Jury convicts DeLay in money-laundering case

[Intense]

Nope. Correction: In many states they are, but in limited amounts. In Texas, the answer is Nope. It's their state law.

Under Citizens United they can spend all they want themselves and with the same protections as any individual, but they have to disclose that they are the ones behind the spending and can't hand it over to a candidate.

That's caused some confusion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

(PDF Alert)

It does sound fair.

I'm against it in principle, because I believe political speech rights should be reserved for natural individuals and not legally created fictitious ones, be they corporations OR unions - both of which were addressed in the decision.

But fair warning about getting me on that soapbox. I had a couple hundred incredulous posts or so in the Citizens United threads at the time the decision came out.

The other side of the coin is your Right as a Person to have relevant information available to you, not conditionally, not censored. The focus should be on verifiable information being available, not obstruction by the powers that be because it conflicts with their interest.

 

[goldcatt]

Ah.. aren't corporations allowed to give money to individual candidates now..

Nope. Correction: In many states they are, but in limited amounts. In Texas, the answer is Nope. It's their state law.

Under Citizens United they can spend all they want themselves and with the same protections as any individual, but they have to disclose that they are the ones behind the spending and can't hand it over to a candidate.

That's caused some confusion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

(PDF Alert)

Thanks.. You're looking quite attractive on that Soap Box by the way...

Why thank you, Lumpster! Pontificating is one of the things I do best.

 

[goldcatt]

It does sound fair.

I'm against it in principle, because I believe political speech rights should be reserved for natural individuals and not legally created fictitious ones, be they corporations OR unions - both of which were addressed in the decision.

But fair warning about getting me on that soapbox. I had a couple hundred incredulous posts or so in the Citizens United threads at the time the decision came out.

The other side of the coin is your Right as a Person to have relevant information available to you, not conditionally, not censored. The focus should be on verifiable information being available, not obstruction by the powers that be because it conflicts with their interest.

You're assuming political advertising is relevant, verifiable information.

The biggest problem I see with it is the lack of accountability. As a legal fiction, corporations can and are dissolved, reformed, their ownership buried or veiled, and each entity is a new individual and identity. Not to mention in the case of this type of political participation any AQ member or other nutjob anywhere in the world with an axe to grind who has a couple hundred bucks and an American PO Box can set up a sub-S and be able to participate fully in the process - with unlimited funds from any number of questionable and unknown sources. It's not a brilliant move pragmatically.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Citizens United is without equivocation judicial activism that will damage the Republic at its basic foundations. The majority ruled that the rights of money out rule the rights of citizens.

 

[goldcatt]

Citizens United is without equivocation judicial activism that will damage the Republic at its basic foundations. The majority ruled that the rights of money out rule the rights of citizens.

I agree that it was activism. That case could have and should have been decided on narrower grounds. The problem is more than "money talks" though. It's the total lack of accountability in the corporate entity.

Corporations can be formed in the US by a person of any nationality or background, yet foreign nationals as individuals cannot contribute in the process. They cannot be jailed for breaking the law. Their owners are protected from civil damages by limitations on liability. If one gets in trouble it can simply dissolve and reform with the same players under a new charter. And it has no record - it's a brand new "person".

Everything about them as an entity is a legal construct designed to advance a commercial purpose. Which is why the courts for two centuries afforded them only limited rights, including only partial speech rights limited to the commercial sphere. Because they also have limited responsibility and accountability. One cannot - or should not - exist without the other.

Warned y'all about my soapbox, didn't I?

 

[Intense]

I'm against it in principle, because I believe political speech rights should be reserved for natural individuals and not legally created fictitious ones, be they corporations OR unions - both of which were addressed in the decision.

But fair warning about getting me on that soapbox. I had a couple hundred incredulous posts or so in the Citizens United threads at the time the decision came out.

The other side of the coin is your Right as a Person to have relevant information available to you, not conditionally, not censored. The focus should be on verifiable information being available, not obstruction by the powers that be because it conflicts with their interest.

