Print

[LetsGoWings]

We're pissed because of what has happened since the ruling. If you had an iota of intelligence you'd have figured that out by now.

So, why oppose corporations as people now, when it has been on the books for a long time?

[blueberry]

Corporations and organizations are not people! They are owned by people and people work there. The Constitution covers individuals. Each corporation and organization are represented by the individual vote. If these groups minded their own business they would be welcome. Some would rather spend millions and billions running roughshod over their neighbors, and there are plenty of politicians who will take the money and run with them. Judges are politicians, too, go on brush your shoulders off! Congress could regulate campaign finance under commerce, level the playing field, let walk-ons have their day, but will they?! Heck, most of the giants are multinational, and Chiner is fronted for communist government. Who are we letting run the show around here???

[Baby Hitler]

I guarantee I have more knowledge about finance, accounting, and economics than you do. If you disagree, then put your money where your mouth is, and how about we make a bet about it.

I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but it is possible to be smart in one area, and stupid in another.

So, why oppose corporations as people now, when it has been on the books for a long time?

Any idiot can see what has happened since the citizen's united case happened.

Well, ALMOST any idiot. 

[LetsGoWings]

I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but it is possible to be smart in one area, and stupid in another.
Any idiot can see what has happened since the citizen's united case happened.

Well, ALMOST any idiot. 

And yet you still can't refute what I posted at all. You feel the need to resort to personal attacks instead of what I posted earlier.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Santa+Clara+County+v.+Southern+Pacific+Railroad+Company

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/1.html

Corporate personhood does not extend all rights to corporations.

Can a corporation exercise the 5th amendment?

Why should corporations not have protection under the 14th amendment?

If there is not corporate personhood, should their income be taxed?

Corporations have had personhood long before Citizens United. Just because they have personhood does not mean they have every right an individual has.

You have yet to be able to give a good answer on why they should not be allowed to do what they want with their money as long as it is legal. Whether you like to admit it or not, the majority shareholders have a fiduciary interest to the minority shareholders.

[Frenchfry]

Citizens United: How Did it Happen?

Though the manifold problems of money pouring into our campaigns have become a source of daily news and mounting public backlash, the anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission is an opportunity to review how this transformative decision was reached -- the perfect storm of politicized jurisprudence, corporate entitlement, and a narrowly tilted bench.

As Chief Justice John Roberts has expressed such concern over corporate rights, one might think he was found as a boy abandoned, taken in, and raised by some corporations. It was Roberts who directed the narrow issue of FEC penalties over ads for Hillary: The Movie to be rewritten and re-argued as a much broader debate over the right for corporations to spend money freely on third party advertisements.

The murky reasoning in the 5-4 decision is a swirl of citations to numerous codes that apparently somehow offer sufficient paradox that a century of laws passed by lawmakers over generations of Congress that restrictions on the federal and state level had to be knocked down, leaving almost no sense of legal authority on the subject.

How has this decision stood, two years later? Well, people have literally been taking to the streets across the country in outrage over this decision and corporate influence on public policy. In fact, this decidedly undemocratic ruling -- five opinions against American law and overwhelming public opinion -- has been such a galvanizing injection into the populace, Citizens United vs. FEC may prove to be the birth to an era of reform.

When Thomas Jefferson warned, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance," he probably wasn't talking about the liberty of businesses to spend unlimited amounts to promote their interests in elections, particularly foreign businesses.

The Watergate scandal revealed major cesspools of money flooding into elections under Nixon, and the Watergate break-in itself was eventually linked to cover-up efforts regarding campaign money laundering through Richard Nixon's brother. Nixon is notorious for having had "briefcases full of money" flown in to Washington on a private plane, which would fly right back to its very anonymous donors, be they in Texas, Greece or who knows where -- actually, that was the problem, nobody knew where or how much.

It was thus in the wake of Nixon's resignation that the House of Representatives introduced a wave of campaign finance legislation -- because public outrage demanded it. These laws were the fundamental legal basis for much campaign regulation until Citizens United vs. FEC.

In a country struggling with unemployment and under-employment, a foreclosure crisis, and Mitt Romney trying to start a war with Europe, it takes a lot to make overturning a Supreme Court decision a national priority. But the opportunity we are presented with in the aftermath of Citizens United vs. FEC is the chance to bring about new laws that improve on the loophole-ridden pay-to-play culture that allowed Jack Abramoff to thrive like bacteria in a swamp.

Two years after Citizens United, this anniversary can become recognized as a national reminder of the better democratic future we are now building.

This new short documentary covers the curious evolution of the case Citizens United vs. FEC and interviews the attorney who first argued the case, James Bopp, accomplished battler of campaign laws and Vice Chair of the Republican National Committee. Authorities contributing to this analysis include John Nichols of The Nation, Bob Edgar, Doug Clopp and Kathay Feng of Common Cause, Nick Nyhart of Public Campaign, Brad Friedman of The Brad Blog, Professor Mark Crispin Miller, Jessica Levinson, and Lee Fang.

This short is from the forthcoming feature documentary PAY 2 PLAY: Democracy's High Stakes, a film journey about trying to overcome the problems we face from money in politics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-wellington-ennis/citizens-united-vs-fec_b_1221047.html

Citizens United vs. FEC: How Did It Happen?

[Baby Hitler]

And yet you still can't refute what I posted at all. You feel the need to resort to personal attacks instead of what I posted earlier.

And you still remain clueless. I can't refute what you posted, because it is in fact factual. However, there have been many things that have occurred since the Citizens United case, and YOU can't refute THAT. Instead you continue to harp on "well it's been that way for over a hundred years so why is there a problem now?"

Here's an analogy for you. Let's say you had a little spot on your arm, it never really bothered you, it was a bit unsightly, but nothing major, then one day it grows 1000 times bigger than it was before.

Why does it bother you now?

[Baby Hitler]

Oh and for those who were following along on the debate between me and Kopke, here is a summary.

Me: I dislike having large amounts of cash in the election system.
John: Except for when it's your candidate.
Me: No, I don't want ANYONE to receive large amounts of cash for their campaigns from any corporation, union, or anonymous individuals.
John: Except for when it's your candidate.


Evidently John has a problem with reading comprehension. Either that, or he just is committed to remaining ignorant.

[LetsGoWings]

And you still remain clueless. I can't refute what you posted, because it is in fact factual. However, there have been many things that have occurred since the Citizens United case, and YOU can't refute THAT. Instead you continue to harp on "well it's been that way for over a hundred years so why is there a problem now?"

Here's an analogy for you. Let's say you had a little spot on your arm, it never really bothered you, it was a bit unsightly, but nothing major, then one day it grows 1000 times bigger than it was before.

Why does it bother you now?

Kind of hard to refute what you say to me when it is only personal attacks.

[ducksoup]

I guarantee I have more knowledge about finance, accounting, and economics than you do. If you disagree, then put your money where your mouth is, and how about we make a bet about it.

And that makes you a Supreme Court of the United States Constitutional authority?  Does it make you also an astrophysicist authority, or a brain surgical authority?  Oh, I get it... you slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night....

Personhood changed with the unrestricted use of money as free speech.  Now, if you cannot see that, or differentiate that it makes “personhood” different, that is not the fault of others.

I find it interesting that you are fighting in favor of the unlimited, unrestricted “free speech” when it comes to big money, but are all for restricting REAL people’s genuine actual speaking to extreme time and place restrictions.

Corporate “people” - unrestricted money equals unlimited free speech.

Real people - restricted to when and where the government that is being protested wants.

 Maybe I need to spend a night at a Holiday Inn Express to figure out the logic of it.

[ducksoup]

Look up sarcasm FB. It is Obama, and you, telling us the rich are evil, not me. Are some rich people virtuous, and other not so much?Is paying $ 38K a plate for Obama's campaign the dividing line?

Well, John, you did the attack dog to hide culpability spin well.   Plenty of attack, unions, Obama, probably dogs and cats too just to try and tell someone to not look behind the curtain.  Then when Fluffy said BOTH SIDES you ignored and doubled down and got more inflammatory.

Oh my, one more time of THEY say all rich people are EVIL...   

My thinking is you had too many....

...cold remedies.

[LetsGoWings]

And that makes you a Supreme Court of the United States Constitutional authority?  Does it make you also an astrophysicist authority, or a brain surgical authority?  Oh, I get it... you slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night....

Personhood changed with the unrestricted use of money as free speech.  Now, if you cannot see that, or differentiate that it makes “personhood” different, that is not the fault of others.

I find it interesting that you are fighting in favor of the unlimited, unrestricted “free speech” when it comes to big money, but are all for restricting REAL people’s genuine actual speaking to extreme time and place restrictions.

Corporate “people” - unrestricted money equals unlimited free speech.

Real people - restricted to when and where the government that is being protested wants.

 Maybe I need to spend a night at a Holiday Inn Express to figure out the logic of it.

I have stated multiple Supreme Court cases to prove my point. It was ruled awhile ago that the first amendment extends to corporations.

I am not for restricting real people's speech. However, they need to abide by the reasonable time and place restriction, how exactly are they extreme restrictions? 2am is not a reasonable time to protest, if it is every drunk person who gets stopped for disorderly conduct will say they were protesting and are protected.

Why is it bad to use your money as a way to get your point out? No one is forcing the people to listen to it.  Why should political speech be restricted? Some people might argue that the first amendment was put in place so people could criticize the government.

[Baby Hitler]

Kind of hard to refute what you say to me when it is only personal attacks.

However, there have been many things that have occurred since the Citizens United case, and YOU can't refute THAT. Instead you continue to harp on "well it's been that way for over a hundred years so why is there a problem now?"

Here's an analogy for you. Let's say you had a little spot on your arm, it never really bothered you, it was a bit unsightly, but nothing major, then one day it grows 1000 times bigger than it was before.

Why does it bother you now?

Care to refute that?

[LetsGoWings]

However, there have been many things that have occurred since the Citizens United case, and YOU can't refute THAT. Instead you continue to harp on "well it's been that way for over a hundred years so why is there a problem now?"

Here's an analogy for you. Let's say you had a little spot on your arm, it never really bothered you, it was a bit unsightly, but nothing major, then one day it grows 1000 times bigger than it was before.

Why does it bother you now?

Care to refute that?

What would you like me to refute? You have yet to list anything. I mean since the Citizens United case the Lions have made the playoffs.

I would probably see a doctor when I first noticed the spot on my arm to make sure it wasn't skin cancer.

[Baby Hitler]

Former Justice John Paul Stevens had foreseen this state of affairs in his powerful Citizens United dissent, warning that American citizens “may lose faith in their capacity, as citizens, to influence public policy” as a result of that decision.  As the days pass, it is clear that Justice Stevens’ prediction is being realized.  In one survey, 72% of respondents worried that the decision will negatively impact the political process.  At a moment of such clear public disenchantment, there is a pressing need for reforms that better effectuate the ability of voters to hold their representatives accountable and that demonstrate that members of Congress are accountable to the electorate, not to big-money backers.  The integrity of our electoral process is a necessary ingredient for a healthy democracy—we can wait no longer for fair elections.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/the_fair_elections_now_act_a_comprehensive_response_to_citizens_united/

[ducksoup]

I have stated multiple Supreme Court cases to prove my point. It was ruled awhile ago that the first amendment extends to corporations.

I am not for restricting real people's speech. However, they need to abide by the reasonable time and place restriction, how exactly are they extreme restrictions? 2am is not a reasonable time to protest, if it is every drunk person who gets stopped for disorderly conduct will say they were protesting and are protected.

Why is it bad to use your money as a way to get your point out? No one is forcing the people to listen to it. Why should political speech be restricted? Some people might argue that the first amendment was put in place so people could criticize the government.
« Last Edit: Today at 04:19:17 PM by LetsGoWings »

Why do you continue to argue incorrectly?  For basically contract purposes, yes, corporations are entities similar to human beings, or a person in legal reference.  However, Citizens United vs. FEC was about something far larger than free speech.  Corporation did have the right to spend on campaigns with limits on spending and disclosure.

SCOTUS said that money is speech and cannot be restricted... THAT is the new part that you continually ignore over and over.  SCOTUS said there can be NO restrictions on corporate money “free speech”.  Yes, they used personhood and the first Amendment cases you refer to, but this is a whole big barrel full of new worms.

Your argument that money is simply a tool to get a message out is the same justification SCOTUS used to remove any restrictions to money free speech.  You again argue that unlimited money free speech is good and limiting real humans to time and place restrictions of any small amount is fine.

 Why is an unthinking, unfeeling, non human accorded more rights as a citizen than a living breathing human?

See, here’s the thing.  A corp. is supposed to be an entity of people and those people - humans - have exactly the same rights as anyone else for money contributions or speaking.

But then, who knows... I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.