Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[kwc57]

Free speech, to the liberals, is a threat

to Statism.

You do realize that there are many wealthy liberals running corporations too don't you? Do you think your campaign contributions can match a Microsoft or Google's contributions?

Do you imagine that I would object to the RIGHT of Corporations to SAY whatever they believe, merely because I disagree with their political POV?

No no, silly lad.

That kind of unAmerican "thinking" is what libs and related versions of Statists engage in.

Geez fucking louise, do you work at being a total ass or do you come by it naturally?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the majority of the time, the candidate with the most bucks to get his name and message out more than the other guy wins. That doesn't always hold true, but more often than not. When you have John Doe getting contributions from citizens running against Bill Smith being backed by corporations, who do you think will win, the best candidate or the one with the most bucks? It's already proven that America doesn't elect the best candidates over and over again. So now you want some guy backed by corporations who will be beholden to them to be your elected official? We already have enough of that with lobbyists and PACS, we don't need it going wholesale.

 

[Liability]

It is also interesting to see the attack on the "legal fiction" that a corporation (which stems from the Latin word, "corpus," for "body") is a person.

Corporations have been deemed to be, for legal purposes, "people" for a very long time. And this is so for good reason.

You can sue a corporation. If they are not deemed to be a "person," they could not sue you, however. Arguably, in fact, if they are not deemed to be "persons," you might not be able to drag them into court, either.

Do you want to work for a corporation? Chances are good that you might like to enter into an employment contract with one, then. If a corporation isn't a "person" then it cannot enter into a contract, so you'd be out of luck.

The Corporation wants to buy your land to build an extension to its line of railroads. Sorry. No can do if the corporation isn't a "person," since it couldn't then buy land (or enter a contract of purchase for the land, for that matter.

When incorporated, corporations are said to be "born.

When they go financially belly-up, they "die."

The attack from the left on the legal ficton of corporate personhood is actually just a continuation of the genral leftist attack on capitalism.

So, when corporations cause people to die, the shareholders go to jail, right?

When corporations steal money from people, the shareholders go to jail, right?

The answer to both these questions is obviously "no".

Again, you are attacking one of the precepts of capitalism. Shareholders have only limited liability -- as they should. Corporations (and sometimes their executives) CAN get convicted (and sometimes do). Shareholders, protected by the LIMITED liability accorded to them by owning only SHARES of the entity, are not liable for such treatment.

Why do you ask? Do you imagine they SHOULD be held liable?

It was that great "liberal" Thomas Jefferson who firmly believed that corporations were evil entities because they could do whatever they wanted with limited to no responsibility held by the shareholders.

So? He felt one way. I disagree as did most of society. IS there a point there?

He said, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

I'm glad TJ's "hope" didn't materialize. So?

And the fact that you're defending corporate power so vehemently really shows where the true motivations of the right lie.

In the first place, there is no "right lie" or at least none under discussion here and none properly identified by your cheap rhetoric.

I DO defend corporations from leftist attack since I recognize the true agenda undergirding your contentions.

I haven't been "vehement" at all, at least not in the discussions here today.

Why do folks like you have so much difficulty in arguing these topics without having to rely so heavily on your continuing dishonesty?

 

[Liability]

You do realize that there are many wealthy liberals running corporations too don't you? Do you think your campaign contributions can match a Microsoft or Google's contributions?

Do you imagine that I would object to the RIGHT of Corporations to SAY whatever they believe, merely because I disagree with their political POV?

No no, silly lad.

That kind of unAmerican "thinking" is what libs and related versions of Statists engage in.

Geez fucking louise, do you work at being a total ass or do you come by it naturally?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the majority of the time, the candidate with the most bucks to get his name and message out more than the other guy wins. That doesn't always hold true, but more often than not. When you have John Doe getting contributions from citizens running against Bill Smith being backed by corporations, who do you think will win, the best candidate or the one with the most bucks? It's already proven that America doesn't elect the best candidates over and over again. So now you want some guy backed by corporations who will be beholden to them to be your elected official? We already have enough of that with lobbyists and PACS, we don't need it going wholesale.

Your tawdry, petty and baseless contentions are unpersausive. But when you have no actual facts, as you clearly don't, then it's not surprising to see your "rhetoric" take such a sophomoric turn.

 

[kwc57]

Do you imagine that I would object to the RIGHT of Corporations to SAY whatever they believe, merely because I disagree with their political POV?

No no, silly lad.

That kind of unAmerican "thinking" is what libs and related versions of Statists engage in.

