Target Ain't People (constitution, broadcast, war, spend)

[aspiesmom]

Originally Posted by GSC1

"Corporation does not have Constitutional "rights", especially when it comes to the American electoral process, regardless of the candidates' platforms. The concept of "corporate personhood" is a fallacy, an aberration by the Supreme Court behaving badly(UnConstitutionally) for over a hundred years"

Ah, the crux of it. You disagree with the court which decides what is or isn't constitutional and know better than the court. OK, much more clear now. You folks get funnier and funnier.

The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4...4 Justices vehemently dissented the ruling last January 2010. I am also not the only American who feels stripped of my voter's voice and rights. There is a bipartisan Congressional bill addressing this SCOTUS ruling as well.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by delusianne

No, it's not!

Target Corp. feels backlash from shareholders - latimes.com

correct when a corporation chooses to advertise for political causes the board of that corporation certainly has the right to step in.
target and all corporations will realize that advertising for apolitical stance will have half their customers upset.
The Sc just said they had a right to advertise, the board and customers will certainly have a say in the choice of advertisement.
I think these people did have a right to protest target but not inside the store on private property

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

So a billboard is advertising and you just agreed a corporation has a right to put up a billboard in support of abortion rights. So you agree with the SC

please see reply to your earlier post. This is not about advertising.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by delusianne

please see reply to your earlier post. This is not about advertising.

The SC allowed corporations to advertise and give money to political causes. It did not allow corporations to give money to candidates. It allowed corporations to buy air time for causes the corporation chose to spend on. Billboards or any other form. target has a right to spend corporate money how they wish. Their customer and boards will decide if that was money well spent.
The people in the you tube certainly have a right to protest target , however that protest needs to happen on public property

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

The SC allowed corporations to advertise and give money to political causes. It did not allow corporations to give money to candidates. It allowed corporations to buy air time for causes the corporation chose to spend on. Billboards or any other form. target has a right to spend corporate money how they wish. Their customer and boards will decide if that was money well spent.
The people in the you tube certainly have a right to protest target , however that protest needs to happen on public property

How do you think politicians are put into office in this country, if not by advertising? "Advertising" covers a huge scope of influence, not just billboards and little flyers under windshields. Why is that all right with you?

Let's move beyond criticizing the protesters' presentation, which I think was annoying too, though maybe it works with young kids. Let's just talk about this disturbing problem it maybe ineptly brought up.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by delusianne

How do you think politicians are put into office in this country, if not by advertising? "Advertising" covers a huge scope of influence, not just billboards and little flyers under windshields. Why is that all right with you?

Let's move beyond criticizing the protesters' presentation, which I think was annoying too, though maybe it works with young kids. Let's just talk about this disturbing problem it maybe ineptly brought up.

the matter at hand does a corporation have the right to spend its own money how it wants. the CEO that chooses to spend money on political ads would asnwer to the customers and board.

I beleive they do have the right to do it as the SC says they do.

I think the problems the SC decision will bring up will be handled by customers or corporate boards. once a corporation takes a side on a political issue and uses freedom of speech to advertise it, they are going to get half their customers upset with them. So the question is they have a right to do it, but is it a wise business Decison, probably not

[delusianne]

Do you not see that this 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"?

[aspiesmom]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

the matter at hand does a corporation have the right to spend its own money how it wants. the CEO that chooses to spend money on political ads would asnwer to the customers and board.

I beleive they do have the right to do it as the SC says they do.

I think the problems the SC decision will bring up will be handled by customers or corporate boards. once a corporation takes a side on a political issue and uses freedom of speech to advertise it, they are going to get half their customers upset with them. So the question is they have a right to do it, but is it a wise business Decison, probably not

Elections are not business decisions

The real grave problem arises when candidates start answering to corporations instead of to the Voters!

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by aspiesmom

How about limited individual voters' campaign contributions, and/or public financing ? How about taking the graft and corruption and special interests out of elections altogether?

I noticed this comment was overlooked in much of the argument, and this really is the answer.

There is really no potential mileage to be gained in correcting the course of this country by attacking Target per se. In the greater scheme of things, Target is a minor player, and both sides of the debate offer up compelling and legitimate points ... that is ... so long as the underlying issue is ignored.

The traditional Left want government to rein in corporations, while the traditional Right want to free corporations from government interference. I've got news for both sides .... either path will lead to the same destination, and this debate about target is nothing more than chasing the snake's tail.

In the case of the former ... strict government control over corporations (which is in effect ownership) is nothing more than socialism/communism ... while significant corporate influence over government is fascism. Both produce the same end results, and what difference does it make by who's hand tyranny is administered? Government serving the corporations, or corporations serving government .... neither scenario serves "the people".

Going back to the quoted statement above ... getting special interest money OUT OF POLITICS is the only way to return integrity, and re-establish the proper functioning of our political and financial systems which serve the greater good of the nation, and ultimately, the best interests of the people by default.

And that means ALL SPECIAL INTERESTS, regardless if it is labor related or business related ... both sides of this debate contribute to the overall problems, and solve nothing.

When presented with the choice between $$$ and Votes, which do you believe grabs the attention and loyalties of politicians? The answer is obvious. Dollars will always trump votes.

Campaign donations and lobbying regardless of it's sources are just reinvented terms for bribery, and the ENTIRE debate as it has unfolded here is simply an argument as to who has the right to bribe, who doesn't, and if so, how much. Public financing of national politics is the ONLY way to return integrity to the system , as anything else is just an exercise of those wanting to bribe, jockeying for position and advantage.

The proper reins of power as defined and established in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is "government of the people, by the people and for the people", with government deriving it's power to govern by the consent of the governed. No where can you find special interests or corporations being given special consideration or privilege.

Political groups, be they members of a corporation or union, should only be allowed to exercise their influence by the casting of their votes, and not by direct money donations ... or BRIBERY.

The undue influence of special interests (regardless of ideological foundation) by means of bribery contribute to, and never solve problems. Quite often, if not always, as it is human nature to do, individual special interests eventually tend to harm their own best interests out of selfishness and greed.

It is the balancing of interests and mutual gain between business and labor that provides long term prosperity, with any imbalance favoring one side or the other, leading to declining returns for both.

Government's PROPER role in this is to be the independent referee that realizes that tendency ... and exercises it's governmental authority by enforcing laws and regulations who's only objective is to maintain balance between competing interests ... not by favoring one interest over another.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by aspiesmom

Elections are not business decisions

The real grave problem arises when candidates start answering to corporations instead of to the Voters!

Corporate exenditure are business decisions.