The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

QuoteWASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247/ns/politics-supreme_court/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247/ns/politics-supreme_court/)

Anyone else think this means the individual has that much less of an influence over choosing our leaders?

It means we are ->this<- far away from candidates dressing like Nascar drivers.

This is a bad decision but an interesting way to argue it as a first amendment issue.

That damned "Freedom of Speech" thing mucking up our political process again.

It also means that corporate will have more say as to the stupid arguments we read about in the news.

"I support (insert candidate here) because I've been told to do so even more this time than last."

"You should leave the country since you don't support (insert position on healthcare/economy/war/etc) the same way I've been told to support (insert position on healthcare/economy/war/etc)."

"Why do you support (insert anything here)?"
"Because the Keebler Elves support it"

It means we're effed is what it means.  When money = speech, those who have more money get heard more.

And corporations -- surprise! -- have more money than all of us combined. Regulating anything just got a billion times harder.  

Can anyone tell me why corporations deserve the same protections that individuals do?

Quote from: we vs us on January 21, 2010, 10:11:59 AM


Can anyone tell me why corporations deserve the same protections that individuals do?

We have that silly 14th Amendment thingy. Also, you used the word "regulating". Regulate what exactly? Because if you mean regulate speech, then I want to know to what extent you are willing to go. Does that mean that "rich" people should also be restricted from donating to campaigns?

Guido, did you read Stephen's dissenting opinion?  I think he was spot on.  The average voter doesn't want more corporate influence in DC.  I honestly think that had a lot to do with the record amounts President Obama raised from individuals in small amounts by exploiting the internet, same as Howard Dean did in '04.

Please explain your logic, because I fail to see how allowing corporations to openly influence decisions in Congress and the Executive Branch is a good thing and I fail to see how restricting the flow of cash in this way was a first amendment issue.

This is going to create even more of a resentment gap between corporate America and the average citizen.

Wrong direction SCOTUS.

Since corporations were recognized as having individual rights a few years back, wasn't it inevitable that they would also have first amendment rights? I don't remember the decision clearly. Something about suing for defamation?

Both bad decisions imo. Stockholders ought to at least be polled before corporates represent their views politically.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2010, 10:56:18 AM
Guido, did you read Stephen's dissenting opinion?  I think he was spot on.  The average voter doesn't want more corporate influence in DC.  I honestly think that had a lot to do with the record amounts President Obama raised from individuals in small amounts by exploiting the internet, same as Howard Dean did in '04.

Please explain your logic, because I fail to see how allowing corporations to openly influence decisions in Congress and the Executive Branch is a good thing and I fail to see how restricting the flow of cash in this way was a first amendment issue.

This is going to create even more of a resentment gap between corporate America and the average citizen.

Wrong direction SCOTUS.

I read the entire opinion. Very lengthy. I found this passage persuasive:

QuoteThe law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—eitherto expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30days of a primary election and 60 days of a general elec-tion. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucialphase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favorslogging in national forests; the National Rifle Associationpublishes a book urging the public to vote for the chal-lenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Unioncreates 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.
Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstand-ing the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 330–333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b's expendi-ture ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation tospeak—and it does not—the option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive toadminister and subject to extensive regulations.

My take on Stephens' dissenting view is that its premised on a public policy view. To me, and this is just to me, when you try to apply a public policy argument to a first amendment right, which by long standing jurisprudential (yep, I busted out a big word) authority requires a strict scrutiny standard if the government seeks to impose restrictions, I will side on not restricting the right because of the danger of a slippery slope.

Now, if you want to find something to worry about, it would be this passage from the Roberts/Alito concurrence:

Quotestare decisis is neither an "inexorable command," Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003),nor "a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision," Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119 (1940),especially in constitutional cases, see United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 101 (1978).

I took that as a signal of things to come.

Quote from: waterboy on January 21, 2010, 11:04:42 AM
Since corporations were recognized as having individual rights a few years back, wasn't it inevitable that they would also have first amendment rights? I don't remember the decision clearly. Something about suing for defamation?

Both bad decisions imo. Stockholders ought to at least be polled before corporates represent their views politically.

The concept of corporate personhood under the 14th amendment has been around for over 120 years (which is why I was being "smug" with wevsus because I mistakenly thought most knew about this concept), and I believe it began with a case where a railroad was being taxed. My feeling is that if one is taxed, be it a person or a corporation, it should have a voice in the political process.

We are a country buy and for the corporation....

Guido, do you realize the ramifications?  Do you like the idea of the Chinese, Saudis, Russians or any other foriegn government financing political campaigns?

"Alan Grayson's diary : In a 5-to-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations have the "right" to spend an unlimited amount of money to influence and manipulate federal elections. The decision overturns more than a century of law and precedent. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) immediately condemned the decision. "This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case," Grayson said. "It leads us all down the road to serfdom."

The court decision completely ignores the likelihood that corporations will spend money to elect officials who will do their bidding, and punish those who won't. It allows unlimited election spending by all corporations, even foreign ones. "The Supreme Court has decided to protect the rights of GE, Volkswagen, Lukoil and Aramco, at the expense of our right to good government," Grayson added.

Congressman Grayson was in the courtroom when the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision. Grayson circulated a petition yesterday, saying: "Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means the government is up for sale, and that the law itself will be bought and sold." Within hours, over 10,000 people had signed the petition. Rep. Grayson delivered those petitions to the Court this morning. "
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/21/828179 /-The-Decision



Blame the Dims too. They could have filibustered Bush's nominations but caved to the threat of the Republicans doing away with the filibuster. Of course now they don't have the balls to use the same tactic.

A point on NPR:  multi-national corporations owned by an entity outside the U.S. can now pump as much money as they want into advertising for or against a candidate.

I'd imagine some people will stand outside with signs supporting these points of view without having any idea who's view it is.

This is on par with or worse than the demented eminent domain decision.

I'm hardly a coporate basher, but this is simply incredibly poor decision by the court.  What next? Each corporation is going to get a vote?

Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and corporate spending becomes moot.  Most political campaign advertising is on television, and as I seem to recall, the airwaves belong to the public, not corporations.  Therefore it's in the public interest to offer balanced programming.  If Umbrella Corporation wants to throw their support behind Joe Yahooti's senatorial race in Raccoon City by purchasing huge blocks of advertising time, his opponent gets the same amount of time on local airwaves.  

Quote from: Ed W on January 21, 2010, 03:34:56 PM
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and corporate spending becomes moot.  Most political campaign advertising is on television, and as I seem to recall, the airwaves belong to the public, not corporations.  Therefore it's in the public interest to offer balanced programming.  If Umbrella Corporation wants to throw their support behind Joe Yahooti's senatorial race in Raccoon City by purchasing huge blocks of advertising time, his opponent gets the same amount of time on local airwaves.  

Nope, that's not the way it would work, from what I understand.  The fairness doctrine would only apply to programming, not paid advertising.

The Fairness Doctrine sucks anyhow.  How does anyone determine what is "balanced" and how would you police that with the massive blogosphere?

I am not unsympathetic to the points you all are making in opposing this decision. My hang up is that our founding fathers were very clear in penning the first amendment, which in part prescribes that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...". The bottom line is that you and those who supported McCain-Feingold want to "write in" an exception to that unequivocal proscription on Congress. Maybe make it read like "Congress shall  make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech unless you are a corporation".

I don't think this is one of those situations that cannot be repaired by passing a law.

Conan, if a corporation can be taxed like you and face criminal penalty if they break laws like you, why can't they be permitted to participate in the political process to affect/change tax or regulatory policy like you can?

Quote from: Ed W on January 21, 2010, 03:34:56 PM
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and corporate spending becomes moot.  Most political campaign advertising is on television, and as I seem to recall, the airwaves belong to the public, not corporations.  Therefore it's in the public interest to offer balanced programming.  If Umbrella Corporation wants to throw their support behind Joe Yahooti's senatorial race in Raccoon City by purchasing huge blocks of advertising time, his opponent gets the same amount of time on local airwaves.  

Me thinks this "Bring back the Fairness Doctrine" thought is more about a response to Air American going t!ts up and ceasing all operations later this month.

http://airamerica.com/

Quote from: FOTD on January 21, 2010, 03:00:47 PM

Guido, do you realize the ramifications?  Do you like the idea of the Chinese, Saudis, Russians or any other foriegn government financing political campaigns?

No, but I also did not like "Family Guy", "King Kong", "Mickey Mouse", and "Test Person" making donations to Obama's campaign. Funny how that does not seem to be a problem.

Quote from: guido911 on January 21, 2010, 04:04:41 PM
I am not unsympathetic to the points you all are making in opposing this decision. My hang up is that our founding fathers were very clear in penning the first amendment, which in part prescribes that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...". The bottom line is that you and those who supported McCain-Feingold want to "write in" an exception to that unequivocal proscription on Congress. Maybe make it read like "Congress shall  make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech unless you are a corporation".

I don't think this is one of those situations that cannot be repaired by passing a law.

Conan, if a corporation can be taxed like you and face criminal penalty if they break laws like you, why can't they be permitted to participate in the political process to affect/change tax or regulatory policy like you can?

Let's be honest here. They already affect elections by their board members making contributions, money gets funneled into PACs and SIGs.  I see a very big can of worms being opened here by taking restrictions away which could allow corporate interests to usurp individual interests simply by writing big checks.  In my view, this is tantamount to openly allowing corporate bribery of the Presidency and Congress.

Where does it end, Guido? This isn't about having a voice, this is about paying for control of government and I think the founding fathers would find it repugnant that quite literally, a foreign corporation could literally upset an issue by pouring millions upon millions into elections. 

Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2010, 03:42:54 PM
Nope, that's not the way it would work, from what I understand.  The fairness doctrine would only apply to programming, not paid advertising.

The Fairness Doctrine sucks anyhow.  How does anyone determine what is "balanced" and how would you police that with the massive blogosphere?

This old ditty again? 

Strange how we twist words to sell OUR ambitions. 

Liberals (from the Latin liberalis), meaning to be free or representative of free thought, yet politically, the furthest away from freedom on nearly every issue.  They seem only to be free in embracing the chains of regulation, taxation, and all strange manners of control and force.  Legislating everything from what we eat, what we learn, and now who we can see, listen to, and read.

Why are such people always the first to embrace limits on freedom when the popular is not representative of their ideology?  Why should millions of free men and women, through force, be subject to media that they do not desire?. . .simply because a small elite feels it is in the people's best interest?  Insane!

At the base of the argument is the battle against free-market.  Media is an industry supported by advertisers.  Yes money dictates access, and money follows viewership numbers. 

Trap set. . .3. . .2. . .1. . .


It is much cheaper and enormously more profitable for the special interests to purchase the regulatory favors of Washington's political harlots than to compete in a fair, unsubsidized markeplace. – Lee Robinson

Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2010, 04:30:32 PM
Let's be honest here. They already affect elections by their board members making contributions, money gets funneled into PACs and SIGs.  I see a very big can of worms being opened here by taking restrictions away which could allow corporate interests to usurp individual interests simply by writing big checks.  In my view, this is tantamount to openly allowing corporate bribery of the Presidency and Congress.

