YOU, QW, are just beside yourself with your inability to get passed me on this issue....get your act together, you silly Windbag.

 

[taichiliberal]

Since TM refuses to answer the question, perhaps you'd like to give it a shot:

​

Prior to the Citizen's United ruling, was MoveOn.org recognized as a US citizen with all subsequent rights granted by the Constitution?

Nope.

Is MoveOn.org a commercial corporation?

Nope.

Weren't the Swiftboaters a 527 group at one point?

Yep, and folk like YOU Dave defended the Swiftboaters to the death.

527 groups can't put money directly to advocate the election or defeat of any candidate, if the do the FEC gets after them, as they ruled in 2004.

So again Dave, the Citizens United decision oversteps the Constitution that does NOT mention corporations nor gives them rights as an individual US citizen..... but does regulate commerce.

How is donating to candidates "commerce"?

It's not, genius....I put that tidbit in there to school you as to what the Constittuions relationship to corporations is....and it sure as hell doesn't include/allude/insinuate or assert anything about corporations being on par with citizens. If can find were it does, please enlighten us all.