Welcome to PatsFans.com

Supreme Courts Says No To Arizona Campaign Finance Regulation

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Jun 27, 2011.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,692
    Likes Received:
    563
    Ratings:
    +1,364 / 34 / -28

    #87 Jersey

    Oh well - we should be used to this by now - Goliath will never be slain. Sometimes our Constitution is on the side of the little person and sometimes it is against.

    NationalJournal.com - Supreme Court Strikes Another Blow at Campaign Finance Regulation - Monday, June 27, 2011

     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2011
  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

  3. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,907
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +438 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    If "Leveling the playing field is not a legitimate gov't function" then why does our gov't employ a progressive income tax system?

    They're talking out of both sides of their mouths.
     
  4. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,287
    Likes Received:
    226
    Ratings:
    +519 / 14 / -28

    That is why the playing field is not "level"....
     
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,172
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +306 / 9 / -12

    Interesting part of Kagan's dissent:


    So in Kagan's view politicians can restrict political speech if they say it is to eliminate political corruption? Just WOW........... These people only want the First amendment for porn and flag burning not for political speech.
     
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Technically you're right.

    Problem is (for me) that corporations and unions have been granted "personhood" by the Supremes. This is an insult to many people, including myself, who see it as an inherent contradiction as far as a level playing field goes. I can't go to the government and ask for subsidies that ensure my profitability. The government won't bail me out when I perform poorly. I can't have laws passed that enable me to make more money, or that take land from people to give to other people who can make more money with that land. I can't write off any expense incurred due to operating expenses. No amount of money I give to a Senate candidate will have much of an influence over his votes.

    Yet the corporations, with the help of their carefully-duped fans, can get all of this AND enjoy the priviledges of personhood and all the protections that the Constitution and Bill of Rights have to offer. Those protections were intended for the People, not our Owners. I guess that's why they're the Owners, though, huh?
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2011
  7. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    85
    Ratings:
    +272 / 6 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    I think that can be fixed. The reason behind the concept of "a corporation is a person" was to ensure that companies were legally protected and also held legally accountable. If we can concoct an alternative legal mechanism that provides accountability and legal protection, we can do away with the idea that "companies are people too".
     
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,172
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +306 / 9 / -12

    Individuals can buy stock in public corps. When you look at the regulatory world they have to deal with they are forced to speak on behalf of the shareholders to protect their interest.

    The issue is still the government doling out too much money and the power they get through the tax code and regulatory favors.

    As long as the government is so powerful people need to pay for protection. Think of the government as the mafia in the 1920's shaking down the local grocer and other businesses.

    I would rather have the First amendment than 'well meaning' government regulating who has political speech and who doesn't. Because that will be a corrupt process (the party in power will have free speech for their supporters and limit speech of their opponents.
     
  9. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    A corporation is not a "who". It is an "it". I don't need a middle man to protect me from the government. And even if I did, it wouldn't be the freakin corporations. They do no better job at ensuring my Constitutional rights than the government does.

    You have the First Ammendment! It is there for you!

    What makes you think "the party in power will have free speech for their supporters and limit speech of their opponents"? When has that ever happened? You're providing cover for corporations because of something you think "might" happen?

    You are right about one thing, though. The tax code is a horrible tool the government wields without any impunity whatsoever. The IRS and the current tax code needs to be abolished and a new system needs to be implemented. No doubt.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>