NOT A POLITICAL THREAD

[AZKomet]

However, things like this reallly piss me off..........makes me wonder about the justices'. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100121/pl_nm/us_usa_court_politics

 

 

[Boone60]

I'm not worried, as signs are starting to show that people of all political persuasions are becoming totally fed up with the type of govt. they have been electing for the past several decades, and the traditional methods of running a political campaign that required large amounts of money are being negated by the internet and other digital devices which can cheaply level the playing field.

[AviP]

For a while now, the lobbyists and their corporate sponsors have run our government. While the US government is still among the best (if not the best) at safeguarding it's constituents, that high standard seems to keep deteriorating. These 5 justices have sold America to the highest bidder.

 

Instead of our citizens electing our politicians, it's corporations and big money. And the doors just got opened really wide.

[upflying]

What would be an acceptable source of campaign funding if private business and labor unions were not allowed to contribute?

[SageRider]

The top court struck down the part of the federal law that restricted broadcast advertisements for or against political candidates right before elections that are paid for by corporations, labor unions and advocacy groups

While the decision while likely have a major impact, it effects only the sponsored advertising.

 

FWIW, the advertisements must still declare who paid for them.

 

The prohibition of direct candidate support still stands.

[Quinn]

Well, at least it was nice that the decision was based on law and the Constitution instead of social feel goods.

 

Guess I'd just like to see some decissions that admit that something, anything, is non of the Federal government's business.

 

 

[Bob Palin]

What would be an acceptable source of campaign funding if private business and labor unions were not allowed to contribute?

Individuals?

[Ken H.]

Instead of our citizens electing our politicians, it's corporations and big money. And the doors just got opened really wide.

Just got? Where have you been? The doors have been really wide for quite some time. Can we spell Enron? CitiBank? Goldman Sachs? The USA has become a country of only the few. The rest of us (and I say "us" as a US citizen even though I live in Canada) are just incidentals. Less than incidentals even. Nothing short of a true actual revolt / civil war will change it. And we’re not to that point, critical mass wise, yet. Yet.

[upflying]

Instead of our citizens electing our politicians, it's corporations and big money. And the doors just got opened really wide.

Just got? Where have you been? The doors have been really wide for quite some time. Can we spell Enron? CitiBank? Goldman Sachs? The USA has become a country of only the few. The rest of us (and I say "us" as a US citizen even though I live in Canada) are just incidentals. Less than incidentals even. Nothing short of a true actual revolt / civil war will change it. And we’re not to that point, critical mass wise, yet. Yet.

 

Pretty impressive what those "incidentals" recently did in Massachusetts.

[beemerman2k]

I'm with Ken on this one. I see things pretty much the same way.

 

For the past century or more, we have been a money making asset to corporate America. Therefore, Americans received all manner of benefits that we came to take for granted. Job security, health care, retirement benefits, etc -- we were worth it to the "haves" because we made them money.

 

Now, however, most Americans are too expensive when compared to the cheaper labor that can be found elsewhere. Therefore, we are more and more on our own; the cost of our collective upkeep is no longer worth the money corporations used to spend on us. Like an obsolete computer, the American laborer is left behind and now I read about job booms fueled by the hiring of American corporations in other labor markets -- just not this one. Here's a recent example of what I'm talkin' about.

 

The political leadership work for the haves, not for the have nots. Therefore, their job is simply to expedite the will of those with the money. This has always been so, we just weren't aware of it because the system worked for us in the past. I guess it's time for us to wake up and smell the coffee so to speak!

[mbelectric]

 

 

Instead of our citizens electing our politicians, it's corporations and big money. And the doors just got opened really wide.

Just got? Where have you been? The doors have been really wide for quite some time. Can we spell Enron? CitiBank? Goldman Sachs? The USA has become a country of only the few. The rest of us (and I say "us" as a US citizen even though I live in Canada) are just incidentals. Less than incidentals even. Nothing short of a true actual revolt / civil war will change it. And we’re not to that point, critical mass wise, yet. Yet.

