Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[theHawk]

Edited to add: And it's already been pointed out that any media corporation is covered under freedom of the press, not of speech alone. Which is a separate clause, a separate jurisprudence, and a separate right.

I see, so certain types of corporations can have those rights, while others can't. What's wrong with letting everyone have the same rights?

Freedom of speech and of press are separate and divsible rights, Hawk. Having one does not necessarily include having the other.

Look at it this way. A corpoation (or a union for that matter) is a tool created by humans to serve a purpose. Only instead of being a hammer you can swing or a computer you can program, it's a legal shell that can own property and conduct activities in its own name at the bidding of its owners.

Should tools have protected political rights, or should that be restricted to their owners?

So it can "conduct activities", just not to include voicing their own collective opinion during an election.

 

[goldcatt]

I see, so certain types of corporations can have those rights, while others can't. What's wrong with letting everyone have the same rights?

Freedom of speech and of press are separate and divsible rights, Hawk. Having one does not necessarily include having the other.

Look at it this way. A corpoation (or a union for that matter) is a tool created by humans to serve a purpose. Only instead of being a hammer you can swing or a computer you can program, it's a legal shell that can own property and conduct activities in its own name at the bidding of its owners.

Should tools have protected political rights, or should that be restricted to their owners?

So it can "conduct activities", just not to include voicing their own collective opinion during an election.

Your computer conducts activities too. Should it have freedom of speech?

 

[theHawk]

You dont seem to get the idea that we can now have our elections determined by foreign entities.

How so? The court ruling expressely held in place the ban on contributions by foreigners.

BUT foreign individuals can and are owners of domestic corporations. And since a corporation is a separate entity from its owners...can you see where this is going? Anyone around the world who can fill out a paper, pay a fee and open a PO Box in Delaware now has the Constitutionally protected ability to (indirectly of course) participate in and affect our political process.

Thats true, if we don't want companies with a majority (or any) foreign owners running ads then we'll have to pass some new laws saying so.

Until then, voters should educate themselves on the companies that do run political ads.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is the NY Times a "Person"? NO!!

Then how can it have a First Amendment right?

 

[Yurt]

Who is allowed to own an American corporation?

hmmm....interesting point given:

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection
with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or
expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in
connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political
committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national
shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national
party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a
State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal
account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the
organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

Section

hmmm

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

There is a difference between a company running its own ads giving their own opinion versus directly contributing to the party or candidate. Those restrictions were left in place.

What this boils down to is are corporations allowed to pay for ads to be aired that voice their opinion. I think any company doing so during an election would be especially careful of the messages they air, out of fear of backlash from their consumers.

i didnt' put the full text....

(e) Disbursements by foreign nationals for electioneering
communications. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make any disbursement for an electioneering communication as defined in
11 CFR 100.29.

how do corps get around that?

 

[theHawk]

Freedom of speech and of press are separate and divsible rights, Hawk. Having one does not necessarily include having the other.

Look at it this way. A corpoation (or a union for that matter) is a tool created by humans to serve a purpose. Only instead of being a hammer you can swing or a computer you can program, it's a legal shell that can own property and conduct activities in its own name at the bidding of its owners.

Should tools have protected political rights, or should that be restricted to their owners?

So it can "conduct activities", just not to include voicing their own collective opinion during an election.

Your computer conducts activities too. Should it have freedom of speech?

Is that how you liberals plan on taking away freedom of speech from the internet?

"Yea you have the freedom of speech, but you're computer doesn't!!!"

 

[Truthmatters]

Because its an US corporation.

Its not the owners they gave the right to it the corps itself.

NO ONE is going to check the owners papers fool.

 

[goldcatt]

How so? The court ruling expressely held in place the ban on contributions by foreigners.

BUT foreign individuals can and are owners of domestic corporations. And since a corporation is a separate entity from its owners...can you see where this is going? Anyone around the world who can fill out a paper, pay a fee and open a PO Box in Delaware now has the Constitutionally protected ability to (indirectly of course) participate in and affect our political process.

Thats true, if we don't want companies with a majority (or any) foreign owners running ads then we'll have to pass some new laws saying so.

Until then, voters should educate themselves on the companies that do run political ads.

Under this ruling, passing any such laws would be unconstitutional. A corporation is a person in its own right, remember? As such, its nationality is its own and separate from that of its owners.

 

[goldcatt]

So it can "conduct activities", just not to include voicing their own collective opinion during an election.

Your computer conducts activities too. Should it have freedom of speech?

