Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[Liability]

Meaning that shareholders could have the corporation hire someone for a hell of a lot of money, have that person kill whomever they wanted, and only the mass murderer and possibly the CEO would be liable, allowing the shareholders to get off scott free to start up another corporation.

This has got to be the dumbest scenario I've ever heard. Could you please cite an instance of this ever occuring?

It happens ALL THE TIME.

Corporations are constantly killing people through pollution of land, pollution of water supplies, harmful products being sold without testing.

And if a corporation is found to be criminally liable, meaning they did it on purpose to cut costs, none of the stockholders are held accountable.

The old "corporations are evil" motif just never gets old!

 

[Annie]

Meaning that shareholders could have the corporation hire someone for a hell of a lot of money, have that person kill whomever they wanted, and only the mass murderer and possibly the CEO would be liable, allowing the shareholders to get off scott free to start up another corporation.

This has got to be the dumbest scenario I've ever heard. Could you please cite an instance of this ever occuring?

It happens ALL THE TIME.

Corporations are constantly killing people through pollution of land, pollution of water supplies, harmful products being sold without testing.

And if a corporation is found to be criminally liable, meaning they did it on purpose to cut costs, none of the stockholders are held accountable.

Yeah, all the time, constantly. This really is heading for conspiracy forum.

 

[del]

We'll see what you folks have to say when the conglomerates start writing the laws for the internet.

Oh, that's right, you won't be saying anything, because this forum won't exist.

who do you think is writing them now you gibbering buffoon?

do you really think that this is going to materially change the way things work?

your naivete is touching.

 

[Vast LWC]

Hmm, I don't care for Google much, but trust them a hell of a lot more than the FCC's attempts to take over the internet. One can successfully fight corporations, not so much an agency of US Government.

I'm sorry, the FCC's WHAT?

Do you mean this?

U.S. FCC commissioners support open Internet rule

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO, Oct 22 (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators voted unanimously Thursday to support an open Internet rule that would prevent telecom network operators from barring or blocking content based on the revenue it generates.

The proposed rule now goes to the public for comment until Jan. 14, after which the Federal Communications Commissions will review the feedback and possibly seek more comment. A final rule is not expected until the spring of next year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2237873320091022

Seriously, what Orwellian organization has been feeding you lies?

 

[Vast LWC]

who do you think is writing them now you gibbering buffoon?

do you really think that this is going to materially change the way things work?

your naivete is touching.

Apparently not the conglomerates, you chattering chimp.

See my prior post.

 

[Dante]

So far, Err Amerika doesn't like it... Although they won't Complain when it Further Assists the Unions.



peace...

So you favor corporations having this? How does this help the American people or democracy?

What has the GOP wrought?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/102487-activist-gop-court-reveals-true-gop-agenda.html

 

[Dante]

This is a shame and a sham.

It is that and more.

It is part of a century old agenda.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/102487-activist-gop-court-reveals-true-gop-agenda.html

 

[Annie]

Hmm, I don't care for Google much, but trust them a hell of a lot more than the FCC's attempts to take over the internet. One can successfully fight corporations, not so much an agency of US Government.

I'm sorry, the FCC's WHAT?

Do you mean this?

U.S. FCC commissioners support open Internet rule

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO, Oct 22 (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators voted unanimously Thursday to support an open Internet rule that would prevent telecom network operators from barring or blocking content based on the revenue it generates.

The proposed rule now goes to the public for comment until Jan. 14, after which the Federal Communications Commissions will review the feedback and possibly seek more comment. A final rule is not expected until the spring of next year.

UPDATE 4-U.S. FCC commissioners support open Internet rule | Reuters

Seriously, what Orwellian organization has been feeding you lies?

Defensive much? You are the one fearing mind control, me? I look for openeness.

The Net Neutrality Debate All On One Page

 

[del]

who do you think is writing them now you gibbering buffoon?

do you really think that this is going to materially change the way things work?

your naivete is touching.

Apparently not the conglomerates, you chattering chimp.

See my prior post.

yeah, verizon et al have no influence over the feds now.

this will change everything.

 

[Bfgrn]

LOL!

Yes, yes. Allowing corporations their free speech rights is indeed all part of the master conspiracy to take over America.

The modern American liberal litany of new mantras includes the FIRM belief in, "Free speech is a dangerous thing! Stamp it OUT!"

Libs are so strange.

It's not about free speech * * * , it's about power, personal responsibility and unequal protection * * * *

Wrong.

It is about free speech. Plain and simple. And that's why a Statist like you is whining about it.

Libs all over our fair land are crying out, "Free Speech! It's intolerable!"

What part of EVERY American citizen that owns or works for a corporation already HAS 1st amendment rights don't you understand? Are you THAT dense?

One aspect of this ruling was pointed out Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in a stinging dissent written for the minority:

excerpt:

* Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.

What that means is it opens up our system and our sovereignty to foreigners...should Saudis have power over our elections?

