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.
Please....Obama's comment is beside the point. Let us stipulate that both Dems and Reps are tainted. Everybody knows that. That's what we're trying to do something about!
Please tell me why a corporation should have ANY influence in a political campaign - EVER! The people that run them have the same personal vote that everyone else does - and that is ALL they should have. They should NOT be free to funnel their vast corporate resources toward their agenda, whatever that may be. That isn't free speech and you know it - it is influence peddling and corruption.
That is what has been nagging at me. Nobody was at risk for having their vote taken away, just keeping a lid on the dangers of the corporations running the show. Now these corrupted judges have rendered our vote inconsequential.
A "Massive Tilt in Our Democracy"
Michael Waldman, the executive director of the Brennan Center of Justice at New York University School of Law, which filed amicus briefs in the case, said the ruling means that "Exxon could spend Bloomberg-level money in every Congressional campaign around the country." Waldman was referring to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who tapped into his vast wealth and spent more than $70 million of his own money on his first mayoral campaign.
Waldman added that the Supreme Court justices "chose to intervene in the political process in a way they didn't have to," which will now result in a "massive tilt in our democracy." He warned that the "impact of this case could dwarf the impact of this election."
Burt Neuborne, a law professor at NYU and a Supreme Court litigator, agreed.
"[The decision] gives a green light for a massive flow of corporate treasury money into our democracy," he said, adding that the decision "changes the ground rules [of] our democracy."
We are on the same page. We all want to end this practice. We can speak out by signing the online petition (link in post #284). I assume you have already signed it Sanrene.
No, I believe in free political speech for all. I guess you don't.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, commonly known as the "Hillary movie" case, the U.S. Supreme Court finally vindicated a proper understanding of the First Amendment, which provides that "Congress shall make no law" restricting freedom of speech.
One might ask what part of "no law" do you not understand, but for much of the past century, especially since Watergate – in what we may stipulate has been a sincere effort to reduce corruption or the appearance of the possibility of corruption – Congress has imposed restrictions on political speech and the use of money to promulgate such speech.
A very good ruling, rectifying a wrong by congress.
Why yes, it is. Now, there is an even playing field. No more exemptions - all interests will be treated the same, as it should be.
The rules were always the same for both parties. They are same now too, but the ruling is extremly short sighted. It takes 3rd parties and less connected candidates completely out of the picture, and puts corporatins and foreigners ahead of Americans when it comes to picking the leaders.
A very good ruling, rectifying a wrong by congress.
However, when "free speech" practiced by wealthy corporations, especially multinational corporations, can buy an extremely expensive propagandized election, we have lost our democracy.
A corporation is not an individual. In fact, corporations have all the criteria for a diagnosis of a psychopath!
Quote:
As an alleged person a Corporation is a non-biological entity, without the need to breathe air, drink water or eat food, notably without the obligation to die and -- without a conscience. According to psychological analysis criteria, the corporation's legal "person" is diagnosed as being a PSYCHOPATH. The film goes through the characteristics of this personality disorder, showing point for point (see list, below) how they correspond to the typical behavior of businesses.
Exceptionally well-done documentary film looks at the rise of the corporate body as having the legal status of a "person" -- albeit with no conscience -- and its collective psychopathic raping of the planets' people and resources due to a greed-based bottom-line motivation. The film also touches on more recent trends within the corporate world to awaken morally and infuse ethics into the equation, to halt and then reverse the past damages that have been inflicted.
The Bush legacy lives on way after he is gone. With the cooperate stooges Bush put into the supreme court his lobbyist buddies were able to control America. We should replace the stars on our flag with corporate logos. Thank you Bush for continuing to destroy America.
..and yet 0bama tries to make that point none the less, which is why I responded to his hypocrisy. 0bama does not want to get tainted money out of politics, he just wants to limit the tainted sources to those which benefit himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95
Let us stipulate that both Dems and Reps are tainted. Everybody knows that. That's what we're trying to do something about!
I agree, as long as our methods of controlling it are constitutional. The court struck down an unconstitutional law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95
Please tell me why a corporation should have ANY influence in a political campaign - EVER!
If a group of average American people form a corporation, and they see destructive government policies will harm their part of the private sector, they may want to pool their money together to voice their opinions during a political campaign. What is wrong with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95
The people that run them have the same personal vote that everyone else does - and that is ALL they should have. They should NOT be free to funnel their vast corporate resources toward their agenda, whatever that may be. That isn't free speech and you know it - it is influence peddling and corruption.
A rich billionaire like Soros or Buffet have more power unto themselves to influence an election then even a small S Corp or other similarly small group of Americans who form a corporation.
Mega media corporations like GE have been free to use their media arms to fill the airwaves with their political opinions, but they get a media exemption. How does that affect your viewpoint on corporations?
If money is now considered free speech protected by the 1st amendment, are campaign contribution limits now unconstitutional? Aren't we limited to $2000 as far as giving to an individual candidate? Isn't that now limiting my "free speech?"
Unlike the Supreme Court justices, local judges are elected. What's going to keep a local corporation filling the local judicial system with their own people now? Or, if a judge rules against a corporation, he/she will now probably have to face a very well funded opponent. Do you think that might effect their decision-making? If the limits on individual contributions is lifted, will rich people who lose court cases try to affect that judges reelection chances by contributing hugely to his opponent? Will THAT effect how judges think?
Sorry all I have is questions really. But this Supreme Court decision is really disturbing to me, and I'm usually not all that concerned with national politics.
If money is now considered free speech protected by the 1st amendment, are campaign contribution limits now unconstitutional? Aren't we limited to $2000 as far as giving to an individual candidate? Isn't that now limiting my "free speech?"
Before we get into all the other stuff in your post you need to show something that makes this point. Show me what part of this ruling means money = free speech.
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.
Consequences of Supreme Court Ruling?
