Supreme Court overturns McCain Feingold and related limits

[Dude!]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

i am conflicted about this
i think money is ruining our system
yet, why should people be shut up

anyway, spend away, i guess

[OleBullNuts]

The First Amendment wins again

[underdog]

i am conflicted about this
i think money is ruining our system
yet, why should people be shut up

I agree with this.

[STC-Dub]

It just means more commercials to ignore come election time.

[epo]

Good point. The Supreme Court completely ignored the valves.

[Jujubees2]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

i am conflicted about this
i think money is ruining our system
yet, why should people be shut up

anyway, spend away, i guess

It's not about people it's about corporations

[Serpico1103]

I am sure Fox news will be outraged by this judicial activism. More legislating from the bench. Oh, I can't wait to hear Hannity and O'Reilly rip into the SC for this ruling.

[hanso]

I am sure Fox news will be outraged by this judicial activism. More legislating from the bench. Oh, I can't wait to hear Hannity and O'Reilly rip into the SC for this ruling.

Someone please post a clip of this when it happens. I will be waiting to see this.
And why wasn't a better title used? This goes back 100 years.

[hanso]

<embed src="http://www.disclose.tv/embedPlayer.php?vid=9d533416fe8c20bff789c2ce8" flashvars="config=http://www.disclose.tv/videoConfigXmlCode.php?pg=video_37859_no_0_extsite" quality="high" bgcolor="#000000" width="425" height="355" name="flvplayer" align="middle" allowscriptaccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowfullscreen="true"><br><a href="http://www.disclose.tv">Disclose.tv</a> <a href="http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/37859/FreeSpeechforPeople_org_kickoff_video/">FreeSpeechforPeople.org kickoff video Video</a>

The wing nuts are worried over the propping up of corporations that were on the brink of failure.When they over look what they do and get away with. On top of that the wing nuts on the Supreme Court just gave the corporations the right to unlimited political backed financing. They will be running things soon.

[TripleSkeet]

Not a fan of this. Corporations already have too much power in this country by buying politicians. Giving them free reign to use even more of their money to buy elections is not a good thing.

What they should do is cap the amount of money allowed to be spent on campaigns. And make it a low reasonable number. This way they cant buy elections, they actually have to work to win them.

[JimBeam]

Most corporations are publically traded companies, with Boards Of Directors, so to think that 1 person or even 2 can say, " Hey let's take millions of dollars of our money and support Mike Huckabee. " is completely silly.

Individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, both with fairly liberal values at least socially, could contribute more than any Fortune 500 company so why is this ruling a win for Republicans ?

[Serpico1103]

Most corporations are publically traded companies, with Boards Of Directors, so to think that 1 person or even 2 can say, " Hey let's take millions of dollars of our money and support Mike Huckabee. " is completely silly.
Individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, both with fairly liberal values at least socially, could contribute more than any Fortune 500 company so why is this ruling a win for Republicans ?

It is a win for corporations, a lose for individual citizens.

[JimBeam]

But how ?

Based on some unrealistic scenario where The Fortune 500 all decide to support a Repulican candidate ?

In the end each individual only gets one vote so if the CEO's of every one of those companies all voted in lockstep you'd still only have 500 votes which would easily be cancelled out by 500 college kids lashing out at mommy and daddy.

So more adverstising is paid for, possibly, by corporate funds ?

It's still a commercial that 98% of the people tune out anyway.

Would it allow a company more leeway to push for candidates, particularly in local and state elections, that are friendlier to the policies and initiatives that impact the company ?

Yes, but a candidate is still elceted by individuals.

I doubt they'll be much vote buying because that'd be tough to hide on a companies' balance sheet/expense report.

[Serpico1103]

But how ?
Based on some unrealistic scenario where The Fortune 500 all decide to support a Repulican candidate ?
In the end each individual only gets one vote so if the CEO's of every one of those companies all voted in lockstep you'd still only have 500 votes which would easily be cancelled out by 500 college kids lashing out at mommy and daddy.
So more adverstising is paid for, possibly, by corporate funds ?
It's still a commercial that 98% of the people tune out anyway.
Would it allow a company more leeway to push for candidates, particularly in local and state elections, that are friendlier to the policies and initiatives that imact the company ?
Yes, but a candidate is still elceted by individuals.
I doubt they'll be much vote buying because that'd be tough to hide on a companies' balance sheet/expense report.