Where does it end, Guido? This isn't about having a voice, this is about paying for control of government and I think the founding fathers would find it repugnant that quite literally, a foreign corporation could literally upset an issue by pouring millions upon millions into elections. 

I get your point and I said I am not unsympathetic to it. But what do you do in the face of the constitution? Just pretend it does not exist or just ignore it? The majority opinion was in my opinion well reasoned and its holding absolutely consistent with the first amendment. I know you read it, what do you believe was flawed with the legal analysis? Let me ask it this way, do you agree that prior to the decision censorship of speech was occurring? If so, and you are okay with that as it seems, why stop at corporations?

I will concede your point about foreign corps upsetting an issue by pouring millions in. After all, we have just seen that result with the union exclusions in the health care bill and on a similar scale the Senate literally buying support from its member for the bill with our tax dollars.

Finally, as for millions being flooded in by the wealthy corps and buying elections, if such were true we would have a President Perot or a President Kerry.

Quote from: guido911 on January 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
I get your point and I said I am not unsympathetic to it. But what do you do in the face of the constitution? Just pretend it does not exist or just ignore it? The majority opinion was in my opinion well reasoned and its holding absolutely consistent with the first amendment. I know you read it, what do you believe was flawed with the legal analysis? Let me ask it this way, do you agree that prior to the decision censorship of speech was occurring? If so, and you are okay with that as it seems, why stop at corporations?

I will concede your point about foreign corps upsetting an issue by pouring millions in. After all, we have just seen that result with the union exclusions in the health care bill and on a similar scale the Senate literally buying support from its member for the bill with our tax dollars.

Finally, as for millions being flooded in by the wealthy corps and buying elections, if such were true we would have a President Perot or a President Kerry.

Guido, we don't need no sympathy as that is for the devil. But pray tell me why you think the constitution speaks towards corporate (be it foreign or domestic) rights? The over bearing emphasis of our laws speak toward the individual and the first ten have nothing to do with corporations at all. This decision is baseless unless you have a reactionary majority in SCOTUS (gawd it's hard not to type SCROTUM). Also, do you have a problem with public funding for elections with no allowance allowed out of personal funds nor any right for trade out (Yes, we know that advertising nation would have a fit along with the media as spending would be slashed but what better example could we send to our out of control spending government?) What would our elected representatives profile resemble after several spending controlled elections?

Guido, again, corporations had a voice already via individual employee and board member contributions, SIGs & PACs. I think FOTD is spot on with his assertion that the Bill of Rights was about individual rights. The founding fathers could not have imagined huge corporations we have today nor the sort of influence they could seek to buy.

This is a huge can of worms they have unleashed.

http://www.mixx.com/stories/10540422/statement_from_the_president_on_today_s_supreme_court_decision_the_white_house

FINALLY!

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

Change the system .... or lose your country to evil!

Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2010, 06:14:55 PM
Guido, again, corporations had a voice already via individual employee and board member contributions, SIGs & PACs. I think FOTD is spot on with his assertion that the Bill of Rights was about individual rights. The founding fathers could not have imagined huge corporations we have today nor the sort of influence they could seek to buy.

This is a huge can of worms they have unleashed.

With Conan, FOTD and I in agreement, this is strange-bedfellows time.

But you'd have to be a fool or oblivious to not see how big corporate money in politics isn't corrupting. Proclaiming a curb on corporate money in politics as unconstitutional is certainly dubious -- especially when the founding fathers were already well aware from their British counterparts of how bad it was to concentrate power in very few hands.

That's why I'm intensely suspicious of those who argue for "strict constructionist" judges on the Supreme Court -- when the irrefutable job of those judges is to interpret a vaguely worded Constitution amid constantly changing times. And I would challenge anyone to find evidence that any of the founding fathers would have advocated such unfettered spending by corporations in the political process.

I'm sure this will eventually be overturned by a future high court or, less likely, a constitutional amendment is ratified when it is shown how abundantly bad this decision was.

It will be too late....FOTD is now looking at better opportunities abroad....

And, you will now notice this: UCSA instead of USA in my posts.

Oh, when you see SCROTUM, that's symbolic and it will be used to replace SCOTUS in my posts even though it could very well read SCOTUCSA.

It's disgusting and worse what the Busheviks did to the Judicial Branch for the people by (now buy) the people with their appointments. It's even more sick that the Democrats in Washington were and still are such pu$$y's!

Quote from: rwarn17588 on January 21, 2010, 07:34:42 PM
With Conan, FOTD and I in agreement, this is strange-bedfellows time.

Add me to that agreement list too- strange indeed.

I am not disagreeing with anyone that today's ruling could result in millions of corporate dollars getting infused into campaigns. My sole position has been and remains that the ruling was absolutely consistent with the first amendment. No one has pointed to anything in the opinion that amounts to faulty reasoning, only that the opinion basically sucks.  

Conan and aox, I remember in a con law class I had in college (not law school) when we were discussing the Bill of Rights, and the one thing I recall the prof saying was these ten amendments were essentially the Bill of Wrongs. Meaning, it provides a list of restrictions on government power. I believe that is what the first amendment is about--proscriptions of government restricting inter alia speech, press, and assembly. The position that these rights were intended to be given to individuals and not groups (or corporations) is simply not supported by anything. The law has been settled for generations that corporations are "persons" for purposes of the 14th amendment which, by other case law, provides them federal rights. That should end the discussion from a legal point of view. Unfortunately, the fact that the Supremes may have opened up a Pandora's box is a consequence of following our constitution, and I do not make that statement cavalierly. It's reality. Moreover, contextually, freedom of the press and assembly quite plainly were intended to apply to groups and not individuals. Of course we will not reach the second, third, ninth and tenth amendments, four of the Bill of Rights, have little to do with individuals.


Conan, respectfully (which I know will be taken as so), whether the founding fathers "would not have imagined huge corporations we have today nor the sort of influence they could seek to buy" is both irrelevant and obfuscates the issue.  If that were the case, the advancement of modern technology would have caused James Madison to stroke out over the original draft of the fourth amendment or the perversion of the first amendment by the New York Times in revealing nation secrets during a time of war.  

RW:  What about the unfettered spending by unions and trial lawyers? oh that's right, they support dems.

The only solution now is to amend the constitution which carves out an exception for corporations. Draft the petition and include unions, I'll sign.

There is no solution you idiot....yes you are...you right wing spooner...you couldn't be objective if your life depended on it...you are such a friggin reactionary...you speak with fork tounge out of both sides of your mouth...at least this devil is progressive and can bend .... but you Doe Doe and your dumbfu#4istanian ilk are inflexible to the point that ruins this once Great cuntry.

Just curious, what kind of dick bump backs legalized bribery? The RePukelickans call it a victory for free speech. So sure their next step is going to remove censorship on tv and unregulation on radio broadcasting. Pi$$ant hypocrite. And when you say, "The law has been settled for generations that corporations are "persons" for purposes of the 14th amendment which, by other case law, provides them federal rights" it only goes to show how you basterdize the Constitution to fit your own arrogant desires. Your type continues to prick the truth with manipulative unmitigated bullsh!t to fit your needs.

Clarence Thomas is probably your favorite Supreme. Or is it one of the other evil fawk wads? Roberts, Alito and Scalia? Or that swinging dude Kennedy?
Who do you love? China? Saudi Arabia? The Emirates? The Russians?

You betcha, Guido!

Quote from: guido911 on January 21, 2010, 09:51:30 AM
That damned "Freedom of Speech" thing mucking up our political process again.

Money is no more speech than it is food.

Corporate personhood was no more intended by the 14th amendment than abortion was intended to be a constitutional right under the 5th amendment. All of these things are solely fantasy made up by the Court, regardless of my opinion upon the issues themselves.

I think they money as speech thing is probably the stupidest of all.

Besides, any time the government tries to restrict individual freedom of speech (through "time, place, and manner" laws), the Court seems to go along. Somehow restricting when a corporation may advocate the election of a particular political candidate through advertising doesn't manage to fall under that exception, either.

Wow, FOTD, did you tie one on last night?  Quite a rant.

Something I'm stuck on is this:

If free speech is free speech and it includes corporate entities, how does the FCC legally get away with imposing fines upon radio personalities and the corporations they work for if they broadcast something "offensive"?  Isn't that restricting first amendment rights when the government has a list of things they consider offensive and can assess penalties for broadcasting offensive speech?

There must be several different standards at work here, either that or I'm a lot more ignorant of contitutional law than I give myself credit for.

Nathan, good one: "I think they money as speech thing is probably the stupidest of all."

I honestly still am stunned the conservative majority of SCOTUS came up with this.  I truly understand the Constitution was intended to be a living document subject to interpretation over the ages, this simply is the wrong interpretation.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 22, 2010, 08:30:05 AM
Wow, FOTD, did you tie one on last night?  Quite a rant.

Something I'm stuck on is this:

If free speech is free speech and it includes corporate entities, how does the FCC legally get away with imposing fines upon radio personalities and the corporations they work for if they broadcast something "offensive"?  Isn't that restricting first amendment rights when the government has a list of things they consider offensive and can assess penalties for broadcasting offensive speech?

There must be several different standards at work here, either that or I'm a lot more ignorant of contitutional law than I give myself credit for.

Nathan, good one: "I think they money as speech thing is probably the stupidest of all."

I honestly still am stunned the conservative majority of SCOTUS came up with this.  I truly understand the Constitution was intended to be a living document subject to interpretation over the ages, this simply is the wrong interpretation.

There *are* different standards. It's that the FCC controls a finite resource called bandwidth and airwaves, mostly to keep frequencies from bumping into each other, but that's not the only reason. For the public interest, the FCC says you can't use George Carlin's seven words or other such things without repercussions. I'm not saying that's right, but that's the argument.

I think the argument is becoming more and more weak, however, when you have a gazillion channels on cable and satellite TV, plus competitors on Internet and satellite radio. I don't think the "finite" airwaves argument holds water anymore.

And, yes, I agree with Conan that this was a horrible decision.

And, yes, I agree that based on FOTD's increasingly erratic posts, he/she has been tying one on frequently in recent days, to where it wouldn't surprise me if he/she is found in a ditch, cradling a bottle with one hand and a bong in the other.

And yes, guido, I'd sign any law in a New York minute that would forbid money to politicians from unions, lawyer groups, corporations, and the like. If you want a voice in politics, write a letter, send an e-mail, make a phone call, or go to town hall meetings like everyone else.

Quote from: FOTD on January 21, 2010, 11:33:48 PM
There is no solution you idiot....yes you are...you right wing spooner...you couldn't be objective if your life depended on it...you are such a friggin reactionary...you speak with fork tounge out of both sides of your mouth...at least this devil is progressive and can bend .... but you Doe Doe and your dumbfu#4istanian ilk are inflexible to the point that ruins this once Great cuntry.

Just curious, what kind of dick bump backs legalized bribery? The RePukelickans call it a victory for free speech. So sure their next step is going to remove censorship on tv and unregulation on radio broadcasting. Pi$$ant hypocrite. And when you say, "The law has been settled for generations that corporations are "persons" for purposes of the 14th amendment which, by other case law, provides them federal rights" it only goes to show how you basterdize the Constitution to fit your own arrogant desires. Your type continues to prick the truth with manipulative unmitigated bullsh!t to fit your needs.

Clarence Thomas is probably your favorite Supreme. Or is it one of the other evil fawk wads? Roberts, Alito and Scalia? Or that swinging dude Kennedy?
Who do you love? China? Saudi Arabia? The Emirates? The Russians?

You betcha, Guido!

Ladies and Gentlemen, you have just witnessed what losing an argument looks like on the internet. Now, let me introduce you to aox:

Quote from: FOTD on January 21, 2010, 11:33:48 PM
There is no solution you idiot....yes you are...you right wing spooner...you couldn't be objective if your life depended on it...you are such a friggin reactionary...you speak with fork tounge out of both sides of your mouth...at least this devil is progressive and can bend .... but you Doe Doe and your dumbfu#4istanian ilk are inflexible to the point that ruins this once Great cuntry.

Just curious, what kind of dick bump backs legalized bribery? The RePukelickans call it a victory for free speech. So sure their next step is going to remove censorship on tv and unregulation on radio broadcasting. Pi$$ant hypocrite. And when you say, "The law has been settled for generations that corporations are "persons" for purposes of the 14th amendment which, by other case law, provides them federal rights" it only goes to show how you basterdize the Constitution to fit your own arrogant desires. Your type continues to prick the truth with manipulative unmitigated bullsh!t to fit your needs.

Clarence Thomas is probably your favorite Supreme. Or is it one of the other evil fawk wads? Roberts, Alito and Scalia? Or that swinging dude Kennedy?
Who do you love? China? Saudi Arabia? The Emirates? The Russians?

You betcha, Guido!

You have just described your-self, party and  president to a tee.....

Quote from: FOTD on January 21, 2010, 11:33:48 PM
There is no solution you idiot....yes you are...you right wing spooner...you couldn't be objective if your life depended on it...you are such a friggin reactionary...you speak with fork tounge out of both sides of your mouth...at least this devil is progressive and can bend .... but you Doe Doe and your dumbfu#4istanian ilk are inflexible to the point that ruins this once Great cuntry.

Just curious, what kind of dick bump backs legalized bribery? The RePukelickans call it a victory for free speech. So sure their next step is going to remove censorship on tv and unregulation on radio broadcasting. Pi$$ant hypocrite. And when you say, "The law has been settled for generations that corporations are "persons" for purposes of the 14th amendment which, by other case law, provides them federal rights" it only goes to show how you basterdize the Constitution to fit your own arrogant desires. Your type continues to prick the truth with manipulative unmitigated bullsh!t to fit your needs.

Clarence Thomas is probably your favorite Supreme. Or is it one of the other evil fawk wads? Roberts, Alito and Scalia? Or that swinging dude Kennedy?
Who do you love? China? Saudi Arabia? The Emirates? The Russians?

You betcha, Guido!

FAIL!

That slasher Burner shows up with another slap happy attempt at discussion.....you ole dick bump sucker puncher.

Defend your position.

Try this on for size: Appoint more than 9 justices to SCOTUCSA. There's nothing in the constitution regarding number of chief justices. Correct me if wrong because FOTD can admit he's wrong which none of you seem to be able to recognize.

Scanned through Fox News last night and surprisingly, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren didn't mention the very controversial and pro-corporatist Citizens Untied ruling by the Supreme court. Not a word. It reminds me of how they pretty much ignored the Haiti earthquake.

If the teabaggers are truly as opposed to corporate power as they claim, they logically would hate this ruling.
Logic ain't big with Dunbfuckistanians.

WalMart is practically this cuntry's State department in China. The White House should stop thinking about "right" vs. "left" divisive terminology.  What we the people want to simply know is "whose side are you on?"
The Repukelican justices are on the side of global corporate governance.

Quote from: FOTD on January 22, 2010, 11:07:18 AM
That slasher Burner shows up with another slap happy attempt at discussion.....you ole dick bump sucker puncher.

Defend your position.

Try this on for size: Appoint more than 9 justices to SCOTUCSA. There's nothing in the constitution regarding number of chief justices. Correct me if wrong because FOTD can admit he's wrong which none of you seem to be able to recognize.

Scanned through Fox News last night and surprisingly, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren didn't mention the very controversial and pro-corporatist Citizens Untied ruling by the Supreme court. Not a word. It reminds me of how they pretty much ignored the Haiti earthquake.

If the teabaggers are truly as opposed to corporate power as they claim, they logically would hate this ruling.
Logic ain't big with Dunbfuckistanians.

WalMart is practically this cuntry's State department in China. The White House should stop thinking about "right" vs. "left" divisive terminology.  What we the people want to simply know is "whose side are you on?"
The Repukelican justices are on the side of global corporate governance.

You next nic can be SCROTUS.....

Quote from: FOTD on January 22, 2010, 11:07:18 AM
That slasher Burner shows up with another slap happy attempt at discussion.....you ole dick bump sucker puncher.

Defend your position.

Try this on for size: Appoint more than 9 justices to SCOTUCSA. There's nothing in the constitution regarding number of chief justices. Correct me if wrong because FOTD can admit he's wrong which none of you seem to be able to recognize.

Scanned through Fox News last night and surprisingly, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren didn't mention the very controversial and pro-corporatist Citizens Untied ruling by the Supreme court. Not a word. It reminds me of how they pretty much ignored the Haiti earthquake.

If the teabaggers are truly as opposed to corporate power as they claim, they logically would hate this ruling.
Logic ain't big with Dunbfuckistanians.

WalMart is practically this cuntry's State department in China. The White House should stop thinking about "right" vs. "left" divisive terminology.  What we the people want to simply know is "whose side are you on?"
The Repukelican justices are on the side of global corporate governance.

Someone got up on the wrong side of the bong.

Gassie, defend a position. Name calling is my forte, but you also will find truth there.

Where do you stand on this ruling?

Quote from: FOTD on January 22, 2010, 11:33:50 AM
Gassie, defend a position. Name calling is my forte, but you also will find truth there.

Where do you stand on this ruling?

Ok, I am in 100% agreement with the Supreme Court.  As Justice Kennedy said "The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."   Holy Crap!  Someone in Washington read the constitution.

You see, ultimately it is the voter that makes the decision.  Corporations, individuals, and other groups of people should be free to promote candidates as they see fit.  This action should not be taken without disclaimer or permission of the candidate and it is the voter's decision to support that message dependant on their support of the candidate or the group that wishes to promote that candidate.

The biggest fear here, and rightfully so, is that the Republicans typically have the support of successful companies because Republican policies support business growth and success.  Conversely the Democrats typically have the support of the unions, medical industry, social groups, and litigators (lawyers) because their policies support government growth in the legislative and judicial sectors and support the success and finance of such groups through taxation (looting of course).

This ruling is aligned with the constitution.  Now that is not to say that the looters will not attempt to change the constitution.  Worry not FOTD, those you hail are, as we speak, toiling to eliminate the first amendment. I have no doubt their efforts will be both creative and entertaining.  Nader's already on it!  He has demanded "a constitutional corrective."  LOL!

It's important for people to know where the money currently comes from: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2010

Gaspar, I don't think anyone believes corporations should be muzzled or not free to support candidates.  But, essentially allowing corporations unfettered financial access to candidates just ripens the tree for even more corruption in Washington.  While one argument I'm hearing is: "this levels the playing field between unions and corporations in politics", this also could allow asshats like Hugo Chavez to push money via CITGO, quite legally,  into the coffers of very left-leaning candidates.  I can even envision corporations being created to take advantage of this ruling.

I see this as leading to rule by an even narrower, well-funded ruling class with even fewer altruistic motives, which doesn't have individual liberties as their primary objective.

Only time will tell if I'm wrong, but I suspect this ruling is going to come back and bite conservatives in the a$s.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 22, 2010, 01:48:51 PM

Only time will tell if I'm wrong, but I suspect this ruling is going to come back and bite conservatives in the a$s.

When this goes wrong blame will be thrown from both sides of the aisle.  Every a$s will be gnawed on.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 22, 2010, 12:52:21 PM
Ok, I am in 100% agreement with the Supreme Court.  As Justice Kennedy said "The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."   Holy Crap!  Someone in Washington read the constitution.

You see, ultimately it is the voter that makes the decision.  Corporations, individuals, and other groups of people should be free to promote candidates as they see fit.  This action should not be taken without disclaimer or permission of the candidate and it is the voter's decision to support that message dependant on their support of the candidate or the group that wishes to promote that candidate.

The biggest fear here, and rightfully so, is that the Republicans typically have the support of successful companies because Republican policies support business growth and success.  Conversely the Democrats typically have the support of the unions, medical industry, social groups, and litigators (lawyers) because their policies support government growth in the legislative and judicial sectors and support the success and finance of such groups through taxation (looting of course).

This ruling is aligned with the constitution.  Now that is not to say that the looters will not attempt to change the constitution.  Worry not FOTD, those you hail are, as we speak, toiling to eliminate the first amendment. I have no doubt their efforts will be both creative and entertaining.  Nader's already on it!  He has demanded "a constitutional corrective."  LOL!

It's important for people to know where the money currently comes from: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2010

So. You really have no clear vision of where this is headed? Ralph Nader sucks we can agree on. But you should love the fact he helped Bush get elected setting the stage for a radical court.

Do you see no conflict of interest being forced on voters? Can't disagree with the way you have framed which special interest groups belong to which party but without regard to who works for them and who they work for it becomes meaningless. The future might hold much different alliances and who knows how much uncontrolled spending to lie to the voters.


FOTD could rage on but it would be a waste of time...he's out buying small amounts of the securities tied to the present and future Corporatist's in order to disrupt stockholder meetings and some political agendas.

But here's a decent read because it's important to see the future:

http://www.opensecrets.org/ vote in this poll.



