Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[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.

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.

(1886) decision? How many years of precedent has been overturned...and for the free speech rights of multinational corporations who "'...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."

 

[Modbert]

Even though Corporations are human beings as a entity, this is very scary and I have no idea what logic the SCOTUS was using to decide this case.

 

[Gunny]

5 out of 9 Justices determined that the First Amendment actually means what it says.

4 out of the 9 expressed deep concern that free speech has implications. And they are right. It does.

There are appropriate ways to deal with the concerns expressed by the dissenters. Stifling free speech is not one of them.

Bravo for the integrity shown by this slim majority!

BS. It means votes can be bought. Fuck THAT.

 

[Dante]

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?

These folks here are dupes. They have been fed the idea that this is a Dem vs Rep issue; a lib vs con issue. It is not except in that the GOP has two faces. One for public consumption...for dupes, and one for It's agenda: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/102487-activist-gop-court-reveals-true-gop-agenda.html

 

[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.

(1886) decision? How many years of precedent has been overturned...and for the free speech rights of multinational corporations who "'...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."

Stevens is one guy who wrote the minority opinion.

You don't like it, work to overturn the 14th Amendment and the Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad ruling.
You'd likely have to go after 16 Stat 419 and dissolve District of Columbia as a corporate strawman.

I'm just dispensing the legal facts here, not agreeing with them.

 

[Modbert]

BS. It means votes can be bought. Fuck THAT.

Agreed. And not only that, but virtually unlimited advertising that may or may not be true.

 

[Gunny]

BS. It means votes can be bought. Fuck THAT.

Agreed. And not only that, but virtually unlimited advertising that may or may not be true.

Swings both ways. I'm not taking a political side. I'm saying the decision is wrong. Votes are up for sale enough as it is. This just makes it worse.

 

[Modbert]

Swings both ways. I'm not taking a political side. I'm saying the decision is wrong. Votes are up for sale enough as it is. This just makes it worse.

I'm not taking a political side either. I'm simply saying this is wrong for the same reasons you are. It's like giving up as I previously stated and just giving the foxes the key to the henhouse and saying "you take good care of the hens now."

 

[Dante]

5 out of 9 Justices determined that the First Amendment actually means what it says.

4 out of the 9 expressed deep concern that free speech has implications. And they are right. It does.

There are appropriate ways to deal with the concerns expressed by the dissenters. Stifling free speech is not one of them.

Bravo for the integrity shown by this slim majority!

BS. It means votes can be bought. Fuck THAT.

Gunny, you have dupes like Dude and others who are so high on hate, they cannot see the forest for the dope.

The GOP has two faces. One face usually kept hidden stepped out of the shadows today.

All 5 were GOP appointments. out of the 4 the lone GOP appointment was a Ford one. That was before Reagan and Newt and others started seeding the Courts with what silly social conservatives thought were friendly judges. So much for the GOP revolution.

The contract on AMerica has been fulfilled. Long live The Mulitnational US Corporation of America!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya lets just have the Supreme Court ignore the LAW cause you guys don't like the results. Sounds familiar, that is why the Constitution is in tatters cause Congress has ignored it since at least 1936.

 

[Oddball]

Gunny, you have dupes like Dude and others who are so high on hate, they cannot see the forest for the dope.

Shit on you dickless.

Just because I understand the ruling doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it.

 

[Dante]

BS. It means votes can be bought. Fuck THAT.

Agreed. And not only that, but virtually unlimited advertising that may or may not be true.

Swings both ways. I'm not taking a political side. I'm saying the decision is wrong. Votes are up for sale enough as it is. This just makes it worse.

There is a political side to this. The Democratic Party has never supported this. The Justices deciding this in favor of the corporations are ALL GOP appointments. The lone holdout was appointed before Reagan and Newt started helping to seed the court with these types of judges.

The true litmus test was favoring the idea that Corporations are people too.

 

[goldcatt]

Even though Corporations are human beings as a entity, this is very scary and I have no idea what logic the SCOTUS was using to decide this case.

