Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

[Intense]

It shouldn't have needed amending. Corporations aren't people for purposes of the first amendment... well, they weren't..

but where are all those "originalist" pretend constitutionalists complaining about it?

It's not a complaint, it's voice. Just like the Union's and PAC's have voice. There is also my Constitutional Right to hear, and decide for myself. Truth is Truth, no matter the source, and we each have a right to hear relevant information in determining what our positions are. It is not for you to censor, what I want or need to hear. Nor is it for me to control what information reaches you.

 

[rdean]

Wow, high-end debates here. I haven't heard this kind of name calling since the 3rd grade...

What matters is what the USSC said is free speech. Period. Besides, it would be unenforceable, unless you outlaw brown bags and money in freezers.
Does anyone else remember what the Chinese referred to as "money bag politics" during the Clinton admin??

its not rocket science. political ads would just require registration of their cost or something.

the real question revolves around whether it is prudent to curtail the expression of corporations and groups of individuals at the behest of unorganized groups. do the right to free speech and the right to assemble compound to support annoying adds funded by corps? i think they do.

the constitution would have to be changed with an amendment that creates exceptions with specific regard to election adds or something if they aim to have such a block imposed.

The cost of those political ads is public knowledge. This is what's so troubling:

The Chamber of Commerce, along with the Chinese, gives seminars teaching American business on how to outsource to China.

The Chamber of Commerce gives Republicans 190 million dollars over the last year and Republican candidates 75 million just before the Nov Elections.

The Chinese and India gave the US Chamber of Commerce undisclosed amounts of money.

The Chamber of Commerce says it keeps contributions from foreign countries and American contributions in "separate" accounts.

The source of the 190 million and the 75 million is NOT required to be disclosed, because it's in a separate account from foreign donors.

This is a problem because a company such as Citgo is registered as an American company, but it's actually controlled by Hugo Chavez. The same rules the apply to the Chamber of Commerce applies to Citgo. At least the Chamber doesn't try to hide the fact they are an extension of the Chinese government.

 

[Revere]

Do corporations have no private property rights either, crone?

Can you just walk into an Apple store and stick an iPhone in your fanny pack?

Why should government tell anyone who can and can't buy advertising?

 

[Revere]

Wow, high-end debates here. I haven't heard this kind of name calling since the 3rd grade...

What matters is what the USSC said is free speech. Period. Besides, it would be unenforceable, unless you outlaw brown bags and money in freezers.
Does anyone else remember what the Chinese referred to as "money bag politics" during the Clinton admin??

its not rocket science. political ads would just require registration of their cost or something.

the real question revolves around whether it is prudent to curtail the expression of corporations and groups of individuals at the behest of unorganized groups. do the right to free speech and the right to assemble compound to support annoying adds funded by corps? i think they do.

the constitution would have to be changed with an amendment that creates exceptions with specific regard to election adds or something if they aim to have such a block imposed.

The cost of those political ads is public knowledge. This is what's so troubling:

The Chamber of Commerce, along with the Chinese, gives seminars teaching American business on how to outsource to China.

The Chamber of Commerce gives Republicans 190 million dollars over the last year and Republican candidates 75 million just before the Nov Elections.

The Chinese and India gave the US Chamber of Commerce undisclosed amounts of money.

The Chamber of Commerce says it keeps contributions from foreign countries and American contributions in "separate" accounts.

The source of the 190 million and the 75 million is NOT required to be disclosed, because it's in a separate account from foreign donors.

This is a problem because a company such as Citgo is registered as an American company, but it's actually controlled by Hugo Chavez. The same rules the apply to the Chamber of Commerce applies to Citgo. At least the Chamber doesn't try to hide the fact they are an extension of the Chinese government.

I'm not troubled by that.

Fuck off.

Obama jokingly told the press he wanted to fly AF1 to see Chavez the other day. Chavez wants to eat socialist tortillas with Obama.

 

[rdean]

Because according to the Constitution, corporations are also citizens.