 

Pretty impressive what those "incidentals" recently did in Massachusetts.

 

Wanna elaborate?

 

MB>

[upflying]

 

Instead of our citizens electing our politicians, it's corporations and big money. And the doors just got opened really wide.

Just got? Where have you been? The doors have been really wide for quite some time. Can we spell Enron? CitiBank? Goldman Sachs? The USA has become a country of only the few. The rest of us (and I say "us" as a US citizen even though I live in Canada) are just incidentals. Less than incidentals even. Nothing short of a true actual revolt / civil war will change it. And we’re not to that point, critical mass wise, yet. Yet.

 

Pretty impressive what those "incidentals" recently did in Massachusetts.

 

Wanna elaborate?

 

MB>

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/19/polls-close-competitive-massachusetts-senate-race/

[mbelectric]

<<<>>>>

 

MB>

[chrisolson]

What would be an acceptable source of campaign funding if private business and labor unions were not allowed to contribute?

 

Political Action Committee

 

 

[Whip]

What would be an acceptable source of campaign funding if private business and labor unions were not allowed to contribute?

 

Political Action Committee

 

 

Is there a difference????????????

 

 

Money is speech.

 

Does it really matter what ya call it????

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

The same phenomenom has really poisoned the initiative process in California. There is a certain price tag to get an initiative on the ballot, and a certain price tag to give it a good chance of passing. Don't meet those price tags and you can forget it. Meet those price tags and you can get a lot of really lousy constitutional revisions in the California law. Since they are constitutional revisions, they can't be tweaked by the legislature to correct flaws. If the flaws are bad enough, it takes another initiative to correct the problem. The initiatives are solely the product of groups with limited interests and a lot of money, so good, bad, or indifferent, almost by definition they don't take the broader needs of California into account.

 

The problem with recommending that the initiative process be done away with is that the California legislature has devolved into two idealogically opposed camps, again financed by a lot of money on either side, which can't get anything done. I'll repeat, because I mean it, they can't get ANYTHING done.

 

So the choices we have are either to get the wrong things done through the initiative process, or nothing done through the legislature, with both options being well oiled by a lot of money.

[Dennis Andress]

... Can we spell Enron? CitiBank? Goldman Sachs?

How'd that work out for them?

 

 

Nothing short of a true actual revolt / civil war will change it. And we’re not to that point, critical mass wise, yet. Yet.

I agree with you. We're about 20 years away...

 

 

[Twisties]

What were the legal arguments? I just did a full text search on the US Constitution and didn't find the word "corporation." FWIW.

[Whip]

The decision makes perfect sense. I don't understand how anyone can disagree with the majority's logic.

 

the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests;the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.…

 

 

441b was BS, I'm glad it's gone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bheckel169]

+1 on this. Allowing corporations to promote their candidates or issues is frankly a more direct approach to free speech. What we saw in the McCain Feingold bill was multiple end runs around the newly established law to accomplish the same goal. Now it's more open and surreptitious funding of partisan groups to accomplish the same goal will crawl back under their rocks.

I'd rather know that Exxon is backing an issue because I'll understand exactly what they are trying to accomplish? It's much easier than having small or large partisan funded groups that are just under the radar funding other more surreptitious groups funding other groups and so on. Out in the light of day works for me. I'm smart enough to figure out the issues based on all the available information.

Bruce

[Mike]

The decision makes perfect sense. I don't understand how anyone can disagree with the majority's logic.

 

the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests;the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.…

 

 

441b was BS, I'm glad it's gone.

 

I gotta say, I'm with the Whipster on this one. It seems that Americans are big on declaring their support for fundamental human rights like freedom of speech . . . until they're faced with the prospect of someone who disagrees with them actually exercising those rights.

 

The only thing that I absolutely hate about this is that there will be even more political ads.

[chrisolson]

What would be an acceptable source of campaign funding if private business and labor unions were not allowed to contribute?

