PDA

View Full Version : Legalized buying of candidates?



dnf777
01-21-2010, 04:46 PM
So what do the more learned legal scholars think of the SCOTUS ruling today regarding corporations and the First Amendment?

It sounds like to me, that the working class, be they republican or democrat, just took a huge shaft today. Whether you send $10 or $20 or $500 to Scott Brown or Barak Obama, your measly little voice just got trumped by corporate billions. Am I wrong? Or does this rub others here the wrong way too? I'm not a legal eagle, but it sounds like even foreign-based corporations that have operations of offices in the US will be allowed to buy and sell our campaigns??
For once, I hope Hew or someone can prove me wrong on this.

huntinman
01-21-2010, 04:48 PM
So what do the more learned legal scholars think of the SCOTUS ruling today regarding corporations and the First Amendment?

It sounds like to me, that the working class, be they republican or democrat, just took a huge shaft today. Whether you send $10 or $20 or $500 to Scott Brown or Barak Obama, your measly little voice just got trumped by corporate billions. Am I wrong? Or does this rub others here the wrong way too? I'm not a legal eagle, but it sounds like even foreign-based corporations that have operations of offices in the US will be allowed to buy and sell our campaigns??
For once, I hope Hew or someone can prove me wrong on this.

Free speech is bad?

brandywinelabs
01-21-2010, 04:57 PM
It's legally correct. But, not good for the political process.

dnf777
01-21-2010, 05:00 PM
Free speech is bad?

Not at all, but does it apply to foreign corporations or even domestic companies who have vastly different interests than American citizens? That's my question. The "voice of the people" will be essentially squelched by corporate wealth. That wasn't my understanding of free speech.

brandywinelabs
01-21-2010, 05:02 PM
Just as in many cities, you can demonstrate and have your say over there and only in that area. So we need to say you can do your political advertising with your big bucks on TV and radio between 2AM and 4 AM. And only put up billboards on roads with dirt as their primary surface and not within 1 mile of a paved road and no bigger than 8' x 16'. Yeah, see how well that will go over.

YardleyLabs
01-21-2010, 05:07 PM
I have not read the decision. Personally, I do not believe that corporations deserve the privileges afforded to "people" unless they also accept full personal responsibility for actions taken. Practically, we are creating a situation where it is cheaper to buy the government and use its power for corporate purposes than it is to buy another competing company.

BonMallari
01-21-2010, 05:07 PM
SCOTUS just made what George Soros was doing legal...McCain - Feingold was a joke..until more of the legal American public exercises their right to vote, those of us that actually vote and care about what is happening to this country may not be able to offset the influence that the corporate world can buy

K G
01-21-2010, 05:37 PM
Free speech is bad?

Unlimited corporate contributions to candidates = "free speech"? That's a new one....for "issue" advertising, yes...for candidates, paybacks will be expected. Money changes everything. Look for union advertising to dominate the airwaves in states where they are strong.

k g

huntinman
01-21-2010, 06:02 PM
[QUOTE=YardleyLabs;554776]I have not read the decision. Personally, I do not believe that corporations deserve the privileges afforded to "people" unless they also accept full personal responsibility for actions taken. QUOTE]

No, but you do believe that we should afford the rights of Americans to terrorists captured while trying to kill Americans. Right?

huntinman
01-21-2010, 06:07 PM
Unlimited corporate contributions to candidates = "free speech"? That's a new one....for "issue" advertising, yes...for candidates, paybacks will be expected. Money changes everything. Look for union advertising to dominate the airwaves in states where they are strong.

k g

You guys on the right are missing the point. The libs had unlimited "free speech" in the MSM. Especially during elections. They also had the unions, Acorn and every other type left wing group out there. This just evens the playing field a little. Why should someone lose their free speech rights, because of who they are or how much (or little) money they have? Money already controls the process, lets just open it up to both sides of the aisle.

YardleyLabs
01-21-2010, 06:11 PM
[quote=YardleyLabs;554776]I have not read the decision. Personally, I do not believe that corporations deserve the privileges afforded to "people" unless they also accept full personal responsibility for actions taken. QUOTE]

No, but you do believe that we should afford the rights of Americans to terrorists captured while trying to kill Americans. Right?
I believe in the rights granted by our Constitution. Among those is the right to due process when the justice system sorts the terrorists out from the rest of us. Personally, I do not trust the police or the lynch mob to make the judgment on their own.

subroc
01-21-2010, 06:15 PM
If this is all a 183 page decision said, I would be surprised. McCain-Feingold was awful legislation. The reversing of this was a step in the right direction.