Analysis: Winners, losers in Supreme Court ruling
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_campaign_finance_winners_losers_analysis;_ylt=AhkP3rNSLWjcVHUxJxo8zGOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQ2bGZkY3FsBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIxL3VzX2NhbXBhaWduX2ZpbmFuY2Vfd2lubmVyc19sb3NlcnNfYW

" WASHINGTON – Big business and free speech won. Campaign finance reform lost. Political parties and many candidates, too. And for voters, there's both an upside and a downside.
The Supreme Court's monumental decision upending decades of campaign finance law has a slew of winners and losers.
It frees corporations, and by extension unions, to spend as much as they want to call for the victory or defeat of federal political candidates — by name — in commercials and literature. As long as there's no coordination with the candidates or campaigns.
The ruling cuts both ways for voters. They will probably get more information about candidates. But they'll probably have to endure an even bigger crush of ads on their TVs and radios, as well as leaflets in their mailboxes.
Thursday's decision shook the political landscape, and it could have an enormous effect on this fall's midterm elections and beyond. Here's a look at who made out and who didn't.
WINNER:
_Voters. Not sure where a candidate stands on an issue? Not sure how to vote? Need more information to make a wise decision? Never fear. Corporations and unions are likely to tell you their version of things now that they're freed from restrictions. But buyer beware: It's still up to voters to separate fact from fiction.
LOSER:
_Voters. Had enough of campaign ads? Too bad. People probably will have to endure even more now that corporations and unions can spend as much as they want from their general treasuries right up to the moment of an election. Voters will have to discern the motivations behind the ad campaigns as best they can. And more ads will only boost the potential for more salacious spots and negative campaigning.
WINNER:
_Corporations and unions. These high-dollar entities can now can spend freely to support or oppose named candidates for president and Congress. By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling barring such ads.
LOSER:
_Political parties and many candidates. More voices in the mix means candidates and parties will have even less control of the message. And they won't be able to do anything to stop groups from running ads they don't like. Still, cash-strapped candidates could welcome such independent spending that attacks an opponent. Political parties now face more restrictions than outside groups on election-time communications.
WINNER:
_The First Amendment. The ruling was clearly a victory for this pillar of democracy. Critics of the stricter limits had argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed. There certainly will be even more of a marketplace of ideas. Corporations and unions can now advertise what they please.
LOSER:
_Civility and truthfulness. Watch out candidates: You may not like what you hear. And there will be little you can do about it. Both Republicans and Democrats say ads are likely to get tougher now that outside groups can expressly advocate for or against candidates. And it will be up to voters to sort through the clutter.
WINNER:
_Media companies, TV and radio stations. They already see a financial windfall every two and four years during congressional and presidential campaigns. Paydays could be even bigger now. A flood of corporate and union money for ads in federal campaigns is expected as early as this fall's midterm campaigns.
LOSERS:
_Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. They are the fathers of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that sought to restrain the influence of money on elections. The justices struck down the part of the law that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Liz Sidoti has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 2003.


And you think FOTD can rage....sh!t, he's not even on a big nationwide network.


"this corporate nation"

As we grow more and more globalized.  We will start seeing foreign countries having sway in our elections.

FOTD, the AP analysis was interesting and took a logical look at the issue. For once, thanks for re-posting something in it's entirety.

This thing is going to twist and contort in the wind until it rots off the rope, but it does not change the fact that it did not pass the constitutional test.

I guess my fault is that I am a free-market libertarian, and as such I believe that the "market" is synonymous with the people.  We are the voters, we are the companies, and we are the special interests.  CFR only serves to restrict corporate giving, special interests like unions and other lobby groups have found a way around it by bundling.  This bundling has created so much fog that no one knows where all of the money is coming from.  Dead people are writing checks.  Individual bank accounts are being used to launder donations.  CFR created noting more than political moonshine. 

We have an administration that has more links to special interests and lobbies groups than any other in history, they just happen to be the special interests and lobbies that you like. 

We are not going to agree on this.  I respect your concern. Your disagreement is not with me, it is with the constitution.  This will take a while to shake out.

Quote from: Gaspar on January 22, 2010, 12:52:21 PM
Ok, I am in 100% agreement with the Supreme Court.  As Justice Kennedy said "The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."   Holy Crap!  Someone in Washington read the constitution.

You see, ultimately it is the voter that makes the decision.  Corporations, individuals, and other groups of people should be free to promote candidates as they see fit.  This action should not be taken without disclaimer or permission of the candidate and it is the voter's decision to support that message dependant on their support of the candidate or the group that wishes to promote that candidate.

From where does the Supreme Court derive the authority to modify a state-level fictional entity like a corporation? Last I checked, corporations are not federally chartered. Not only have they completely misinterpreted the Constitution in general and the 14th and 1st admendments in particular, but they have issued yet another ruling on a subject not even within the powers granted to them by the Constitution. In many rulings, the Court has ruled that when a law has excess language that would be superfluous were it to be interpreted in a particular way that that interpretation is invalid. Is not the freedom of the press rendered superfluous by this ruling? It has no valid use, therefore by the Court's own precedent, this opinion is an invalid interpretation of the first amendment.

Moreover, in what way does restricting the speech of the corporation prevent actual humans from exercising their free speech? If the board of directors of a corporation desires to advocate a particular candidate's election, how is their right to free speech abridged by requiring them to spend their own funds instead of corporate funds on that task?

For now, I think the bill in Congress that would require that any political advertisement by a corporation be approved by its shareholders prior to spending the money on said political advertisement would do a decent enough job of keeping things where most Americans think they should be.

A recent poll showed that something like 80% of people in the US think that there is already too much corporate influence in government.

Oh, and Gaspar, please find for me the place in the Constitution that mentions how artificial constructions of law are actually people? Also, please explain how even if the 14th amendment means what you (and the court) think it means, how the 13th Amendment does not ban the ownership of this strange class of so-called people? Ownership, after all, is what makes slavery.

The Court's line of reasoning here is not a line at all, it's more like an impossible knot.

Thursday, January 21, 2010
SCOTUS eviscerates campaign finance regulations: What to do about it
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2797

"No doubt by now you've heard that the Supreme Court's "conservatives" took an axe to regulations that for a century have limited corporate spending on political campaigns. By the slimmest of majorities, SCOTUS ruled today that corporations and unions may spend without limit on political issues and in support of candidates because they have free speech rights under the 1st Amendment just as any actual human being.

The ruling threatens to open floodgates to spending on a massive scale by corporations seeking to advance their own interests against the interests of, well, actual human beings. It should also do nicely to enhance the public's cynicism about corporate influence over legislators (and elective judges). By itself the mere potential for uncontrolled corporate spending will tend to distort political calculations and legislative/judicial decisions – and the public's perception of those things. The impact could be most severe in congressional elections where corporate spending or its potential will be most likely to overwhelm actual humans' spending.

National Republicans are overjoyed at the ruling because they gladly and loudly shill for corporate interests. Democrats are talking about trying to limit the damage caused by this cataclysmic change to campaign financing by enacting new legislation. But what kind? Lyle Denniston expresses skepticism that Congress will be able to find any constitutional and practical solution to this crisis.

To my mind, however, the first step is pretty obvious. Congress should prohibit any corporation from engaging in this new political spending if it has any non-American shareholders or owners. Because after all, foreigners have no 1st Amendment protections.

The "logic" behind the SCOTUS ruling is that a corporation composed of individuals ought to possess the legal attributes of its individual owners. Thus the same logic ought to require that partial foreign ownership renders the corporation a foreign body at least in part. The foreign parts of a corporation have no constitutional right to free speech. And since there is no practical way to distinguish the legal rights of the parts from the rights of the whole corporation (that presumption underpins the SCOTUS ruling), then it's impossible to give American constitutional rights to part of a corporation but withhold them from another part.

Hence it is constitutionally permissible to deny a partly foreign-owned corporation from spending on political speech within the United States. Congress should act to do so immediately.

Why make this a priority? There can't be many large corporations that are entirely owned by American persons. Indeed large corporations would not find it easy to determine the legal status of their actual human owners (that's the rotten core of the Supreme Court's insistence on treating corporations as if they were homunculi, or composite persons). And it should be obvious that the last trade-off that corporations will want to make, in order to be able to interfere directly in political contests, is to drive away foreign investors.

In short, I think the threatened cataclysm to the country's political system can be contained rather nicely in this way. With such legislation it may turn out, in fact, that the Supreme Court's "conservatives" have mainly empowered labor unions to spend freely while doing relatively little to bolster the (already great) clout of corporations."

There is a flaw in that blogger's assertion: we extend our rights to foreigners every day including ones here illegally, and even enemy combatants, apparently.

Quote from: nathanm on January 22, 2010, 04:54:57 PM
From where does the Supreme Court derive the authority to modify a state-level fictional entity like a corporation? Last I checked, corporations are not federally chartered. Not only have they completely misinterpreted the Constitution in general and the 14th and 1st admendments in particular, but they have issued yet another ruling on a subject not even within the powers granted to them by the Constitution. In many rulings, the Court has ruled that when a law has excess language that would be superfluous were it to be interpreted in a particular way that that interpretation is invalid. Is not the freedom of the press rendered superfluous by this ruling? It has no valid use, therefore by the Court's own precedent, this opinion is an invalid interpretation of the first amendment.

Moreover, in what way does restricting the speech of the corporation prevent actual humans from exercising their free speech? If the board of directors of a corporation desires to advocate a particular candidate's election, how is their right to free speech abridged by requiring them to spend their own funds instead of corporate funds on that task?

For now, I think the bill in Congress that would require that any political advertisement by a corporation be approved by its shareholders prior to spending the money on said political advertisement would do a decent enough job of keeping things where most Americans think they should be.

A recent poll showed that something like 80% of people in the US think that there is already too much corporate influence in government.

Oh, and Gaspar, please find for me the place in the Constitution that mentions how artificial constructions of law are actually people? Also, please explain how even if the 14th amendment means what you (and the court) think it means, how the 13th Amendment does not ban the ownership of this strange class of so-called people? Ownership, after all, is what makes slavery.

The Court's line of reasoning here is not a line at all, it's more like an impossible knot.

Nathan! You are the bomb!!! I suspect you are a more serious scholar of the constitution and of practical law than most "free market libertarians" who rely on dogma rather than logic. Thank you.

Quote from: nathanm on January 22, 2010, 04:54:57 PM

Oh, and Gaspar, please find for me the place in the Constitution that mentions how artificial constructions of law are actually people? Also, please explain how even if the 14th amendment means what you (and the court) think it means, how the 13th Amendment does not ban the ownership of this strange class of so-called people? Ownership, after all, is what makes slavery.

It's in the same place in the constitution that authorizes government to run health care and force people under penalty to buy in, find abortion legal, taxing people based on wealth is legal, taking over Chrysler and GM is legal, forcing banks to take TARP is legal.

Your post was a meandering and borderline mindless piece of misunderstanding of constitutional law. You seriously wrote "[f]rom where does the Supreme Court derive the authority to modify a state-level fictional entity like a corporation?" First, a corporation is not fictional. It has stockholders, employees, pays taxes, is subject to criminal penalties for violation of laws, and yes makes money.  Let's see, who else hires people, is subject to taxation, and subjection to criminal penalties? Oh I know, you and every other citizen are! Tell me again how corporations are fictional? Second, and most importantly, if the Supreme Court did not get involved in state-level activities, we would have segregated schools and Jim Crow laws in the south.

Your rant was just another attack on the concept of corporate personhood, which again has been settled for over 120 years. You don't like it? Tough. Amend the constitution. Notwithstanding, I think we now know you support censorship of speech because that is what is completely lost by those opposing this decision.

