darthtang aw
Active Member
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/...1st-amendment/
Awesome...score one for the constitution.
Awesome...score one for the constitution.
say goodbye to McCain/Feingold!!!
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
veni vidi vici
Active Member
"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."
Hmmmm? As if lobbyist aren't crawling all over Capital Hill already. I like the idea of transparency,open the blinds and let the sunshine in. No more back room deals.Make the amounts,the corporation or organizations public, I see no problems with this as long as all the info is public.
Hmmmm? As if lobbyist aren't crawling all over Capital Hill already. I like the idea of transparency,open the blinds and let the sunshine in. No more back room deals.Make the amounts,the corporation or organizations public, I see no problems with this as long as all the info is public.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3214364
I like the idea of transparency,open the blinds and let the sunshine in. No more back room deals.Make the amounts,the corporation or organizations public, I see no problems with this as long as all the info is public.
...would it be ok for the government to force you to public show who you support and gave money too? Some of us would not have an issue with it, but it IS an invasion of privacy......corporations are an extention of people.....this is a cloudy subject. I am not sure where I stand on that aspect.
http:///forum/post/3214364
I like the idea of transparency,open the blinds and let the sunshine in. No more back room deals.Make the amounts,the corporation or organizations public, I see no problems with this as long as all the info is public.
...would it be ok for the government to force you to public show who you support and gave money too? Some of us would not have an issue with it, but it IS an invasion of privacy......corporations are an extention of people.....this is a cloudy subject. I am not sure where I stand on that aspect.
bang guy
Moderator
If there were some meaningful transparency around our representatives this ruling would make no difference. Since that's not the case then I think this is a horrible happening. Corporations are NOT an extension of citizens, they are entities fabricated to make money. They are not citizens, they have no constitutional rights.
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3214368
...would it be ok for the government to force you to public show who you support and gave money too? Some of us would not have an issue with it, but it IS an invasion of privacy......corporations are an extention of people.....this is a cloudy subject. I am not sure where I stand on that aspect.
I think it should be the other way around. Our representatives should be required to show who they received money from and WHAT THE CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVES HAVE ASKED FOR IN RETURN. They are voted in to represent us, we have a right to know why they are voting the way they do.
http:///forum/post/3214368
...would it be ok for the government to force you to public show who you support and gave money too? Some of us would not have an issue with it, but it IS an invasion of privacy......corporations are an extention of people.....this is a cloudy subject. I am not sure where I stand on that aspect.
I think it should be the other way around. Our representatives should be required to show who they received money from and WHAT THE CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVES HAVE ASKED FOR IN RETURN. They are voted in to represent us, we have a right to know why they are voting the way they do.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3214373
If there were some meaningful transparency around our representatives this ruling would make no difference. Since that's not the case then I think this is a horrible happening. Corporations are NOT an extension of citizens, they are entities fabricated to make money. They are not citizens, they have no constitutional rights.
I would agree with you except, many small businnesses and family owned businesses are LLCs or incorporated which classifies them under corporations...
http:///forum/post/3214373
If there were some meaningful transparency around our representatives this ruling would make no difference. Since that's not the case then I think this is a horrible happening. Corporations are NOT an extension of citizens, they are entities fabricated to make money. They are not citizens, they have no constitutional rights.
I would agree with you except, many small businnesses and family owned businesses are LLCs or incorporated which classifies them under corporations...
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3214380
I would agree with you except, many small businnesses and family owned businesses are LLCs or incorporated which classifies them under corporations...
Citizens have Constitutional Rights, corporations do not. Well, this recent development says I'm wrong and corporations share the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights. I am wrong according to 5 of the Supreme Court judges.
Personally, I think that is the end of democracy as we know it.
http:///forum/post/3214380
I would agree with you except, many small businnesses and family owned businesses are LLCs or incorporated which classifies them under corporations...
Citizens have Constitutional Rights, corporations do not. Well, this recent development says I'm wrong and corporations share the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights. I am wrong according to 5 of the Supreme Court judges.