K G
01-21-2010, 06:52 PM
You guys on the right are missing the point. The libs had unlimited "free speech" in the MSM. Especially during elections. They also had the unions, Acorn and every other type left wing group out there. This just evens the playing field a little. Why should someone lose their free speech rights, because of who they are or how much (or little) money they have? Money already controls the process, lets just open it up to both sides of the aisle.

We're talking "paid" advertising, Bill. It is media-blind. All it needs is a BIG checkbook. Who has lost their free speech rights? All that's happened here is that the guy (or organization) with the biggest pile of money gets the biggest voice. Are you saying that "evens the playing field?" I sure hope not...

k g

Franco
01-21-2010, 07:17 PM
You guys on the right are missing the point. The libs had unlimited "free speech" in the MSM. Especially during elections. They also had the unions, Acorn and every other type left wing group out there. This just evens the playing field a little. Why should someone lose their free speech rights, because of who they are or how much (or little) money they have? Money already controls the process, lets just open it up to both sides of the aisle.

Bingo, we have a winner!

Why should the media be able to promote its agenda yet buisnesses can't? I would love to hear what Exxon Corp thinks about our energy cost and thier solutions to keeping cost to the consumer down. Same for a dozen other industries/corporations.

I hope they have huge radio budgets too!;-)

dnf777
01-21-2010, 08:05 PM
I would love to hear what Exxon Corp thinks about our energy cost and thier solutions to keeping cost to the consumer down.

WHAT?? Did I miss sarcasm or otherwise mis-read the above comment???

Do you think Exxon execs sit around board tables and brainstorm ways to keep costs to consumers down?? Do you think THAT is what they will spend campaign contributions on? I had to have missed your point, right?

huntinman
01-21-2010, 08:14 PM
We're talking "paid" advertising, Bill. It is media-blind. All it needs is a BIG checkbook. Who has lost their free speech rights? All that's happened here is that the guy (or organization) with the biggest pile of money gets the biggest voice. Are you saying that "evens the playing field?" I sure hope not...

k g

KG, I understand your point, but paid or not you must see that 95% of all the press coverage is in favor of one party. That's why they wanted to keep the private business out of it (to maintain a huge advantage). Whether a business supports a lib or a conservative, it's their money. Why shouldn't they be able to spend it as they see fit? Both parties will have businesses that will support their issues. Let the chips fall where they may...

K G
01-21-2010, 09:32 PM
I hope they have huge radio budgets too!;-)

Yeah...that's exactly what you want....your regular advertisers pre-empted for political ads....:cool:

Issues advertisers will pay non-preemptible rates, forcing you to do one (or a combination) of three things: 1) gouge your regular advertisers with higher rates in order for their spots to clear, 2) let them be pre-empted and bear their wrath, or 3) add more units to the hour...and blow off listeners.

Lose-lose-lose situation regards,

kg

K G
01-21-2010, 09:34 PM
KG, I understand your point, but paid or not you must see that 95% of all the press coverage is in favor of one party. That's why they wanted to keep the private business out of it (to maintain a huge advantage). Whether a business supports a lib or a conservative, it's their money. Why shouldn't they be able to spend it as they see fit? Both parties will have businesses that will support their issues. Let the chips fall where they may...

Bill, if you understand how advertising works, you'll know this is a HORRIBLE idea...'course, it's a moot point now...but just WAIT 'til the political and issues advertising starts. You'll wish you didn't own a TV or radio.

Manipulating the masses regards,

kg

dnf777
01-21-2010, 09:38 PM
...but just WAIT 'til the political and issues advertising starts. You'll wish you didn't own a TV or radio.

kg

There's always the dogs and a field somewhere.....

I swear, we just bought a new tv, and I'm thinking, I could have gotten one heckuva pup instead!

Although I hear Obama's upcoming budget will ban ownership of dogs over 35 pounds by 2013....;-)

Fowlfeller1100
01-21-2010, 09:58 PM
YAAAAY! more SWAG for me, I can never get enough free pens.

Franco
01-21-2010, 10:08 PM
Yeah...that's exactly what you want....your regular advertisers pre-empted for political ads....:cool:

Issues advertisers will pay non-preemptible rates, forcing you to do one (or a combination) of three things: 1) gouge your regular advertisers with higher rates in order for their spots to clear, 2) let them be pre-empted and bear their wrath, or 3) add more units to the hour...and blow off listeners.

Lose-lose-lose situation regards,

kg

I don't know of any radio stations that are sold out, we all have inventory without having to add any more. I love the high rates Issue Advertising yields as it allows us to keep cost down to the local advertisers.

Franco
01-21-2010, 10:12 PM
WHAT?? Did I miss sarcasm or otherwise mis-read the above comment???

Do you think Exxon execs sit around board tables and brainstorm ways to keep costs to consumers down?? Do you think THAT is what they will spend campaign contributions on? I had to have missed your point, right?