Waterboy:  You cannot be serious.

aox, posting a rant from Olberdoosh will not improve your argument or your credibility. Here is a clip of Steve Matzberg  taking KO down hard:

http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2010/01/Steve%20Malzberg.mp3

Quote from: guido911 on January 23, 2010, 12:39:55 PM
It's in the same place in the constitution that authorizes government to run health care and force people under penalty to buy in, find abortion legal, taxing people based on wealth is legal, taking over Chrysler and GM is legal, forcing banks to take TARP is legal.

Your post was a meandering and borderline mindless piece of misunderstanding of constitutional law. You seriously wrote "[f]rom where does the Supreme Court derive the authority to modify a state-level fictional entity like a corporation?" First, a corporation is not fictional. It has stockholders, employees, pays taxes, is subject to criminal penalties for violation of laws, and yes makes money.  Let's see, who else hires people, is subject to taxation, and subjection to criminal penalties? Oh I know, you and every other citizen are! Tell me again how corporations are fictional? Second, and most importantly, if the Supreme Court did not get involved in state-level activities, we would have segregated schools and Jim Crow laws in the south.

Your rant was just another attack on the concept of corporate personhood, which again has been settled for over 120 years. You don't like it? Tough. Amend the constitution. Notwithstanding, I think we now know you support censorship of speech because that is what is completely lost by those opposing this decision.

Waterboy:  You cannot be serious.

Actually, I am. I was taught in the business college that a corporation is indeed a fictional construct. Whether or not it is liable for taxes, criminal penalties or creates employment is not relevant to its definition. It was construed as a person for specific legal responsibilities and benefits. It is not a person. Nor is an Authority, an Association or a Club. If a corporation was in fact a "person" then I would deduce one could marry it. (Mr. and Mrs. Steve A. Microsoft). Once consummated by screwing its stockholders,  it would then have all the protections and tax benefits of a legal marriage.:P I would also deduce that anyone who would endeavor to endanger the life of the corporation by hostile takeover or dismantling of its assets would be guilty of corporate abortion or murder if you please.


The reality is that you, and the court, have taken a very expansive view of our founding father's intents to protect free speech. They have in fact committed the ultimate libertarian, conservative sin of "creating law" with their interpretation. I understand how they got there, and agree that it is a logical extension of the earlier decision, but it was unnecessary and indulgent to do so. Nonetheless, if it results in an honest appraisal of how the campaign finance laws have been bastardized and steps are made in congress (the real creator of laws) to repair those laws it may be worthwhile.

Quote from: guido911 on January 23, 2010, 12:51:20 PM
aox, posting a rant from Olberdoosh will not improve your argument or your credibility. Here is a clip of Steve Matzberg  taking KO down hard:

http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2010/01/Steve%20Malzberg.mp3

Jon Stewart Mocks Keith Olbermann Over Scott Brown Attacks

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/21/jon_stewart_mocks_keith_olbermann_over_scott_brown_attacks.html


Olbermann To Jon Stewawrt: Call Me
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/23/olbermann_to_jon_stewawrt_call_me.html

Quote from: guido911 on January 23, 2010, 12:39:55 PM
Your post was a meandering and borderline mindless piece of misunderstanding of constitutional law. You seriously wrote "[f]rom where does the Supreme Court derive the authority to modify a state-level fictional entity like a corporation?" First, a corporation is not fictional. It has stockholders, employees, pays taxes, is subject to criminal penalties for violation of laws, and yes makes money.  Let's see, who else hires people, is subject to taxation, and subjection to criminal penalties? Oh I know, you and every other citizen are! Tell me again how corporations are fictional? Second, and most importantly, if the Supreme Court did not get involved in state-level activities, we would have segregated schools and Jim Crow laws in the south.

Your rant was just another attack on the concept of corporate personhood, which again has been settled for over 120 years. You don't like it? Tough. Amend the constitution. Notwithstanding, I think we now know you support censorship of speech because that is what is completely lost by those opposing this decision.

Waterboy:  You cannot be serious.

Corporations are a legal fiction, Guido. They are not real persons. Even the Supreme Court agrees with that. They just have this strange idea that they have the authority to expand a state-level institution beyond the bounds of the law authorizing it.

And since you apparently haven't figured it out (well, you probably have but preferred to post some disingenuous snark instead, but I'll play along), the Congress and thereby Supreme Court's authority on Jim Crow laws and the like are based in the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments to the US Constitution. The Constitution makes it a federal issue. The Constitution does not make the corporate form a federal issue, except insofar as they engage in interstate commerce.

And just FWIW, I agree with the larger part of your ranty list. There is no Constitutional authority for Roe v. Wade (Griswold, maybe), as much as I wish there were.

Also FWIW, the bill before Congress would not do what you think it will do. Stop listening to right wing hate radio and you might know what's actually in the proposed bill. (not much, actually..it's very weak sauce)

And yes, I proudly support the censorship of the speech of artificially constructed non-persons. Not that money is speech. That's one of the most asinine parts of this result-oriented decision. I also proudly support the right of any natural person to speak as much as they like, no matter how much I disagree. Hell, if the CEO and board of a company want to pool their private funds and buy some ads, go for it. I shouldn't be able to stop them. What I can stop them (the Supreme Court's complete misinterpretation of the Constitution notwithstanding) from doing is spending corporate funds for that purpose.

Finally, the Court wrote "this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."

You actually believe that smile?

And riddle me this..would it be possible for a state to legislate that corporations chartered there lose their privilege of limited liability if it exercises its own "right" to political speech. If not, why not? It's settled law that a state can deny a real person certain privileges if they choose to exercise their right to not incriminate themselves.

Quote from: nathanm on January 23, 2010, 03:59:19 PM
Corporations are a legal fiction, Guido. They are not real persons. Even the Supreme Court agrees with that. They just have this strange idea that they have the authority to expand a state-level institution beyond the bounds of the law authorizing it.

And since you apparently haven't figured it out (well, you probably have but preferred to post some disingenuous snark instead, but I'll play along), the Congress and thereby Supreme Court's authority on Jim Crow laws and the like are based in the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments to the US Constitution. The Constitution makes it a federal issue. The Constitution does not make the corporate form a federal issue, except insofar as they engage in interstate commerce.

And just FWIW, I agree with the larger part of your ranty list. There is no Constitutional authority for Roe v. Wade (Griswold, maybe), as much as I wish there were.

Also FWIW, the bill before Congress would not do what you think it will do. Stop listening to right wing hate radio and you might know what's actually in the proposed bill. (not much, actually..it's very weak sauce)

And yes, I proudly support the censorship of the speech of artificially constructed non-persons. Not that money is speech. That's one of the most asinine parts of this result-oriented decision. I also proudly support the right of any natural person to speak as much as they like, no matter how much I disagree. Hell, if the CEO and board of a company want to pool their private funds and buy some ads, go for it. I shouldn't be able to stop them. What I can stop them (the Supreme Court's complete misinterpretation of the Constitution notwithstanding) from doing is spending corporate funds for that purpose.

Finally, the Court wrote "this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."

You actually believe that smile?

Right wing hate radio caused me to believe that the opinion was well reasoned? Bullsh!t. I am an attorney who argues constitutional and civil rights issues before state and federal district and appellate courts all the time. Several cases I have briefed and argued became published opinions, and therefore legal precedent for courts to follow. How about you, oh great knower of constitutional law? I know a damn sure ton more about the evolution of who or what is entitled to rights under the constitution than you so stop with the right wing radio crap.

You finally used the correct term to describe a corporation--it is an artifice. An artifice that whether you like it or not is entitled to constitutional rights.

Have you read the entire opinion? If so, I'll ask you what I have asked others (who have not responded); point to me exactly where the majority's reasoning is flawed. Not the part you disagree with or that inflames your opinion that corporations are going to take over the country (not that that should ever be a concern of the supreme court since their job is to interpret the constitution, period) or some other lib talking point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

" This belief has two factors: campaign finance and special interests, also includes government ownership.
First, corporations provide financial support to competing political parties and major political party candidates. This allows the coporations to hedge their bets on the outcome of an election so that they are assured to have a winner who is en-debted to them. As politicians are increasingly dependent on campaign contributions to become elected, their objectiveness on issues which concern corporate interests is compromised.
Second, in many cases former corporate executives are appointed as powerful decision makers within government institutions. They are often charged with the regulation of their former or future employers. Government employees who collude with corporations often accept high ranking positions within corporations once they have demonstrated their commitment to serve the corporate interest. These lucrative offers provide incentive for government employees to serve special interests as well as provides their new employers with access to governmental decision makers. This is known as the "revolving door" between corporations and the institutions established to regulate their behavior; and can lead to regulatory capture."


Guido, FOTD does not recall you ever having an issue with the major provisions of the 1971 Act and the 1974 amendment. Note that some provisions, including legal limits of contributions, have been modified by subsequent Acts.

Requirement for candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditure.
Federal Election Commission created.
Public funding available for Presidential primaries and general elections. Legal limits on campaign expenditure for those that accept public funding.
Legal limits on campaign contributions by individuals and organizations.
Prohibits:
Donations directly from Corporations, Labor Organizations and National Banks
Donations from Government Contractors
Donations from Foreign Nationals
Cash Contributions over $100
Contributions in the name of another (straw donor schemes)




The rads on the court show off their new robes....

Quote from: guido911 on January 23, 2010, 04:17:02 PM
Have you read the entire opinion? If so, I'll ask you what I have asked others (who have not responded); point to me exactly where the majority's reasoning is flawed. Not the part you disagree with or that inflames your opinion that corporations are going to take over the country (not that that should ever be a concern of the supreme court since their job is to interpret the constitution, period) or some other lib talking point.

Interestingly, I also get much of my learning on constitutional law from practicing attorneys, despite not being one myself.

I did just post one way in which the majority's reasoning is flawed. The regulation can easily pass the "compelling governmental interest" test, although the majority somehow mysteriously dismissed it out of hand against all the evidence. A quote from the dissent, for your digestion:

"The majority's rejection of the Buckley anticorruption rationale on the ground that independent corporate ex­penditures "do not give rise to [quid pro quo] corruption or the appearance of corruption," ante, at 42, is thus unfair as well as unreasonable. Congress and outside experts have generated significant evidence corroborating this rationale, and the only reason we do not have any of the relevant materials before us is that the Government had no reason to develop a record at trial for a facial challenge the plaintiff had abandoned. The Court cannot both sua sponte choose to relitigate McConnell on appeal and then complain that the Government has failed to substan­tiate its case. If our colleagues were really serious about the interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption, they would remand to the District Court with instructions to commence evidentiary proceedings."

I also mentioned that I don't see where they have the authority to make the ruling in the first place.

If you had read my post, you might have realized that my "right wing hate radio" snark was related to your diatribe about health care, not the instant case. You claimed that the bill, as it currently sits in the Senate, will not do what you think it will. Since you obviously didn't get those ideas from the bill itself, I concluded that you must have gotten it from those in the media who are distorting what the bill would actually do.