Is that how you liberals plan on taking away freedom of speech from the internet?

"Yea you have the freedom of speech, but you're computer doesn't!!!"

You're still missing the point. Let's try this again. A manufacturing robot performs activities. Does that make it a person, or a citizen? Should it have its own protected political freedoms?

 

[Navy1960]

hmmm....interesting point given:

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection
with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or
expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in
connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political
committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national
shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national
party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a
State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal
account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the
organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

Section

hmmm

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

There is a difference between a company running its own ads giving their own opinion versus directly contributing to the party or candidate. Those restrictions were left in place.

What this boils down to is are corporations allowed to pay for ads to be aired that voice their opinion. I think any company doing so during an election would be especially careful of the messages they air, out of fear of backlash from their consumers.

i didnt' put the full text....

(e) Disbursements by foreign nationals for electioneering
communications. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make any disbursement for an electioneering communication as defined in
11 CFR 100.29.

how do corps get around that?

They do as Toyota does, they Incorporate here, Airbus, Honda, you name it are all for the purposes of taxes and law are American companies. That is why Toyota here is called Toyota North America, which is an actual American company. The individuals in that company do not matter for the purpose of a company wishing to express its political desires here as long as there is no law that bars the company from doing so and given the recent decision it appears that "Free Speech" for companies when it comes to campaigns is the order of the day.

 

[goldcatt]

hmmm....interesting point given:

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection
with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or
expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in
connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political
committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national
shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national
party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a
State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal
account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the
organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

Section

hmmm

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

There is a difference between a company running its own ads giving their own opinion versus directly contributing to the party or candidate. Those restrictions were left in place.

What this boils down to is are corporations allowed to pay for ads to be aired that voice their opinion. I think any company doing so during an election would be especially careful of the messages they air, out of fear of backlash from their consumers.

i didnt' put the full text....

(e) Disbursements by foreign nationals for electioneering
communications. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make any disbursement for an electioneering communication as defined in
11 CFR 100.29.

how do corps get around that?

Do you honestly think they're going to be able or willing to pierce every corporation to get to the nationality of the individuals behind the veil? All they need is a PO Box, a few forms and a couple hundred bucks, they have created a fully protected American person.

 

[Borat]

A senior U.S. defense official in Washington earlier this week confirmed that hackers nearly two years ago breached a high-tech F-35 jet fighter program developed for the Pentagon by Lockheed Martin Corp., but said it was unclear who did it and that classified information was not compromised.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue, also said it was unclear whether the attack was an attempt at corporate thievery or a hacker trying to harm the program. The Pentagon is expected to pay about $300 billion to buy nearly 2,500 of the F-35 jets for the Air Force, Navy and Marines.
China denies hacking into F-35 data - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times

What makes you think that Chinese companies if they have a political interest in our election process would not air commercials endorsing candidates for office that would perhaps advocate cutting the project or perhaps dely it to the point where it becomes useless.. In case your wondering, the fact that they are foreign won't make a difference, there are many ways around that. Those of you who do not think this decision is just a 1sr Amendment issue and won't have an impact on the election process are sadly mistaken.

that's downright scary shit !

corporations are by their nature INTERNATIONAL

handing international entities such massive power to influence our elections is another step ( a LEAP really ) towards one world government, which lately everybody from Financial Times to Gordon Brown to Sarkozy to Rompuy to everybody else have been calling for.

and with our $12 Trillion debt China will be buying up most of our Corporations anyway.

our next president will be Chinese.

 

[theHawk]

Your computer conducts activities too. Should it have freedom of speech?

Is that how you liberals plan on taking away freedom of speech from the internet?

"Yea you have the freedom of speech, but you're computer doesn't!!!"

You're still missing the point. Let's try this again. A manufacturing robot performs activities. Does that make it a person, or a citizen? Should it have its own protected political freedoms?

No, you still don't get it. We're not talking about inanimate objects like robots or pieces of paper. We're talking about a collection of people, in either a union or company. Those people collectively have the right to voice their opinion through ads, using funds from the very orginazation they run.

 

[goldcatt]

Is that how you liberals plan on taking away freedom of speech from the internet?

"Yea you have the freedom of speech, but you're computer doesn't!!!"

You're still missing the point. Let's try this again. A manufacturing robot performs activities. Does that make it a person, or a citizen? Should it have its own protected political freedoms?

No, you still don't get it. We're not talking about inanimate objects like robots or pieces of paper. We're talking about a collection of people, in either a union or company. Those people collectively have the right to voice their opinion through ads, using funds from the very orginazation they run.