So, every corporation that has spent money on campaigns has wasted their money?
If you don't think campaign advertising works than you are naive.
That is like saying advertising in general doesn't work.
Guess what, every corporation disagrees with you.
It is not about Republican/Democrat. It is about corporations being able to tilt the scale in their favor.
If you don't think federal regulations impact corporations, again you are naive.

You can and are influenced by advertising. If you don't know that than it is working that much more effectively.

[badmonkey]

So, every corporation that has spent money on campaigns has wasted their money?
If you don't think campaign advertising works than you are naive.
That is like saying advertising in general doesn't work.
Guess what, every corporation disagrees with you.
It is not about Republican/Democrat. It is about corporations being able to tilt the scale in their favor.
If you don't think federal regulations impact corporations, again you are naive.

You can and are influenced by advertising. If you don't know that than it is working that much more effectively.

Are you saying that until this Supreme Court ruling, corporations were unable to buy political advertisements at all and now they can?

[hanso]

Not a fan of this. Corporations already have too much power in this country by buying politicians. Giving them free reign to use even more of their money to buy elections is not a good thing.

What they should do is cap the amount of money allowed to be spent on campaigns. And make it a low reasonable number. This way they cant buy elections, they actually have to work to win them.

One of the first things Obama did in office was for Campaign finance reform. What the Supreme Court did was an end around. By overturning a 100 year old law.

[JimBeam]

I can assure you that I do not decide who to vote for and what ideas to back based on any commercial ExxonMobil, Google, Microsoft, etc ... may support.

In the end people vote for candidates that they identify with either through a perceived shared ideology or in spite of another candidate.

Sure the laws or government regulations that are written may be shaped by a person who received donations/backing from a certain corporation but to think that doesn't happen anyway would be naieve.

And again a law can't get passed if there isn't majority support and as we've seen from the health care debate even when people agree they don't agree completely.

[Serpico1103]

Are you saying that until this Supreme Court ruling, corporations were unable to buy political advertisements at all and now they can?

Corporations could donate within limits set by the Federal Election Commission.
The ruling removes those limits.
Because the First Amendment allows freedom of speech. Odd, I didn't know corporations could enjoy rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I guess foreign corporations and foreigners (illegal aliens for WRESTLINGFAN) should also, I am sure the conservative court wants that.

[JimBeam]

One of the first things Obama did in office was for Campaign finance reform. What the Supreme Court did was an end around. By overturning a 100 year old law.

He also claimed that he wouldn't allow lobbyists and/or those who worked for/with them into his administration yet he caved on that.

It's Hollywood fantasy or an unhealthy belief in conspiracies to think an election can be " bought ".

Outside of voter tampering and misconduct that is.

There was no doubt that Obama would win this past election and I find it hard to believe that any amount of money spent on advertising, short of showing pics of him w/ Bin Laden that were real, would've changed that.

[Serpico1103]

I can assure you that I do not decide who to vote for and what ideas to back based on any commercial ExxonMobil, Google, Microsoft, etc ... may support.
In the end people vote for candidates that they identify with either through a perceived shared ideology or in spite of another candidate.


You are right. And in the end, people only go to quality movies that end up being classics. People only buy great products based on quality, reliability, cost, and need.
I'll let the superbowl advertisers know they are wasting their 3.2 million every 30 seconds. ADVERTISING DOESN'T WORK!
People are too smart.

The healthcare debate is a bad example. Everyone is aware of it. How many regulations , bills, and irs changes happen without anyone knowing. A couple of "motivated" senators can make a change. Why do you think corporations donate money? The CEOs and executives can donate money on their own.

[JimBeam]

Corporations could donate within limits set by the Federal Election Commission.
The ruling removes those limits.
Because the First Amendment allows freedom of speech. Odd, I didn't know corporations could enjoy rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I guess foreign corporations and foreigners (illegal aliens for WRESTLINGFAN) should also, I am sure the conservative court wants that.

But Corporations aren't voting. They don't have a block of votes to use like stocks.

American citizens are voting.

For every 1 vote you fear may be corrupted by the foreign campaign contributions there are thousands that are based on ideaology/apathy.

