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.
I am a conservative, registered republican, and a member of a couple tea party groups.
I don't like that *any* corporation falls under this ruling. i.e. China, Iran, etc.-owned businesses.
I think that if the SCOTUS is going to allow all contributors, the recipients should have to disclose all donors.
AND, I also think this is (at least) the fourth thread dedicated to this subject
At last, a right winger actually answers the questions!!! Virtual handshake.
With this ruling, corporations can essentially donate whatever they want to candidates. As an example, if an oil-friendly politician runs for President, there is nothing stopping each of the big oil companies from donating $100 million to his or her campaign. Many political experts worry that the ruling will change future elections. They are fearful that politicians will become more worried about serving corporations rather than the people that elect them and who they are supposed to serve. All Justices That Sold Democracy Appointed by Republicans - Gay Vantage
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. The Supreme Court, as far as I can see in reading the ruling, didn't loosen any limits on contribution amounts but only said that corporate entities can donate. As can unions.
As can non-profit public interest groups.
Hortysir, the election laws I operate under require all donors for any amount to be listed, including in-kind contributions (someone gives me wood for sign stakes, for example).
The Tea Baggers are a creation of big business so of course they will always take that side even if it is against their own best interest. These people are not "the people". They are a front group for big pharma and big insurance and big banks. Who do you think pays for these rallies and busses?
I believe that the "tea baggers" you are referring to are people that engage in a sort of "strange" sexual act. However, the Tea Party people usually are folks like you and me but with a different point of view relating to politics and nation. Some could very well be involved with corporations, just like the rest of Americans, regardless of political beliefs. Some may even be your version of Tea Party folk, "tea baggers." But then, some could be fathers, mothers, gay, straight, criminal, non-criminal, black, white, blue-colar worker, white-colar worker, single, married, young, old, and so forth...
Lets say that you are you have a small building company, and your workers are family members: brothers, sisters, wife, sons and daughters, uncles, etc. As any other individual in the nation, every member of your "corporation" now has the same rights under the First Amendment. Not so under the McCain-Finegold bill. This bill was deemed Unconstitutional from the beginning, and the parties who brought it forth to the Supreme Court proved their case and won.
When the McCain-Finegold case became law, a very large group of "527" organizations sprouted all over the US. As such, unions and any 527 organization could donate to politicians as much money as they wanted. Also, everyone from a corporation (a bank, a chain store, you as a local home builder with a company, etc.) to you and I could still donate to any 527 organization, and this organization could donate to whichever politician it wanted to donate to. In other words, the McCain-Finegold bill, made it illegal for individuals (shareholders or any company, you as the owner of any company, or you as a person with a lot of money, or you as a person with little money) to donate directly to any politician. Now you had to donate to a 527 organization for this organization to donate to the same politician. The result was that a group of politicians could create their own 527 organization to have donations coming to their coffers, not from individuals (members of a corporation, you, your neighbor, your coworker, me...), though the 527 organization. Unions could continue donating to their politicians, and I imagine will continue just the same.
All the McCain-Finegold bill accomplished was to shift the right of direct private donating to politicians (or their campaigns) from individuals to certain organizations. This bill did not change the amount nor the point the money was flowing too, just the direction the money was being moved around. Politicians are as crooked as they have ever been. The Supremes just decided to strike-out a law that was not Constitutional, nothing else, nothing more.
It was the right wing of the SC that ruled that corporations are people too?
I phrased a legitimate question, and if you yourself are a tea bagger and/or right winger, I'd like you to answer it.
ok, how about this. any person, business or industry in part or in whole recieving money from the tax payers does not get any right to free speech, or right to vote.
that would take care of 95% of the democrat party and 80% of the republican party. then all that would be left would left would be 3rd party Libertarians and Constitutionalists.
With this ruling, corporations can essentially donate whatever they want to candidates.
Can you explain the "fairness" of a media corporation, like the NYTimes, being exempt from M-F, while other corporations that have no media "outlet" were prohibited from speaking freely on the issue?
I think they were angry over government bailouts and government looking out for Wall Street to the impoverishment of Main Street.
I think Rush and the fair and balanced crew were also mad at the Big O over bailouts (though I could be wrong on this).
So what are the positions of the above named on the right winger judges (some of them appointed by Bush junior & senior) ruling that corporations should have all the rights enjoyed by natural persons who have U.S. citizenship?
Where in the Constitution does it say that free speech is a right only for individuals?
Why do you think that business owners should not have ther right to free speech? Do they not pay taxes? Are they not subject to laws? Are they not subject to government regulations? Then why should they not have a voice?
Apologies to any one that was offended by my previous posts and thread title. There was a poster who claimed to be a conservative that used the term I've written here. I thought maybe the term was given a new meaning since terms like "gay" have changed over time. I will ask the moderator to change the title and the inappropriate reference. Now let me restate my queries here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Tea Party Folks who were angry over the Big O's continuation of bailouts and felt the administration was looking out for Wall Street rather than Main Street.
&
2. Rush, Fox News or any other right wingers that were critical of the current administration's bailouts and spoke on Big O's team not looking out for Main Street but for Big Business instead.
For the ABOVE NAMED in 1 & 2 here is are my questions.
What is your take on the right wing members of the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are:
a. essentially like people;
b. deserve the same constitutional rights and protections of natural persons who are U.S. citizens;
c. can now exert more of their vast wealth into the campaigns of candidates seeking elected office.
Last edited by kovert; 01-24-2010 at 06:12 PM..
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.
