Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[RodISHI]

I cant believe people are happy with corporations having more influence on an election than any voters.

I cant believe how upset you are that people actually have free speech

A corporation is not a person. Generally most corporations are entities for profit. In that they look at the bottom line for gains and losses and future investments. Investing into politicians has paid very well for many of these corporate entities as they wiggled their way into control over every aspect of our lives up to and including pushing agendas that leave them unaccountable for their actions. They have bought and paid for politicians, judges and regulators. Limiting their ability to run ads for their chosen candidates leveled the playing field for the actual voters to support and pay for the support of their chosen candidate. The process was tainted enough without giving more control to corporate entities to influence elections.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Corps can now spend as much money as they want on adds in an election.


Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits - NYTimes.com

Proving again that "Money Talks and 'BullCHIT' Walks" Wealth means, power and control.......and always will.

 

[jillian]

Little legal fiction?

No no.

Corporations ARE "persons" for some legal purposes. And although they get no vote in the ballot box, they DO HAVE and SHOULD HAVE the right to freedom of speech.

Furthermore, frankly, WE all should WANT to protect their right to say whateverthefuck they wish to "say."

It IS a legal fiction. nothing more nothing less. and it's supposed to be for jurisdictional purposes and purposes of obtaining a judgment or suing. It's not supposed to be the same as INDIVIDUALS.

If they're people, shouldn't they vote? Or are we cherry picking because the idea of a corporation voting is absurd?

Why would you want them to have the right to dump as much money as they can into political campaigns? They've already got lobbyists who do that.

 

[Oddball]

Does the corporation sign any checks?

 

[noose4]

Our elections will now be filled with TV ads , billboards, radio station adds that fight for the corporations and limit the options of regular Americans.

Money = speech now and the corps have HUGE piles of money and me and you dont have enough to make our voices heard.

We are soon to be a corporate owned country.

Pretty much, we just had the billionaire mayor in NYC buy his way to a third term in a 2 term limit office, now we will get such things on a national level.

 

[Oddball]

I believe there is a difference, however seemingly subtle, between receiving outside funding for one's campaign and self-funding it.

 

[veritas]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=321vhg-1rJk&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - FreeSpeechforPeople.org kickoff video[/ame]

 

[noose4]

I believe there is a difference, however seemingly subtle, between receiving outside funding for one's campaign and self-funding it.

Sure you are right, I used Bloomberg as an example because with his wealth he has the financial power of a corporation even though he is an individual, a candidate with such corporate financial backing would be even worse as that candidate would be extremely indebted to said corporation and thus in its control.

 

[jillian]

Does the corporation sign any checks?

huh?

 

[Avatar4321]

How about instead of banning free speech, we have them all disclose where they are getting campaign money? That way everyone knows who is funding whom and people can make their own decisions based on that information instead of trying to restrict what people can say.

 

[Navy1960]

While granting corporations and unions the ability to run campaign commercials and yet at the same time restrict direct contributions seems to be a bit of stretch if you are using Free Speech as a justification for doing so. Why? because if it is protected Free Speech then there should be NO LIMITS placed on them at all in terms of direct contributions, because the same argument applies.

"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." Thomas Jefferson

I could not disagree more with the assertion that companies and unions are entitled to free speech when it comes to elections. To do so supposes that these companies and these unions are on equal footing with the individual under the constitution which they clearly are not. It has always been my humble opnion that if one does not have any constitutional ability to vote in an election or determine it's outcome by doing so, then one should NOT have the ability to contribute to it. However, that being said from a pure commercial view these companies depending on where they spend their money if it is not a Govt. regulated commercial airwave, then a good case can be made that they are entitled to do so regardless of content.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't know how clearer it can be. Black and white. Even a Lib can figure it out

 

[Oddball]

While granting corporations and unions the ability to run campaign commercials and yet at the same time restrict direct contributions seems to be a bit of stretch if you are using Free Speech as a justification for doing so. Why? because if it is protected Free Speech then there should be NO LIMITS placed on them at all in terms of direct contributions, because the same argument applies.

Hey...I'll take any break from those grating free credit report ads I can get.

 

[Liability]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't know how clearer it can be. Black and white. Even a Lib can figure it out

Debatable.

 

[Liability]

Little legal fiction?

No no.

Corporations ARE "persons" for some legal purposes. And although they get no vote in the ballot box, they DO HAVE and SHOULD HAVE the right to freedom of speech.

Furthermore, frankly, WE all should WANT to protect their right to say whateverthefuck they wish to "say."

It IS a legal fiction. nothing more nothing less. and it's supposed to be for jurisdictional purposes and purposes of obtaining a judgment or suing. It's not supposed to be the same as INDIVIDUALS.

If they're people, shouldn't they vote? Or are we cherry picking because the idea of a corporation voting is absurd?

Why would you want them to have the right to dump as much money as they can into political campaigns? They've already got lobbyists who do that.

The "presumption of innocence" is a legal fiction too.

But, it's a pretty damn powerful one.

As it should be.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Looks like Sandy's wise vagina is not all its cracked up to be.

 

[RodISHI]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't know how clearer it can be. Black and white. Even a Lib can figure it out

Corporations are not people, not "the press" and in no way shape or form a religion except to the dollar.

That specifically refers to "the right of the people" not the right of the corporation.

 

[Liability]

Looks like Sandy's wise vagina is not all its cracked up to be.

When libs hear that Justice Douglas once expressed the "legal" belief that perhaps "standing to sue" should be granted to TREES, they don't scoff or blanche or even get perturbed. They (speaking in general terms) tend to applaud.

But when libs hear that corporations have a right to freedom of speech, THEN, by golly, that's worthy of condemnation, lots of scoffing and outwage: "Corporations aren't actual people! Harumph! That concept is JUST a 'legal fiction'!"

So, honestly, I am just not all that persuaded by "thinking" of the lady's wise vagina.

 

[Avatar4321]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't know how clearer it can be. Black and white. Even a Lib can figure it out

Corporations are not people, not "the press" and in no way shape or form a religion except to the dollar.

That specifically refers to "the right of the people" not the right of the corporation.

The right of the people to assemble comes after the prohibition of prohibiting speech. It applies to all speech.

 

[Meister]

How funny that his picks for the bench all voted for this huh?

Funny how obama's pick for the bench voted against this, huh?