Republicans Rejoice (1 Viewer)

[Thales750]

Two hundred and twenty something years ago the congress of the United States ratified a constitution, protecting the rights of individuals to practice free speech.

The spirit of that law was to insure that the voice of the common man would be protected by government and not squelched by the powerful entities of the time.

Today in a blatantly anty-freedom decision and a prime example of legislation from the bench, the US Supreme Court granted virtually unlimited power to the mega corps and global financial institutes, to control the thinking and voting of the American people.

It grants power back to the land barons like very few laws have ever done.

And they wonder why Americans have lost faith in government.

They (the Supreme Court) have removed the spending caps on advertising in the 30 and 60 day run up to elections. Giving the “big business” should own the entire planet group; plenty of fodder to chew.

There seems to be no line the republicans won’t cross; to strip Middle America of its future.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

You mean big business like Progressive Insurance?

 

[SOS]

Or like Labor Unions who traditionally line up with the Democrats?

 

[Thales750]

You mean big business like Progressive Insurance?

I gather that they are not particularly conservative.

George, as a fellow Houstonian, I was hoping you would at least make a reference, as to how well I sounded like one of those political journalists.

 

[Thales750]

Or like Labor Unions who traditionally line up with the Democrats?

Since when do the labor unions have a millionth of the money that the big one thousand have?

 

[SOS]

Sense when do the labor unions have a millionth of the money that the big one thousand have?

They have plenty to influence elections with. You don't think that the AFL/CIO has chicken feed for their funds, do you? They have a very large amount of money available to them.

 

[Thales750]

They have plenty to influence elections with. You don't think that the AFL/CIO has chicken feed for their funds, do you? They have a very large amount of money available to them.

Of course they do, but as I said, not even a millionth of the wealth availible to the big corps.

The question is; are you defending the ruling or not?

 

[SOS]

Of course they do, but as I said, not even a millionth of the wealth availible to the big corps.

Not all big corps get involved with Elections. In fact, most of them do not. They don't want to be seen as offending either side because to them it is all money. There are a few, like the Tobacco Industry, which will be on the forefront, but again, I think you overestimate the number of large corporations who will jump on the bandwagon.

But, that is all extraneous to me, as I'm not affected directly.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I was using Col's irony.

Progressive Insurance is (or was) owned/run by George Soros (moveon.org).

I really don't know much about the case you're referring to, but I sense that liberal companies (GE?) will advance the socialist agenda as much or more than conservative or libertarian run companies will the conservative agenda if advertising restrictions are lifted. In fact, via moveon.org, Progressive Insurance has been able to consistently lobby the public with the liberal agenda.

The thing is, conservative business men are in business to make money, not advance a political cause. I would guess that is true of most liberal business men, too. However, the few whackos in business who do press a political agenda are liberal leaning.

 

[Rabbie]

Like SOS this does not affect me directly but as a person who believes in democracy I agree with Thales that this seems to be a dangerous ruling.

 

[SOS]

Like SOS this does not affect me directly but as a person who believes in democracy I agree with Thales that this seems to be a dangerous ruling.

It very well could be. But I think there have been more damaging court decisions that have been "legislation from the bench" in U.S. courts recently. It strikes me as odd the fact that the three branches of government were put into place as a safeguard against any particular group getting too much power and yet it is those same institutions which have an "end around" so-to-speak, in many cases. They can get past the other two branches by some sneaky means, whether it be the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, or the Judicial branch. It seems that each group has figured out ways to screw the others and get their agenda in place.

I'm not saying it happens all of the time, but it seems to be more frequently happening.

 

[Thales750]

It very well could be. But I think there have been more damaging court decisions that have been "legislation from the bench" in U.S. courts recently. It strikes me as odd the fact that the three branches of government were put into place as a safeguard against any particular group getting too much power and yet it is those same institutions which have an "end around" so-to-speak, in many cases. They can get past the other two branches by some sneaky means, whether it be the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, or the Judicial branch. It seems that each group has figured out ways to screw the others and get their agenda in place.

I'm not saying it happens all of the time, but it seems to be more frequently happening.

In America it seems that the parties are imminently more concerned with the party than the country. This one just happened to be supported by republicans. I'll keep a look out for some that smell like dems.

 

[SOS]

In America it seems that the parties are imminently more concerned with the party than the country.

That I can totally believe. And I think it knows no boundaries on either side. And even more so, is that they also have more concern with their little AREA of the country and not the country as a whole. But that is how they get elected and also hearkens back to the start of the U.S. when it was formed. It is smaller states which formed the country, not a country which formed little states.

 

[Banana]

To me, the ruling is quite consistent. Corporations are considered a legal person. Thus it's not a big stretch to argue they should have same rights as any people have.

Don't like it? Abolish corporate personhood, then we take away all rights that apply to a person from the corporate and thus are free to pass any laws to abridge speech coming from corporate.

I think the ruling is bad thing, but I can't say this is a case of 'legislating from the bench' given the fact of corporate personhood.