You're assuming political advertising is relevant, verifiable information.

The biggest problem I see with it is the lack of accountability. As a legal fiction, corporations can and are dissolved, reformed, their ownership buried or veiled, and each entity is a new individual and identity. Not to mention in the case of this type of political participation any AQ member or other nutjob anywhere in the world with an axe to grind who has a couple hundred bucks and an American PO Box can set up a sub-S and be able to participate fully in the process - with unlimited funds from any number of questionable and unknown sources. It's not a brilliant move pragmatically.

You're assuming political advertising is relevant, verifiable information.

I'm specifically thinking about book banning and Radio Censorship.

 

[goldcatt]

The other side of the coin is your Right as a Person to have relevant information available to you, not conditionally, not censored. The focus should be on verifiable information being available, not obstruction by the powers that be because it conflicts with their interest.

You're assuming political advertising is relevant, verifiable information.

The biggest problem I see with it is the lack of accountability. As a legal fiction, corporations can and are dissolved, reformed, their ownership buried or veiled, and each entity is a new individual and identity. Not to mention in the case of this type of political participation any AQ member or other nutjob anywhere in the world with an axe to grind who has a couple hundred bucks and an American PO Box can set up a sub-S and be able to participate fully in the process - with unlimited funds from any number of questionable and unknown sources. It's not a brilliant move pragmatically.

You're assuming political advertising is relevant, verifiable information.

I'm specifically thinking about book banning and Radio Censorship.

Neither of which fall under Citizens United, unless the content is political speech related to an election cycle and paid for by a corporation or other fictitious "person" under the law. The film that was the actual subject of the case was an anti-Hillary campaign commercial billed as a "documentary". And the Court acknowledged it as such.

C.U. Has nothing to do with things like the idiocy of a fairness doctrine or of book banning. What it does do is open participation in the political process to any individual from anywhere in the world with the patience to rent a PO Box and fill out some papers and propaganda they want to spread. And for more legitimate corporate entities to eliminate the middle man and open what amounts to their own in-house PACS to do the same.

 

[Intense]

You're assuming political advertising is relevant, verifiable information.

The biggest problem I see with it is the lack of accountability. As a legal fiction, corporations can and are dissolved, reformed, their ownership buried or veiled, and each entity is a new individual and identity. Not to mention in the case of this type of political participation any AQ member or other nutjob anywhere in the world with an axe to grind who has a couple hundred bucks and an American PO Box can set up a sub-S and be able to participate fully in the process - with unlimited funds from any number of questionable and unknown sources. It's not a brilliant move pragmatically.

You're assuming political advertising is relevant, verifiable information.

I'm specifically thinking about book banning and Radio Censorship.

Neither of which fall under Citizens United, unless the content is political speech related to an election cycle and paid for by a corporation or other fictitious "person" under the law. The film that was the actual subject of the case was an anti-Hillary campaign commercial billed as a "documentary". And the Court acknowledged it as such.

C.U. Has nothing to do with things like the idiocy of a fairness doctrine or of book banning. What it does do is open participation in the political process to any individual from anywhere in the world with the patience to rent a PO Box and fill out some papers and propaganda they want to spread. And for more legitimate corporate entities to eliminate the middle man and open what amounts to their own in-house PACS to do the same.

Either the Law applies uniformly or it doesn't. Every exception of the rule, at the least, is deserving of the question "Why?"

Propaganda should be torn apart publicly. Expose it. Humiliate the source, shame it. There is no substitute for a well informed Public.

P.S. The Supreme Court Case did involve Book Censorship in the argument. The Documentary was no different than what Gore or Moore put out in nature.

 

[goldcatt]

I'm specifically thinking about book banning and Radio Censorship.

Neither of which fall under Citizens United, unless the content is political speech related to an election cycle and paid for by a corporation or other fictitious "person" under the law. The film that was the actual subject of the case was an anti-Hillary campaign commercial billed as a "documentary". And the Court acknowledged it as such.