 

Political Action Committee

 

Is there a difference????????????

 

Money is speech.

 

Does it really matter what ya call it????

You're right ... large money equates to large speach.

 

I'm more concerned that the rights of individuals are now extended directly to Corporations and Unions. Having played in both worlds for almost all of my adult working years, neither represents their employees or members ... they represents the opinion of the owners or management. So freedom of speach is in fact reduced, not expanded.

[steve.foote]

We could try a progressive approach to free speech. For example, the amount of speech allowed could be tied to some sort of metric - like the amount of taxes one pays to the treasury.

[SeanC]

Or the amount of land you own....

[upflying]

We already have progressive free speech. Whoever protests the loudest on hot button politcal issues gets the most media exposure.

 

[Calvin (no socks)]

I WILL USE ALL CAPITALS TO EMPHASIZE MY CLOUT.

 

Whereas; any HOLLYWOOD persona can take the bully pulpit at any public occasion to present a larger than "one" agenda...

[Whip]

What would be an acceptable source of campaign funding if private business and labor unions were not allowed to contribute?

 

Political Action Committee

 

Is there a difference????????????

 

Money is speech.

 

Does it really matter what ya call it????

You're right ... large money equates to large speach.

I'm more concerned that the rights of individuals are now extended directly to Corporations and Unions. Having played in both worlds for almost all of my adult working years, neither represents their employees or members ... they represents the opinion of the owners or management. So freedom of speach is in fact reduced, not expanded.

 

I don't understand. Corporations and their officers can't spend their money the way they wish without checking with their employees????? Corporations are only beholding to their stock holders not the emps.

 

Unions are there to represent their rank and file, so I can see your point in that case.

 

Help a brother out here???

 

I ain't following you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Isn't that the net effect of this ruling?

 

The Constitution is supposed to guarantee freedom of speech, movement, association and religion; but, I'd offer without money, no one will hear you; you ain't moving far; nobody'll want to hang with you and you'll be praying by yourself.

[beemerman2k]

How does this work when the corporation in question is foreign owned? Can Budweiser use its influence on the US elections? Chrysler? Hyundai? How do we ensure the influence is that of American citizens and not, say, that of the Chinese government?

 

Corporations are owned by their shareholders, aren't they? How do we know of those shareholders are US citizens or not? What % of them are? What if a wealthy foreign tycoon whose interests aren't shared with Americans wants to influence a US election?

[SeanC]

How does this work when the corporation in question is foreign owned? Can Budweiser use its influence on the US elections? Chrysler? Hyundai? How do we ensure the influence is that of American citizens and not, say, that of the Chinese government?

 

Corporations are owned by their shareholders, aren't they? How do we know of those shareholders are US citizens or not? What % of them are? What if a wealthy foreign tycoon whose interests aren't shared with Americans wants to influence a US election?

 

They can and do. Foreign entities, be they governments, corporations or individuals, lobby our government all the time, contribute campaign money, etc. They can't vote, but they sure can try to influence votes.

[Whip]

How does this work when the corporation in question is foreign owned? Can Budweiser use its influence on the US elections? Chrysler? Hyundai? How do we ensure the influence is that of American citizens and not, say, that of the Chinese government?

 

Corporations are owned by their shareholders, aren't they? How do we know of those shareholders are US citizens or not? What % of them are? What if a wealthy foreign tycoon whose interests aren't shared with Americans wants to influence a US election?

 

So what are you saying. They should have all the employees vote before Bud makes an ad supporting free immigration from Belgium????

 

 

 

Sorry....The Constitution comes first.

 

Don't like it, take the hard road and change it.

 

Ben, TJ, Adams, Madison......They knew what they were doing.

 

I trust em.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ken H.]

... Can we spell Enron? CitiBank? Goldman Sachs?

How'd that work out for them?

For the handful of people who ran away with all the money, and in the case of Goldman Sachs and other similar still are, it worked out damn well. For the rest of the country that end up in one way or another giving it to them; not so much.

