Constitutional Oligarchy?

[Revere]

Actually he is dead wrong. When it comes to Elections Money does equal speech.

Dead wrong?

People, for the most part, left Europe for the United States for a multitude of reasons but primarily for Religious/Ethnic Freedom..and the right to "get paid".

That was impossible in cultures that were so steeped in Aristocracies.

"Elections Money" does not equal speech.

What it represents is a return to the very thing most people left in the first place.

Most of Michele Bachman's/Sharron Angle's/Christine O'Donnell's/Scott Brown's donations were around 50 bucks each.

Hardly "aristocracies."

 

[Big Fitz]

When are you going to accept that freedom of speech applies to all people, even if you don't like them?

corporations are not people. They deserve no constitutional rights whatsoever. That the SC defends their rights only proves the corruption of the court.

I will be happy to yank your union's and non-profit's constitutional rights too then.

There is no difference.

Oh wait... no no... I mis-spoke. The difference is that Corporations produce a product or service the public wants and employing people at typically fair wages (unless the employees are extra stupid). Unions are parasites for lazy fucks who want to protect themselves from being legitimately fired for incompetence and lining their own pockets while claiming to be 'for the little guy." Government unions and 'non-profit' style organizations, doubly so.

My bad.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Actually he is dead wrong. When it comes to Elections Money does equal speech.

Dead wrong?

People, for the most part, left Europe for the United States for a multitude of reasons but primarily for Religious/Ethnic Freedom..and the right to "get paid".

That was impossible in cultures that were so steeped in Aristocracies.

"Elections Money" does not equal speech.

What it represents is a return to the very thing most people left in the first place.

Most of Michele Bachman's/Sharron Angle's/Christine O'Donnell's/Scott Brown's donations were around 50 bucks each.

Hardly "aristocracies."

Link. Oh, and btw, to suggest such campaign donations are the only monied interests involved is at best mistaken (or intentionally misleading).

 

[Wry Catcher]

When are you going to accept that freedom of speech applies to all people, even if you don't like them?

corporations are not people. They deserve no constitutional rights whatsoever. That the SC defends their rights only proves the corruption of the court.

I will be happy to yank your union's and non-profit's constitutional rights too then.

There is no difference.

Oh wait... no no... I mis-spoke. The difference is that Corporations produce a product or service the public wants and employing people at typically fair wages (unless the employees are extra stupid). Unions are parasites for lazy fucks who want to protect themselves from being legitimately fired for incompetence and lining their own pockets while claiming to be 'for the little guy." Government unions and 'non-profit' style organizations, doubly so.

My bad.

No, your ignorance. I suggest you do some research, or, remain ignorant - you are free to chose. Start with, USSC decision: Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific (focus on the headnote controversy).
Next, answer the question I posed above:
"What is your conception of 'Freedom'?
"I have a very good hunch you and others carelessly use 'freedom' and 'liberty' as abstractions and don't understand the Realpolitik essence" of these words.

 

[Liability]

Oligarchy, a political system that is controlled by a small group of individuals, who govern in their own interests.
Does Citizens United v. FEC portend our nations future?

The definition of oligarchy is not connected to the question about Citizens United.

I support campaign finance reform, limits on contributions and the total transparency of the donors.

Do you?

No. Given freedom of speech, and given that my voice may best be heard in our political system by virtue of the money I give to candidates and causes, there should be no limits imposed on my ability to give such campaign contributions.

Furthermore, to "demand" total transparency is to demand that your political opponents gain specific information about you so that you can be subjected to concerted forms of harassment.

Many of you very ignorant liberals either don't know (or conveniently forget) why donors might wish to be anonymous and why they have been given that right in our system.

Don't ANY of you liberals get it? To force the NAACP, for instance, to turn over to the gubmint its DONORS' lists, could very easily translate into intimidation AGAINST the NAACP donors.

Hm. Anybody want to take a look into:

NAACP v. Alabama?

(Link: FindLaw | Cases and Codes)

 

[Dr.Traveler]

When are you going to accept that freedom of speech applies to all people, even if you don't like them?

Asking for transparency isn't an abridgement of your right to free speech. IF you're willing to say it, you should be willing to stand behind it.

I don't see the issue with making organizations that get involved with political advertising disclose all of their donors publically.