 

[Rabbie]

It very well could be. But I think there have been more damaging court decisions that have been "legislation from the bench" in U.S. courts recently. It strikes me as odd the fact that the three branches of government were put into place as a safeguard against any particular group getting too much power and yet it is those same institutions which have an "end around" so-to-speak, in many cases. They can get past the other two branches by some sneaky means, whether it be the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, or the Judicial branch. It seems that each group has figured out ways to screw the others and get their agenda in place.

I'm not saying it happens all of the time, but it seems to be more frequently happening.

Good Point. It as always seemed to me a weakness in the US system of checks and balances between the three branches that the executive can to a certain extent pack the Supreme Court with its appointees especially when it has a compliant legislature. Still no-one has a perfect system of government

 

[Banana]

Well, I would daresay that the problem stems from over-reliance on Federal Government. When we consider that many of bills passed in Congress appeal to "Interstate commerce" as justification for just about everything under the sun, it does seem to me they've really overexpanded.

I just believe that a better government is one that is closer to the home. It's hard to be a corrupt mayor of a town but very easy to be a corrupt Congressman. So, if Federal government had never politicalized many of social issues, we wouldn't have this mess to begin with, IMHO.

 

[laxster]

A lot of the lobbying and corruption in Washington DC could be fixed by taking two simple steps.

1. Completely eliminate corporate taxes. These taxes are just passed onto the consumer anyway. Much of the lobbying has to do with corporate tax breaks, etc. If there were no tax, these would go away.

2. Institute a flat tax or the simple tax. No deductions, etc. This move would take away a lot of the politicians' power as well as the need to "lobby" them. (this will never happen)

 

[Adam Caramon]

I read about this ruling yesterday; it seems a very poor decision. I won't get into the legal avenue because I don't know all the rules/laws concerning corporations, but on a basic level, it gives more voice to big companies, which I consider a bad thing.

I saw some people defending it, saying that corporations are groups brought together for common goals. I work for a corporation, and I have never been told to vote one way or another for any kind of election. Even talking about politics is frowned upon here.

I think we need to pass a law that prohibits people or corporations from giving money to political candidates. Then provide a small amount of money from taxes for each election. Each candidate will then be required to submit a budget for their campaign along with receipts.

All candidates get the same amount of money to spend on their campaign, all is equal. Then the quality rather than the quantity of their message would prevail.

Edit:

Institute a flat tax or the simple tax. No deductions, etc. This move would take away a lot of the politicians' power as well as the need to "lobby" them. (this will never happen)

This solution has proven to be beneficial to the poverty-level population and the very rich-level population while being detrimental to the middle-class. I don't see how this would help in the overall scheme of things. Trickle down economics is a myth.

 

[laxster]

I think we need to pass a law that prohibits people or corporations from giving money to political candidates. Then provide a small amount of money from taxes for each election. Each candidate will then be required to submit a budget for their campaign along with receipts.

All candidates get the same amount of money to spend on their campaign, all is equal. Then the quality rather than the quantity of their message would prevail.

Not a good idea. It makes the assumption that government is altruistic and corporations are not, not to mention it severely restricts free speech. I'm certainly no fan of corporations (my experience has led me to believe they are vast soul-sucking places to spend a life) and unions certainly aren't any better. But they are entities as well, and my dislike of them doesn't cause me to think that they don't deserve to have their say as well.

All of these senators and reps are fair game now to all that they attack. Before? They could say anything they wanted without response. It was illegal. No longer. Just today Obama was back at it attacking the banks. Now the banks can legally fight back. Government as per the 1st Amendment has NO business regulating ANY speech whatsoever. I also adore my 2nd Amendment rights. Under McLame-Fiengold it was illegal for the NRA to give the scoop on those running 30-60 days before an election, primary/general. Why? What purpose does that serve? People should be able to give donations freely to the NRA. It WAS a suppression of free speech to donate to a causes people believe in and have the Federal Government disallow them to state their case.

As far as the ruling is concerned, the dissenting arguments didn't hold up against the Constitution. They had no validity. It was all based on anti-capitalism. No structure in the Constitution was to be found or used because they don't exist. They resorted to language constructs between "old english" and present usage of pronouns. That's all they had. Nonetheless, having 4 out of 5 on the court that are willing to resort to this sort of argument is still disturbing. Redefining original intent based on language nuances is not what the Founding Fathers intended. The whole reason that Supreme Court Justices were to be granted lifetime appointments was to avoid precisely this. Politics determining basic interpretations of Constitutional application.

How can anyone read anything more in the 1st amendment other than that the government is prohibited from regulating free speech?

 

[Adam Caramon]

Not a good idea. It makes the assumption that government is altruistic and corporations are not, not to mention it severely restricts free speech.

How in the world did you infer that from my post? How does my post make the government seem altruistic?

But they are entities as well, and my dislike of them doesn't cause me to think that they don't deserve to have their say as well.

How do they not have their say under what I suggested? I as an individual can say anything I want. Any corporation can say anything they want. Free speech is not restricted.

I also adore my 2nd Amendment rights. Under McLame-Fiengold it was illegal for the NRA to give the scoop on those running 30-60 days before an election, primary/general. Why? What purpose does that serve?

McCain-Feingold specifically targeted TV ads. If you want to know what NRA's take on an issue is, you can easily connect to their website or call them or write them and they can provide you with their view.