Personally, I think that is the end of democracy as we know it.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3214376
I think it should be the other way around. Our representatives should be required to show who they received money from and WHAT THE CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVES HAVE ASKED FOR IN RETURN. They are voted in to represent us, we have a right to know why they are voting the way they do.
+1
This is what i think would work best ,however it should be illegal for corporations or organizations to ask for anything and for our elected representative to give anything in return.Otherwise things would be no different than they are now with lobbyist buying votes.
http:///forum/post/3214376
I think it should be the other way around. Our representatives should be required to show who they received money from and WHAT THE CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVES HAVE ASKED FOR IN RETURN. They are voted in to represent us, we have a right to know why they are voting the way they do.
+1
This is what i think would work best ,however it should be illegal for corporations or organizations to ask for anything and for our elected representative to give anything in return.Otherwise things would be no different than they are now with lobbyist buying votes.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3214368
...would it be ok for the government to force you to public show who you support and gave money too? Some of us would not have an issue with it, but it IS an invasion of privacy......corporations are an extention of people.....this is a cloudy subject. I am not sure where I stand on that aspect.
No im suggesting that the politicians make all their received corporation and organization contributions public.Ill never be in favor of any infringements on my rights as described in the Bill of Rights.
http:///forum/post/3214368
...would it be ok for the government to force you to public show who you support and gave money too? Some of us would not have an issue with it, but it IS an invasion of privacy......corporations are an extention of people.....this is a cloudy subject. I am not sure where I stand on that aspect.
No im suggesting that the politicians make all their received corporation and organization contributions public.Ill never be in favor of any infringements on my rights as described in the Bill of Rights.
stdreb27
Active Member
I'm kind of tossed up about this, it does open up a great way to bribe a politician, (but hey it isn't like special interests aren't doing that anyway).
On the flip side to this, ESPECIALLY with the current administration having declared war on corporate America. Congress makes law that directly harm affect business, as a business they should be able to congress and let them know. IMO this is taxation without representation. Since corporations are PUBLICLY owned, there are real people whose interests they are representing. Which something around 50% of Americans own some sort of stock. You're basically infringing on their freedom of speech.
On the flip side to this, ESPECIALLY with the current administration having declared war on corporate America. Congress makes law that directly harm affect business, as a business they should be able to congress and let them know. IMO this is taxation without representation. Since corporations are PUBLICLY owned, there are real people whose interests they are representing. Which something around 50% of Americans own some sort of stock. You're basically infringing on their freedom of speech.
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3214409
I'm kind of tossed up about this, it does open up a great way to bribe a politician, (but hey it isn't like special interests aren't doing that anyway).
On the flip side to this, ESPECIALLY with the current administration having declared war on corporate America. Congress makes law that directly harm affect business, as a business they should be able to congress and let them know. IMO this is taxation without representation. Since corporations are PUBLICLY owned, there are real people whose interests they are representing. Which something around 50% of Americans own some sort of stock. You're basically infringing on their freedom of speech.
So, of the stock you own, where do you voice what you would like communicated? If the company you own stock in cannot speak to your representative, how does that prevent YOU from speaking?
If a Corp is 99% owned by China, how much influence do you want that corporation to have over YOUR government?
http:///forum/post/3214409
I'm kind of tossed up about this, it does open up a great way to bribe a politician, (but hey it isn't like special interests aren't doing that anyway).
On the flip side to this, ESPECIALLY with the current administration having declared war on corporate America. Congress makes law that directly harm affect business, as a business they should be able to congress and let them know. IMO this is taxation without representation. Since corporations are PUBLICLY owned, there are real people whose interests they are representing. Which something around 50% of Americans own some sort of stock. You're basically infringing on their freedom of speech.
So, of the stock you own, where do you voice what you would like communicated? If the company you own stock in cannot speak to your representative, how does that prevent YOU from speaking?
