Reply With Quote
As I suspected, you didn't even read the decision.
What does it mean?
As I suspected, you didn't even read the decision.
I'll readily admit I didn't. Blow me.
Huh? How, barring a cons utional amendment? Care to explain? I thought you defended that only individual speech was protected under the First Amemdment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
If the freedom of speech of corporations isn't protected because they aren't "people", then the freedom of press isn't either.
(Obviously, the 1st Amendment protects speech, regardless of the speakers... as actually reading it makes obvious).
Do you read all SC opinions the same day?
I did post it for the general edification. You could at least give me credit for that.
Btw, will you start answering the question you dodged earlier?
The Free Press Clause protects the right to publish. It's not a special protection for newspapers.
Strawman. I made no such defense or claim.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
If the freedom of speech of corporations isn't protected because they aren't "people", then the freedom of press isn't either.
The amendment specifically mentions "the press." Why exactly does one have to interpret the entire amendment as applying only to individuals?
Obviously the first amendment hit a number of items, and none of them were intended to allow Microsoft to turn into a person.
(Obviously, the 1st Amendment protects speech, regardless of the speakers... as actually reading it makes obvious).
Isn't Olbermann pro-choice? So wouldn't it be the opposite: If Olbermann blew a gasket over not being able to kill kids...?
Are newspapers not?
Are newspapers not what?
The Free Press Clause was not intended to protect the freedom of an industry from government intervention. It was intended to protect the freedom of an activity: publishing.
Now, if you think corporations are not to be treated like natural persons for First Amendment purposes, then fine. But be consistent: don't try claiming that the Free Press Clause protects them but the Free Speech Clause doesn't.
Pussy waited til I logged off. As soon as I answered, he bailed.
Guess he wouldn't throw himself in front of that bull. lol.
CG: A different angle to this story..................
***************
CEOs to Hill: Quit calling us for campaign cash
WASHINGTON – Dozens of current and former corporate executives have a message for Congress: Quit hitting us up for campaign cash.
Roughly 40 executives from companies including Playboy Enterprises, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's, the Seagram's liquor company, toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines and Men's Wearhouse sent a letter to congressional leaders Friday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers — and fear it will only get worse after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling.
The court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on ads urging people to vote for or against candidates. The decision was sought by interest groups including one that represents American businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They argued that restrictions on ads they could finance close to elections violated their free-speech rights, and the court agreed.
Congressional candidates who find themselves attacked by a flood of special-interest TV ads in the 2010 elections will likely reach out to their party's biggest donors for money to help them counter the blitz.
"Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors," the business executives' letter says. "And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress. With additional money flowing into the system due to the court's decision, the fundraising pressure on members of Congress will only increase."
Among the others signing the letter are current or former executives of Quaker Chemical Corp., Brita Products Co., San Diego National Bank, MetLife and Crate & Barrel.
They sent the letter through Fair Elections Now, a coalition of good-government groups who hope the Supreme Court ruling will lead Congress to pass public campaign financing legislation they have long been seeking. Others supporting public financing include former campaign strategists for President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush.
A Senate proposal would fund campaigns with a fee on businesses that get $10 million or more in government contracts. The House would finance it with revenue from auctioning off the television broadcast spectrum, which was opened when the country switched to digital broadcasting. Spectrums are the airwaves used by the government, television and radio broadcasters and cell phone companies, among others.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/...9zdG9jb25ncmU-
Thank you for posting this. I was reading through these to see if someone had done so already. Now this is the most important thing to me...
How do you all respond to this? I admit I never expected the Supremes to make the determination they did, but since they did, I can hardly imagine Congress not stepping in to rewrite the law in some way. What do you all think about his? Should ONLY public funding be allowed for national campaigns? It has some merit, it seems to me, on the face of it, but I don't honestly know if this would be uncons utional or not.
It seems to me that we already 'have the best legislators money can buy', but I am bothered by the seeming inequality that will result from corporations completely taking over the financing of campaigns, as this new law appears to enable.
I am asking all of you who know so much more than I do about cons utionality to tell me.
A very good question, EVAY.
What questions?
Give you credit for making false statements due to your inability or unwillingness to inform yourself properly? No problem.
You were wrong. Admit it, apologize for writing misleading/wrong info and move on.
The amendment specifically mentions "the press." Why exactly does one have to interpret the entire amendment as applying only to individuals?
Obviously the first amendment hit a number of items, and none of them were intended to allow Microsoft to turn into a person.[/quote]
You are very confused.
If you believe that the first amendment doesn't give corporations the cons utional right to free speech because corporations aren't people then the same is true for the freedom of press. It's one or the other.
And once for all, try to understand this very simple thing: this isnt' about the person-hood of corporations.
Didn't catch it first time around?
I did, since the hearings. I'm actually amazed that people were expecting a different outcome.
I think people are extremely confused about this issue.
This decision doesn't address campaign financing. Nothing changes in that regard. Corporations aren't allow to give money to politicians or campaigns.
I'm against public funding. I can't see a compelling reason to allow politicians to finance their electioneering activities with others people money without their explicit allowance.
Geez, are you going to point out the questions or not? This is the only thread I've opened today.Didn't catch it first time around?
Too bad you can't keep up.
As I've pointed out yesterday, the CED filled an amicus brief in defence of the government positions. This decision isn't exactly big business friendly (or unfriendly). It's free-speech friendly.
The hysterical know-nothings who think they look smart by screaming "OMG! The Framers weren't corporate lawyers! It's the apocalypse!!!" are, as usual, clueless.
...
As usual, you're trolling. Substantive contributes to the discussion=0.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
