Wolfpack

I don't speak for anyone but myself, and I certainly don't speak for "you conservatives" (as you put it).

I rarely use terms like "judicial activism" because I have always said that people on both sides of the aisle define "judicial activism" as when a judge overturns a law that they support. I have no problem when the Supreme Court overturns a law I consider unconstitutional.

JackBauer

Regardless, the notion that corporations are tantamount to individuals in the political sphere is laughable, since about one percent of individuals have resources that even compare to those held by corporations.

Most of our elected officials in Washington are already corporate whores. Somehow, I doubt when people examine the shortcomings of our democracy, they instinctively point to a lack of corporate influence as symptomatic.

JackBauer

My bad. I don't think I've ever seen you break from Republican (not conservative) orthodoxy on any issue, so I just lumped you in with the rest.

Interesting, considering the court unanimously held in 1982 that the law was not only constitutional but found that corporations warrant heightened regulation due to their unique nature and capabilities.

Wolfpack

You do realize that corporations are owned by people, right? I mean, like, real life human beings. My only concern is regarding foreign interest, but overall McCain-Feingold was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech and I am glad the Supreme Court saw it that way.

According to your logic, we shouldn't have special interest groups either. After all, about one percent of individuals have resources that even compare to those held by (for example) NOW or the NRA.

Holy Diver

NOt at all, playah...Its not about 'free speech', although that what you seem to think its about.

Even the KKK gets a right to speak in my book, even though they are a bunch of scumbags in my opinion.

This is about the PERVERSION of what constitues "petitioning the government" and what that meant to those who wrote the constitution, and those judges who are now clusterfuking the definition.

You are correct in saying that organizations, and companies are made up of people, that doesnt mean they have the same rights as individuals.

Holy Diver

By that definition....owners of corporations are infact TWO people? They are twice as good?


where are you going here?

Wolfpack

I won't argue or complain about "heightened regulation" for corporate entities, but McCain-Feingold went beyond heightened regulation. It was censorship, pure and simple. And I say that as someone who recognizes that today's decision will also give more political clout to labor unions, who faced the same restrictions.

JackBauer

I realize that by injecting snark into your "argument," you seem to be under the impression that you've managed to string together a clever and incisive rejoinder.

How does the fact that corporations are "owned" by people support the notion that should and do operate as individuals in the political sphere, given the vast and patent differences between the two entities?

No buddy, that would be your logic, since I never argued that corporations shouldn't be allowed to argue for or against political candidates and/or causes. What I am against is unrestricted political expenditures having an undo influence on our political process. I have a century of legislative and judicial precedent supporting my opinion, whereby you appear to be arguing off Michael Steele's press release from this afternoon. At least, that's what I'm left to conclude, since you can't actually articulate why you think this would be a beneficial development.

Holy Diver

I just decided that I, Holy Diver, am a corporation....

I'm moving my bank accounts and funds to the Cayman islands where I will be paying ZERO taxes.

If a corporation is a citizen.....then a citizen is a corporation. I am entitled to all the benefits of such.


Holy Diver LLC
PO Box 666
Cayman Islands

Wolfpack

Because, as I noted in another post directed at Holy Diver, you seem to think that corporations are robots from outer space or something like that. When a group of people form an entity (be it a business, special interest group or whatever) and the government censors that entity, I consider it to be censorship of the group of people.
Well, I'll see your century and raise you a document over 2 centuries old. It's called the United States Constitution. You should try reading it sometime. You'll certainly learn an awful lot.
So now I have to "articulate" why free speech is a beneficial development? You have got to be kidding.