Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It wasn't defeated. Phrasing it like that gives the totally false impression that it was given a fair vote. What the Republicans did was filibuster it and the reason they filibustered it is that they were too chicken to let it come to a vote. If their ideas are so ****ing popular, as they claim, then why are they so afraid?
It was never going to get either the 2/3 in the Senate needed to pass, nor the 2/3 in the House needed to get it to the Senate. And it sure as hell wasn't getting agreement from 38 of 50 states.
You can tell it was a parlor trick by Reid because of his vote.
Here is the dissent from the Supreme Court on the issue:
In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.[54]
Dissent is meaningless since its not the rule of law...
It wasn't defeated. Phrasing it like that gives the totally false impression that it was given a fair vote. What the Republicans did was filibuster it and the reason they filibustered it is that they were too chicken to let it come to a vote. If their ideas are so ****ing popular, as they claim, then why are they so afraid?
There was a vote. It came nowhere near the 2/3 it would require to pass.
Dissent is meaningless since its not the rule of law...
It's not meaningless, it gives one an insight into the argument if one actually reads it. Again I'm surprised you far righties are acting this way towards the issue. So where does one draw the line, should corporations be able to run for office, should we be concerned about foreign money flowing into US elections through businesses, what allegiance do global companies have to America and it's people. It seems you want to trade a government you can vote out of power with one you'll have to outspend.
And regardless of the hysterics in the dissent, Citizens United had NOTHING TO DO WITH CAMPAIGN FINANCE. You keep clinging to a lie that simply will never be true.
Fine, how the implications of the Citizen United impacts US elections in a global world. How about we frame the issue through that?
Quote:
It's not a view, it's historical fact. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, as well as the debates in the State houses during the Constitution's ratification process tell us everything we need to know about what the Founders intended.
It's not a fact, it's your view. My view is that founders didn't intend for this type of power to be held by tbose with the largest stack of gold. However, the founders views are pretty irrelevant as enough time has passed that our world doesn't resemble theirs much anymore.
Quote:
And until Austin (1990), every attempted government limit on free speech for business, corporations, unions et al was overturned/vacated by the SCOTUS.
It's not meaningless, it gives one an insight into the argument if one actually reads it. Again I'm surprised you far righties are acting this way towards the issue. So where does one draw the line, should corporations be able to run for office, should we be concerned about foreign money flowing into US elections through businesses, what allegiance do global companies have to America and it's people. It seems you want to trade a government you can vote out of power with one you'll have to outspend.
strawman argument since no corporation is attempting to run for office.
Of course not, what does that have to do with denying them their right not to be taxed, without representation?
Because you are equating a business or corporation with an individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
strawman argument since no corporation is attempting to run for office.
It was a hypothetical, trying to see how far your notion of "taxation without representation" goes.
Still surprised conservatives are behind this, but hey.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