I do think they want to keep cost down and affordable. Thier ROI is good but not out of line for the huge amount they spend to make the profits they do.

Yes, I want them to finance a "Drill Now" campaign as a counterpoint to slanted/spun information we get from the media.

If we are going to meet our energy challenges, we need to be better informed of both sides.

P S

The hostility coming from the White House and media towards the oil industry could drive all the major companies out of the U S A. That would make the collapse of the domestic auto business a pimple on an elephants ass compared to losing a profitable energy industry.

I think the Dems have thier eye on running the oil and energy industries.

Hew
01-21-2010, 11:41 PM
Money changes everything. Look for union advertising to dominate the airwaves in states where they are strong.
I gotta beg to differ with you, KG. Unions were already spending money out the arse in political campaigns via the 527 groups they set up. The 527 groups are the various organizations that popped up to circumvent McCain-Feingold...America Coming Together (George Soros' pet), Moveon.org., Emily's List, Swiftboat Vets, etc. The SEIU is consistantly in the top 3 of 527 money. So far, in the 2010 election cycle, four of the five largest 527 groups are unions.

Corporations are comprised of shareholders. Shareholders are people. People have rights to free speech. For that reason I would contend that a million dollars given by Exxon for political purposes is a helluva lot more democratic/representative (given that Exxon is comprised of tens of thousands of shareholders) than a million dollars given by George Soros (representing one person). Why should George Soros have nearly unfettered rights to give and a corporation representing thousands have nearly no rights to do so? What makes it ok for the NRA to have 1st Ammendment protections but not IBM?

dnf777
01-22-2010, 05:14 AM
I do think they want to keep cost down and affordable. Thier ROI is good but not out of line for the huge amount they spend to make the profits they do.

Yes, I want them to finance a "Drill Now" campaign as a counterpoint to slanted/spun information we get from the media.

If we are going to meet our energy challenges, we need to be better informed of both sides.

P S

The hostility coming from the White House and media towards the oil industry could drive all the major companies out of the U S A. That would make the collapse of the domestic auto business a pimple on an elephants ass compared to losing a profitable energy industry.

I think the Dems have thier eye on running the oil and energy industries.

Many of our major companies have fled to distant shores already for cheaper labor, but that's a whole different thread that I think we could agree on.

Think back to the election where Obama outspent McCain and won the election. A lot of that was with Wall St money. Now, that source of revenue will be unleashed. Your voice and mine will be lost. The grass roots voters who supported Scott Brown with their 20 spots will be rendered insignificant.

cotts135
01-22-2010, 06:20 AM
The ruling by Scotus on this issue I believe is correct. On an absolute basis it is hard to argue that Corporations do not have the right to free speech. The problem with the ruling however will have many consequences, some intended some not. What it has effectively done is marginalize the individual voter. No longer does it matter if he makes a contribution to a candidate that he supports because now his contribution has become meaningless because of the influence that huge budgets of corporate America have on politicians. That is just one, I believe there are many others.

As is the case of other rights granted by the Constitution there is a need here to set limits. We see that in free speech. Yelling "Fire" in a theater is definitely not cool. Libel laws are another example. Gun laws are another area where limits have been imposed. This should be no different. I think transparency and monetary limits is a good starting point.

Hew
01-22-2010, 06:45 AM
As is the case of other rights granted by the Constitution there is a need here to set limits. We see that in free speech. Yelling "Fire" in a theater is definitely not cool.
Speaking about unintended consequences... McCain-Feingold made yelling "fire" the norm, if not cool. Post-Mcain/Feingold, a lot of the money that used to go to candidates and parties instead went to 527 groups. The 527s (on both sides of the political spectrum) often hurled scurrilous lies about their opponents and and have generally lowered the political discourse in this country. I'd much rather have the uber-libs at Google touting their leftwing nonsense in the open and with their name on it than funneling their money to some unaccountable Soros 527 that spews a bunch of vile lies.

ducknwork
01-22-2010, 07:05 AM
Although I hear Obama's upcoming budget will ban ownership of dogs over 35 pounds by 2013....;-)

That's what I heard. Smaller dogs create less methane, therefore slowing global warming. I guess we should start looking for boykins now...


Does someone have a link to an article about the decision? I have not seen anything about it yet. Thanks!

subroc
01-22-2010, 07:12 AM
Speaking about unintended consequences... McCain-Feingold made yelling "fire" the norm, if not cool. Post-Mcain/Feingold, a lot of the money that used to go to candidates and parties instead went to 527 groups. The 527s (on both sides of the political spectrum) often hurled scurrilous lies about their opponents and and have generally lowered the political discourse in this country. I'd much rather have the uber-libs at Google touting their leftwing nonsense in the open and with their name on it than funneling their money to some unaccountable Soros 527 that spews a bunch of vile lies.

I agree with this. the law of unintended consequenses.

Show me the money!


Does someone have a link to an article about the decision? I have not seen anything about it yet. Thanks!

article and a link to the decision:

http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/01/21/supreme-court-drop-kicks-mccainfeingold-scores-victory-for-1st-amendment/

road kill
01-22-2010, 07:35 AM
Many of our major companies have fled to distant shores already for cheaper labor, but that's a whole different thread that I think we could agree on.

Think back to the election where Obama outspent McCain and won the election. A lot of that was with Wall St money. Now, that source of revenue will be unleashed. Your voice and mine will be lost. The grass roots voters who supported Scott Brown with their 20 spots will be rendered insignificant.
An even BIGGER disappointment for your side will be George Soros voice (spending) being balanced!!
:D




rk

dnf777
01-22-2010, 07:47 AM
An even BIGGER disappointment for your side will be George Soros voice (spending) being balanced!!
:D




rk

Don't you see? We're playing right into their hands by all this partisan infighting. For every Soros, there's a Swiftboater. Meanwhile, your voice has been reduced to extra donut money for campaign center workers.

If 100,000 voters send in their grass roots $20, a company with a contrary agenda can write a check for $2,000,001 and out shout every one of those people. And those people are you and me.

I don't see how a republican or democrat or anyone else can see this as anything other than the corporate takeover of our gov't. Someone pointed out this is already happening....well just wait, you ain't seen nothin' yet!

cotts135
01-22-2010, 08:04 AM
Don't you see? We're playing right into their hands by all this partisan infighting. For every Soros, there's a Swiftboater. Meanwhile, your voice has been reduced to extra donut money for campaign center workers.

If 100,000 voters send in their grass roots $20, a company with a contrary agenda can write a check for $2,000,001 and out shout every one of those people. And those people are you and me.

I don't see how a republican or democrat or anyone else can see this as anything other than the corporate takeover of our gov't. Someone pointed out this is already happening....well just wait, you ain't seen nothin' yet!

It is hard to see it any other way. This ruling without some common sense limits effectively has monopolized politics to the Corporations and the rich.

paul young
01-22-2010, 08:16 AM
i don't see how anyone believes that the constitution was written with free speech for CORPORATIONS in mind.

in my opinion this is a BIG STRETCH of the interpretation.-Paul

Buzz
01-22-2010, 08:37 AM
I keep hearing about Soros. What a freaking joke. Dave, it's not a case of "for every Soros there is a swift boater." For every Soros there is a Murdoch, Coors, Olin, Scaife, DeVos and Bradley. And in fact, Soros was just on a mission to copy what these conservatives had already accomplished for the right. So to counter act him, the right has:




With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.

huntinman
01-22-2010, 08:37 AM
i don't see how anyone believes that the constitution was written with free speech for CORPORATIONS in mind.

in my opinion this is a BIG STRETCH of the interpretation.-Paul

There are 5 Supreme Court justices who disagree with you.

Buzz
01-22-2010, 08:45 AM
There are 5 Supreme Court justices who disagree with you.


Yes, those strict constructionists have effectively re-written our constitution, in the single most egregious act of judicial activism we've seen since Dred Scott v. Sandford.

huntinman
01-22-2010, 08:49 AM
Yes, those strict constructionists have effectively re-written our constitution, in the single most egregious act of judicial activism we've seen since Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Wish we had a few more just like them!

Buzz
01-22-2010, 08:55 AM
Wish we had a few more just like them!

So when it suits you, judicial activism is good.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Buzz
01-22-2010, 08:56 AM
We're talking "paid" advertising, Bill. It is media-blind. All it needs is a BIG checkbook. Who has lost their free speech rights? All that's happened here is that the guy (or organization) with the biggest pile of money gets the biggest voice. Are you saying that "evens the playing field?" I sure hope not...

k g

KG, I take back every bad thought I ever had about you. It looks like you're a reasonable guy after all!:razz:

huntinman
01-22-2010, 09:11 AM
KG, I take back every bad thought I ever had about you. It looks like you're a reasonable guy after all!:razz:

So Buzz, only if people agree with you, you think they are reasonable?

Glad we got that cleared up.

K G
01-22-2010, 10:09 AM
I don't know of any radio stations that are sold out, we all have inventory without having to add any more. I love the high rates Issue Advertising yields as it allows us to keep cost down to the local advertisers.