Considering that Unions and Corporations aren't actually people, I have no problem with limiting their contributions to candidates.

I do think that an individual should be able to give as much as they want, and spend as much as they want on ads. As long as they're willing to publically disclose that of course.

 

[Liability]

When are you going to accept that freedom of speech applies to all people, even if you don't like them?

Asking for transparency isn't an abridgement of your right to free speech. IF you're willing to say it, you should be willing to stand behind it.

I don't see the issue with making organizations that get involved with political advertising disclose all of their donors publically.

Considering that Unions and Corporations aren't actually people, I have no problem with limiting their contributions to candidates.

I do think that an individual should be able to give as much as they want, and spend as much as they want on ads. As long as they're willing to publically disclose that of course.

So according to your strict belief in accepting responsibility, then, you must necessarily believe that a unanimous SCOTUS got NAACP v. Alabama wrong.

Please tell us all exactly how and why, back in those days, Alabama had a legitimate right to the donors' list(s) of the NAACP.

 

[Big Fitz]

corporations are not people. They deserve no constitutional rights whatsoever. That the SC defends their rights only proves the corruption of the court.

I will be happy to yank your union's and non-profit's constitutional rights too then.

There is no difference.

Oh wait... no no... I mis-spoke. The difference is that Corporations produce a product or service the public wants and employing people at typically fair wages (unless the employees are extra stupid). Unions are parasites for lazy fucks who want to protect themselves from being legitimately fired for incompetence and lining their own pockets while claiming to be 'for the little guy." Government unions and 'non-profit' style organizations, doubly so.

My bad.

No, your ignorance. I suggest you do some research, or, remain ignorant - you are free to chose. Start with, USSC decision: Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific (focus on the headnote controversy).
Next, answer the question I posed above:
"What is your conception of 'Freedom'?
"I have a very good hunch you and others carelessly use 'freedom' and 'liberty' as abstractions and don't understand the Realpolitik essence" of these words.

Realpolitik.

The art of preserving a status quo no matter how fucking stupid it is.

Yeah, I don't understand how this is considered intelligent thinking by anyone.

The cold war died with the soviet union. Time to come out of the 1960's.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

So according to your strict belief in accepting responsibility, then, you must necessarily believe that a unanimous SCOTUS got NAACP v. Alabama wrong.

Please tell us all exactly how and why, back in those days, Alabama had a legitimate right to the donors' list(s) of the NAACP.

Please tell us why not. Freedom of Speech is not freedom from consequences, both legal and otherwise.

The only difference I see here is one of grounds. What were the grounds for the state of Alabama to demand the membership of the NAACP? Was it part of a criminal investigation? Was the NAACP attempting to influence politicians?

In the political arena, as a voter I should have the right to demand from a candidate transparency. The election of a candidate has a direct impact on my life, and as such I have the grounds to demand as much information as possible. The only real question is one of consequence.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're full of digested bull food. First, the case you offered does not speak to money or influence, I object, it is not relevent. If you want to provide a brief with points and authorites I will read it, otherwise I will consider your final comments as nothing but a red herring.

As to your other opinions.

"The definition of oligarchy is not connected to the question about Citizens United."

I strongly disagree. We already live in a limited plutocracy, evidenced by the percetage of wealth controlled by the few vis a vis that which is controlled by the many.
Allowing the few to flood the airways and print media with 'propaganda' (and isn't that what all politcal ads are?) provides more power to the powerful and creates a climate wherein the few will continue to amass the greatest proportion of wealth, power and control at the expense of the many.
The motivation of the few maybe good or bad; however histroy and human psychology suggest the primary motivation of the few is self-interest, not the general welfare of a nation.

I have several examples at the ready. I look forward to your reply.

 

[Liability]

So according to your strict belief in accepting responsibility, then, you must necessarily believe that a unanimous SCOTUS got NAACP v. Alabama wrong.

Please tell us all exactly how and why, back in those days, Alabama had a legitimate right to the donors' list(s) of the NAACP.

Please tell us why not. Freedom of Speech is not freedom from consequences, both legal and otherwise.

The only difference I see here is one of grounds. What were the grounds for the state of Alabama to demand the membership of the NAACP? Was it part of a criminal investigation? Was the NAACP attempting to influence politicians?