C.U. Has nothing to do with things like the idiocy of a fairness doctrine or of book banning. What it does do is open participation in the political process to any individual from anywhere in the world with the patience to rent a PO Box and fill out some papers and propaganda they want to spread. And for more legitimate corporate entities to eliminate the middle man and open what amounts to their own in-house PACS to do the same.

Either the Law applies uniformly or it doesn't. Every exception of the rule, at the least, is deserving of the question "Why?"

Propaganda should be torn apart publicly. Expose it. Humiliate the source, shame it. There is no substitute for a well informed Public.

And allowing foreign influence on the political process behind the veil of the American corporate entity, which protects from both civil and criminal liability, is the best way to inform the public and expose the source? Which if revealed can then simply dissolve and reform under a new name with a new PO Box and a new corporate filing to start all over again as a new being with no record and no history. Good luck keeping up.

I'm sorry, Intense. I couldn't swallow that argument when the decision came out and I can't accept it now. Individuals are both accountable and traceable, corporations are not. There's your difference. Rights without responsibility and accountability are anathema.

 

[Intense]

Neither of which fall under Citizens United, unless the content is political speech related to an election cycle and paid for by a corporation or other fictitious "person" under the law. The film that was the actual subject of the case was an anti-Hillary campaign commercial billed as a "documentary". And the Court acknowledged it as such.

C.U. Has nothing to do with things like the idiocy of a fairness doctrine or of book banning. What it does do is open participation in the political process to any individual from anywhere in the world with the patience to rent a PO Box and fill out some papers and propaganda they want to spread. And for more legitimate corporate entities to eliminate the middle man and open what amounts to their own in-house PACS to do the same.

Either the Law applies uniformly or it doesn't. Every exception of the rule, at the least, is deserving of the question "Why?"

Propaganda should be torn apart publicly. Expose it. Humiliate the source, shame it. There is no substitute for a well informed Public.

And allowing foreign influence on the political process behind the veil of the American corporate entity, which protects from both civil and criminal liability, is the best way to inform the public and expose the source? Which if revealed can then simply dissolve and reform under a new name with a new PO Box and a new corporate filing to start all over again as a new being with no record and no history. Good luck keeping up.

I'm sorry, Intense. I couldn't swallow that argument when the decision came out and I can't accept it now. Individuals are both accountable and traceable, corporations are not. There's your difference. Rights without responsibility and accountability are anathema.

The Unions and PAC's are not exactly traceable either, or accountable, or controlable. Try tracing ACORN, good luck with that one. How much did China contribute to Clinton, Gore, Kerry. Do you want to continue to fight the tide or work towards making the entities more Transparent and accountable?

 

[goldcatt]

Either the Law applies uniformly or it doesn't. Every exception of the rule, at the least, is deserving of the question "Why?"

Propaganda should be torn apart publicly. Expose it. Humiliate the source, shame it. There is no substitute for a well informed Public.

And allowing foreign influence on the political process behind the veil of the American corporate entity, which protects from both civil and criminal liability, is the best way to inform the public and expose the source? Which if revealed can then simply dissolve and reform under a new name with a new PO Box and a new corporate filing to start all over again as a new being with no record and no history. Good luck keeping up.

I'm sorry, Intense. I couldn't swallow that argument when the decision came out and I can't accept it now. Individuals are both accountable and traceable, corporations are not. There's your difference. Rights without responsibility and accountability are anathema.

The Unions and PAC's are not exactly traceable either, or accountable, or controlable. Try tracing ACORN, good luck with that one. How much did China contribute to Clinton, Gore, Kerry. Do you want to continue to fight the tide or work towards making the entities more Transparent and accountable?

C.U. covers unions as well, and I'm equally concerned abut them and for very similar reasons, although it would be much more difficult for a single foreign national to start one using a false identity.