Be careful, Franco. If you're running political CANDIDATE ads (which you will be...there are three windows this year), lowest unit rate will KILL you. I've heard that political advertising agencies already have their audit teams in place and that ALL political schedules, from dogcatcher to US Senate, will be audited. No one wants to write checks back to politicians after a campaign....nor do they want to go to Federal court for price gouging....

kg

K G
01-22-2010, 10:16 AM
KG, I take back every bad thought I ever had about you. It looks like you're a reasonable guy after all!:razz:

I'm really more of right-handed moderate...I TOTALLY understand the counterpoint (thanks, HEW...), but I know what money will do to the public airwaves, to the folks that live and die by what's on TV (ducknwork, let me know how that "throwin' marks in the dark" works out for you...:rolleyes:).

For my money, keep the special interest groups, right or left oriented, on a SHORT leash media-wise. Individuals need to do their own research, question their candidates, be careful who they lend their voice and financial support to, and then pull the lever. Too many people let the media (left and right) do their thinking for them...the scale of this just went up beyond anyone's comprehension with this SCOTUS decision...that's all I'm saying.

kg

Franco
01-22-2010, 10:39 AM
Be careful, Franco. If you're running political CANDIDATE ads (which you will be...there are three windows this year), lowest unit rate will KILL you. I've heard that political advertising agencies already have their audit teams in place and that ALL political schedules, from dogcatcher to US Senate, will be audited. No one wants to write checks back to politicians after a campaign....nor do they want to go to Federal court for price gouging....

kg

Over the last 30 years in radio, I've been through many Federal elections. Never have we had to refund a dime to candidates. If we sellout at our lowest unit rates(which are fairly high) it will be a windfall.

Again, if the national media can support candidates and issues, I see no problem with businesses supporting candidates and telling thier side of the story.

ducknwork
01-22-2010, 11:18 AM
I'm really more of right-handed moderate...I TOTALLY understand the counterpoint (thanks, HEW...), but I know what money will do to the public airwaves, to the folks that live and die by what's on TV (ducknwork, let me know how that "throwin' marks in the dark" works out for you...:rolleyes:).


Huh? You lost me....

subroc
01-22-2010, 11:21 AM
Why should a corporation, that employs people, be barred from advocating their position by supporting candidates that support them?

Should voluntary organizations (NRA, AKC, DU, etc) be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

Should non-voluntary organizations (unions, etc) be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

Should tax exempt organizations be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

Should we be allowed to assemble, at any level, and have those organization of common interest advocate for us by pooling our money in the form of donations to candidates that support us?

paul young
01-22-2010, 11:31 AM
Why should a corporation, that employs people, be barred from advocating their position by supporting candidates that support them?

Should voluntary organizations (NRA, AKC, DU, etc) be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

Should non-voluntary organizations (unions, etc) be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

Should tax exempt organizations be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

Should we be allowed to assemble, at any level, and have those organization of common interest advocate for us by pooling our money in the form of donations to candidates that support us?



1. because ALL the people employed by that corporation do not share the same politcs as the corporation

2. no

3. no

4. no

5. no

let the people vote.

we don't need to be harangued and told how we should vote.

the politicians should be ASKING US, THE PEOPLE how we want to be served, not acting in the interests of business entities to whom they owe their election.-Paul

K G
01-22-2010, 12:22 PM
Huh? You lost me....

My apologies. Dave mentioned "there's always a dog and a field somewhere," implying that one could train rather than watch TV. The GREAT majority of TV viewing is done after 5pm, even moreso after 7pm. It's hard to train in the dark...


Over the last 30 years in radio, I've been through many Federal elections. Never have we had to refund a dime to candidates. If we sellout at our lowest unit rates(which are fairly high) it will be a windfall.

Again, if the national media can support candidates and issues, I see no problem with businesses supporting candidates and telling thier side of the story.

Depending on the issues you have in LA, you may well sellout at your LUR...but what are you going to do if RATE CARD "issue" dollars come to town? You gonna pre-empt a candidate that's paying LUR? That's when the FUN starts....;-)

k g

Franco
01-22-2010, 12:29 PM
Why should a corporation, that employs people, be barred from advocating their position by supporting candidates that support them?

Should voluntary organizations (NRA, AKC, DU, etc) be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

Should non-voluntary organizations (unions, etc) be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

Should tax exempt organizations be allowed to advocate their position by donations to candidates that support them?

Should we be allowed to assemble, at any level, and have those organization of common interest advocate for us by pooling our money in the form of donations to candidates that support us?



1) They shouldn't be. If they don't like what thier company stands for, they shouldn't be working there.
2) If the govenment can finance organizations such as ACORN, then organizations should be able to provide financial support to candidates they agree with
3) They already do. And, if you don't like what your union stands for, change jobs.
4) Absolutly NO! If they are tax exempt, then they should keep thier mouths shut. I'd like to see the IRS investigate many of the churchs around the country to see if they are preaching gospel or politics. If politics, then they lose their tax exempt status.
5)Yes, many already do so.

Uncle Bill
01-22-2010, 12:31 PM
This an amazing thread. I've never seen a better illustration of the old adage..."it depends on who's ox is being gored."

Talk about shifting principles...it seems to depend more on whimsy than principle.

Seems to me if we are believers in 'freedom', than why not for "all"?

A ruling from the SCOTUS like this certainly doesn't take long to determine which 'side' dislikes it the most. The squeeling from the left is deafening.

I give a FRA who is buying ads for whomever. If it's one area the first amendment is needed is political speech, and in this 'enlightened' age, that means bombarding the airwaves and filling newspapers with additional pages of advertising. If that irritates you, pages can be thrown away, electronics can be turned off.

FWIW, it might be a time you need to get immersed in what you believe, and ignite others with your same principles...kinda like the activists in the Tea Partys.

Here's a speech given several months ago by a well known judge. While his primary concern was aimed at the healthcare bill being fabricated, and how it was just another usurpation of the Constitution, his exortation for the present generation is obvious.

UB


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n2m-X7OIuY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n2m-X7OIuY)

road kill
01-22-2010, 01:52 PM
None of the leftys seem to have any issues with how much a union can contribute.....just "EVIL" corporations!!!


rk

K G
01-22-2010, 01:53 PM
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, UB...God knows we'll get to hear it when you're so inclined...;-)

It's quite simple for those who offer a dissenting opinion to be classified as "whimsical"....having a point of view dismissed is easier for some to take than others, depending on who is doing the dismissing. Sometimes it's no problem to "dismiss the dismisser"....:razz:

When it comes to the 1st Amendment, we ALL have that guaranteed right...we as INDIVIDUALS. I think it's safe to say that pretty much everyone would agree with your statement:
Seems to me if we are believers in 'freedom', than why not for "all"? It just strikes me a little odd that someone with your years of experience, particularly in the area of "public access" (both paid and not), would interpret the SCOTUS decision as a simple "access" issue. It's going to be ALL ABOUT MONEY, NOT ABOUT FREE SPEECH! I find the term "free" used in this case insulting....perhaps ironic at best and patently false at worst....and I'm talking about ANYONE's message, be it left, right, or straight down the middle. MONEY is going to determine the access to airwaves and coming off one of the worst revenue years in the history of media, you can bet that this slippery slope is going to be soaked with the saliva of big media, just WAITING for the deluge to begin.

And relative to this "enlightened age"....I guess all of this is much ado about nothing, then...we'll all, rural and urban, have done our own research, made our own phone calls, canvassed our own districts, all in an effort to learn just exactly WHAT we should be concerned with and where our support should be directed, both literal and financial. Those big corporations might as well keep those coins in their pockets...their assault on the nation's airwaves with their self-serving messages will go in one ear/eye and out the other. They'd be better off returning the money to their investors as profit and dividends instead of trying to buy influence and opinion....:cool:

Surely no politician will feel obligated to "remember" the millions of dollars conveyed by corporate messages that were aired in support of their positions or initiatives. I'm positive they will let the CEOs, CFOs, board members, and shareholders know not to expect any special "in kind" treatment after their opening of the coffers.....:-?

I'm reasonably sure that NO ONE on this board, be they left or right leaning or straddling the center, is naive enough to think that this situation will not happen. It will....and soon.

I so want to be wrong regards, :D

k g

paul young
01-22-2010, 02:14 PM
glad to hear i'm no longer considered a "lefty", Stan. i think......-Paul

dnf777
01-22-2010, 02:31 PM
None of the leftys seem to have any issues with how much a union can contribute.....just "EVIL" corporations!!!


rk

you're wrong on that. yes, far lefties probably don't, just as far righties take equally and opposite absurd stances. I'm not casing this in a left vs right debate. Both sides will get shafted if our voices are not heard. It will render any left vs right, Coakley v Brown, repbulican v democrat debate (essentially our system of gov't ) obsolete! The corporations will dictate what happens, how money is spent, and it may not be to your liking. I can't believe righties are so willing to give up their voice to wall street, AIG, and other big businesses!!??:confused:

road kill
01-22-2010, 03:01 PM
you're wrong on that. yes, far lefties probably don't, just as far righties take equally and opposite absurd stances. I'm not casing this in a left vs right debate. Both sides will get shafted if our voices are not heard. It will render any left vs right, Coakley v Brown, repbulican v democrat debate (essentially our system of gov't ) obsolete! The corporations will dictate what happens, how money is spent, and it may not be to your liking. I can't believe righties are so willing to give up their voice to wall street, AIG, and other big businesses!!??:confused:

Hilarious, check where most of President Obama's financial guys come from!!:D



rk

YardleyLabs
01-22-2010, 03:05 PM
I will admit that I am having trouble wading through the Court's decision. It is one of the least intelligible that I have seen,although I may end up revising that assessment once I have read it more closely. I suspect that it will actually end up having limited precedential impact unless affirmed and clarified through subsequent decisions simply because there are relatively few elements with majority support based on common reasoning. The major part of the decision was a 5-4 vote overturning a prior Court ruling to conclude that the government cannot ban electioneering "speech" based on the fact that the "speaker" is a corporation (including unions). The decision does not affect restrictions on campaign contributions by corporations. By an 8-1 majority, the Court upheld the right of the government to compel disclosures concerning the identity of the groups financing the electioneering activities. However, multiple decisions were issued on this point, none of which was supported by a majority of Justices. The length of the decision seems to be related more to the sheer number and diversity of different concurring and dissenting opinions, along with the lengthy justifications for directly overturning prior Court decisions rather than from the amount of meat on the bones.

cotts135
01-22-2010, 06:11 PM
I think what is overlooked in some peoples post's is the principle of free speech. The decision overturned a prior courts ruling that prohibited a tv broadcast that cast an unfavorable image of Hillary Clinton. Is there any question that this is exactly the type of speech the First amendment try's to protect. I am not sure about you but I don't want the government telling me what I can say about a government official. Just because big corporations can now do it more often because of money is really irrelevant. And also let's be realistic here, large corporations have for years circumvented campaign finance laws , and have exerted tremendous influence even before this ruling. I am not sure really how much worse it can get.
As I was reading other post's about this decision some one pointed out that it is ironic detainees in our military prison systems are declared not to be persons but that Corporations are.:shock:

dnf777
01-22-2010, 07:00 PM
Hilarious, check where most of President Obama's financial guys come from!!:D



rk

You're missing point. I don't CARE if it's obama, bush, whoever! The point is, YOU and ME will get screwed! Just like the eminent domain ruling of the court....it the small guy gonna get screwed! I'm not looking for a left vs right fight on this.

dnf777
01-22-2010, 07:02 PM
[QUOTE=cotts135;555488] And also let's be realistic here, large corporations have for years circumvented campaign finance laws , and have exerted tremendous influence even before this ruling. I am not sure really how much worse it can get.
QUOTE]

Hang on to yer hat! We're gonna find out the hard way!

Franco
01-22-2010, 08:22 PM
I think what is overlooked in some peoples post's is the principle of free speech. The decision overturned a prior courts ruling that prohibited a tv broadcast that cast an unfavorable image of Hillary Clinton. Is there any question that this is exactly the type of speech the First amendment try's to protect. I am not sure about you but I don't want the government telling me what I can say about a government official. Just because big corporations can now do it more often because of money is really irrelevant. And also let's be realistic here, large corporations have for years circumvented campaign finance laws , and have exerted tremendous influence even before this ruling. I am not sure really how much worse it can get.


Large CORPORATIONS like General Electric, owners of NBC and all of thier affliates, plus ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox a few others try to shape the news to fit thier beliefs. They have the biggest influence yet not many are crying foul about them.

I personally would trust a for-profit corporation over just about anyone at the networks for telling it straight. They forgot how to do that decades ago.

Look at the relationship between Obama and the president of NBC. General Electric stands to gain billions in green contracts and NBC says what the White House wants them to.

When businesses thrive, we all do better, so I think they will back the candidates and issues that mean prosperity. Not saying they don't need a certain amount of regulation/oversight. I'm just not that anti-big business.

Fowlfeller1100
01-22-2010, 08:29 PM
i don't see how anyone believes that the constitution was written with free speech for CORPORATIONS in mind.

in my opinion this is a BIG STRETCH of the interpretation.-Paul

I'm not saying if I agree with it or not. But the Tea act was made at the behest of the (struggling) East India company, and this led to the Boston tea party. Powerfully parties influence over elected officials is neither new nor uniquelly American.

Sabireley
01-22-2010, 08:57 PM
Although I hear Obama's upcoming budget will ban ownership of dogs over 35 pounds by 2013....;-)

Perfect timing for my miniature, sliver lab kennel. We can throw teal instead of mallards, and carry them to the line in handbags. The carbon footprint will be much smaller also.

Silver Lining Regards,

Steve

Terry Britton
01-22-2010, 10:51 PM
Did anyone actually read the decision? Not a whole lot changed.

It did not strike down all of McCain Feingold. Only certain parts of it. This part of the majority opinion helped me.

"But Justice Kennedy wrote that the effort to divide corporate political spending into legal and illegal forms chilled political speech. "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," he wrote. "This is unlawful.""

Also, from the article:
"Federal law has long barred corporations from contributing directly to federal political candidates, and Thursday's ruling keeps that restriction in place."

Finally, If Chuck Schumer is crying against something, there's a pretty good chance the I'm going to like it.

dnf777
01-23-2010, 07:23 AM
Perfect timing for my miniature, sliver lab kennel. We can throw teal instead of mallards, and carry them to the line in handbags. The carbon footprint will be much smaller also.

Silver Lining Regards,

Steve

My green industry will be a kennel of genetically engineered dogs that fart FeBreeze instead of methane, and will poop latex dog poop, that I will sell at novelty stores next to fake vomit. Its a win-win!

Eric Johnson
01-23-2010, 06:00 PM
Finally, If Chuck Schumer is crying against something, there's a pretty good chance the I'm going to like it.

He's a weasal.

The decision strikes the limitation of McCain-Feingold that limits corporate spending on campaigns for 30 days before a presidential primary or 60 days before a general election. What this does is allow corporations to do directly what they could only do indirectly before. Since McCain-Feingold, corporations have contributed to PACs and these contributed to campaigns or ads. Now the corporations can contribute directly. I will reserve judgement on this but my sense is that there won't be any significant increase in campaing ads at all.

Corporations are owned, directly or indirectly, by us all. However, they aren't people in the human sense and therefore can't vote even if a person or referendum is counter to the business of the corporation. Under McCain-Feingold they were even restricted from saying so. Now this restriction is lifted. This is most definitely a freedom of speech issue.

Eric

cotts135
01-24-2010, 06:21 AM
Here is a counter argument to those who suggest that this decision will open the floodgates of money going to advertisements for political candidates.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31878.html

dnf777
01-24-2010, 07:36 AM
Here is a counter argument to those who suggest that this decision will open the floodgates of money going to advertisements for political candidates.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31878.html

Sorry,
But a lawyer who butters his bread off of campaign finance is not my trusted source of information regarding this issue. I'll take what he says with a grain of salt.

road kill
01-24-2010, 08:20 AM
Sorry,
But a lawyer who butters his bread off of campaign finance is not my trusted source of information regarding this issue. I'll take what he says with a grain of salt.
Who is????

Chuck Schumer???:D

You make it too easy..........



rk

cotts135
01-24-2010, 09:53 AM
Sorry,
But a lawyer who butters his bread off of campaign finance is not my trusted source of information regarding this issue. I'll take what he says with a grain of salt.

Granted, that someone intimately involved in the process is usually not the best source of info or the most trustworthy however he was not the only contributor to the story. My point in all this is that, the implication from some people on the left (Keith Olberman)that this is the end of democracy as we know it, is the same to me as when the right proclaims that our country as we know it is facing the biggest crisis since the inception of this Country because of terrorism (Dick Cheney).

dnf777
01-24-2010, 11:27 AM
Who is????

Chuck Schumer???:D

You make it too easy..........



rk


Sorry, but Chuck Schumer is a lawyer who butters his bread off of this issue. He's out with the rest. He may not be a lawyer, but he's in the same boat.

There are a few bi-partisan commentators I listen to. Not that they're completely unbiased, but they seem to give good commentery. David Gergen is one, and Howard Rollins is the other. Both republican strategists who I think give good insight.

K G
01-24-2010, 12:46 PM
Here is a counter argument to those who suggest that this decision will open the floodgates of money going to advertisements for political candidates.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31878.html

Ahhh...politico.com...now there's an unbiased news source....:rolleyes:

Just wait and see regards,

kg

Eric Johnson
01-24-2010, 02:31 PM
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Want-to-know-what-campaign-finance-reform-is-really-about-Watch-this-video-82443382.html

http://tinyurl.com/yg3quyk

This is an interesting video on the recent decision.

Eric

huntinman
01-24-2010, 09:42 PM
Sorry, but Chuck Schumer is a lawyer who butters his bread off of this issue. He's out with the rest. He may not be a lawyer, but he's in the same boat.

There are a few bi-partisan commentators I listen to. Not that they're completely unbiased, but they seem to give good commentery. David Gergen is one, and Howard Rollins is the other. Both republican strategists who I think give good insight.

David Gergen?? He's a bigger rino than McCain. Most of the time he is spouting Lib talking points... Better find another "bi-partisan" to listen to...

dnf777
01-24-2010, 09:52 PM
David Gergen?? He's a bigger rino than McCain. Most of the time he is spouting Lib talking points... Better find another "bi-partisan" to listen to...

Do you have any suggestions?
Whether you like what he says or not, he's often right on the money.