In the political arena, as a voter I should have the right to demand from a candidate transparency. The election of a candidate has a direct impact on my life, and as such I have the grounds to demand as much information as possible. The only real question is one of consequence.

Because I am not content to permit you (not you in particular, of course) to subject me to ANY form of harassment as a result of my political donations. As policy, demanding such things might tend to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Now that I have answered YOUR question, perhaps instead of pretending to answer my question via the ploy you used of merely asking another question, you can instead give us your passionate defense of the legitimacy of the claimed RIGHT of the State of Alabama to demand the NAACP donors' lists.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I will be happy to yank your union's and non-profit's constitutional rights too then.

There is no difference.

Oh wait... no no... I mis-spoke. The difference is that Corporations produce a product or service the public wants and employing people at typically fair wages (unless the employees are extra stupid). Unions are parasites for lazy fucks who want to protect themselves from being legitimately fired for incompetence and lining their own pockets while claiming to be 'for the little guy." Government unions and 'non-profit' style organizations, doubly so.

My bad.

No, your ignorance. I suggest you do some research, or, remain ignorant - you are free to chose. Start with, USSC decision: Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific (focus on the headnote controversy).
Next, answer the question I posed above:
"What is your conception of 'Freedom'?
"I have a very good hunch you and others carelessly use 'freedom' and 'liberty' as abstractions and don't understand the Realpolitik essence" of these words.

Realpolitik.

The art of preserving a status quo no matter how fucking stupid it is.

Yeah, I don't understand how this is considered intelligent thinking by anyone.

The cold war died with the soviet union. Time to come out of the 1960's.

German term now used in English that means politics based on strictly practical rather than theoretical or idealistic notions, and practised with a hard or cynical edge, without any sentimental illusions. Realpolitik is power politics; the practitioner of realpolitik pursues the interests of his own group or country ruthlessly; he expects the other side to the same.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Because I am not content to permit you (not you in particular, of course) to subject me to ANY form of harassment as a result of my political donations. As policy, demanding such things might tend to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Again, Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences. If you believe enough to open your wallet, then you should be willing to stand behind that. Otherwise, don't give.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that people who don't support limits on government spending support limits on campaign contributions

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have a deficit so fucking huge it has to be expressed in scientific notation 1.3 *10^12 but we're worried about someone spending a few bucks on campaign ads.

What major fucked up priorities do you need to come to that?

 

[MikeK]

No. Government telling you how much money you can spend is not freedom.

That depends on what the money is being spent on.

If money is speech it follows that those who have the most money have the loudest voice. This is the formula for inevitable transformation of democracy into plutocracy and government should be committed to preventing that by any means necessary.

Government has an obligation to remove money as a motivating force in the political process and restoring the definition of speech to the spoken and written expression of ideas rather than the exchange of property, which is what money is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

From the LA Times:

Investor groups balk at oil companies' support of Prop. 23Shareholder organizations are expected to offer resolutions challenging L.A.'s Occidental Petroleum and two Texas firms over their contributions to the campaign to suspend California's emissions law.

October 13, 2010|By Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger, Los Angeles Times, Reporting from Washington — Institutional investor groups concerned about corporate funding of political campaigns are expected to announce shareholder resolutions Wednesday that will challenge three energy firms making big-dollar contributions to halt California's landmark law limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

The resolutions target Occidental Petroleum Corp., Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., which have contributed to an $8-million campaign on behalf of Proposition 23, which would effectively repeal the state's stringent global warming rules.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Odd that people who don't support limits on government spending support limits on campaign contributions

Odd that you really believe such a stupid comparison has merit.

 

[Ozmar]

When are you going to accept that freedom of speech applies to all people, even if you don't like them?

corporations are not people. They deserve no constitutional rights whatsoever. That the SC defends their rights only proves the corruption of the court.

Look up the legal definition of a corporation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that people who don't support limits on government spending support limits on campaign contributions

Odd that you really believe such a stupid comparison has merit.

You're so busted! You lost your media monopoly! No one believes your bullshit anymore just because you say so! The 1.3 TRILLION deficit is really a big fucking deal!

Now that we can let sunlight in on your bullshit and you can't take it!