Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

[Designer99]

And that's exactly why I'm hiring you as my lawyer! You can say things without actually saying them! Bravo my friend.

I can call out your trolling tendencies without saying you're a troll. You're just illuminating the fact that you're not sensitive to details

 

[slow1911s]

The word "taxes" kept appearing in your post, while you claim it wasn't about taxes.

Joe, I'm giving roots to the tax issue.

 

[hornadylnl]

You may be the one who needs to re-read history.

Before the Tea Act, The British East India Company was paying the crown 400,000 pounds a year. Before the party, The Company was struggling financially and was close to collapse. The Tea Act, through influence by The Company on the crown, allowed them to export tea duty free to the crown's colonies. All other importers still had to pay the duty.

Yeah, there was a tax there, but the genesis of that was in a corporation and its influence on a government. In that case, a dictatorship.

So what is your and Designers solution to what you perceive to be a problem? More government regulation? It's government regulation that has put us into this mess. If you think "Campaign Finance Reform" that was supposed to limit corporate influence did anything other than further the agenda of politicians, I'd like some of what you guys are smoking.

There is a clear agenda of the left and the poor and downtrodden to punish and harm corporations. Why should those corporations not be allowed to try to influence politicians to protect themselves from the populist lych mob that is forming around them? It's okay for the groups that represent the poor and downtrodden to use money to influence politicians and legislation but not corporations?

All I see this being is the poor and downtrodden voting on which CEO they get to roast and eat first. Corporations can exist without government. Can government exist without corporations? Who generates wealth in this country and provides jobs that put food on your table? Billy Ray Jim Bob and Obama or Bill Gates?

 

[slow1911s]

So what is your...solution to what you perceive to be a problem?

I really don't have one. More regulation isn't the answer, I know that. Tell me how to get 280 million people on the same page and I'll get back to you.

 

[dross]

The British East India company was a government supported monopoly, something I'm against. I'm also against the government granting special privileges to particular businesses. What I'm not against, is allowing businesses to contribute to political campaigns with which they agree.

 

[henktermaat]

The British East India company was a government supported monopoly, something I'm against. I'm also against the government granting special privileges to particular businesses. What I'm not against, is allowing businesses to contribute to political campaigns with which they agree.

That sums it up for me as well.

 

[Designer99]

I'm also against the government granting special privileges to particular businesses.

Thats the problem I see though...

With more corporate influence, government will grant special privileges to particular businesses.

For instance:
Clear Channel's lobbying to allow them to buy more radio stations.

Before passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the entire country. With the Act's sweeping relaxation of ownership limits, Clear Channel now owns approximately 1225 radio stations in 300 cities and dominates the audience share in 100 of 112 major markets.

...and now radio stations play the same damn songs wherever you go!

 

[Fletch]

Thats the problem I see though...

With more corporate influence, government will grant special privileges to particular businesses.

For instance:
Clear Channel's lobbying to allow them to buy more radio stations.

Before passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the entire country. With the Act's sweeping relaxation of ownership limits, Clear Channel now owns approximately 1225 radio stations in 300 cities and dominates the audience share in 100 of 112 major markets.

So?

 

[henktermaat]

Thats the problem I see though...

With more corporate influence, government will grant special privileges to particular businesses.

For instance:
Clear Channel's lobbying to allow them to buy more radio stations.

Before passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the entire country. With the Act's sweeping relaxation of ownership limits, Clear Channel now owns approximately 1225 radio stations in 300 cities and dominates the audience share in 100 of 112 major markets.

...and now radio stations play the same damn songs wherever you go!

How is that a problem worth limiting free speech over?

 

[dross]

Thats the problem I see though...

With more corporate influence, government will grant special privileges to particular businesses.

For instance:
Clear Channel's lobbying to allow them to buy more radio stations.

Before passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the entire country. With the Act's sweeping relaxation of ownership limits, Clear Channel now owns approximately 1225 radio stations in 300 cities and dominates the audience share in 100 of 112 major markets.

...and now radio stations play the same damn songs wherever you go!

The goverment's control over the broadcast airwaves is a relic. It came from a time when bandwidth was a more limited commodity. Times have changed, and policy should change with them.