Geez fucking louise, do you work at being a total ass or do you come by it naturally?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the majority of the time, the candidate with the most bucks to get his name and message out more than the other guy wins. That doesn't always hold true, but more often than not. When you have John Doe getting contributions from citizens running against Bill Smith being backed by corporations, who do you think will win, the best candidate or the one with the most bucks? It's already proven that America doesn't elect the best candidates over and over again. So now you want some guy backed by corporations who will be beholden to them to be your elected official? We already have enough of that with lobbyists and PACS, we don't need it going wholesale.

Your tawdry, petty and baseless contentions are unpersausive. But when you have no actual facts, as you clearly don't, then it's not surprising to see your "rhetoric" take such a sophomoric turn.

Interpretation - I ain't really got nuttin', so I'll use me a bunch of big ol wurds and wave ma arms around real fast like and maybe people will think I'm all smart and stuff and had a point. Epic fail weenie.

 

[Liability]

The "presumption of innocence" is a legal fiction too.

But, it's a pretty damn powerful one.

As it should be.

No. The presumption of innocence is a rebuttable presumption that sets forth the burdern of proof at trial.

It is not a legal fiction. Or should the government NOT have to prove the charges it levies against a human being?

The "presumption of innocence" is not merely a "rebuttable presumption." You are wrong.

It is a powerful thing, but it is a legal fiction. OJ had it when charged with two violent brutal murders which he did commit. It is weighted as heavily as actual physical or testamentary evidence, in fact. Standing alone, it would suffice for and mandate an acquittal every time if not overcome by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in fact.

legal fiction
A presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience, consistency, or to achieve justice.

legal fiction definition - Nolo's Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

 

[Oddball]

So, corporate entities are now on equal footing with 527's and unions now.

What's the big deal?

 

[uscitizen]

Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment
Posted by Frank Ross Jan 21st 2010 at 10:27 am in Featured Story, First Amendment, Justice/Legal, Supreme Court | Comments (111) Fans of the First Amendment can rejoice. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down large portions of the abomination known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, especially those aspects of the law that imposed restrictions on corporate spending on political issues.

From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment - Big Journalism

 

[Liability]

Geez fucking louise, do you work at being a total ass or do you come by it naturally?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the majority of the time, the candidate with the most bucks to get his name and message out more than the other guy wins. That doesn't always hold true, but more often than not. When you have John Doe getting contributions from citizens running against Bill Smith being backed by corporations, who do you think will win, the best candidate or the one with the most bucks? It's already proven that America doesn't elect the best candidates over and over again. So now you want some guy backed by corporations who will be beholden to them to be your elected official? We already have enough of that with lobbyists and PACS, we don't need it going wholesale.

Your tawdry, petty and baseless contentions are unpersausive. But when you have no actual facts, as you clearly don't, then it's not surprising to see your "rhetoric" take such a sophomoric turn.

Interpretation - I ain't really got nuttin', so I'll use me a bunch of big ol wurds and wave ma arms around real fast like and maybe people will think I'm all smart and stuff and had a point. Epic fail weenie.

As is so often the case, YOUR "interpretation" is wrong because you are biased and unable to engage in critical thinking -- or honest discussion.

Again, more for others than for you, since you lack the honesty to engage validly in such discussions, let's just rebut your premises. Your sophomoric contentions are:

• Those "evil" Corporations have a lot of money so they can buy a lot of Ad time on TV, in print and on radio (and even in the interwebz).
  
• Those corporations who spend a great deal of their massive wealth in distributing political Ads will effectively "buy" the public opinion!
  ___________________________________________
  
• Thus, we must prevent the corporations from having the right to engage in such free speech.

Among the numerous defects in your would-be "logic" one can easily observe that your premises are suspect. If some evil REPUBLICAN oriented Mega-Corporation (you silly uber-leftards seem to fixate on Haliburton, for example) buys a lot of air time espousing the right's "agenda," the public will inevitably be persuaded of the rectitude of voting for conservatives! (Sound the alarms!)

Do you actually believe such tripe?

And what of those LIBERAL Corporations? Aren't you one who found it necessary to "advise" me (as though it was "news") that Microsoft (for example) is a liberal politically oriented corporation? Wouldn't the counter advertising by Microsoft kind of neutralize the effect that Repbulican Evil Mega-Corp supposedly has?

 

[uscitizen]

With this decision we might as well give up on reclaiming our govt from corporations.

We are now the Corporate States of America.

Just bend over and spread the vaseline folks.

 

[Liability]

With this decision we might as well give up on reclaiming our govt from corporations.