If a Supreme Court that was deemed 'liberal' ever made a ruling like this you right wing morons would be storming the Supreme Court building with guns!

 

[Dante]

Hopefully more of Fiengold McCain is struck down. Unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech in elections is always bad.

My link, Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits - Yahoo! News

So you consider corporate speech to be equal to human beings?

"Corporations are not human beings. They can't vote and can't run for office," Stevens said, and should be subject to restrictions under the election laws.

You think money in politics is bad now,...wait.

Do you think multinational businesses like AIG give two shits about the American public and our interests?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/102487-activist-gop-court-reveals-true-gop-agenda.html

 

[goldcatt]

The question here isn't whether "Corporations" are evil. It's whether a legal construct in the form of a corporation, 527, union, nonprofit, or other entity created by filing some pieces of paper in an office somewhere should be granted the same Constitutional protections as an actual human being when it comes to political speech.

5-4 the Supremies said "Yes". A lot of people think that's bullshit. I'm one of them.

 

[blu]

don't bother voting anymore, the corporations now own the elections and will now legally bribe your officials.

 

[Dante]

who do you think is writing them now you gibbering buffoon?

do you really think that this is going to materially change the way things work?

your naivete is touching.

Apparently not the conglomerates, you chattering chimp.

See my prior post.

yeah, verizon et al have no influence over the feds now.

this will change everything.

del, the influence will be over the electoral process. Do you think the corporate interests care about what is good for Americans or democracy?

What about foreign based multinationals? Do they get to speak with money in our elections? Never before has a Democratic or Republican appointed court side so much with the corporations against the interests of the people.

"Corporations are not human beings. They can't vote and can't run for office," Stevens said, and should be subject to restrictions under the election laws.

 

[del]

noe of the other threads concerning this issue was worthy of this gem of wisdom, eh?

 

[Oddball]

The question here isn't whether "Corporations" are evil. It's whether a legal construct in the form of a corporation, 527, union, nonprofit, or other entity created by filing some pieces of paper in an office somewhere should be granted the same Constitutional protections as an actual human being when it comes to political speech.

5-4 the Supremies said "Yes". A lot of people think that's bullshit. I'm one of them.

Unfortunately, the applications of the 14th Amendment and the Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad ruling are the established legal precedents.

You want to strip rights which individuals enjoy from the corporate strawman, those provisions of American law need to be overturned/abolished.

Not that I agree with it. That's just the way it is.

 

[Modbert]

Obama: Supreme Court gives 'green light' to special interest money - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

President Obama said the Supreme Court gave a "green light" to special interests with its decision today allowing corporations to spend as much money as they want to elect or defeat poltical candidates.

Obama added that he will ask Congress for new legislation to address the high court's ruling.

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington -- while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.

That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

Corporations allowed to spend as much money as they want to elect or defeat poltical candidates? Have we just totally given up and just gave the keys to the hen house over to the foxes?

 

[Dante]

The question here isn't whether "Corporations" are evil. It's whether a legal construct in the form of a corporation, 527, union, nonprofit, or other entity created by filing some pieces of paper in an office somewhere should be granted the same Constitutional protections as an actual human being when it comes to political speech.

5-4 the Supremies said "Yes". A lot of people think that's bullshit. I'm one of them.

But the GOP leadership knows that. That is why they stacked the court with corporate shills.

The GOP cons here have been dupes for decades: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/102487-activist-gop-court-reveals-true-gop-agenda.html

 

[ihopehefails]

The question here isn't whether "Corporations" are evil. It's whether a legal construct in the form of a corporation, 527, union, nonprofit, or other entity created by filing some pieces of paper in an office somewhere should be granted the same Constitutional protections as an actual human being when it comes to political speech.

5-4 the Supremies said "Yes". A lot of people think that's bullshit. I'm one of them.

In your attempt to limit the rights of a piece of paper you limit the rights of the people under that piece of paper to do what they want unless you think a piece of paper actually speaks and forms congnative thoughts?

Also, the first line says "congress shall pass no law..." so the question always revovolves around the actions of congress not who that law applies to. Now if it was stated like the 5ht amendment was like "no person shall..." then you can say a corporate charter does not have those rights.

 

[goldcatt]

The question here isn't whether "Corporations" are evil. It's whether a legal construct in the form of a corporation, 527, union, nonprofit, or other entity created by filing some pieces of paper in an office somewhere should be granted the same Constitutional protections as an actual human being when it comes to political speech.

5-4 the Supremies said "Yes". A lot of people think that's bullshit. I'm one of them.

Unfortunately, the applications of the 14th Amendment and the Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad ruling are the established legal precedents.

You want to strip rights which individuals enjoy from the corporate strawman, those provisions of American law need to be overturned/abolished.

Not that I agree with it. That's just the way it is.

You have a point. But what SCOTUS makes, it can easily unmake. And it had been making strides toward doing just what you suggest one exception, differentiation and restriction at a time. Unfortunately, this erases almost all of it.

How hard is it to understand that "Things" are not "People"?