If a Corp is 99% owned by China, how much influence do you want that corporation to have over YOUR government?
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3214387
Citizens have Constitutional Rights, corporations do not. Well, this recent development says I'm wrong and corporations share the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights. I am wrong according to 5 of the Supreme Court judges.
Personally, I think that is the end of democracy as we know it.
Are corporations not also made up of citizens?
I have a small LLC business, should I not be able to express myself through the business too?
What about SEIU, the unions? They spend millions on candidates I do not support, yet I feel they can spend THEIR money as they see fit (even though they are wrong
).
http:///forum/post/3214387
Citizens have Constitutional Rights, corporations do not. Well, this recent development says I'm wrong and corporations share the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights. I am wrong according to 5 of the Supreme Court judges.
Personally, I think that is the end of democracy as we know it.
Are corporations not also made up of citizens?
I have a small LLC business, should I not be able to express myself through the business too?
What about SEIU, the unions? They spend millions on candidates I do not support, yet I feel they can spend THEIR money as they see fit (even though they are wrong
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3214421
So, of the stock you own, where do you voice what you would like communicated? If the company you own stock in cannot speak to your representative, how does that prevent YOU from speaking?
If a Corp is 99% owned by China, how much influence do you want that corporation to have over YOUR government?
Point taken, but should not American owned corps have some skin in the game?
We can now both speak, again like the unions.
http:///forum/post/3214421
So, of the stock you own, where do you voice what you would like communicated? If the company you own stock in cannot speak to your representative, how does that prevent YOU from speaking?
If a Corp is 99% owned by China, how much influence do you want that corporation to have over YOUR government?
Point taken, but should not American owned corps have some skin in the game?
We can now both speak, again like the unions.
fishtaco
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3214502
Not going to make a huge difference. Now the adds will say who they are really from instead of some phony pac.
Correct, but I can't believe anyone is claiming this is any sort of victory. No lobbies, no Pac money, no money from corporations, the circle needs to be broken and stop allowing these crooks in Washington D.C. to sell their votes to the highest bidder.
http:///forum/post/3214502
Not going to make a huge difference. Now the adds will say who they are really from instead of some phony pac.
Correct, but I can't believe anyone is claiming this is any sort of victory. No lobbies, no Pac money, no money from corporations, the circle needs to be broken and stop allowing these crooks in Washington D.C. to sell their votes to the highest bidder.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3214421
So, of the stock you own, where do you voice what you would like communicated? If the company you own stock in cannot speak to your representative, how does that prevent YOU from speaking?
If a Corp is 99% owned by China, how much influence do you want that corporation to have over YOUR government?
Foreigners are prohibited through other rules from donating to a campaign...
If this theoretical 99% chinese owned company is operating in the USA employing American workers, I think they should be able to communicate...
And you can go to a stockholders meeting and vote based off your holdings...
Look I'm not saying that the system works, their is obviously corruption, people buy votes, from the president and his slush fund to ben nelson, to ross perot in westlake texas buying off a city counsel to develope his land.
http:///forum/post/3214421
So, of the stock you own, where do you voice what you would like communicated? If the company you own stock in cannot speak to your representative, how does that prevent YOU from speaking?
If a Corp is 99% owned by China, how much influence do you want that corporation to have over YOUR government?
Foreigners are prohibited through other rules from donating to a campaign...
If this theoretical 99% chinese owned company is operating in the USA employing American workers, I think they should be able to communicate...
And you can go to a stockholders meeting and vote based off your holdings...
Look I'm not saying that the system works, their is obviously corruption, people buy votes, from the president and his slush fund to ben nelson, to ross perot in westlake texas buying off a city counsel to develope his land.
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3214971
Foreigners are prohibited through other rules from donating to a campaign...
If this theoretical 99% chinese owned company is operating in the USA employing American workers, I think they should be able to communicate...
And you can go to a stockholders meeting and vote based off your holdings...