We are now the Corporate States of America.

Just bend over and spread the vaseline folks.

What a crock of alarmist liberoidal chicken-little whining nonsense.

 

[uscitizen]

With this decision we might as well give up on reclaiming our govt from corporations.

We are now the Corporate States of America.

Just bend over and spread the vaseline folks.

What a crock of alarmist liberoidal chicken-little whining nonsense.

Wait and see.

I was correct on bush, the WMD's, Iraq war lasting a long time, Bush spending, the recession, Obama being a fizzle, etc...

 

[Oddball]

With this decision we might as well give up on reclaiming our govt from corporations.

We are now the Corporate States of America.

Just bend over and spread the vaseline folks.

We've been under the control of the biggest multi-national corporation in human history, since 1871.

 

[Liability]

With this decision we might as well give up on reclaiming our govt from corporations.

We are now the Corporate States of America.

Just bend over and spread the vaseline folks.

What a crock of alarmist liberoidal chicken-little whining nonsense.

Wait and see.

I was correct on bush, the WMD's, Iraq war lasting a long time, Bush spending, the recession, Obama being a fizzle, etc...

You cannot have been "correct" on President Bush since your views about his Presidency are still vapid and erroneous.

You may have been right about the WMDs, but if so, you had special clairvoyance since almost all the Dem leadership, privvy to the same information as former President Clinton and President Bush came to the same conclusion as President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

YOu were wrong about the Iraq war lasting a long time. It plainly did not. The AFTERMATH was long and is still ongoing. But the enemy was dispatched in the actual war itself with alacrity.

Being "right" about President Bush's spending is meaningless. Dem Congress and all. The man SHOULD have used a veto pen, but he wasn't exactly a symbol of conservatism.

You were "right" about "the" recession? i nwhat way. Did you sagely predict taht recessions are painful and really suck. Bravo.

Lots of people "called" the fact that President Obama would be a fizzle. Taht took no special foresight.

NONE of your litany of allegedly "right" prognostications changes a thing here. You are still a sniveling alarmist over a SCOTUS decision that did nothing more than properly determine that freedom of speech means what it says.

 

[Vast LWC]

Again, you are attacking one of the precepts of capitalism. Shareholders have only limited liability -- as they should. Corporations (and sometimes their executives) CAN get convicted (and sometimes do). Shareholders, protected by the LIMITED liability accorded to them by owning only SHARES of the entity, are not liable for such treatment.

Why do you ask? Do you imagine they SHOULD be held liable?

Yes, I do think they should either be held liable, or not afforded the same rights as individuals.

If a corporation is given the same rights as an individual, then it should also be subject to the same responsibilities and laws as an individual. Otherwise it is simply an instrument for shareholders to gain extra power without culpability for their actions.

So? He felt one way. I disagree as did most of society. IS there a point there?

There's that "Most of society" generalization that rightists continually use. Do you really imagine that "most of society" believes that corporations should have MORE power over the political process than they currently have? Seriously?

Even most Republicans don't think that corporations should have more power over government. Hell, John McCain was one of the authors of McCain/Feingold.

I'm glad TJ's "hope" didn't materialize. So?

Again, showing your true colors.

In the first place, there is no "right lie" or at least none under discussion here and none properly identified by your cheap rhetoric.

You read that wrong, I said " where the true motivations of the right lie.", as in "what the motivations of the right actually are".

I DO defend corporations from leftist attack since I recognize the true agenda undergirding your contentions.

I haven't been "vehement" at all, at least not in the discussions here today.

Why do folks like you have so much difficulty in arguing these topics without having to rely so heavily on your continuing dishonesty?

Yes, that "agenda" being to curtail corporate influence on government. An "agenda" to stop Corporate Oligarchy from replacing our current form of government.

Seems like a pretty reasonable agenda to me.

 

[Yurt]

Our elections will now be filled with TV ads , billboards, radio station adds that fight for the corporations and limit the options of regular Americans.

Money = speech now and the corps have HUGE piles of money and me and you dont have enough to make our voices heard.

We are soon to be a corporate owned country.

i don't recall you complaining about obama's over half billion dollar campaign war chest

for those against this, are you also against candidates amassing over 600 million dollars in campaign funds?

 

[Liability]

Again, you are attacking one of the precepts of capitalism. Shareholders have only limited liability -- as they should. Corporations (and sometimes their executives) CAN get convicted (and sometimes do). Shareholders, protected by the LIMITED liability accorded to them by owning only SHARES of the entity, are not liable for such treatment.

Why do you ask? Do you imagine they SHOULD be held liable?

