Reply With Quote
Honestly, I hope you are all happy in your slavery.
So, does the ruling allow corporations to self-finance political agendas through all sources?
Example: I am Microsoft. Microsoft prefers that Mr. Brown wins the Senate seat in Washington state as opposed to Mrs. Blue because Mrs. Blue is clearly on thw "wrong" side of legislation that could affect Microsoft (anti-trust suits, anyone?).
Given that Microsoft has a self-interest to see Mr. Brown win because of his standing on the very same issue, Microsoft now has a right to self finance campaign media on Mr. Brown's behalf.
Microsoft. A billionaire's wet-dream come true, spending millions upon millions if it so chooses influencing the outcome of national standing and policy above and beyond their legal contribution to Mr. Brown's campaign.
This is ok with you?
Honestly, I hope you are all happy in your slavery.
So are governments.
Absolutely. Free speech is free speech is free speech.
The First Amendment is not a privilege granted to "citizens" or even to "people." It's a limit on the power of Congress: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." What the Court held is that this principle applies regardless of the nature of the speaker, be it an individual, a group with a spokesperson or formal association.
What worries me very much is the fact that in your scenario Microsoft has the incentive to spend millions of dollars influencing the election of a Senator. Why is that so? That's the problem - and a very serious one. Establishing censorship to solve that problem is bad solution that doesn't even work.
Unfortunately, people seem unable to identify that problem and the only single solution for it.
Yet, even you admit in another thread that legislation cannot bend reality to its will.
Reality says money wins elections. This new ruling allows even more money into the system, thereby weighting it even more in corporate America's favor.
My queston then is,
What is the iden y of the problem? If you say something along the lines of "People need to be educated.." I am going to puke.Unfortunately, people seem unable to identify that problem and the only single solution for it.
I, for one, am not willing to exchange my country's sovereignty for the upholding of business rights per the Cons ution.
Does this make me a communist? Serious question.
Do you really think that ACLU is in the pocket of big business?
The idea that this is a pro big business ruling is very misguided. Heck, even AFL-CIO supported Citizens United in this litigation.
Isn't it clear? That Mr. Brown and Mr. Blue have so much power that Microsoft is willing to spend millions to be in their favour.
If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, populism is the first one.
Anyways, if public education prepares us for anything, it is the corporate warfare-welfare state. We go through thirteen years of preparation to be willing to die on a foreign battlefield for bull wars, spend years working in a cubicle like a rat, or accept that we have no individuality and are owned by the state. Public education trains us to accept bull like this, not to question it. The intended product of American public education is a SouthernFried, someone who thinks the sole purpose of American liberty as expressed in the Cons ution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence is that McDonald's and Wal-Mart can own our government. It's not a surprise that if you bother to look at the history of American public education you see the fingerprints of Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie all over it. Good little robots trained from birth to pledge allegiance to the flag and the corporations who own it is what they bought. Not to mention that the pledge itself was dreamed up by, yes, a national socialist here in the late 19th century. It's rather obvious when you examine the Cons ution and the Declaration that the last thing those do ents were about was putting business interests on par with the people. Not to mention that if you dig a little further you will discover that the revolutionaries had an explicit distrust of corporations due to the fact that, surprise, surprise, it was the British colonial corporations they were rebelling against in part. It's a testament to the efforts of the "elite" over the last century or so in this country that we've turned into this class rigid society in which corporations are held on a pedestal, legally, politically, and socially.
Now, if your education is based on what you heard a Rush Limbaugh spout over the airwaves for three hours a day, this may come as a shock. But relax, you're exactly the ignorant little tool you were intended to be.
Well, from a practical side, it's balance. What about PACS from ACORN and others? Do you want to stop such things from tghem too?
Communist. No.
Authoritarian....
Think about it...
That would make you someone with a functioning brain.
The faith that some people have in politicians is mind-boggling.
Ditto for the ignorance and misunderstanding about what was at stake in this litigation.
Several organizations filled amicus briefs in support of the appellant (Citizens United) and the appellee (FEC/Government).
Among the firsts, well-known pro corporatist organizations like ACLU and AFL-CIO.
Amongst the laters, the well-known anti-corporatist think-tank Committee for Economic Development - "CED's Trustees are chairmen, presidents, and senior executives of major American corporations(...)CED offers senior executives a nonpolitical forum for exploring critical long-term issues and making an impact on U.S. policy decisions."
Huh? Wait, I thought that this was great for the big business and terrible for civil rights advocacy groups and the little guy.
At least that's what many people in this thread are convinced of. And absolutely unable to depart from their instinctive and primitive world-view.
Its not so much faith in politicians as it is believing they are the lesser of 2 evils. Big business is terrible and your argument that people are against the influence big business uses is like saying people get vaccinated because they love shots.
It will be real interesting when Wong Dong runs for President in 2012 backed by Nokia.
Horrible ruling.
Is it? Why? I don't know and I don't care. Communist and nazis are terrible and I don't want their freedom of speech limited.
Once again, the CED was against this ruling, the ACLU and AFL-CIO were in favour. I'm not sure why is this a pro/anti big-business decision. If that's the case, it seems those organizations are extremely clueless about their interests.
It's the speech, not the speakers.
What?
Of the Microsoft, by the General Electric, and for the Boeing.
The First Amendment only limits itself to "the people" in referring to the right to assemble peaceably and the right to pe ion the government.
For example, a law prohibiting non-citizens from peaceable assembly would be uncons utional under the First Amendment.
But the First Amendment only prohibits Congress from making laws that abridge "the freedom of speech" -- it doesn't say who possesses that right to speak freely, or what cons utes speech.
How hard is this to understand?
Should the government be allowed to forbid the publishing, distribution and selling of Axelrod's Audacity of Hope?
Could the Congress ban Adidas from running advertisements for their sneakers? I'm not asking if the would, I'm asking if they could. Adidas is not a person.
Could the congress forbid newspapers from endorsing candidates? The NYT isn't a person either.
People should try to see this from the perspective of why protecting free-speech is so important. There are many ways to regulate electioneering without banishing speech. This is why so many organizations without any sympathy for big companies supported this ruling.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.
You think one day a company will advertise on politicians. Kind of like what Golden Palace does on boxers.
Media companies are corporations, too.
Alex Jones is looking more and more like he is right
that's how crazy this country is becoming.
It really is an endgame, and they are making huge moves right in front of the people's faces...and there is nothing we can do about it!
We are coming closer and closer to a violent revolution in this country.
Hmmm...the revolution has already come and gone. Perhaps the most insidious revolutions against the people are those that nobody notices. Or those which a majority tacitly accepts. I mean, is it some great secret that the wealthy and powerful call the shots in this country? We see the donations that all of our representatives receive. We see them land in cushy jobs when they're out of public service. We see all kinds of government contracts doled out. And we see supposedly left wing and right wing politicians do this.
Generally, nobody cares so long as they have their Sportscenter or American Idol to watch.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions