bush_cheney2004 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) McCain/Feingold just got slammed by the US Supreme Court.... WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy. http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/01/21/supreme-court-drop-kicks-mccainfeingold-scores-victory-for-1st-amendment/ Money talks! Edited January 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 This is what you get for allowing the State to get away with defining corporations as being people too. Ever wonder how it is something like the Borg might ever evolve? Imagine where a fusion of State and Corporate culture with AI might leave real flesh and blood people one day. China would probably seem downright benign and humane in comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 It's too bad. This means that more television commercials will be used to debate the issues. Republican majorities in both houses, and in the White House - and an administration as effective as GW Bush's. Meanwhile, people will be sold on the idea that Swedish novels, or invisible lizards are causing all the misery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 This is what you get for allowing the State to get away with defining corporations as being people too.Corporations and unions are not defined as people. They are legal entities which can be punished for their misdeeds even if the managers that made those decisions are long gone. If these legal entities are legally responsible for their misdeeds it follows that they should be entitled to protect their interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 China would probably seem downright benign and humane in comparison. LOL, I love outrageous hyperbole! Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Corporations and unions are not defined as people. C'mon...they're citizens, with needs just like any other person. Poor things. Despite Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad as a guiding benchmark of person-hood, fairness and equality, corporations have still had to struggle all this time against discrimination from other people in society. Oh the humanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Corporations and unions are not defined as people. They are legal entities which can be punished for their misdeeds even if the managers that made those decisions are long gone. If these legal entities are legally responsible for their misdeeds it follows that they should be entitled to protect their interests. In US law, corporations are classified as people and have most rights that a living breathing human does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1, which states: In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Candidates really don't need corp. donations, just pay someone to hack the voting machine like GW did!!! Win everytime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 It's too bad. This means that more television commercials will be used to debate the issues. Republican majorities in both houses, and in the White House - and an administration as effective as GW Bush's. Nothing wrong with that....the extra ad revenue will be welcomed. As for effectiveness, looks like more speech and commercials are needed in Canada! Meanwhile, people will be sold on the idea that Swedish novels, or invisible lizards are causing all the misery. This doesn't make any sense....the biggest cause of misery was President Carter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I see the argument for free speech over spending limits, i just don't agree with it. Democracy > free political speech for large corporations The U.S. is a plutocracy 1-2-3 hurray! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I see the argument for free speech over spending limits, i just don't agree with it. Anything less is not free speech. Democracy > free political speech for large corporations The U.S. is a plutocracy 1-2-3 hurray! The U.S. is a corporation...very successful one at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 This might be off topic - but I wonder if America is just a feudal system with one too many lords demanding tribute. The bank bailouts will always be an interesting bench mark for what the reality is in this so-called democratic existance. The public under pain of imprisonment must pay taxes - and this amounts to a tribute to the banker lords. If you do not want to shore up the failed lords of the manner they will send the feds to pick you up and put you in the dungeon..why can't the common man do the same and jail the bankers..what makes these crooks more special than the common crooks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 In US law, corporations are classified as people and have most rights that a living breathing human does.That is not what your quote says. What you quote says the use of word "person" in laws is intended to include legal entitities unless explicitly stated otherwise. It is nothing but a short hand notation designed to make the laws more readable. They could have simply replaced the word person with 'legal entity' and defined an entity to include a person.The point is corporations are not defined to be people under law. They have the same rights/obligations as people in many cases but that is not the same as saying they are defined to be people. For example, corporations do not have the right to vote in elections. That is a right reserved for people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 I see the argument for free speech over spending limits, i just don't agree with it. Having read more about this story, it seems that these spending limits that were struck down were only for corporations advertising/campaigning politically. There still remains restrictions on direct campaign contributions by corporations. I think there is a key difference here. Be it that free speech is in the 1st amendment, a strong case can be had for allowing these contributions. On the other hand, there are already different laws passed by the Supreme Court that restrict "free speech" in different ways, including restricting political "issue" ads, then there was all that crap about the 527 ads. I dunno, i just wish candidates (in Canada too) were elected for their merits rather than how much they can spend to get themselves in the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 For example, corporations do not have the right to vote in elections. That is a right reserved for people. That just doesn't seem fair anymore in the face of this decision so I suspect this will be the next thing corporations sue for, and win. After that, they'll quite likely have the right to run for office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 This is what you get for allowing the State to get away with defining corporations as being people too. As much as it's a sad truth that money can influence an election, I never could understand how anyone seriously thought the McCain-Feingold Bill would ever pass Constitutional muster. This has nothing to do with the limited personhood of nations, and everything to do with two critical freedoms; freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. You can't limit an individual or a group's right to express themselves simply because they are a certain kind of group (in this case unions, corporations and lobbyists). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 As much as it's a sad truth that money can influence an election, I never could understand how anyone seriously thought the McCain-Feingold Bill would ever pass Constitutional muster. This has nothing to do with the limited personhood of nations, and everything to do with two critical freedoms; freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. You can't limit an individual or a group's right to express themselves simply because they are a certain kind of group (in this case unions, corporations and lobbyists). Then its a sad truth that individual human beings will probably matter even less to politicians then they do now. What's really missing is a human right to not assemble - an individual notwithstanding clause. If I had the chance I really would sell my soul for a swarm of self-replicating nano-assemblers and simply move off the planet and try to stay outside the sphere of any big national government's authority forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 I'd like to see less advertising by political parties here, National limits on actual air time for each party...I'd like to see them play fair as well, no smear tactics, zero chance of that ever happening ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Money talks! right! The best U.S. government... money can buy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 right! The best U.S. government... money can buy! Just like health care....just ask Brock Lesnar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Just like health care....just ask Brock Lesnar! I wonder if the folks living in Cabrini Green feel the same way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 This might be off topic - but I wonder if America is just a feudal system with one too many lords demanding tribute. The bank bailouts will always be an interesting bench mark for what the reality is in this so-called democratic existance. The public under pain of imprisonment must pay taxes - and this amounts to a tribute to the banker lords. If you do not want to shore up the failed lords of the manner they will send the feds to pick you up and put you in the dungeon..why can't the common man do the same and jail the bankers..what makes these crooks more special than the common crooks? I don't know about feudal,but I believe you've just given an apt description of modern corporate fascism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jade Dragon Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 This is simply one more blow to a political system already badly corrupted by too much money. American democracy is not sunk yet, but there is now one more hole in the ship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 I wonder if the folks living in Cabrini Green feel the same way? Most definitely, because Cabrini-Green has been redeveloped with...you guessed it....MONEY ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 This is simply one more blow to a political system already badly corrupted by too much money. American democracy is not sunk yet, but there is now one more hole in the ship. Frankly, I'd prefer that to a Canadian democracy corrupted by too little money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.