Reply With Quote
Is defining a corporation as a "person" under the 14th amendment a 'reasonable interpretation'?
Is that an inaccurate definition?
Is defining a corporation as a "person" under the 14th amendment a 'reasonable interpretation'?
Well I just hope they quit having all of those stupid Corporations' Rights Parades now.
SHould the FEC be able to shut down the publishing of books because it has the name of a politician?
No.
Is turning incorporation into the birth of a "person" required to allow that?
sourceWhile nonprofits were exempt from campaign-finance regulations if they limited their fund-raising to donations from individuals, Citizens United fell under McCain-Feingold rules because it accepted business contributions. Thursday's ruling swept away such distinctions, freeing both for-profit and nonprofit en ies to spend freely on political ads.
Theodore Olson, who represented Citizens United, said allowing corporations to buy political ads "will invigorate political discourse…and, ultimately, strengthen the very foundations of our democracy."
source"This will allow the biggest corporations in the United States to engage in the buying and selling of elections," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who heads the party's effort to get Democrats elected in the House.
...after he wiped away the crocodile tears.
Of course, conventional wisdom sees this as a means for corps to extort public officials, but that's easily a two-way street.
People used to about union dues being used to support politicians and causes the members don't necesarily like, but where are the crocodile tears over the same thing happening to corporate shareholders now?
After all, Congress has been ing the people for a long, long time.
Because it is assumed in some quarters, and apparently in Portland, that whatever management wants, is good and right.
Just as it is in other quarters that whatever is good for unions, is good and right.
So....will a corp have to file a 1040? Hey es, no NOL carryforwards.
...
Please, explain where in this decision that happens. Quotes from the decision would be appreciated. Thank you.
This is an excellent post that should be read by those who pretend "that the free-speech objection to campaign finance reform is a smokescreen for enabling the Corporatey Corporates".
No, however coined that term was evil and smart to use something patriotic a slander, and those who use it are un-American.
Why can't you regulate the political activities or corporations?
Voting rights is mostly a states issue - the cons utional amendments only restrained the limitations that states can impose on US citizens (gender, race, taxes, etc.) - states can certainly allow non-citizens (foreigners) to vote, for example. But the COTUS requires Reps and Sens to be elected by "the people" and Microsfot and GE are certainly not "the people".
Speech can be produced by natural persons or other en ies. The First Amendment protects speech regardless of who produces it.
Please, read the majority opinion.
Are you sure you're aware of the arguments used in Austin and the ones used in Citizens United?
anyone have the letter?WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is condemning a decision by the Supreme Court to roll back restrictions on campaign donations by corporations and unions.
In a written statement, Obama says the campaign finance ruling will lead to a "stampede of special interest money in our politics." Obama declared that his administration will work with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to come up with a "forceful response" to the high court's action.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.
Obama called it a big victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.
You know very well I didn't read Citizens United. I admitted it myself. Are you absent-minded, or do you just assume everyone else is?
If you have something to say about Austin, just say it. Surely you're not arguing Austin restrained corporations without a compelling state interest adduced, are you?
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-23-2010 at 08:18 AM.
Exactly, that's why I'm advising you to read it. You seem oblivious to what this decision is about - and, quite telling, you show no inclination to cultivate yourself.
Of course I am - I'm flat out saying that the Court was wrong in Austin. The rationale behind Austin - the idea that the government can limit speech in the name of something like equal or fair access was absolutely misguided. And even if the even if the restriction of corporation speech is compelling - and I don't hold that view re: Austin; the law most be narrowly tailored - which, IMO, it clearly wasn't. I'm not saying anything particularly controversial: even the governement, in the hearings of this case, agreed that Austin was muddled in its reasoning.
In my view, there's nothing in the text of the Cons ution that permits a different level of restriction of corporate political speech than the one applicable to individuals. The government can make that case, pointing out the compelling interest and enacting a law narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. So far, they haven't done it.
Last edited by mogrovejo; 01-23-2010 at 12:41 PM.
+1from cato
while the court has long upheld campaign finance regulations as a way to prevent corruption in elections, it has also repeated that equalizing speech is never a valid government interest.
After all, to make campaign spending equal, the government would have to prevent some people or groups from spending less than they wished. That is directly contrary to protecting speech from government restraint, which is ultimately the heart of american conceptions about the freedom of speech.
Damn court just screwed me and SEIU. 90 Mil was a nice haul....was whatWASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is condemning a decision by the Supreme Court to roll back restrictions on campaign donations by corporations and unions.
In a written statement, Obama says the campaign finance ruling will lead to a "stampede of special interest money in our politics." Obama declared that his administration will work with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to come up with a "forceful response" to the high court's action.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.
Obama called it a big victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.
Obama meant to say.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions