Welcome to PatsFans.com

Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Jan 21, 2010.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    And I thought CONGRESS sucked....

    washingtonpost.com

    A divided Supreme Court on Thursday swept away decades of legislative efforts to restrict the role of corporations in election campaigns, ruling that severe restrictions on corporate spending are inconsistent with the First Amendment's protection of political speech.



    Welcome to the Facist States of America!



    Unreal....
     
  2. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    United States Constitution 1, McCain-Feingold 0. This is absolutely the correct decision and I am glad they made it. The only thing I don't understand is why it was so close.

    That's the pesky thing about free speech. "Free speech" means everyone gets to exercise it - even all those jerks who you disagree with.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2010
  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    WTF?

    It means a company, not only has as many rights as an american, it also generally has more funds, less accountability....

    OH...and can be owned by a foreigner!



    I have no clue what the fukc you are talking about as far as 1st ammendment rights go, and how they apply to private companies. I've read the justices decisions, and especially Judge Thomas is seriously climing dumb-fukc mountain in his...


    When they wrote this constitution, they said ouyr nation would be "of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE....

    5 idiots just decided that a company is infcat....a Person. You, me, our neighbors, families and friends will now be outflanked by companies, out spent by interests that DONT benefit "We the PEOPLE" but "we the LLC". By its very definition, we have become FACISTS, thanks to this supreme court decision.



    and you think its cool?.......WONDERFUL!
     
  4. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Yes! And now American corporations can spend as much as the unions. Kinda levels the playing field a bit now.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2010
  5. alvinnf

    alvinnf In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +14 / 1 / -0

    I agree with you lefty...... The only way real change is going to happen in this country is when the special interest money shrinks. That is not happening anytime soon......
    Another real problem is whom is behind whom. They should make these entities like " Americans for prosperity" or whomever declare a side or state their backing in their ads.
     
  6. JackBauer

    JackBauer Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    16,387
    Likes Received:
    347
    Ratings:
    +844 / 6 / -9

    I thought you conservatives were against judicial activism. Which is what this clearly was.

    I guess it's only judicial activism if the other side is doing it :confused:
     
  7. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Ugggggghhhhhhh......

    are you frickin serious?


    Today, the Supreme Court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that had previously prohibited corporations AND unions from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads.



    let me guess.....you have FOX news on?
     
  8. JackBauer

    JackBauer Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    16,387
    Likes Received:
    347
    Ratings:
    +844 / 6 / -9

    This decision means corporations AND unions can now spend without limit.

    Facts are not, and never have been, ljuneau's strong suit.
     
  9. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Honestly...this is a complicated decision...so I dont blame peeps for being misinformed.

    It might go as far as to say that PatsFans.com can contribute as much as they can....and has as many rights as a citizen.




    Activist Judges....
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2010
  10. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You make it sound like companies are robots from outer space or something. What is a company? It is a business entity created by human beings with money that comes from human beings. If I own a company and I choose to use my company's assets to advertise for/against legislation or candidates, who the hell do you think you are to tell me I can't do that?

    Yeah, that whole "freedom of speech" is a really pesky thing when used by all those *******s you disagree with, huh? The only people that should get "freedom of speech" are the nice people who have the same opinions as you, right?
     
  11. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
     
  12. JackBauer

    JackBauer Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    16,387
    Likes Received:
    347
    Ratings:
    +844 / 6 / -9

    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.
     
  13. JackBauer

    JackBauer Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    16,387
    Likes Received:
    347
    Ratings:
    +844 / 6 / -9

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2010
  14. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
     
  15. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    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.
     
  16. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

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


    where are you going here?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2010
  17. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
     
  18. JackBauer

    JackBauer Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    16,387
    Likes Received:
    347
    Ratings:
    +844 / 6 / -9

    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.
     
  19. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    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
     
  20. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>