Look I'm not saying that the system works, their is obviously corruption, people buy votes, from the president and his slush fund to ben nelson, to ross perot in westlake texas buying off a city counsel to develope his land.
OK, so you're OK with a shipping port in California that employs a few dozen US workers giving a $billion in campaign financing to ensure that Import friendly and export adverse politicians are elected. Most of these ports are Chinese owned incorporated in the US and will now be able to contribute to politicians unfettered.
I'm not comfortable with that. I believe that our political representatives should only represent US citizens.
And you can go to a stockholders meeting and vote based off your holdings...
I must not have received the page that listed the politicians to support.
Like I mentioned earlier, if political transparency can be obtained then that will suffice. We can vote politicians out of office when they cave to policies that are detrimental to citizens. But first we need to have enough information to understand how and why they are voting.
http:///forum/post/3214971
Foreigners are prohibited through other rules from donating to a campaign...
If this theoretical 99% chinese owned company is operating in the USA employing American workers, I think they should be able to communicate...
And you can go to a stockholders meeting and vote based off your holdings...
Look I'm not saying that the system works, their is obviously corruption, people buy votes, from the president and his slush fund to ben nelson, to ross perot in westlake texas buying off a city counsel to develope his land.
OK, so you're OK with a shipping port in California that employs a few dozen US workers giving a $billion in campaign financing to ensure that Import friendly and export adverse politicians are elected. Most of these ports are Chinese owned incorporated in the US and will now be able to contribute to politicians unfettered.
I'm not comfortable with that. I believe that our political representatives should only represent US citizens.
And you can go to a stockholders meeting and vote based off your holdings...
I must not have received the page that listed the politicians to support.
Like I mentioned earlier, if political transparency can be obtained then that will suffice. We can vote politicians out of office when they cave to policies that are detrimental to citizens. But first we need to have enough information to understand how and why they are voting.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Many families that own small incorporated business may not live in the voting district. This is one way for the business owner to show and support a candidate in the district their business is located. Especially since they may live in another district and can only be registered and vote in one district. Yet have two candidtes that will affect them directly.
If the advertisement ad (which is what this directly affects) has to have who the ad is paid for by, I don't see a problem. As the average citizen can then boycott the company or what not. Essentially the corporations will be able to give money in the form of ad support, but the people will know who the companies are running the ad for...as far as I understand anyway.
If the advertisement ad (which is what this directly affects) has to have who the ad is paid for by, I don't see a problem. As the average citizen can then boycott the company or what not. Essentially the corporations will be able to give money in the form of ad support, but the people will know who the companies are running the ad for...as far as I understand anyway.
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3215007
If the advertisement ad (which is what this directly affects) has to have who the ad is paid for by, I don't see a problem. As the average citizen can then boycott the company or what not. Essentially the corporations will be able to give money in the form of ad support, but the people will know who the companies are running the ad for...as far as I understand anyway.
I envision ad campaigns sponsored by companies like "Citizens for Jobs" or "Citizens Against Illness" and stuff like that. They won't have products or stores to boycott and we won't know who is really financing them.
Hopefully I'm wrong.
I'm just tired of our representatives in the House and Senate representing everyone except the citizens of the US.
http:///forum/post/3215007
If the advertisement ad (which is what this directly affects) has to have who the ad is paid for by, I don't see a problem. As the average citizen can then boycott the company or what not. Essentially the corporations will be able to give money in the form of ad support, but the people will know who the companies are running the ad for...as far as I understand anyway.
I envision ad campaigns sponsored by companies like "Citizens for Jobs" or "Citizens Against Illness" and stuff like that. They won't have products or stores to boycott and we won't know who is really financing them.
Hopefully I'm wrong.
I'm just tired of our representatives in the House and Senate representing everyone except the citizens of the US.
srfisher17
Active Member
I haven't really thought too deeply about the long-term effects of this ruling But If Chuckie Schumer hates it and Justices Scalia, et al made the ruling, I feel great about it. BTW, nobody seems upset about the unions new rights included as well.