Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

[henktermaat]

Thanks for that. You've pegged me completely. I have so much time on my hands that I look for websites to bait people.

It's not the free speech part that is the issue. It's who's getting the free speech! This ruling lets mulit-national corporations get to donate as much as they want to our political process. That means corporations owned by China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Venezuela etc. get to donate and help fund the candidate of their choice.

Are you ok with that? Does that bother you? I for one think it's a bad thing.

Don't take my word for it. Read: Campaign Money From Foreign Firms May Be Coming - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR

Liberal opinion rags like your NPR blog post usually find a way to turn any problem into an excuse to destroy the constitution. I'm suprises you can't see that.

 

[level.eleven]

I found a good little write over at Reason.com this morning. While its not an in depth piece, I think it does shed a little light on some of the concerns expressed so far. Mainly, that corporate donations have little to no effect on the election process. Microsoft and Apple will not wage a funding war to elect the next president. As a matter of fact, corporations usually play both sides of the fence pretty well as to not alienate consumers. There was a thread here this past week titled "Do corporate politics effect your purchasing?" The overwhelming majority said yes.

Here is a scary little snippet.

The result was not in much doubt after the justices heard the case. The government lawyer defending the statute was asked: If movies financed by corporations may be banned because they express opinions on candidates, how about books?


“It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, ‘So vote for X,’ the government could ban that?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. Replied the Justice Department attorney, “Well, if it says ‘vote for X,’ it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by the pre-existing Federal Election Campaign Act provision.”
If the corporation wanted to publish such a book, he continued, “we could prohibit the publication of the book using corporate treasury funds.”

We could prohibit the publication of the book.

If corporate advocacy may be forbidden as it was under the law in question, it’s not just Exxon Mobil and Citigroup that are rendered mute. Nonprofit corporations set up merely to advance goals shared by citizens, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association, also have to put a sock in it. So much for the First Amendment goal of fostering debate about public policy.


Right now, media companies are exempt from the ban. But why should a newspaper be free to spend money urging voters to support a candidate, while other companies are not?


Free Speech for Corporations - Reason Magazine

 

[jedi]

Maybe I'm missing something but is this thread not the same as this one?
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...rt_s_corporate_campaign_finance_decision.html

Could the MODs jusr merge the thread?

In terms of the topic at hand. I see Designer99's percieved concerns but do not think it's an issue. I think the "corporations" that were most affected by M-F was the non-profit ones like the NRA, American Civil Rights, Pro-Life/Pro-Choice, etc. Now they will once again be able to be heard.

Not that it really matters. Why? Yesterday on "face the nation" (I think that was the show) they were talking about the "R win in MA" and how it really was not an "R win" or a "Shift to Rs" but just a vote for anyone but a "D". One of the guest showed a graph with conservatives, liberal, and independents from 2000, 2006 and 2008 and how the % of ech group have NOT changed over the years.

So what I'm getting at is that more ads (good or negative) are NOT going to change anyone's mind. The majorty of people vote they same way (for each party) all the time! Every now and then you will see them vote for the other party (if they are independent) but a D will not vote for an R and instead just NOT vote if s/he is that mad with his/her party. Same with an R.

 

[Designer99]

Well, you've managed to attack me and avoid answering the actual issue at hand in every post.

Please, just tell me one thing:
Do you think it's ok for foreign owned interests to be allowed to give an unlimited amount of money via their corporations to political candidates in our sovereign elections? Are you ok with Hugo Chavez donating as much money as he wants through CITGO to American politicians who will vote more favorably to his issues?

Liberal opinion rags like your NPR blog post usually find a way to turn any problem into an excuse to destroy the constitution. I'm suprises you can't see that.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
Are you ok with Hugo Chavez donating as much money as he wants through CITGO to American politicians who will vote more favorably to his issues?

Absolutely. That's the American way, to allow even those we despise to have their voice. I asked you in another thread, you didn't answer, so I'll try again here.

Do you really want to go down a road where folks get to deny free speech to those with whom they disagree? Do you really want to give me the right to silence your attempt to get politicians who support your viewpoint elected? See, I think your viewpoints are bad for this country, and I similarly feel any politicians you want elected are almost certainly bad for this country. Don't you think you should have the right to speak your mind anyway?

 

[Designer99]

I think American free speech should be protected entirely.

I do not think foreign free speech has any place in our elections. Foreign interests meddling in our elections is not a good thing. They are not looking out for the interests of the American people. I think it will lead to even more jobs and money flowing out of our economy.

I think allowing foreign powers into our elections is another step in the direction of dissolving the Constitution in favor of setting up a one world government.

Absolutely. That's the American way, to allow even those we despise to have their voice. I asked you in another thread, you didn't answer, so I'll try again here.

Do you really want to go down a road where folks get to deny free speech to those with whom they disagree? Do you really want to give me the right to silence your attempt to get politicians who support your viewpoint elected? See, I think your viewpoints are bad for this country, and I similarly feel any politicians you want elected are almost certainly bad for this country. Don't you think you should have the right to speak your mind anyway?

 

[slow1911s]

Absolutely. That's the American way, to allow even those we despise to have their voice.

Hugo Chavez, the man, cannot register to vote in the US much less cast a ballot. Hugo Chavez, the money - through investment in a US corporation, can now have a voice through campaign contributions from that corporation. I think that is his point.