[Ken H.]

Instead of our citizens electing our politicians, it's corporations and big money. And the doors just got opened really wide.

Just got? Where have you been? The doors have been really wide for quite some time. Can we spell Enron? CitiBank? Goldman Sachs? The USA has become a country of only the few. The rest of us (and I say "us" as a US citizen even though I live in Canada) are just incidentals. Less than incidentals even. Nothing short of a true actual revolt / civil war will change it. And we’re not to that point, critical mass wise, yet. Yet.

 

Pretty impressive what those "incidentals" recently did in Massachusetts.

Can’t answer to that as I’d like without crossing the no politics line here, but anyway I’m speaking about corporations instead of the people controlling the government and thus our day to day lives. Not in the voting booth which more and more is also irrelevant.

[beemerman2k]

So what are you saying. They should have all the employees vote before Bud makes an ad supporting free immigration from Belgium????

 

 

 

Sorry....The Constitution comes first.

 

Don't like it, take the hard road and change it.

 

Ben, TJ, Adams, Madison......They knew what they were doing.

 

I trust em.

 

At the end of the day, I'm not saying anything, I'm asking questions! Now, I am not a Constitutional scholar, but does that document recognize corporations as having the same rights and status as individuals? I am with you in the sense that the Constitution MUST reign supreme, but I am unaware of what that document says with respect to this issue.

 

Now, let's assume that the Constitution does, indeed, support todays Supreme Court decision. I would think the founders had certain assumptions that they hopefully stated when reaching that decision. I am still of the view that my government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people". So how do I reconcile that ethic with the possibility that "the people" does not necessarily mean US citizens? I am not comfortable with that scenario at all...not one bit! If I'm saying something, that's it right there.

 

So how does this work with respect to foreign entities and individuals?

[Ken H.]

Isn't that the net effect of this ruling?

 

The Constitution is supposed to guarantee freedom of speech, movement, association and religion; but, I'd offer without money, no one will hear you; you ain't moving far; nobody'll want to hang with you and you'll be praying by yourself.

Yes that is the net effect. With the millions and millions of dollars we’re now going to see corporations poring into campaigns for or against whatever this or that benefits their particular bottom line; we’re going to see a whole new level of lies, deceit, manipulation and ugliness like never before. Just wait until about August or so when the mid-term season starts to fire up.

[chrisolson]

I'm more concerned that the rights of individuals are now extended directly to Corporations and Unions. Having played in both worlds for almost all of my adult working years, neither represents their employees or members ... they represents the opinion of the owners or management. So freedom of speach is in fact reduced, not expanded.

 

I don't understand. Corporations and their officers can't spend their money the way they wish without checking with their employees????? Corporations are only beholding to their stock holders not the emps.

 

Unions are there to represent their rank and file, so I can see your point in that case.

 

Help a brother out here???

 

I ain't following you.

Corps don't even have to check with stockholders until after the fact and even then its almost impossible to effect any change or have meaningful input at annual meetings ... and with most big companies lots of employees are also stockholders so stockholder/employee pretty much the same.

 

With the PAC system, there were limitations and Corps needed to get funding from employees who could contribute or not based on their own views which tended to balance things out.

 

Now with unlimited direct funding from Corp or Union treasuries, senior leadership management will have a huge and largely unchecked impact on the individual right of free speach.

 

Note the word individual ... as in person. I can't conceive that the founders would have considered the legal entities of Corps and Unions as individual people, yet now we seem to be moving more and more in that direction granting human, personal rights to them. I think that's where I have the most issue.

 

[Ken H.]

Ben, TJ, Adams, Madison......They knew what they were doing.

 

I trust em.

What we have today is so far removed from what Ben, TJ, Adams, Madison...... envisioned; “rolling over in their grave” may be the biggest understatement ever.

 

The whole idea that a corporation, a business, even has free speech rights is warped IMHO. All it is is a bunch of paper work. How can a pile of paper have rights? Of any sort.