The problem with making the entities more transparent and accountable is it will weaken the commercial benefits of the corporate entity. The vast majority of corporations are small, family owned or otherwise closely held sub-S corps. The owners incorporate to receive the benefits of incorporation, one of the biggest being the limited liability aspect. The entity itself is liable, the owners with a few exceptions are not. In the commercial transactions for which they were created and designed, improving accountability means compromising one of the big reasons why corporations work.

And it's another reason why I can't stand the ruling - the corporate entity itself is a good thing in its proper context. It encourages innovation and allows for capitalization in ways other business forms do not. But it was not designed to be a political entity, and this ruling could actually end up hurting corporations more than it helps them. The law had always understood this and maintained a careful balance between granting corps the rights they needed to do business effectively and keeping them separate from the individual rights that would jeopardize their commercial purpose - until C.U.

EDIT: And don't get me started on PACs. It's amazing how we survived almost 200 years without them, and now they dominate so much of our political process.

 

[Intense]

And allowing foreign influence on the political process behind the veil of the American corporate entity, which protects from both civil and criminal liability, is the best way to inform the public and expose the source? Which if revealed can then simply dissolve and reform under a new name with a new PO Box and a new corporate filing to start all over again as a new being with no record and no history. Good luck keeping up.

I'm sorry, Intense. I couldn't swallow that argument when the decision came out and I can't accept it now. Individuals are both accountable and traceable, corporations are not. There's your difference. Rights without responsibility and accountability are anathema.

The Unions and PAC's are not exactly traceable either, or accountable, or controlable. Try tracing ACORN, good luck with that one. How much did China contribute to Clinton, Gore, Kerry. Do you want to continue to fight the tide or work towards making the entities more Transparent and accountable?

C.U. covers unions as well, and I'm equally concerned abut them and for very similar reasons, although it would be much more difficult for a single foreign national to start one using a false identity.

The problem with making the entities more transparent and accountable is it will weaken the commercial benefits of the corporate entity. The vast majority of corporations are small, family owned or otherwise closely held sub-S corps. The owners incorporate to receive the benefits of incorporation, one of the biggest being the limited liability aspect. The entity itself is liable, the owners with a few exceptions are not. In the commercial transactions for which they were created and designed, improving accountability means compromising one of the big reasons why corporations work.

And it's another reason why I can't stand the ruling - the corporate entity itself is a good thing in its proper context. It encourages innovation and allows for capitalization in ways other business forms do not. But it was not designed to be a political entity, and this ruling could actually end up hurting corporations more than it helps them. The law had always understood this and maintained a careful balance between granting corps the rights they needed to do business effectively and keeping them separate from the individual rights that would jeopardize their commercial purpose - until C.U.

EDIT: And don't get me started on PACs. It's amazing how we survived almost 200 years without them, and now they dominate so much of our political process.

The law had always understood this and maintained a careful balance between granting corps the rights they needed to do business effectively and keeping them separate from the individual rights that would jeopardize their commercial purpose - until C.U.

A choice they should individually be able to make, knowing that Rules will apply, to that choice. Disclosure should be one of them, unless you are worried about offending G.E? Only kidding.

 

[Intense]

You really don't want Hillary hitting up dishwashers and bus boy's for thousand dollar donations, right? Be honest.

 

[goldcatt]

The Unions and PAC's are not exactly traceable either, or accountable, or controlable. Try tracing ACORN, good luck with that one. How much did China contribute to Clinton, Gore, Kerry. Do you want to continue to fight the tide or work towards making the entities more Transparent and accountable?

C.U. covers unions as well, and I'm equally concerned abut them and for very similar reasons, although it would be much more difficult for a single foreign national to start one using a false identity.

The problem with making the entities more transparent and accountable is it will weaken the commercial benefits of the corporate entity. The vast majority of corporations are small, family owned or otherwise closely held sub-S corps. The owners incorporate to receive the benefits of incorporation, one of the biggest being the limited liability aspect. The entity itself is liable, the owners with a few exceptions are not. In the commercial transactions for which they were created and designed, improving accountability means compromising one of the big reasons why corporations work.