Quote from: waterboy on January 23, 2010, 01:44:14 PM
Actually, I am. I was taught in the business college that a corporation is indeed a fictional construct. Whether or not it is liable for taxes, criminal penalties or creates employment is not relevant to its definition. It was construed as a person for specific legal responsibilities and benefits. It is not a person. Nor is an Authority, an Association or a Club. If a corporation was in fact a "person" then I would deduce one could marry it. (Mr. and Mrs. Steve A. Microsoft). Once consummated by screwing its stockholders,  it would then have all the protections and tax benefits of a legal marriage.:P I would also deduce that anyone who would endeavor to endanger the life of the corporation by hostile takeover or dismantling of its assets would be guilty of corporate abortion or murder if you please.


The reality is that you, and the court, have taken a very expansive view of our founding father's intents to protect free speech. They have in fact committed the ultimate libertarian, conservative sin of "creating law" with their interpretation. I understand how they got there, and agree that it is a logical extension of the earlier decision, but it was unnecessary and indulgent to do so. Nonetheless, if it results in an honest appraisal of how the campaign finance laws have been bastardized and steps are made in congress (the real creator of laws) to repair those laws it may be worthwhile.

Dammit waterboy, I am not the one that created the concept of corporate personhood. Go rent a time machine and complain to the 1880s Supreme Court, you know, the group tasked at interpreting the constitution? Corporate personhood has existed since 1886 and no, it was not created to give certain legal responsibilities. The Court in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) quite plainly announced that corporations have rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.

Nate, the source of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is probably federal question, 42 U.S.C. §1331, since the rights implicated were rooted under the 1st and 14th amendments and the action pertained to the constitutionality of a federal statute 2 U. S.C. § 441b and the federal regulations promulgated therefrom.  

Quote from: nathanm on January 23, 2010, 04:35:46 PM

I did just post one way in which the majority's reasoning is flawed. The regulation can easily pass the "compelling governmental interest" test, although the majority somehow mysteriously dismissed it out of hand against all the evidence.

First, it takes more that just a compelling governmental interest, hence your analysis is incomplete. Indeed, from the opinion:

QuoteLaws that burden political speech are "subject to strict scrutiny," which requires the Government to prove that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest."

[Emphasis added]

The majority determined that not only was the possibility of corporate over influence not compelling, they added that the laws and regulations were both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. Those latter factors by themselves would justify finding statutes or regulations restricting speech (i.e. censorship) unconstitutional.

Earlier in this thread I pointed to what I thought was a persuasive passage from the body of the majority of opinion. However, in the syllabus, which I generally never cite to, I found this passage very interesting:

QuotePremised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints. See, e.g., United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 813 (2000) (striking down content-based restriction). Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others. See First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 784 (1978). As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated:Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.
Quite apart from the purpose or effect of regulating content, moreover, the Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker's voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.

I personally cannot see how anyone can disagree with this position.

Quote from: guido911 on January 23, 2010, 04:17:02 PM
Right wing hate radio caused me to believe that the opinion was well reasoned? Bullsh!t. I am an attorney who argues constitutional and civil rights issues before state and federal district and appellate courts all the time. Several cases I have briefed and argued became published opinions, and therefore legal precedent for courts to follow.

So why don't you tell us what those cases are so that we can read and analyze them?

Quote from: rwarn17588 on January 23, 2010, 07:36:32 PM
So why don't you tell us what those cases are so that we can read and analyze them?

You don't believe me? Nevermind, Google me to get to some of the opinions that might have been released ion the nets. Otherwise, you need a Lexis-Nexus or Westlaw account.

Quote from: guido911 on January 23, 2010, 07:55:24 PM
You don't believe me? Nevermind, Google me to get to some of the opinions that might have been released ion the nets. Otherwise, you need a Lexis-Nexus or Westlaw account.

How about some links, then? If these cases were so important, then there'd surely be links somewhere.

Guido,

Who'd you have for moot court?

He/she must've slipped up and passed you just to get over with it.

Why Five Members of SCOTUS Are Nuttier Than Fruit Cakes!

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-five-members-of-scotus-are-nuttier.html


Watch this !

Quote from: guido911 on January 23, 2010, 07:01:43 PM
First, it takes more that just a compelling governmental interest, hence your analysis is incomplete. Indeed, from the opinion:
[Emphasis added]

The majority determined that not only was the possibility of corporate over influence not compelling, they added that the laws and regulations were both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. Those latter factors by themselves would justify finding statutes or regulations restricting speech (i.e. censorship) unconstitutional.

Earlier in this thread I pointed to what I thought was a persuasive passage from the body of the majority of opinion. However, in the syllabus, which I generally never cite to, I found this passage very interesting:

I personally cannot see how anyone can disagree with this position.

Even if one buys into the whole corporate personhood thing, in what other way could the law have been more narrowly crafted? Usually there's some discussion about what that would entail, rather than a blanket "nope."

Either way, they decided the case based on facts not in evidence. That's what remand is for.

Putting our critical thinking hats on, in what way could a law designed to reduce both the incidence of actual corruption and the appearance of corruption be more narrowly tailored than enforcing disclosure requirements and prohibiting the purchase of political ads favoring or disfavoring a particular candidate. Remember that issue ads are not in question here. Anyone is free to purchase ads advocating for or against any particular issue they like.

An overbroad law would also restrict issue ads.

Edited to add: More stories of the absurd results this line of reasoning gets us: Churches will now have the right (as not-for-profit corporations) to advocate for or against specific candidates. Since we're throwing out narrowly tailored laws with a compelling governmental interest now, apparently.

More amusingly, I just thought of all the recent civil liberties cases where the Supreme Court was able to find that several rather obtrusive laws were narrowly tailored and having a compelling governmental interest when they were both broader and had less evidence of compelling interest. But hey, why be consistent. We like games of chance here, so why should the Supreme Court be any different?

Oh, and just to be clear, despite my complete contempt for this decision, I don't really care one way or the other. All the ruling does is make unambiguously legal what was already happening indirectly. Is there anyone who truly believes corporations don't already have far more real influence in politics than voters?

Quote from: nathanm on January 23, 2010, 11:24:15 PM


All the ruling does is make unambiguously legal what was already happening indirectly. Is there anyone who truly believes corporations don't already have far more real influence in politics than voters?

Exactly. Good debate, notwithstanding the two-way personal attacks.

Quote from: guido911 on January 24, 2010, 01:42:44 PM
Exactly. Good debate, notwithstanding the two-way personal attacks.

At least we agree on something.  :o

Does this mean that foreign governments and corporations will now be able to have access to the politics of the United States?   http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/week-jim-demint-gets-reminded-potenti (http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/week-jim-demint-gets-reminded-potenti)

QuoteWhat's that old adage? Beware of the unintended consequences. Clearly, that's something that neither the Supreme Court nor the Republican Party factored in before crowing about the heinous Citizens United v. FEC ruling last week.

For all his high-falutin' talk of free speech and transparency and being able to face down those big bullying unions, it has apparently never occurred to Sen. Jim DeMint that SCOTUS just opened doors to multi-national corporations--i.e. FOREIGNERS--meddling in our elections.

    MORAN: OK. And, finally, are you in favor of foreign corporations being able to participate in American elections through this decision?

    DEMINT: I don't believe that -- right now, foreigners cannot give to the political process. And I hope, as this thing is sorted out, that we'll make sure that this is an American focus, so we'll have to sort all that out. I hadn't read all the details of the court's decision.

Ooops! Guess what, Jim? That's not how it works in the ruling. There's no distinction made in the SCOTUS ruling, so any corporation with American interests (even if the largest stockholder is a foreigner, like from...gasp! Saudi Arabia (shudder)!) can now influence American elections. As Sen. Bob Menendez says:

    The problem is, a corporation is a corporation is a corporation. And a foreign corporation is going to be able to spend their monies in determining who is elected to the United States Congress. That's not good for the average citizen.

No, it's not. But that doesn't play into the thinking of the Republican Party, does it?

Hoist Your Pitchforks!
Time for angry Americans to march on the Supreme Court.
E.J. Dionne Jr.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/hoist-your-pitchforks

"The only proper response to this distortion of our political system by ideologically driven justices is a popular revolt. It would be a revolt of a sort deeply rooted in the American political tradition. The most vibrant reform alliances in our history have involved coalitions between populists (who stand up for the interests and values of average citizens) and progressives (who fight against corruption in government and for institutional changes to improve the workings of our democracy). It's time for a new populist-progressive alliance."

FOTD, Is there any truth to Spud having boinked Ann Coulter or was she just a 'Head?

Quote from: joiei on January 25, 2010, 10:59:05 AM
Does this mean that foreign governments and corporations will now be able to have access to the politics of the

Um No. It's a damnable shame that people base their opinions on what others have said and never bother to do any research--and this includes our president/constitutional scholar. Obama stated last night:

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

Of course Obama either ignored or never bother reading the text of the opinion and merely perpetuated a BS meme. The majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission found unconstitutional 2 U.S.C. sec. 441(b) only, a section entitled "Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations".  The Court left completely undisturbed Section 441e, which in its entirety prescribes:

§ 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611 (b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101 (a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8.

2 U.S.C. sec. 441(e)[Emphasis added]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/usc_sec_02_00000441---e000-.html

The prohibitions in this section cannot be any clearer. Justice Alito mouthing "not true" is absolutely correct and Obama and you joiei are absolutely wrong.

I will cross post this over on the state of the union thread because that is where this issue is also being discussed.

A little horn tootin for me now. If you recall on the day this decision came down, I responded to Conan in part as follows:

QuoteNow, if you want to find something to worry about, it would be this passage from the Roberts/Alito concurrence:

stare decisis is neither an "inexorable command," Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003),nor "a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision," Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119 (1940),especially in constitutional cases, see United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 101 (1978).

I took that as a signal of things to come.

Well well, it seems I am not the only that picked out that little blurb from a concurring opinion as a signal.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/johnroberts-supremecourt-abortion-roev-wade/2010/01/24/id/347808

Quote from: Conan71 on January 28, 2010, 02:14:00 PM
FOTD, Is there any truth to Spud having boinked Ann Coulter or was she just a 'Head?

We don't claim her it.....Read up on Coultergeist http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/02-26-05/discussion.cgi.46.html

"Ann Coulter was born Fredrick Guebermann, of Des Moines, IA. Fredrick moved to San Fransisco on the 1980's to start a career in drag shows....
Upset about the conservative backlash against gay culture, and inspired by satire and parody shows in local theaters, Fred decided to try an experiment. "I dressed up like a suburban housewife and went to a Republican rally. I chatted with my table mates about how evil gays are, and how liberals are destroying America. They ate it up. I had seven guys' phone numbers by the time I left, and some of them were married."
Fredrick then started creating the persona of Ann Coulter, fabricating a background and moving to the East Coast to start moving in conservative circles. "I wanted to see how far I could take it. I wanted to see how extreme I could make the rhetoric before somebody realized it was a joke."


this is good too! Coulter Comes Out as Transvestite Trickster
http://www.gaia-kat.addr.com/Entropic/happybirthday/lewiscarroll.htm

Been meaning to ask you, are corporations now to be championed by the "pro-life" zealots? Where does
AC (DC?) stand on corporate personhood? Every citizen is under the thumb of Robert's Rules of Order.
It's gonna get stranger.....