They are and have always been hybrids. The fiction of corporate personhood is necessary for some purposes or they would basically be immune from the legal system. On the other hand, corporate speech and political speech were divorced for a reason. Noncorporeal legal constructs are not We, the People. They cannot be and never will be. They have different agendas, different interests, they are Things that are fully owned by individuals over whom the US may not even have jurisdiction. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

Next they'll be screaming for emancipation.

 

[Dante]

Gunny, you have dupes like Dude and others who are so high on hate, they cannot see the forest for the dope.

Shit on you dickless.

Just because I understand the ruling doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it.

understanding the ruling is not an issue. ignoring the dissenting opinions is.

stay stuck on stupid, because we all know it is bitchie/boys like you who will complain the most when the shit hist teh fan.

 

[Modbert]

They are and have always been hybrids. The fiction of corporate personhood is necessary for some purposes or they would basically be immune from the legal system. On the other hand, corporate speech and political speech were divorced for a reason. Noncorporeal legal constructs are not We, the People. They cannot be and never will be. They have different agendas, different interests, they are Things that are fully owned by individuals over whom the US may not even have jurisdiction. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

Next they'll be screaming for emancipation.

Oh no, I understand completely why the entity is needed as it is. However, giving them unlimited bankroll is a lack of common sense.

And you are deadon.

However, everyone, let us remember the number one priority for any Corporation. Their number one priority is to make profit for the stockholders. Not the interests of anyone but their own pockets.

 

[Dante]

Ya lets just have the Supreme Court ignore the LAW cause you guys don't like the results. Sounds familiar, that is why the Constitution is in tatters cause Congress has ignored it since at least 1936.

Activist judges favoring corporate interests? The true litmus test of the last four decades.

Thank you Ronald Reagan.

 

[Oddball]

Gunny, you have dupes like Dude and others who are so high on hate, they cannot see the forest for the dope.

Shit on you dickless.

Just because I understand the ruling doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it.

understanding the ruling is not an issue. ignoring the dissenting opinions is.

stay stuck on stupid, because we all know it is bitchie/boys like you who will complain the most when the shit hist teh fan.

The dissenting opinion is still the dissenting opinion.

You lose, Buckwheat. And you refuse to understand why because you'd rather jump up and down like the spoiled little leftist moonbat brat that you are, than understand how the corporate state works.

Your loss numbnuts.

 

[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.

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.

The framers had no fucking idea what a private corporation or multinational corp was.

They knew what government backed business interests were...that founded the colonies, and they gave no rights to them. Why? They didn't consider the monied infulences of businesses to be speech

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya lets just have the Supreme Court ignore the LAW cause you guys don't like the results. Sounds familiar, that is why the Constitution is in tatters cause Congress has ignored it since at least 1936.

Activist judges favoring corporate interests? The true litmus test of the last four decades.

Thank you Ronald Reagan.

The law is clear. Congress can not just usurp rights. Dude has already provided you with the basis of the law involved.

 

[goldcatt]

They are and have always been hybrids. The fiction of corporate personhood is necessary for some purposes or they would basically be immune from the legal system. On the other hand, corporate speech and political speech were divorced for a reason. Noncorporeal legal constructs are not We, the People. They cannot be and never will be. They have different agendas, different interests, they are Things that are fully owned by individuals over whom the US may not even have jurisdiction. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

Next they'll be screaming for emancipation.

Oh no, I understand completely why the entity is needed as it is. However, giving them unlimited bankroll is a lack of common sense.

And you are deadon.

However, everyone, let us remember the number one priority for any Corporation. Their number one priority is to make profit for the stockholders. Not the interests of anyone but their own pockets.

Sure, that's why they exist (although the ruling doesn't just affect for-profit corporations). There's nothing wrong with that per se. BUT should the profit motive be given free rein to buy and sell our political system in the name of an individual right they, not being individuals, shouldn't even have?

Hell no.