And it's another reason why I can't stand the ruling - the corporate entity itself is a good thing in its proper context. It encourages innovation and allows for capitalization in ways other business forms do not. But it was not designed to be a political entity, and this ruling could actually end up hurting corporations more than it helps them. The law had always understood this and maintained a careful balance between granting corps the rights they needed to do business effectively and keeping them separate from the individual rights that would jeopardize their commercial purpose - until C.U.

EDIT: And don't get me started on PACs. It's amazing how we survived almost 200 years without them, and now they dominate so much of our political process.

The law had always understood this and maintained a careful balance between granting corps the rights they needed to do business effectively and keeping them separate from the individual rights that would jeopardize their commercial purpose - until C.U.

A choice they should individually be able to make, knowing that Rules will apply, to that choice. Disclosure should be one of them, unless you are worried about offending G.E? Only kidding.

The problem is, you have one set of rules for the corporate entity across the board with a few different classifications for the different types of corporations, such as closely held v. publicly held, and a few minor variations across States. Should corporations then have to register as a specific type of entity with a different set of rules in order to opt in or out of political speech protections? That's not how C.U. reads, and I'm not sure it's within the scope of Federal law to require. The law of corporations, their formation, existence and dissolution belongs to the States.

The Court could have easily reached the same conclusion on McCain-Feingold on much, much narrower grounds. As far as McCain-Feingold goes they were right, but this whole corporations are entitled to full individual rights hooey is a can of worms.

For G.E. and everybody else.

 

[goldcatt]

You really don't want Hillary hitting up dishwashers and bus boy's for thousand dollar donations, right? Be honest.

As long as the busboys and dishwashers can tell her to stuff it, it's her time to waste trying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course non-citizens are subject to the Constitution when in custody of American law enforcement or military. Nothing in the Constitution permits such a weird interpretation that they are somehow exempt from its obligations and protections.

Is Sangha in custody?

That you are not in custody demonstrates the document's protections are working.

 

[KissMy]

Taxpayer backed Fannie & Freddie paying off most of congress with our money has to be the crime of the century.

Will we ever even see charges filed?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

we told you he was dirty and you didnt believe it I bet.

I guessing you based your suspicions on "He's a Republican!!"...and chose to convict him for that.

As a gauge of your "objectivity" lol, tell me -- is Rangel innocent?

Rangel is a crook, and should get jail time for what he did.

DeLay was incredibly corrupt in just about every sense of the word. Read up on the K-Street shennanigans and tell me if that wasn't corrupt. A lot of DeLay's decisions cross right up into the gray area of things that are almost certainly unethical, even if they may technically be "legal."

It just happens that this time he got too close to that line and got burnt. And good riddance.

 

[daveman]

Of course non-citizens are subject to the Constitution when in custody of American law enforcement or military. Nothing in the Constitution permits such a weird interpretation that they are somehow exempt from its obligations and protections.

Is Sangha in custody?

That you are not in custody demonstrates the document's protections are working.

Spoken like a true leftist. You want people jailed for the crime of disagreeing with you.

What a proto-fascist you are.

 

[daveman]

we told you he was dirty and you didnt believe it I bet.

I guessing you based your suspicions on "He's a Republican!!"...and chose to convict him for that.

As a gauge of your "objectivity" lol, tell me -- is Rangel innocent?

Rangel is a crook, and should get jail time for what he did.

DeLay was incredibly corrupt in just about every sense of the word. Read up on the K-Street shennanigans and tell me if that wasn't corrupt. A lot of DeLay's decisions cross right up into the gray area of things that are almost certainly unethical, even if they may technically be "legal."

It just happens that this time he got too close to that line and got burnt. And good riddance.

Thanks. Are you pinch-hitting for TM?