[Serpico1103]

He also claimed that he wouldn't allow lobbyists and/or those who worked for/with them into his administration yet he caved on that.
It's Hollywood fantasy or an unhealthy belief in conspiracies to think an election can be " bought ".
Outside of voter tampering and misconduct that is.
There was no doubt that Obama would win this past election and I find it hard to believe that any amount of money spent on advertising, short of showing pics of him w/ Bin Laden that were real, would've changed that.

I'll let Karl Rove that his life was wasted. GWB was going to win anyway.

[Serpico1103]

But Corporations aren't voting. They don't have a block of votes to use like stocks.
American citizens are voting.
For every 1 vote you fear may be corrupted by the foreign campaign contributions there are thousands that are based on ideaology/apathy.

I KNOW CORPORATIONS CAN'T VOTE. So why are they donating?

How do these people hear about a politicians ideology? From hours of research, from reading transcripts of congressional debates?
Oh thats right. From 30 second ads paid for by special interest groups and corporations.

[hanso]

why is this ruling a win for Republicans ?
Those on the right of the Supreme Court voted in favor this. The right are never in favor of any regulaton and or corporate taxation. Their end all be all is to let the market take its course. In other words they are pro big business not really looking out for the little people.


Cha-Ching! Supreme Court ruling means Big Business can spend billions on elections

While companies still won't be able to give directly to federal candidates, they'll be able to spend billions on attack ads, robocalls, and direct mail. You know, just like you and I are free to do.
http://crooksandliars.com/josh-glasstetter/cha-ching-supreme-court-says-big

It only goes to say that they will find a way to fund PAC's as well.

[JimBeam]

The CEOs and executives can donate money on their own.

Exactly and as I stated earlier the richest CEOs in the country can contribute more than any single company could.

Of course advertising works to a point but isn't sometimes equally as irrelevant ?

There are no cigarette commercials yet smoking is still a billion dollar a year buisness.

Actually there are anti-smoking commercials yet smoking is still acceptable.

Beer commercials ??

I can guarantee you that even if they banned these commercials from TV, and God I wish they'd ban 99% of them due to their suck factor, people would still go to bars and buy beers at that same rate.

[hanso]

It's Hollywood fantasy or an unhealthy belief in conspiracies to think an election can be " bought ".



One hand does wash the other however.

[JimBeam]

Those on the right of the Supreme Court voted in favor this. The right are never in favor of any regulaton and or corporate taxation. Their end all be all is to let the market take its course. In other words they are pro big business not really looking out for the little people.


Cha-Ching! Supreme Court ruling means Big Business can spend billions on elections

While companies still won't be able to give directly to federal candidates, they'll be able to spend billions on attack ads, robocalls, and direct mail. You know, just like you and I are free to do.
http://crooksandliars.com/josh-glasstetter/cha-ching-supreme-court-says-big

It only goes to say that they will find a way to fund PAC's as well.

Have you ever voted or changed your vote based on a robocall ?

Have you ever even sat through one ?

I know I haven't and I could care less whether it was for a person I liked or if it was a person I disliked.

[Dude!]

One of the first things Obama did in office was for Campaign finance reform. What the Supreme Court did was an end around. By overturning a 100 year old law.

one of the first things obama did
BEFORE getting into office
was to break his pledge and then
not accept federal matching funds
so that he could spend away...
way more than McCain

he's a phony liar

[hanso]

But Corporations aren't voting. They don't have a block of votes to use like stocks.

American citizens are voting.

For every 1 vote you fear may be corrupted by the foreign campaign contributions there are thousands that are based on ideaology/apathy.

it's not so much votes but favoritism/payback.

[JimBeam]

One hand does wash the other however.

And that type of thing wasn't happening for the last 100 years ?

Where does the " Cornhusker Compromise " or whatever they called that come from ?

You give me your support, help me pass this bill, and here's what you get in return.

Obama not only didn't have a problem with that he said, essentially, it's what you have to do.

So if a senator's vote can be bought by his colleagues why wouldn't it be for sale to others ?

[JimBeam]

it's not so much votes but favoritism/payback.

Well in that case if you supported a candidate that after getting into office backed something you didn't agree w/ you'd be smart to change your vote next time.