But that's just it - the people who own or are employed by a corporation or union are NOT who received rights under this ruling. They already had them, individually.

The piece of paper that makes up the corporation or union received rights yesterday. Period. They are Two. Different. Things.

Just read the opinion for yourself, maybe it'll come to you.

 

[theHawk]

You're still missing the point. Let's try this again. A manufacturing robot performs activities. Does that make it a person, or a citizen? Should it have its own protected political freedoms?

No, you still don't get it. We're not talking about inanimate objects like robots or pieces of paper. We're talking about a collection of people, in either a union or company. Those people collectively have the right to voice their opinion through ads, using funds from the very orginazation they run.

But that's just it - the people who own or are employed by a corporation or union are NOT who received rights under this ruling. They already had them, individually.

The piece of paper that makes up the corporation or union received rights yesterday. Period. They are Two. Different. Things.

Just read the opinion for yourself, maybe it'll come to you.

People make up unions and corporations. Pieces of paper don't make decisions and spend money. Explain how as piece of paper is going to make and air an ad? Its not, the board members of the organization do all that.

 

[goldcatt]

No, you still don't get it. We're not talking about inanimate objects like robots or pieces of paper. We're talking about a collection of people, in either a union or company. Those people collectively have the right to voice their opinion through ads, using funds from the very orginazation they run.

But that's just it - the people who own or are employed by a corporation or union are NOT who received rights under this ruling. They already had them, individually.

The piece of paper that makes up the corporation or union received rights yesterday. Period. They are Two. Different. Things.

Just read the opinion for yourself, maybe it'll come to you.

People make up unions and corporations. Pieces of paper don't make decisions and spend money. Explain how as piece of paper is going to make and air an ad? Its not, the board members of the organization do all that.

YES, they do. But it's not their own rights they are exercising. They're speaking on behalf of the piece of paper called the corporate charter, and in its name. Just like the operator is making decisions on behalf of and giving orders to the robot.

It's the exact same thing, the fact that a robot can be touched and the legal construct cannot be is immaterial.

I have nothing in particular against robots either. But it's absurd to say they should have a protected right to political speech.

 

[Borat]

Congress shall make no law... I didnt realize how much people hate that idea. Free speech is only allowed if it's the right kind of speech. Corporations saying something is just evil. but if its unions, LLCs, sole proprietorships, partnerships, or any group of people, their speech and money is allowed. After all, everyone loves the Unions having control of government. Who could oppose that?

We talk about wanting an informed electorate. And then you wont let certain groups of people speak out against incumbent politicians when they are attacked or allow them to voice their political opinions. How is that helping the public be informed?

McCain Fiengold was bad law. We knew it when it was passed. It still is. "Congress shall make no law" means exactly that. The Founders didnt create an exception to that amendment.

And you know what, if we actually followed the Constitution and limited the Federal government like we should have always been doing, no corporation or special interest group would have any reason to try to influence elections. Because they would know that they cant.

But no, we have to have an over intrusive government that treats the Constitution like a dish rag. So let's just violate it some more instead of fixing the real problems with our Republic.

Oh and money and power dont corrupt people. Corrupt people corrupt money and power.

I oppose unions as well. I think unions are a great evil. I am also a libertarian.

Now you would think as a libertarian i should support "free speech" and i do - for HUMANS.

Now what's wrong with giving it to corporations ? Only the fact that Fascism is the OPPOSITE of libertarian principles and fascism is only a different name for power of the corporations.

therefore a libertarian should NOT support ANY increase in political power of the corporations.

the point of free speech is for the oppressed party to be able to defend itself by bringing the oppression to light. it is not for the oppressor to be able to effectively silence the oppressed by buying up all commercial air time.

 

[Intense]

Let's All meet up at the Union Halls, We will burn every book in every library and store that is published by a Corporate Publisher!!!!

I just love the smell of Burning Books in the Morning!!!

Now that's My kind of America, Union Bought and Paid For! .... What's this... Our pamphlet's have to be burned too!!! Quick, We need another Exemption!!!! Privilege Pay's huh.....

 

[Borat]

Corporations are NOT people

They ARE 14th Amendment "persons".

That's the law.....Like it or not (and just for the record, I don't), deal with it.

if you support a law you don't like then you are really fucking missing the point of democracy...

 

[Intense]

Why do We keep making the same mistakes assuming that the Republic does fine on Auto-Pilot? It Doesn't. Democracy Requires Effort, Understanding, Knowledge, not Witch Hunts.