I don't know much this will change things? The same money will flow through the campaigns, it just will be above board now.

 

[slow1911s]

post #26 went up as I posted #27, for the record

 

[dross]

Well, you've managed to attack me and avoid answering the actual issue at hand in every post.

Please, just tell me one thing:
Do you think it's ok for foreign owned interests to be allowed to give an unlimited amount of money via their corporations to political candidates in our sovereign elections? Are you ok with Hugo Chavez donating as much money as he wants through CITGO to American politicians who will vote more favorably to his issues?

In short, yes.

Now please answer the question I have now asked you three times:

What provision in the Constitution granted the government the power to regulate who could give money to whom in order to advance a political agenda?

 

[hornadylnl]

Please, just tell me one thing:
Do you think it's ok for foreign owned interests to be allowed to give an unlimited amount of money via their corporations to political candidates in our sovereign elections? Are you ok with Hugo Chavez donating as much money as he wants through CITGO to American politicians who will vote more favorably to his issues?

You are absolutely, positively 1000% right here. Before this decision, money never came from China into a political campaign (cough*hack* Clinton) legal or otherwise.

 

[dross]

You are absolutely, positively 1000% right here. Before this decision, money never came from China into a political campaign (cough*hack* Clinton) legal or otherwise.

A great point. They get it here regardless. This law was a lot like the gun control laws - it only limited the law-abiding citizen.

 

[Designer99]

Still didn't answer the question, just gave me a "well they did it too" answer.

So business as usual since it has gone on before or should we the people try to put a stop to foreign influence?

You are absolutely, positively 1000% right here. Before this decision, money never came from China into a political campaign (cough*hack* Clinton) legal or otherwise.

 

[NWIeng]

In short, yes.

Now please answer the question I have now asked you three times:

What provision in the Constitution granted the government the power to regulate who could give money to whom in order to advance a political agenda?

I will second the request for this question to be answered.

I get it. Some corporations would have no problem shelling out the money to 100% finance the campaign needs of senators and representatives. I can see the MSNBC argument and why it would scare someone, or even a lot of people. I kinda scares me too.

But bottomline, if Designer99 won't answer the above question, I will. There is no provision in the constitution that says anything about this sort of regulation. End of story. If someone wants to lobby for a bill making donations more transparent, I'm all for that.

I'm sure we would all love a constituency of people as plugged into things as many of the people on here are...and if that were the case, then corporate-purchased candidates would be seen for who they are and not given a second look. Unfortunately that's not the case...if it was, this ruling would be no big deal.

But whether that's the case or not, it has no bearing on what was a solid ruling by the SCOTUS.

 

[dross]

Right now, media companies are exempt from the ban. But why should a newspaper be free to spend money urging voters to support a candidate, while other companies are not?

And citizens, as well.

This is exactly the point. This law gave the MSM enormous power.

 

[Designer99]

Good question. I saw a good argument about this somewhere on the interwebs. I'll have to find it. In the mean time, I can tell you what a few great Americans said...

" I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. "


-Thomas Jefferson


"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

​

-President Abraham Lincoln



You guys wouldn't disagree with Honest Abe and Thomas Jefferson now would you?

In short, yes.

Now please answer the question I have now asked you three times:

What provision in the Constitution granted the government the power to regulate who could give money to whom in order to advance a political agenda?

 

[henktermaat]

Well, you've managed to attack me and avoid answering the actual issue at hand in every post.

Please, just tell me one thing:
Do you think it's ok for foreign owned interests to be allowed to give an unlimited amount of money via their corporations to political candidates in our sovereign elections? Are you ok with Hugo Chavez donating as much money as he wants through CITGO to American politicians who will vote more favorably to his issues?

1) No, I don't think foreign interests whould be allowed to... ect, etc.
2) I don't shop at CITGO, I never have. I vote with my dollars.
3) The government should not be allowed to stomp on free speech, and this is what you promote.

 

[hornadylnl]

Good question. I saw a good argument about this somewhere on the interwebs. I'll have to find it. In the mean time, I can tell you what a few great Americans said...

" I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. "


-Thomas Jefferson


"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."

-President Abraham Lincoln



You guys wouldn't disagree with Honest Abe and Thomas Jefferson now would you?

I find it amusing that you would use a president who suspended Habeas Corpus to back up your claim that corporations are a detriment to the government.

 

[Designer99]

Once again, American free speech should not be infringed on, foreign interests via corporations should not have free speech because they do not have the American people's interests at heart. I can't say that any clearer.

1) No, I don't think foreign interests whould be allowed to... ect, etc.
2) I don't shop at CITGO, I never have. I vote with my dollars.
3) The government should not be allowed to stomp on free speech, and this is what you promote.

 

[Designer99]

Thats why I also put Thomas Jefferson in there, just for you. Do you disagree with him?

I find it amusing that you would use a president who suspended Habeas Corpus to back up your claim that corporations are a detriment to the government.

 

[hornadylnl]

Once again, American free speech should not be infringed on, foreign interests via corporations should not have free speech because they do not have the American people's interests at heart. I can't say that any clearer.

And politicians have the American peoples' interest at heart? So what is the name of your union? Did you have to wait for them to tell you what your opinion of what the supreme courts decision was before you came here?