You seem to see evidence for your beliefs everywhere you look. Any group of things kind be grouped together and look like a theme. Sometimes it's true, sometimes further examination reveals that only a superficial viewing with pre-judged premeses could provide that theme.

 

[hornadylnl]

Thats the problem I see though...

With more corporate influence, government will grant special privileges to particular businesses.

For instance:
Clear Channel's lobbying to allow them to buy more radio stations.

Before passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the entire country. With the Act's sweeping relaxation of ownership limits, Clear Channel now owns approximately 1225 radio stations in 300 cities and dominates the audience share in 100 of 112 major markets.

...and now radio stations play the same damn songs wherever you go!

You're political stance is becoming more transparent by the minute.

 

[Designer99]

Hey man, I'm just trying to back up my statements with examples. Sorry if I'm quick on the research.

Feel free to give me examples too.


Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Right?

The goverment's control over the broadcast airwaves is a relic. It came from a time when bandwidth was a more limited commodity. Times have changed, and policy should change with them.

You seem to see evidence for your beliefs everywhere you look. Any group of things kind be grouped together and look like a theme. Sometimes it's true, sometimes further examination reveals that only a superficial viewing with pre-judged premeses could provide that theme.

 

[printcraft]

Thats the problem I see though...

With more corporate influence, government will grant special privileges to particular businesses.

For instance:
Clear Channel's lobbying to allow them to buy more radio stations.

Before passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the entire country. With the Act's sweeping relaxation of ownership limits, Clear Channel now owns approximately 1225 radio stations in 300 cities and dominates the audience share in 100 of 112 major markets.

...and now radio stations play the same damn songs wherever you go!

Hey, quick question..... How do you feel about the fairness doctrine?

Not what you think, what you feel.

 

[Designer99]

I feel soooo special. I love that you love to talk about me, rather than the issues.

So due tell, what is my oh so transparent political stance?

You're political stance is becoming more transparent by the minute.

 

[hornadylnl]

I feel soooo special. I love that you love to talk about me, rather than the issues.

So due tell, what is my oh so transparent political stance?

You seem to have all the political talking points of one particular party down pretty well.

 

[henktermaat]

You seem to have all the political talking points of one particular party down pretty well.

Now, now, remember how "party" labels are just here to divide us...

 

[dross]

Hey man, I'm just trying to back up my statements with examples. Sorry if I'm quick on the research.

Feel free to give me examples too.


Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Right?

I can't provide examples because I'm disagreeing with your assertion. I can't provide examples of things that didn't happen.

Do corporations have some influence on government? Yes.
Is this a bad thing? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Should it be regulated? Lightly. Bribes, yes. Campaign contributions, no.

 

[Designer99]

I feel like you setting me up here....

Fairness doctrine as in each side of an issue should get equal time and representation? In theory, I think it's a good idea and fair for both sides. Though with all the out of control op-eds and mis-information out there, it would be really hard to say what is what.

Although, the internet has pretty much made it irrelevant. It had good intentions, but it's a relic in the 21st century.

Did I pass the test? Or fall in the trap?

Hey, quick question..... How do you feel about the fairness doctrine?

Not what you think, what you feel.

 

[Designer99]

You must be referring to my disagreement with the bailouts and my strong feelings on the right to bear arms shall not be infringed on.

Please, do not try to put me in a box.

You seem to have all the political talking points of one particular party down pretty well.

 

[printcraft]

I feel like you setting me up here....

Fairness doctrine as in each side of an issue should get equal time and representation? In theory, I think it's a good idea and fair for both sides. Though with all the out of control op-eds and mis-information out there, it would be really hard to say what is what.

Although, the internet has pretty much made it irrelevant. It had good intentions, but it's a relic in the 21st century.

Did I pass the test? Or fall in the trap?

Me not setting you up, me asking question to further me understanding.

The fairness doctrine is government meddling in the free market.
Just look to air-america, the market spoke.
You don't see people of a conservative mindset clamoring for the fairness doctrine do you? I wonder why.
Intentions:
The current intention of the fairness doctrine is to stifle free speech
and views that the "main stream" media does not like.
Like it or not polls have show that the majority of Americans hold conservative views.
The only way air-america or it's ilk survive is if it is forced upon us.