Nobody has a candidate that they agree w/ 100%.

[badmonkey]

One of the first things Obama did in office was for Campaign finance reform. What the Supreme Court did was an end around. By overturning a 100 year old law.

Campaign finance ruling on United Citizens is historical, but 100 years is a stretch (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/22/charles-schumer/campaign-finance-ruling-united-citizens-historical/)

Just because Barack Obama says it, doesn't make it the truth.

Foreign Corporations Donating?

The president claimed that "foreign corporations" could begin spending big money to influence U.S. elections under a recent Supreme Court decision.

Obama: Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.

Justice Samuel Alito, who with the other justices sat at the very front of the chamber last night, was seen shaking his head and mouthing what appeared to be the words "not true" as Obama said this. Alito joined the majority in the 5-4 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision issued by the Court last week, which knocked down restrictions on corporate spending on elections.

But it’s unclear whether the court’s opinion will lead to allowing foreign-based corporations to buy campaign ads and engage in other electioneering activities. There is still a law barring foreign corporations from spending money in connection with U.S. elections (see 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3)), and that’s a matter likely to be litigated further. The court’s most recent decision explicitly didn’t deal with that question. But strictly speaking, Obama couched his claim as something "I believe," making it a statement of opinion and not of fact. So whether his view turns out to be right remains to be seen. (http://factcheck.org/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/)
http://factcheck.org/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/

[underdog]

one of the first things obama did
BEFORE getting into office
was to break his pledge and then
not accept federal matching funds
so that he could spend away...
way more than McCain

he's a politician

Fixed.

[hanso]

And that type of thing wasn't happening for the last 100 years ?

Where does the " Cornhusker Compromise " or whatever they called that come from ?

You give me your support, help me pass this bill, and here's what you get in return.

Obama not only didn't have a problem with that he said, essentially, it's what you have to do.

So if a senator's vote can be bought by his colleagues why wouldn't it be for sale to others ?

I don't see it as the same floor members vs large Corps.
Well the cap is gone now and Obama is not sitting by over it.

Well in that case if you supported a candidate that after getting into office backed something you didn't agree w/ you'd be smart to change your vote next time.

Nobody has a candidate that they agree w/ 100%.

Look at Enron Vs Bush. That was far from the case on all counts.

[JimBeam]

Look at Enron Vs Bush. That was far from the case on all counts.

I don't get you here ?

Are you saying people that may have been burned by the Enron scandal voted for Bush even though he may have in some way indirectly benefited from what happened ?

[keithy_19]

It's the companies money. Let them use it how they see fit.

[Serpico1103]

More prophecy from Idiocracy. Gatorade will be sponsoring the government soon.
I hope to enjoy our devolution.

[Dude!]

More prophecy from Idiocracy. Gatorade will be sponsoring the government soon.
I hope to enjoy our devolution.

why would gatorade
want to piss off half
their customer base?

[epo]

It's the companies money. Let them use it how they see fit.

It's the investors money. Give it back to them to decide.

[badmonkey]

It's the <strike>investors</strike> taxpayers money. Give it back to them <strike>to decide</strike>.

If only you saw the govt in the same way you see the evil corporations.

[ShowerBench]

It just means more commercials to ignore come election time.

This.

None of the justices argued the point that corporations have free speech rights.

There should be NO regulation of how much money can be spent by any entity in campaigns. Only disclosure requirements.

Let the candidates examine that information and exploit expenditures by corporations and individuals. Let the VOTER examine that information and the various claims by the candidates regarding who is getting how much from whom, and what it means.

These kinds of regulations (funding limits, term limits) are designed to babysit the electorate by taking away freedoms.

Let voters take the time to be informed, and learn how to ignore the idiot ads purchased by campaigns. If they don't, too bad. We get the government we deserve.

[Serpico1103]

These kinds of regulations (funding limits, term limits) are designed to babysit the electorate by taking away freedoms.
Let voters take the time to be informed, and learn how to ignore the idiot ads purchased by campaigns. If they don't, too bad. We get the government we deserve.

So, there should be no election regulations?
I deserve a bad government because the electorate hasn't learned to ignore idiot ads?
Your independent spirit is so cute. If you don't think you are and can be manipulated than you are a marketer's dream.