 

[Ken H.]

I don't understand. Corporations and their officers can't spend their money the way they wish without checking with their employees????? Corporations are only beholding to their stock holders not the emps.

Of course they can, and do. The reality of most any big corporation is that controlling interest is held by a couple of identities that call all the shots in their favor. The ordinary shareholder has no say what so ever. Their just along for the ride, good or bad.

[Whip]

Ben, TJ, Adams, Madison......They knew what they were doing.

 

I trust em.

What we have today is so far removed from what Ben, TJ, Adams, Madison...... envisioned; “rolling over in their grave” may be the biggest understatement ever.

 

The whole idea that a corporation, a business, even has free speech rights is warped IMHO. All it is is a bunch of paper work. How can a pile of paper have rights? Of any sort.

 

We all keep goin back to corporations. The ruling was about a special interest. I posted the majorities opinion in a previous post. They didn't even mention corporations or foreign entities.

 

This was a common sense ruling following the Constitution.

 

Ya don't like it.

 

Y'all know how to add a new Amendment.

 

 

Go for it!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

[Bheckel169]

These companies have paid off their bailout money. Why penalize them anymore? If I have any gripe at all, I want to penalize the congressmen over the years who helped put us in this dilema. Come on. Why are companies the villains here? Capitalism is the engine that drives us and every economy. We hate them and attack them and then penalize them but we always keep them intact. If you don't like them, get rid of them. Oh, and by the way, I'll then move to Chile. They seem to have gotten it right this time around.

Bruce

[Bullett]

I haven't had time to read all 183 pages of the opinion, concurrences and dissent yet. For all y'all who are retired here's The Decision you are discussing.

[chrisolson]

We all keep goin back to corporations. The ruling was about a special interest. I posted the majorities opinion in a previous post. They didn't even mention corporations or foreign entities.

 

This was a common sense ruling following the Constitution.

 

Ya don't like it.

 

Y'all know how to add a new Amendment.

 

 

Go for it!!!!

My friend, this time I don't understand .... Citizens United is a Corporation and independent corporate expenditures in 441b which this decision overturned - was all about bank, union and corporate contributions. Additional link to Court decision

[steve.foote]

Isn't that the net effect of this ruling?

 

The Constitution is supposed to guarantee freedom of speech, movement, association and religion; but, I'd offer without money, no one will hear you; you ain't moving far; nobody'll want to hang with you and you'll be praying by yourself.

 

Oh, I'm not staking out a position here, John. I'm just exploring the boundaries.

 

One seemingly simple solution would be to stop taxing corporations. I believe that 'taxation without representation' is against the constitution. I would think that free speech would be an integral part of that representation bit.

 

[Whip]

Mr Olson.

 

I've read several summaries of the decision.

 

Let me see if I can clear this up for you.

 

 

Citizens United is a nonprofit membership organization registered with the IRS under 26 U.S.C. §501©(4).

 

 

Black and White Baby!!!!

 

On another note(that has nothing to do with this case)......you have not answered my question. Do owners of corporations and their officers have the right to spend their money on whatever they want as long as the stock holders let them stay in charge.

 

If you(as an emp.) work for a company that supports something you don't believe in you only have 2 options.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chrisolson]

Mr Olson.

 

I've read several summaries of the decision.

 

Let me see if I can clear this up for you.

 

 

Citizens United is a nonprofit membership organization registered with the IRS under 26 U.S.C. §501©(4).

 

 

Black and White Baby!!!!

 

On another note(that has nothing to do with this case)......you have not answered my question. Do owners of corporations and their officers have the right to spend their money on whatever they want as long as the stock holders let them stay in charge.

 

If you(as an emp.) work for a company that supports something you don't believe in you only have 2 options.

 

True owners - of course they can. However, my anecdotal experience has been that its more the professional management that will make these decisions.