Really? Where in the constitution does it bestow citizenship on a corporation? What articles of incorporation do I need to file with the state before it recognizes my personhood?

Legal definition of corporation.

corporation n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital.


Now, in the artificial person gaining rights arguments, I am much more favorable to granting them to clones than I am legal constructs.

Go tell it to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Rules Corporations Are People, Spending Is Speech

 

[Revere]

Rights don't belong to individuals. Private property rights, to wit.

 

[Revere]

If the crone were really a lawyer, she could explain how corporations have no First Amendment rights, and can't speak freely, but corporations have private property rights under the Fourth Amendment.

 

[rdean]

its not rocket science. political ads would just require registration of their cost or something.

the real question revolves around whether it is prudent to curtail the expression of corporations and groups of individuals at the behest of unorganized groups. do the right to free speech and the right to assemble compound to support annoying adds funded by corps? i think they do.

the constitution would have to be changed with an amendment that creates exceptions with specific regard to election adds or something if they aim to have such a block imposed.

The cost of those political ads is public knowledge. This is what's so troubling:

The Chamber of Commerce, along with the Chinese, gives seminars teaching American business on how to outsource to China.

The Chamber of Commerce gives Republicans 190 million dollars over the last year and Republican candidates 75 million just before the Nov Elections.

The Chinese and India gave the US Chamber of Commerce undisclosed amounts of money.

The Chamber of Commerce says it keeps contributions from foreign countries and American contributions in "separate" accounts.

The source of the 190 million and the 75 million is NOT required to be disclosed, because it's in a separate account from foreign donors.

This is a problem because a company such as Citgo is registered as an American company, but it's actually controlled by Hugo Chavez. The same rules the apply to the Chamber of Commerce applies to Citgo. At least the Chamber doesn't try to hide the fact they are an extension of the Chinese government.

I'm not troubled by that.

Fuck off.

Obama jokingly told the press he wanted to fly AF1 to see Chavez the other day. Chavez wants to eat socialist tortillas with Obama.

Obama jokingly told the press he wanted to fly AF1 to see Chavez the other day

Actually, it was reported by some of the press on Air Force 1. I would be interested in seeing a tape or hearing a recording of him saying that.

What does surprise me is that it seems you are defending letting Hugo Chavez spend unlimited amounts of money on American elections.

 

[Revere]

The cost of those political ads is public knowledge. This is what's so troubling:

The Chamber of Commerce, along with the Chinese, gives seminars teaching American business on how to outsource to China.

The Chamber of Commerce gives Republicans 190 million dollars over the last year and Republican candidates 75 million just before the Nov Elections.

The Chinese and India gave the US Chamber of Commerce undisclosed amounts of money.

The Chamber of Commerce says it keeps contributions from foreign countries and American contributions in "separate" accounts.

The source of the 190 million and the 75 million is NOT required to be disclosed, because it's in a separate account from foreign donors.

This is a problem because a company such as Citgo is registered as an American company, but it's actually controlled by Hugo Chavez. The same rules the apply to the Chamber of Commerce applies to Citgo. At least the Chamber doesn't try to hide the fact they are an extension of the Chinese government.

I'm not troubled by that.

Fuck off.

Obama jokingly told the press he wanted to fly AF1 to see Chavez the other day. Chavez wants to eat socialist tortillas with Obama.

Obama jokingly told the press he wanted to fly AF1 to see Chavez the other day

Actually, it was reported by some of the press on Air Force 1. I would be interested in seeing a tape or hearing a recording of him saying that.

What does surprise me is that it seems you are defending letting Hugo Chavez spending unlimited amounts of money on American elections.

If "some of the press" reported, it was said.

Who cares if Americans you don't like spend money on political ads.

If the FEC had a case against Citgo, they'd bring it, ass hole.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

IMHO we should not tinker with the Constitution.

Amending the US Constitution is N-O-T tinkering.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I still have not seen the absolute correlation between money and winning election...

Corrupting the system. Who is arguing about winning?

note: A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue

 

[Revere]

Crybaby bastards. When you played this system like a fiddle, nobody complained.