Yes, I do think they should either be held liable, or not afforded the same rights as individuals.

If a corporation is given the same rights as an individual, then it should also be subject to the same responsibilities and laws as an individual. Otherwise it is simply an instrument for shareholders to gain extra power without culpability for their actions.

So? He felt one way. I disagree as did most of society. IS there a point there?

There's that "Most of society" generalization that rightists continually use. Do you really imagine that "most of society" believes that corporations should have MORE power over the political process than they currently have? Seriously?

Even most Republicans don't think that corporations should have more power over government. Hell, John McCain was one of the authors of McCain/Feingold.



Again, showing your true colors.

In the first place, there is no "right lie" or at least none under discussion here and none properly identified by your cheap rhetoric.

You read that wrong, I said " where the true motivations of the right lie.", as in "what the motivations of the right actually are".

I DO defend corporations from leftist attack since I recognize the true agenda undergirding your contentions.

I haven't been "vehement" at all, at least not in the discussions here today.

Why do folks like you have so much difficulty in arguing these topics without having to rely so heavily on your continuing dishonesty?

Yes, that "agenda" being to curtail corporate influence on government. An "agenda" to stop Corporate Oligarchy from replacing our current form of government.

Seems like a pretty reasonable agenda to me.

Man oh man are you one huge disappointing walking cliche of leftist talking pointless propaganda bits or what?

If I misread what you wrote, perhaps the problem is that you don't write too clearly.

The leftist "agenda" is not to curtail corporate influence on government. It is to curtail corporations. You guys are just re-tooled anti-capitalists. Zzzz. God. You left-over reds are a boring group.

YOU are the ones who want to replace our current government. YOU are the ones who REJECT Constitutional limitations ON the power of government.

You can't even put lipstick on THAT pig. Your agenda is transparent and it sucks. Your agenda is Statist and inconsistent with liberty and with the guidelines of a Constitutional Republic.

 

[del]

"Congress shall make no law...

why the fuck didn't they stop right there and go home?



sorry

 

[Vast LWC]

So, corporate entities are now on equal footing with 527's and unions now.

What's the big deal?

That's not even a comparison. Those are groups of individuals who are then responsible for the actions they take.

527's and Unions are not afforded separate individual rights. Their members can be held criminally accountable for their actions.

 

[Navy1960]

While I understand that companies are for the purposes of law given rights as person(s) in some areas, it appears there is a difference between commercial speech and free speech. Commercial Speech and even in the current ruling is one that can be regulated, legislated, and even restricted, but cannot be denied all together according to my reading of the recent ruling. The notion that companies and unions have the same equal footing under the constitution as people do would also suppose they then should be subject to it's punishments as well for violating it. As an example, when Enron as a company was found to have viloated numerous laws , you could not very well throw the entity in prison as called for for the various felonies it commited. Rather you would have to charge the persons(s) who actually broke the laws. I have no issue with any individual citizen that wants to donate to any campaign and any amount they wish and if the notion of unrestricted free speech is a correct one as some wish to apply it to the election process is a correct one, then by legislating an individuals free speech to donate to a campaign is doing the same as restricting a company or unions commercial speech. On a side note though, from a pure money standpoint, these companies according to my read of this are only being allowed to use their OWN funds to advocate for political candidates and the restrictions on contributions remain in place. So to a degree I can understand it is tantamount to telling a company where they can and cannot spent their money for commerical purposes.


This political ad brought you by ( Pepsi) !!!!! Well one thing for sure should be interesting anyway.

 

[Vast LWC]

Man oh man are you one huge disappointing walking cliche of leftist talking pointless propaganda bits or what?

If I misread what you wrote, perhaps the problem is that you don't write too clearly.

The leftist "agenda" is not to curtail corporate influence on government. It is to curtail corporations. You guys are just re-tooled anti-capitalists. Zzzz. God. You left-over reds are a boring group.

YOU are the ones who want to replace our current government. YOU are the ones who REJECT Constitutional limitations ON the power of government.

You can't even put lipstick on THAT pig. Your agenda is transparent and it sucks. Your agenda is Statist and inconsistent with liberty and with the guidelines of a Constitutional Republic.

You're insane. If anything, leftists are interested in increasing the size of the existing, democratically elected government.

This is REPLACING THE GOVERNMENT ALTOGETHER WITH PAWNS OF THE CORPORATIONS.

Do you honestly not see the difference? Seriously?

I can't even believe that anyone interested in protecting individual freedoms, which is what you people are supposed to represent, is not against this decision!