[JimBeam]

Equally as cute is Obama's use of the term " special interests " as if there were none responsible and in support of his election.

I guess it all depends on the interest at hand.

[underdog]

If only you saw the govt in the same way you see the evil corporations.

Governments aren't supposed to act like corporations. A corporation's only objective is to make a profit.

[TeeBone]

Not a fan of this. Corporations already have too much power in this country by buying politicians. Giving them free reign to use even more of their money to buy elections is not a good thing.

Is it any different from community action groups or unions getting together and voicing opinions through legal means?
NO!
Its simply a group of people being allowed to voice and share their collective opinion. I know the left does a great job at, 'Black helicopter' views of the world, but its a bit of a silly argument...although I must say I did enjoy Obama acting typically 'Presidential' when he scolded the court the other night on live TV. He's all class that one.
If anyone watches MSNBC (and judging by the ratings and overall viewership, I'd say not) you would be witness to watching one man's meltdown every night on TV. Keith Olberman and his continuously exploding head is great when issues like this come up. I actually enjoy watching him squirm.

[SonOfSmeagol]

A corporation's only objective is to make a profit.

I think it's to maximize value for the shareholders, and profit is but one way to contribute to value.

[keithy_19]

It's the investors money. Give it back to them to decide.

So should unions give me back the money I gave for union dues when they support a candidate I don't?

[epo]

If only you saw the govt in the same way you see the evil corporations.

Governments aren't supposed to act like corporations. A corporation's only objective is to make a profit.

I hate it when Underdog is right.

[epo]

So should unions give me back the money I gave for union dues when they support a candidate I don't?

Comparing an organizing body to a corporation is a foolish thing.

[badmonkey]

Governments aren't supposed to act like corporations. A corporation's only objective is to make a profit.

I hate it when Underdog is right.

Then why do you guys think it was so great that the govt had a surplus before Bush took office?

[FUNKMAN]

TV time, radio time, and any form of media should be FREE to the political process. These are the people that are leading our communities, our states, our country. everyone should have equal time to express themselves. ALSO all runners should not be allowed to say a disparaging word against an opponent. ONLY run on their own merits

yeah I know, and monkeys will soon fly out of my butthole

but I stand by that's how it SHOULD be!

[underdog]

Then why do you guys think it was so great that the govt had a surplus before Bush took office?

I did?

[SonOfSmeagol]

That cat has got a surplus for sure. :happy:

[badmonkey]

I did?

You may not be included in that particular "you guys", but that "Clinton left office with a surplus, Bush left with a deficit" is definitely one of the major talking points constantly spewed.

Surplus == Profit
When the govt makes a profit, they do it by taking money from its citizens by legal force.
When a corporation makes a profit, they do it through the willful exchange of money for goods and services.

[keithy_19]

Comparing an organizing body to a corporation is a foolish thing.

I had to join the union when I started working for the company. They sent me "fair" press releases where they compared presidential candidates.

I'm certain they donated to a particular candidate and my money went out of my paycheck to them. I didn't want to join the union, but I had to.

[Serpico1103]

Equally as cute is Obama's use of the term " special interests " as if there were none responsible and in support of his election.

I guess it all depends on the interest at hand.

Ok. Continue your us v. them battle.
This should be seen as a bad ruling by both dems and republicans. It allows corporations even more control over elections. I am looking forward to the day when we can elect corporations to office.
President AOL Time Warner has a nice ring.

[Serpico1103]

When the govt makes a profit, they do it by taking money from its citizens by legal force.
When a corporation makes a profit, they do it through the willful exchange of money for goods and services.

So, you place no value on your freedom? On the opportunities here?
Than find the country with the lowest tax and move there. Regardless of government services, freedoms, health care, police, education, etc.

I know, you could establish your own nation that would be safe and guarantee freedoms with out taxation. The roads would just appear and police would work for free.

[epo]

You may not be included in that particular "you guys", but that "Clinton left office with a surplus, Bush left with a deficit" is definitely one of the major talking points constantly spewed.

Surplus == Profit
When the govt makes a profit, they do it by taking money from its citizens by legal force.
When a corporation makes a profit, they do it through the willful exchange of money for goods and services.

The government was then using that SURPLUS to pay off the DEBT. By reducing the DEBT the government can then reduce TAXES in the long-term in a meaningful and permanent way.

[Serpico1103]

I had to join the union when I started working for the company. They sent me "fair" press releases where they compared presidential candidates.

I'm certain they donated to a particular candidate and my money went out of my paycheck to them. I didn't want to join the union, but I had to.

You could claim to be a political objector. Dues that the union would use for lobbying would be refunded to you. Laws may be different in each state.

[ShowerBench]

So, there should be no election regulations?
I deserve a bad government because the electorate hasn't learned to ignore idiot ads?
Your independent spirit is so cute. If you don't think you are and can be manipulated than you are a marketer's dream.

No, there should be regulations - limited to requiring full disclosure. After that, none.

I didn't say people can't be manipulated. This ruling isn't going to remedy that. They can be (already have been) manipulated with billions of dollars of individual, limited donations. They can be manipulated with unlimited individual donations plus unlimited corporate money. They can be manipulated with no money spent whatsoever - only through exposure to speech, including free speech on the internet.

We have a right wing lunatic majority in the Supreme Court because voters were manipulated into complacency when an illiterate monkey stole an election.

But they allowed themselves to be.

So, absolutely - if the electorate can't ignore idiot TV ads and drooling punditocracy, democracy and free speech will be proven a failed experiment, a quaint system unable to survive in an age of modern technology.

The ACLU agreed with the Court's decision here, as do I. I would be interested to know precisely which regulations of speech you would support, which sources can contribute their own money to campaigns (and how much). In which year in history did the right level and type of regulation exist, in your view? Before this ruling, was there enough regulation already or did you support even more?

And, presuming what you would allow still adds up to billions of dollars invested by individuals, groups, unions, corporations in influencing elections, why you believe "a few billion" eliminates the problem of "manipulation," as opposed to "a few more billion."

Zero limits, full disclosure.

[Dude!]

You could claim to be a political objector. Dues that the union would use for lobbying would be refunded to you. Laws may be different in each state.

yeah, claim that and
get your legs broken

union bosses and members
are nasty people
i'll take gatorade or exxon execs
any day

[Pitdoc]

"throw an elbow".
If this fall , every congressman and Senator up for re-election who was for , say, health reform, had a TRIPLING of their opponent's ads ( and believe me, they'll be dirty as hell) against them, more than 50% would go down . How much would this cost? Less than 500 million. Profits by insurance companies? 3-4 billion. So , the insurance companies spend 500 million to defeat ANYBODY who'll vote against them , and they can write any law that'll get that back in 2 years..And nobody ever tries to reform healthcare EVER again . Swap out for oil companies , and goodbye renewable energy , hello oil rigs off every shore.And don't say the unions will do the same thing ; They don't have a tenth of the spendable capital the major corps do.

[Serpico1103]

Zero limits, full disclosure.

Disclosure is of course necessary.
But disclosure doesn't always work.

I don't think corporations need/deserve rights.
Lobbying is enough of a problem without corporations affecting the election so directly.

I think all major media outlets should be forced to give free air time to the top 3 or 4 candidates. The airwaves belong to the people after all. That would than dilute the power of big money. Making large donations less meaning, thereby discouraging them.
Maybe that would help with our flawed 2 party system. Which is basically one party that fights over abortion and gay rights.

[TeeBone]

Comparing an organizing body to a corporation is a foolish thing.

What's a corporation, in your opinion?
Is there no organized body within the corporation?

I think what's happening here, (not just with your post alone) is the notion that all corporations are inherintly Republican in nature. THAT is the foolish thing, my friend.

[Crispy123]

How could a corporation be a republican? It's not a human being. It is a for-profit entity.

"There already existed a body of law addressed to 'persons' and the corporation was eased into this body of law in the simplest way possible: by ignoring, one by one, the earlier qualms about whether the corporation ('that invisible intangible, and artificial being' as chief Justice Marshall had called it) could be a person, too. As a result, many possible approaches to controlling corporations that would have taken special account of their special organizational natures were not developed as they might have been." -- Christopher Stone, Where the Law Ends

[epo]

Comparing an organizing body to a corporation is a foolish thing.

What's a corporation, in your opinion?
Is there no organized body within the corporation?