Quote from: guido911 on January 28, 2010, 02:33:44 PM
A little horn tootin for me now. If you recall on the day this decision came down, I responded to Conan in part as follows:

Well well, it seems I am not the only (only what? revisionist?) that picked out that little blurb from a concurring opinion as a signal.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/johnroberts-supremecourt-abortion-roev-wade/2010/01/24/id/347808

It helps to be on a network of judicial activist radicals.

Okay, my BS meter just pegged:

""Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Moveon.org, George Soros anyone?

Mainly to do with the implication that he's not where he is right now without the help and funding of SIGs PACs, and the web of foreign small contributions to President Obama's campaign. 

Quote from: guido911 on January 28, 2010, 02:33:44 PM
A little horn tootin for me now. If you recall on the day this decision came down, I responded to Conan in part as follows:

Well well, it seems I am not the only that picked out that little blurb from a concurring opinion as a signal.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/johnroberts-supremecourt-abortion-roev-wade/2010/01/24/id/347808

Would you categorize this as judicial activism?

Conan, who said that was right? Watch what happens when Soros allies himself with foreign bankers worldwide.

Lots of clout.

Quote from: FOTD on January 28, 2010, 03:45:27 PM
Conan, who said that was right? Watch what happens when Soros allies himself with foreign bankers worldwide.

Lots of clout.

President Obama's words ring with self-righteuous indignation if he's trying to imply that he's not paid for, which is the way I interpreted the remarks.

Maybe Soros will swallow a poisoned eclair before then.  One could only hope.

Quote from: we vs us on January 28, 2010, 03:40:14 PM
Would you categorize this as judicial activism?

Overturning Roe will certainly be argued as "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench" (whatever those overly used expressions mean), of course it depends on the facts of the particular case when it gets to the court. That is, the Court may find a statute requiring pre-abortion ultrasounds or parental notification constitutional and in so doing rip the teeth out of Roe without expressly overruling it.

When I was a first year law student, I had the opportunity to ask Justice Thomas a question about "judicial activism" and remember his being a bit defensive of the court's method of reaching its conclusions. As an aside, I'll never forget that after Justice Thomas spoke I went over to ACAC to study. He walked up behind me, without my knowing, and asked me what I was doing--very surprising. He is a very nice guy.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 28, 2010, 03:46:49 PM
President Obama's words ring with self-righteuous indignation if he's trying to imply that he's not paid for, which is the way I interpreted the remarks.

Maybe Soros Roberts, Uncle Thomas, or one of the Italians will swallow a poisoned eclair before then.  One could only hope.

!? Conan


The founding fathers at the time they wrote the constitution had no intent on allowing the British Lords (corporations) in to the electoral process of their country.

Jim Hightower | The Supreme Coup
Wednesday 27 January 2010
by: Jim Hightower, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
http://www.truthout.org/jim-hightower-the-supreme-coup56438
"Despite 234 years of progress toward the American ideal of equality for all, we still have to battle unfairness.

How happy, then, to learn that a handful of our leaders in Washington took bold and forceful action last week to lift another group of downtrodden Americans from the pits of injustice, helping them gain more political and governmental power. I refer, of course, to corporations.

Say what? Corporations should get more power over our elected officials?

"Free the corporate money," cried the movement's leaders, demanding that America sever the few legal restraints that remain on corporate efforts to buy our elections. "Si, se puede," chanted these assertive champions of corporate supremacy -- "Yes, we can!"

So, they did. "They" being the five doctrinaire corporatists who now form the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Let's remember their names: Sam Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. These five men, on their own whim, have executed a black-robed coup against the American people's democratic authority.

They took an obscure case involving a minor violation of election funding law and turned it into a constitutional upheaval. Rushing their handpicked case through the system, they issued a 5-4 decision on Jan. 21 that overturns a century of settled American law and more than two centuries of deep agreement in our Land of the Free that the narrow interests of corporations must be subjugated to the public interest.

Indeed, the founders of our Republic saw corporate power as an inherently selfish and perpetual danger to democracy, and most leaders of that day believed that corporate entities should have no role whatsoever in politics. Thomas Jefferson bluntly declared in 1816 that the country must "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations."

The Alito-Kennedy-Roberts-Scalia-Thomas cabal, however, has unceremoniously dumped the wisdom of the founders, along with volumes of American judicial precedent, to assert that poor little corporations today are victims of political "censorship" by Congress, states and cities that have outlawed the use of corporate funds in elections. Such restrictions, ruled the five usurpers, violate the "free speech rights" of corporations, putting corporate interests at a disadvantage with other political interests.

Disadvantage? This would be hilarious, were it not so dangerous. No other group in American has anywhere near the voice and raw political power that corporations exert every day. Campaign donations from individual corporate executives (and from their PACs, 527s, front groups and other channels) total hundreds of millions of dollars each election year, effectively shouting down the voices of ordinary folks (the Wall Street bailout being but one sterling example).

Yet the Court has just handed these political powerhouses their wildest dream: access to the multi- trillion- dollar ocean of funds held within the corporate entities themselves. Every business empire -- from Wall Street to Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil to the China Overseas Shipping Company (yes, the five wise guys even waved foreign corporations into our political funfest) -- can now open the spigots of their vast corporate treasuries and send a raging torrent of their special interest cash into any and all of our national, state and local elections.

Two legal perversions are at work here. First, the Court has equated the freedom to spend money with the freedom of speech. But if money is speech, those with the most money get the most speech. That's plutocracy, not democracy, and it's totally alien to our Constitution, as well as a gross distortion of the crucial principle of one person-one vote.

Second, a corporation literally cannot speak. It has no lips, tongue, breath or brain. Far from being a "person," a corporation is nothing but a piece of paper -- a legal construct created by the state as a mechanism for its owners to make money.

Actual people in the mechanism (shareholders, executives, workers, retirees, lenders, et al.) can and do speak politically -- in many diverse voices that express very different viewpoints. But the corporate entity, which the court cabal is trying to turn into a Frankenstein monster, is inanimate, incapable of thought, inherently mute and, in itself, no more deserving of human rights than a trash can would be.

Copyright 2010 Creators.com

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license. "

80% of Americans say SCOTUS got it wrong on this one:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."

Quote from: Townsend on January 21, 2010, 09:15:58 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247/ns/politics-supreme_court/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247/ns/politics-supreme_court/)

Anyone else think this means the individual has that much less of an influence over choosing our leaders?

I support the supreme court decision. A corporation,labor Union or some other group is a peaceful assembly of people which is a first amendment right.Speech is the verbal,written or sign language  articulation of words is also a first amendment right. Regardless if you are a group or a individual you have the right to free speech and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, which is what political ads are and do. A tv,newspaper, magazine or internet ad is speech regardless of how much money is poured into making that ad. As far as I know the new supreme court decision does not lift the limits of how much a corporation can directly give to a candidate, it just lifts the limits of how much they can spend on political advertising.

Quote from: jamesrage on February 18, 2010, 09:09:45 AM
I support the supreme court decision. A corporation,labor Union or some other group is a peaceful assembly of people which is a first amendment right.Speech is the verbal,written or sign language  articulation of words is also a first amendment right. Regardless if you are a group or a individual you have the right to free speech and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, which is what political ads are and do. A tv,newspaper, magazine or internet ad is speech regardless of how much money is poured into making that ad. As far as I know the new supreme court decision does not lift the limits of how much a corporation can directly give to a candidate, it just lifts the limits of how much they can spend on political advertising.

Wow, what a surprise.   ::)

Quote from: jamesrage on February 18, 2010, 09:09:45 AM
I support the supreme court decision. A corporation,labor Union or some other group is a peaceful assembly of people which is a first amendment right.Speech is the verbal,written or sign language  articulation of words is also a first amendment right. Regardless if you are a group or a individual you have the right to free speech and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, which is what political ads are and do. A tv,newspaper, magazine or internet ad is speech regardless of how much money is poured into making that ad. As far as I know the new supreme court decision does not lift the limits of how much a corporation can directly give to a candidate, it just lifts the limits of how much they can spend on political advertising.

Be sure to tell us how that's workin' for you when the labor unions totally doosh up your chosen candidate in the 2012 election. 

Quote from: jamesrage on February 18, 2010, 09:09:45 AM
A corporation,labor Union or some other group is a peaceful assembly of people

Who individually have the right to free speech, amongst other things. In their personal capacity, they should be free to say whatever they like and spend whatever they like.

The entire idea of an incorporated entity having human rights is a nonsensical oxymoron. Apparently, a lot of people agree with me, even if certain members of the Supreme Court have poor enough reading comprehension (or a strong enough incentive to misread) that they don't grasp the difference between a corporation and a person.

I'm perfectly willing to wait on new legislation, by the way. I have a strong desire to see how the befuddled five would rule on the restrictions on electioneering by religious organizations.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2010, 09:52:32 AM
Be sure to tell us how that's workin' for you when the labor unions totally doosh up your chosen candidate in the 2012 election. 

Its their right.The left usually smears right wing candidates anyways so I do not see how it would be any different if it is a labor union or some other peaceful assembly of people doing that and I am pretty sure people who support my candidate with do the same to the opposition.

Quote from: jamesrage on February 18, 2010, 10:02:13 AM
Its their right.The left usually smears right wing candidates anyways so I do not see how it would be any different if it is a labor union or some other peaceful assembly of people doing that and I am pretty sure people who support my candidate with do the same to the opposition.

So you don't have a problem at all with, say Soros Fund Management, openly buying an election for a Democrat Presidential candidate or multiple Senate seats?

Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2010, 09:59:50 AM
Who individually have the right to free speech, amongst other things. In their personal capacity, they should be free to say whatever they like and spend whatever they like.

Last I checked there was no provision that said you can only exercise one right as a time or that you had to exercise all the rights at once.So you can be a peaceful assembly of people and exercise all your other constitutional rights too such as free speech,petition grievences to the government and so on.

Quote
The entire idea of an incorporated entity having human rights is a nonsensical oxymoron.Apparently, a lot of people agree with me, even if certain members of the Supreme Court have poor enough reading comprehension (or a strong enough incentive to misread) that they don't grasp the difference between a corporation and a person.

That incorporated entity is a peacefully assembly of people.

QuoteI'm perfectly willing to wait on new legislation, by the way. I have a strong desire to see how the befuddled five would rule on the restrictions on  by religious organizations.

It is wrong to deny political speech to any group of American citizens regardless of what group it is.Hopefully a supreme court does rule that banning religious groups from politics and electioneering is unconstitutional.

Quote from: jamesrage on February 18, 2010, 10:13:01 AM
Last I checked there was no provision that said you can only exercise one right as a time or that you had to exercise all the rights at once.So you can be a peaceful assembly of people and exercise all your other constitutional rights too such as free speech,petition grievences to the government and so on.

I think you may have the same reading comprehension issues the fantabulous five seem to be struggling with.

Their reasoning was that the corporation itself has the right to free speech (amongst others), completely independent of the individuals running said corporation. Their reasoning has nothing to do with the right to 'assemble peaceably'.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2010, 10:10:26 AM
So you don't have a problem at all with, say Soros Fund Management, openly buying an election for a Democrat Presidential candidate or multiple Senate seats?

I have no problem with Soro fund management buying ads for a political candidate,although I imagine that such a liberal candidate would have a snowballs change in hell of winning an election in Oklahoma..

Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2010, 09:59:50 AM
Who individually have the right to free speech, amongst other things. In their personal capacity, they should be free to say whatever they like and spend whatever they like.

The entire idea of an incorporated entity having human rights is a nonsensical oxymoron. Apparently, a lot of people agree with me, even if certain members of the Supreme Court have poor enough reading comprehension (or a strong enough incentive to misread) that they don't grasp the difference between a corporation and a person.

I'm perfectly willing to wait on new legislation, by the way. I have a strong desire to see how the befuddled five would rule on the restrictions on electioneering by religious organizations.

You are the one with poor reading comprehension. Corporate personhood for the umpteenth time has existed since 1886. Don't like it, build a freakin time machine and bark at that court because "the befuddled five" (where did you go to law school again?) had nothing to do with that decision. You continue to prove a well traveled point that knowing lawyers doesn't make you one. As for the poll...so what? According to a CSM poll, 93% opposed the eminent domain decision in Kelo v. New London. The majority of Americans in a recent poll believe that abortion is morally wrong. Should we then overturn those decisions or legislate to circumvent the affect of those opinions?

Quote from: guido911 on February 18, 2010, 10:21:21 AM
According to a CSM poll, 93% opposed the eminent domain decision in Kelo v. New London. The majority of Americans in a recent poll believe that abortion is morally wrong. Should we then overturn those decisions or legislate to circumvent the affect of those opinions?

So is that to say though, that in spite of public opinion SCOTUS is never wrong?

Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2010, 10:18:41 AM
I think you may have the same reading comprehension issues the fantabulous five seem to be struggling with.

Their reasoning was that the corporation itself has the right to free speech (amongst others), completely independent of the individuals running said corporation. Their reasoning has nothing to do with the right to 'assemble peaceably'.

Corporations are made up of people.Your association with a corporation does not change the fact that you are still a person.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2010, 10:30:39 AM
So is that to say though, that in spite of public opinion SCOTUS is never wrong?

They are wrong when they contradict the constitution or cite foreign law.

Quote from: guido911 on February 18, 2010, 10:21:21 AM
You are the one with poor reading comprehension. Corporate personhood for the umpteenth time has existed since 1886. Don't like it, build a freakin time machine and bark at that court because "the befuddled five" (where did you go to law school again?) had nothing to do with that decision. You continue to prove a well traveled point that knowing lawyers doesn't make you one. As for the poll...so what? According to a CSM poll, 93% opposed the eminent domain decision in Kelo v. New London. The majority of Americans in a recent poll believe that abortion is morally wrong. Should we then overturn those decisions or legislate to circumvent the affect of those opinions?

Prior to this decision, guido, it was settled law that corporate personhood did not encompass all rights specified in the Constitution and that states (and the federal government) generally had the power to define what rights were to be extended to corporations. The decision could have been much more narrowly focused, even with the majority believing that corporations deserved the right to political speech.

Quote from: jamesrage
Corporations are made up of people.Your association with a corporation does not change the fact that you are still a person.

Yes, officers and employees of corporations should have the unfettered right to free speech as individuals. When they are acting in their capacity as officers or employees of the corporation, that need not be the case. This would not be restricting the individual's right to free speech, only the corporation's.

I don't know what's so difficult to grasp about the concept, even if you disagree with the premise. It's pretty simple, really.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2010, 10:30:39 AM
So is that to say though, that in spite of public opinion SCOTUS is never wrong?

Of course not. I believe the Court got it way wrong in Plessy, Korematsu, Bakke, Roe,and Kelo. This is one issue that you and I disagree on and that's fine. In all fairness, I really do understand you and Nate's fears on this, but I also believe the court got this one right despite its unpopularity. The law as it was, was nothing but rank censorship and all Americans, in my very humble opinion, should despise censorship in all forms. Regulation of speech, as opposed to outright suppression, is entirely another matter. I believe under the circumstances it will take a constitutional amendment to circumvent this opinion.

Quote from: guido911 on February 18, 2010, 11:37:14 AM
Regulation of speech, as opposed to outright suppression, is entirely another matter.

Ah, I now see where our difference lies on this issue. I see barring corporate political speech as regulation of the individual officers/employees' speech. A regulation that states they only have free speech in their individual capacity. Since they're free to donate, electioneer, or whatever as an individual, I don't see an outright ban.

I will be interested to see if FTC advertising regulations are challenged on these same grounds, as it will be entertaining to see the Court wrestle with protecting one form of commercial speech but not another. Either that or it will be entertaining to watch Roberts and Alito once again show that they lied to Congress about their judicial views during their confirmation hearings. Either way, it will be fun times all around.  ;D

And by definition, the Supreme Court is never "wrong" on Constitutional issues, since they are the ones who get to decide what the Constitution means. Their reasoning may be flawed at times, but what they say still goes. (Unless you're Andrew Jackson and you're removing Indians to the West)

Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2010, 02:11:30 PM
...it will be entertaining to watch Roberts and Alito once again show that they lied to Congress about their judicial views during their confirmation hearings.

I suspect every nominee to SCOTUS has been less than 100% truthful or forthcoming on their views during their hearings.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2010, 02:19:49 PM
I suspect every nominee to SCOTUS has been less than 100% truthful or forthcoming on their views during their hearings.

You're probably right, although I hadn't previously noticed such a blatant 180 as from those two. Prior to 2000, I didn't pay much attention to politics.

They both said, in effect, that they respect stare decesis and judicial restraint. The instant case is a strong refutation of both principles, as there was previous case law on point and they chose to reach far beyond the dispute at hand in this case.

I hate to say it, because I think the complaints about activist judges are generally just sour grapes, but Citizens United could be the new dictionary definition of judicial activism.

Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2010, 02:28:57 PM
You're probably right, although I hadn't previously noticed such a blatant 180 as from those two. Prior to 2000, I didn't pay much attention to politics.

They both said, in effect, that they respect stare decesis and judicial restraint. The instant case is a strong refutation of both principles, as there was previous case law on point and they chose to reach far beyond the dispute at hand in this case.

I hate to say it, because I think the complaints about activist judges are generally just sour grapes, but Citizens United could be the new dictionary definition of judicial activism.

I think "judicial activism" is becoming an over-used cliche mostly by people who don't have a grasp on what SCOTUS actually does.  That said though, this case and Kelo v. New London left me scratching my head.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2010, 02:52:18 PM
I think "judicial activism" is becoming an over-used cliche mostly by people who don't have a grasp on what SCOTUS actually does. 

Thank you. I agree that the term "judicial activism" is almost meaningless when used by critics. It's little more than a term that people use when they don't like a Supreme Court decision.

That said, I think the Republicans (relatively few, I admit) who praised SCOTUS' decision on this matter will pivot away after reading that poll.

Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2010, 02:28:57 PM
You're probably right, although I hadn't previously noticed such a blatant 180 as from those two. Prior to 2000, I didn't pay much attention to politics.

They both said, in effect, that they respect stare decesis and judicial restraint. The instant case is a strong refutation of both principles, as there was previous case law on point and they chose to reach far beyond the dispute at hand in this case.

If you go back through this thread or even revisit the opinion, you will see that the opinion the majority overruled itself overruled previous precedent.

As to your earlier post about our differing views on the issue, that was probably my fault. I sometimes get wrapped up in parlance and I wind up making distinctions without differences. I think you get my point about the difference between censorship/suppression and regulation.

Activist fights carpool ticket claiming he was riding with a corporation

http://news.yahoo.com/video/activist-fights-carpool-ticket-claiming-223604016.html (http://news.yahoo.com/video/activist-fights-carpool-ticket-claiming-223604016.html)

Jonathan Frieman of San Rafael, California, was ticketed for driving alone on highway 101 in a carpool lane. But Frieman said that he wasn't driving solo, because he had corporate paperwork in the seat next to him. The self-described activist, argues that because of the paperwork, he was riding with a corporation which he says is included in the California vehicle code's definition of a person. The 59-year-old has hired an attorney for his appearance before a traffic commissioner and he hopes for a loss so he can appeal the decision. If so, he's prepared to appeal his case all the way to the California Supreme Court if necessary. The driver has said that he wants the definition of a person to be stood on its head so people can see the absurdity.

Quote from: Townsend on January 08, 2013, 11:46:37 AM
Activist fights carpool ticket claiming he was riding with a corporation

http://news.yahoo.com/video/activist-fights-carpool-ticket-claiming-223604016.html (http://news.yahoo.com/video/activist-fights-carpool-ticket-claiming-223604016.html)

Jonathan Frieman of San Rafael, California, was ticketed for driving alone on highway 101 in a carpool lane. But Frieman said that he wasn't driving solo, because he had corporate paperwork in the seat next to him. The self-described activist, argues that because of the paperwork, he was riding with a corporation which he says is included in the California vehicle code's definition of a person. The 59-year-old has hired an attorney for his appearance before a traffic commissioner and he hopes for a loss so he can appeal the decision. If so, he's prepared to appeal his case all the way to the California Supreme Court if necessary. The driver has said that he wants the definition of a person to be stood on its head so people can see the absurdity.

Some people just can't avoid being a jackass, can they?

Quote from: Conan71 on January 08, 2013, 01:47:46 PM
Some people just can't avoid being a jackass, can they?

I'm interested in the outcome, whether or not he's a jackass.

Quote from: Conan71 on January 08, 2013, 01:47:46 PM
Some people just can't avoid being a jackass, can they?

Come on....ya gotta have some fun in life.  And if you can be sarcastic and make a point while doing it, hey, Bonus!!

Noteworthy thread next time a jackass on the other side does something to make a point and uses up the courts' resources.

Quote from: guido911 on January 08, 2013, 08:30:37 PM
Noteworthy thread next time a jackass on the other side does something to make a point and uses up the courts' resources.

You mean like the ones that started the lawsuit that got corporations defined as people and had all the campaign finance laws of the last 100 years tossed out?  Those jackass'...??  Not to mention the ones that made that ruling....

No, like this "joke" which would be pretty damned funny if it really happened.

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/544004_468680909861152_1388091950_n.jpg)

And I am not going to repeat for the unknown number of times the history of corporate personhood, or comment on the jackasses who didn't go your way on campaign finance-other than they apparently were not too jackassed a few years later went it came to Obamacare.

Have you ever read the Citizens United opinion? What part do you feel is jackassed?