 

[Intense]

IMHO we should not tinker with the Constitution.

Amending the US Constitution is N-O-T tinkering.

2/3 Popular approval is the definition of the People being behind something, and grounds for it being brought up for debate. 3/4 is the bar you must pass to effect change. Lying about support, is no way to gain credibility and trust.

 

[shintao]

Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

Olbermann writes a fine piece on corporate rights & campaign financing. Considering the corporation is buried deep in American laws, it would seem unconscionable that anything should change at this late date. Just because you don't like a certain law, does not give an individual a right to circumvent the Constitution.

  Olbermann: U.S. Government For Sale   : Information Clearing House -  ICH

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

IMHO we should not tinker with the Constitution.

Amending the US Constitution is N-O-T tinkering.

2/3 Popular approval is the definition of the People being behind something, and grounds for it being brought up for debate. 3/4 is the bar you must pass to effect change. Lying about support, is no way to gain credibility and trust.

Who is lying about support? Support for things changes monthly, weekly, daily. Credibility and trust? Ideas must start out somewhere before they can become actions.

I said I agree in principle but am cautious about any action to amend the US Constitution. I have credible and sophisticated reasons for my arguments here: the intelligence of the mob.

**************grin************

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Crybaby bastards. When you played this system like a fiddle, nobody complained.

what a creep. go away troll. where were you trolling before you crawled out from under your last rock?

 

[loosecannon]

Sounds prejudicial and probably Unconstitutional. This will have to be studied and debated much more. Sometimes ideas that are popular are also Unconstitutional. They'll have to go slow on this one.

It isn't unconstitutional, we just have activist judges legislating from the bench.

DUH!

Where in the constitution does it say that corporations have the same rights as citizens? Will corporations be able to hold elected offices too? or marry? Or take up arms in self defense? Serve in the military?

 

[loosecannon]

It shouldn't have needed amending. Corporations aren't people for purposes of the first amendment... well, they weren't..

but where are all those "originalist" pretend constitutionalists complaining about it?

It's not a complaint, it's voice. Just like the Union's and PAC's have voice. There is also my Constitutional Right to hear, and decide for myself. Truth is Truth, no matter the source, and we each have a right to hear relevant information in determining what our positions are. It is not for you to censor, what I want or need to hear. Nor is it for me to control what information reaches you.

But corporations have already petitioned the courts for the legal right to LIE!

Kasky v. Nike (Nike v. Kasky at the U.S. Supreme Court) involved the Nike Corporation's appeal of an April 2002 California Supreme Court ruling. The California court rejected claims by Nike's lawyers that the First Amendment immunized the company from being sued for an allegedly deceptive public relations campaign. A trial on the merits was precluded by the parties' settlement following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to send the case back to a lower court.

Nike v. Kasky - Corporate Right to Lie? -Reclaim Democracy.org

 

[rdean]

I'm not troubled by that.

Fuck off.

Obama jokingly told the press he wanted to fly AF1 to see Chavez the other day. Chavez wants to eat socialist tortillas with Obama.

Obama jokingly told the press he wanted to fly AF1 to see Chavez the other day

Actually, it was reported by some of the press on Air Force 1. I would be interested in seeing a tape or hearing a recording of him saying that.

What does surprise me is that it seems you are defending letting Hugo Chavez spending unlimited amounts of money on American elections.

If "some of the press" reported, it was said.

Who cares if Americans you don't like spend money on political ads.

If the FEC had a case against Citgo, they'd bring it, ass hole.

Why do you keep calling me names "Smegma breath"?

Citgo is registered as an American company, from Texas. Does the right wing pretend to be stupid just for the sake of discussion or are they really that stupid?

Fox News is registered as an American Company, even though it's owned by Australians and Saudi Arabians.

One of the USA's largest refiners, Citgo is a subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA).

USATODAY.com - Has Citgo become a political tool for Hugo Chvez?

 

[Revere]

Axelrod already illegally obtained Citgo's tax returns and Obama would have sent his pimp Holder after Citgo if he found anything.