 

I claim the corp/org dispute by 1 point ... your link refers to them both ways and the statute can appy to both - 1 point each - but the Supreme Court itself in its actual opinion (not a summary) specifically refers to them as a nonprofit membership corporation. Who ya gonna believe ... ???

[Whip]

Mr Olson.

 

I've read several summaries of the decision.

 

Let me see if I can clear this up for you.

 

 

Citizens United is a nonprofit membership organization registered with the IRS under 26 U.S.C. §501©(4).

 

 

Black and White Baby!!!!

 

On another note(that has nothing to do with this case)......you have not answered my question. Do owners of corporations and their officers have the right to spend their money on whatever they want as long as the stock holders let them stay in charge.

 

If you(as an emp.) work for a company that supports something you don't believe in you only have 2 options.

 

True owners - of course they can. However, my anecdotal experience has been that its more the professional management that will make these decisions.

 

I claim the corp/org dispute by 1 point ... your link refers to them both ways and the statute can appy to both - 1 point each - but the Supreme Court itself in its actual opinion (not a summary) specifically refers to them as a nonprofit membership corporation. Who ya gonna believe ... ???

 

I believe I'll have another Coke, cause Kathy wants be too.

 

I was just thinking, maybe if this 441 BS would never have been made into law that maybe some of these "corporations" could have foreseen our current circumstances and talked some officials into

.....never mind. I don't wanna go there.

 

 

 

 

[AZKomet]

Many interesting comments here. My main reason for the post is I AM CONSIDERING a political office here in AZ. Election campaign funds cannot be collected from anyone but individuals. To do so is a crime. Any business, PAC (or other similar org.) can't donate.

 

So I guess my issue is why can big business on the federal level contribute to elect these people but it is a crime on the state level?

 

Also, the CLEAN ELECTIONS here in AZ is in question as a federal judge has struck most of it down and it may go away. It is a fair and HONEST method of collecting funds for a candidate.....now it is history for the most part.

 

So, where does that leave me if I run? It leaves me with two choices: Use my own money to fund my election, or ask people who are already cash strapped to give $$$ to my cause.

 

The max a person can give me is $410.00 throughout the campaign and not a penny more. So that is interesting how big business can fund the fed positions, but state, county and municipal elections are funded privately....seems unfair.

 

I have a few weeks to make up my mind about this.....I will keep you posted.

 

 

[chrisolson]

... I believe I'll have another Coke ...

Make mine a Classic !!

[Whip]

Many interesting comments here. My main reason for the post is I AM CONSIDERING a political office here in AZ. Election campaign funds cannot be collected from anyone but individuals. To do so is a crime. Any business, PAC (or other similar org.) can't donate.

 

So I guess my issue is why can big business on the federal level contribute to elect these people but it is a crime on the state level?

 

Also, the CLEAN ELECTIONS here in AZ is in question as a federal judge has struck most of it down and it may go away. It is a fair and HONEST method of collecting funds for a candidate.....now it is history for the most part.

 

So, where does that leave me if I run? It leaves me with two choices: Use my own money to fund my election, or ask people who are already cash strapped to give $$$ to my cause.

 

The max a person can give me is $410.00 throughout the campaign and not a penny more. So that is interesting how big business can fund the fed positions, but state, county and municipal elections are funded privately....seems unfair.

 

I have a few weeks to make up my mind about this.....I will keep you posted.

 

 

I'll match whatever that Kawasaki dealer donates.

 

 

 

[Lets_Play_Two]

"I'm more concerned that the rights of individuals are now extended directly to Corporations and Unions. Having played in both worlds for almost all of my adult working years, neither represents their employees or members ... they represents the opinion of the owners or management. So freedom of speach is in fact reduced, not expanded."

 

How does management having a voice diminish your right to say what you want? I curious as to why the company has to speak for the employees. It may be different for unions since they are "hired" by the employees to represent them. Shouldn't a taxpayer have a voice? We say corporations are not individuals and are not mentioned in the constitution, but they are required to support the same government that individuals are required to support.