I think what's happening here, (not just with your post alone) is the notion that all corporations are inherintly Republican in nature. THAT is the foolish thing, my friend.

I dare you to find the moment I claimed that all corporations are inherently Republican in that statement. I bet you can't do it.

[Serpico1103]

I think all the republicans here are trying to make this into a dem v. rep fight. This is about individuals v. Corporations. Stop treating politics like sports, stop being a homer.

[foodcourtdruide]

I think all the republicans here are trying to make this into a dem v. rep fight. This is about individuals v. Corporations. Stop treating politics like sports, stop being a homer.

I stopped paying attention when people started claiming political advertisements had limited influence. I don't even know what to say to that.

[TripleSkeet]

I think all the republicans here are trying to make this into a dem v. rep fight. This is about individuals v. Corporations. Stop treating politics like sports, stop being a homer.

This. It always turns into a dem. vs. rep. fight. Thats why I hate politics. People care more about their side winning then they do for what benefits the country most. Its fucking sickening.

[Serpico1103]

This. It always turns into a dem. vs. rep. fight. Thats why I hate politics. People care more about their side winning then they do for what benefits the country most. Its fucking sickening.
People want to "win" the game of democracy. You should attack your own party when it let's you down, not blindly defend it.

For the "corporations are just a bunch of individuals" crowd. Try suing those people when the corporation harms you. If your understanding of corporations is that they are just bunches of people you should do some reading.

[underdog]

This. It always turns into a dem. vs. rep. fight. Thats why I hate politics. People care more about their side winning then they do for what benefits the country most. Its fucking sickening.

No one wants an honest debate anymore. They just want their opinion shouted into their face while they watch 24 hour "news". The perfect example is Obama standing in front of the GOP honestly answering their questions and Fox News cutting him off and going to something else. It's ridiculous.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Before this latest development, I saw something (don't remember where) that said corps and nonprofits pretty much spend the same on Reps and Dems overall, and unions spend like 4X more on Dems than on Reps. Now that the spending ban is off, maybe the Dems are the "winners" here.

[badmonkey]

Before this latest development, I saw something (don't remember where) that said corps and nonprofits pretty much spend the same on Reps and Dems overall, and unions spend like 4X more on Dems than on Reps. Now that the spending ban is off, maybe the Dems are the "winners" here.

http://craxzynation.com/uploads/shooter-mcgavin-picture.jpg
I tell you, the real winner today is the city of Portland

[Serpico1103]

Before this latest development, I saw something (don't remember where) that said corps and nonprofits pretty much spend the same on Reps and Dems overall, and unions spend like 4X more on Dems than on Reps. Now that the spending ban is off, maybe the Dems are the "winners" here.
Suck it losers! We win! We win!

[hanso]

"throw an elbow".
If this fall , every congressman and Senator up for re-election who was for , say, health reform, had a TRIPLING of their opponent's ads ( and believe me, they'll be dirty as hell) against them, more than 50% would go down . How much would this cost? Less than 500 million. Profits by insurance companies? 3-4 billion. So , the insurance companies spend 500 million to defeat ANYBODY who'll vote against them , and they can write any law that'll get that back in 2 years..And nobody ever tries to reform healthcare EVER again . Swap out for oil companies , and goodbye renewable energy , hello oil rigs off every shore.And don't say the unions will do the same thing ; They don't have a tenth of the spendable capital the major corps do.

I get sick of seeing ads from candidate x. So much so that it makes me not want to cast a vote for them.

[hanso]

No one wants an honest debate anymore. They just want their opinion shouted into their face while they watch 24 hour "news". The perfect example is Obama standing in front of the GOP honestly answering their questions and Fox News cutting him off and going to something else. It's ridiculous.

Fair to unplug the feed if were getting our asses handed to us.
Thats the new motto.

[tanless1]

Mccain fiengold was a major reason I did not vote for mccain. Why should the talking heads be the only ones that can comment. 30 days before an election....if they get to impart their opionion, so should we.
Foriegn money should not be allowed.

[TeeBone]

I bet you can't do it.

Easy, big guy...

[TripleSkeet]

Suck it losers! We win! We win!

Whats funny is that will be the battle cry of half the country as it circles down the toilet. Regardless of what party it is.