Montana approves Initiative 166: Corporations are not people!

[g5000]

Already decided:

'Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.'

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It needs to be overturned. MONEY IS NOT SPEECH. A corporation can "speak" about anything it wants to, but there should be NO money changing hands.

How does one make a movie without spending money?

How does a newspaper endorse a candidate without spending money to print it?

.

.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

They just revisited it and re-decided it, moron.

Not at the federal level. This is perhaps the most heinous, destructive, anti-American citizen activist judge ruling ever in this country... well, since Dredd Scott, anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Already decided:

'Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.'

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It needs to be overturned. MONEY IS NOT SPEECH. A corporation can "speak" about anything it wants to, but there should be NO money changing hands.

You really have no idea how the world works, do you? Tell me something, exactly how is a corporation supposed to speak without money changing hands? They pay their employees, who speak for them, and the board of directors makes money off the corporation, which is more money changing hands.

 

[Oddball]

They just revisited it and re-decided it, moron.

Not at the federal level. This is perhaps the most heinous, destructive, anti-American citizen activist judge ruling ever in this country... well, since Dredd Scott, anyway.

USSC is now not at the federal level?

Hooooobooooie!

 

[SniperFire]

They just revisited it and re-decided it, moron.

Not at the federal level. This is perhaps the most heinous, destructive, anti-American citizen activist judge ruling ever in this country... well, since Dredd Scott, anyway.

It has been decided above the 'Federal' level.

Fail.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They just revisited it and re-decided it, moron.

Not at the federal level. This is perhaps the most heinous, destructive, anti-American citizen activist judge ruling ever in this country... well, since Dredd Scott, anyway.

It doesn't even make the top billion.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

How does one make a movie without spending money?

You don't, but movies are not necessary. These corporations have bought and paid for our government and our elective process. I can't fathom how you can possibly see anything positive about that. Speech is free. Speech shouldn't ever be tied to a scarce resource that most do not have access to.

 

[Photonic]

Corporations Are Not People in Montana

BLLINGS, Mont. (CN) - Montana voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved an initiative stating "that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights because they are not human beings."

Voters approved Initiative 166 by 75 percent to 25 percent, according to early, unofficial returns reported by the Billings Gazette.

The initiative also clarified that in Montana, money is not speech; it's property.
The initiative was a rebuke to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which unleashed corporate political donations. According to the Gazette's early returns, 224,679 Montanans voted for the measure, and 74, 361 opposed it.

Now that's giving power back to the states!

That's beautiful. Need more of this.

 

[g5000]

How does one make a movie without spending money?

You don't, but movies are not necessary. These corporations have bought and paid for our government and our elective process. I can't fathom how you can possibly see anything positive about that. Speech is free. Speech shouldn't ever be tied to a scarce resource that most do not have access to.

Movies are not necessary, eh? And who made you King?

How does a newspaper endorse a candidate without paying for it to be printed?

.

 

[Leweman]

Guess they can't pay taxes then. Sucks. That's a lot of lost money.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

You really have no idea how the world works, do you? Tell me something, exactly how is a corporation supposed to speak without money changing hands? They pay their employees, who speak for them, and the board of directors makes money off the corporation, which is more money changing hands.

Gee, they can write an op-ed in a newspaper, have a press release, send out a mailer, make an appointment with congress and express their ideas or issues. There are millions of ways in this age of technology. Money should NEVER be considered speech, especially where our representative government is concerned, because you know who will lose every time... those without money.

 

[Oddball]

How does one make a movie without spending money?

You don't, but movies are not necessary. These corporations have bought and paid for our government and our elective process. I can't fathom how you can possibly see anything positive about that. Speech is free. Speech shouldn't ever be tied to a scarce resource that most do not have access to.

Well I'm sure the people at NBC, ABC, CBS, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Reuters, AP all agree with you.

Oh yeah, they're big rich corporations too.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Movies are not necessary, eh? And who made you King?

No, where speech is concerned, they are not necessary - they are a medium. There was a time before movies, you know.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is a feel good law that will ultimately do nothing. It doesn't invalidate a Supreme Court decision any more than a state could overturn Roe v. Wade.

On the other hand it was funny to see a state saying that corporations don't have constitutional rights as if a state could invalidate Constitutional Rights!

I wonder what it really did say?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Well I'm sure the people at NBC, ABC, CBS, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Reuters, AP all agree with you.

Oh yeah, they're big rich corporations too.

But they shouldn't have to be big rich corporations just in order to be heard. Don't you get it?

 

[Oddball]

Well I'm sure the people at NBC, ABC, CBS, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Reuters, AP all agree with you.

Oh yeah, they're big rich corporations too.

But they shouldn't have to be big rich corporations just in order to be heard. Don't you get it?

I get that you're dumb as dirt enough to play the "wouldashouldacoulda" game to guide the law.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

On the other hand it was funny to see a state saying that corporations don't have constitutional rights as if a state could invalidate Constitutional Rights!

They shouldn't have constitutional rights. THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE or persons by any stretch. They are a group of people.

 

[g5000]

How does one make a movie without spending money?

You don't, but movies are not necessary. These corporations have bought and paid for our government and our elective process. I can't fathom how you can possibly see anything positive about that. Speech is free. Speech shouldn't ever be tied to a scarce resource that most do not have access to.

You have access to speech. It's called political association. You can donate to the NRA, Greenpeace, Moore-On, or any other organization that amplifies your opinion.

And the reason government is for sale is because some jackasses want the government involved in the running of our lives as much as possible. You want government to fix every little problem for you? Then you better get used to people with means buying the government and being the ones who get to decide what's best for you. You asked for it, you got it. You don't like someone owning the government, then get government the fuck out of our lives!!! You can't buy what isn't for sale.

Only an idiot would try to treat the symptom and not the disease. Campaign finance reform of the past 40 years has not affected the success of incumbents who run for re-election AT ALL.

.


.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

[I get that you're dumb as dirt.
/QUOTE]

Yeah... I'm the dumb one. Gotta go now. Have fun with your plutocratic fantasies.

 

[SniperFire]

Already decided:

'Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.'

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It needs to be overturned. MONEY IS NOT SPEECH. A corporation can "speak" about anything it wants to, but there should be NO money changing hands.

'Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.'

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Your argument would be akin to saying, oh, a black person cannot be barred from a restaurant, but it is OK for the proprietor to refuse to serve them.