should corporations have the same rights as citizens

[Don Quixote]

whatever happened to one man (citizen) one vote

i say it is time to revoke the decision that corporations right to effect elections

corporate shareholders already have the vote, if of age

what about foreign corporations or corporations with non-citizens for shareholders

[Minister of Truth]

No, contrary to the moronic SCOTUS, corporations are not individual people.

[PostmodernProphet]

no, they should be considered a "person" only for their intended purpose, which would be business.....of course, the same rules should apply to non-profits......Sierra Club, Right to Life, Planned Parenthood, AARP, UAW........

[SmarterthanYou]

corporations are a created entity through contract, much like any branch or form of republican government. There are no rights associated with it's creation, merely limited powers.

[Good Luck]

The purpose of a corporation is to create a single entity for the purposes of law. A single entity does NOT mean "person". The SCOTUS decision way back (can't think of the case at the moment) that granted "personhood" to a corporate entity has been WAY over interpreted. It's time to get back to reality instead of letting stupid legal fictions define society.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I tend to believe the decision is right. The corporation will not be speaking. It has no lips.

Paid actor spokespeople have the right to free speech. Will this change our political climate? hell ya. Hopefully this will be an enhancement of freedoms for all speech.

On du they were talking about foreign corporate ownership though. What about foreign owned corporations buying commercials. That I have a problem with. but I guess my argument could be used against me on this. "but the paid actor in the commercial has the right to free speech, like you said AHZ. " I know I know.

I would like to see some provision against corporations with ANY foreign ownership being allowed to produce commercials.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Im going in to political ad production. THis market will be booming.

But I will mostly likely have to hide my populist beliefs to get hired.

Ill pretend to be neocon/liberal fascist globalist elitist shithead if I have too. I used to be one fore real.

RtWngAvngr. a whole brain ago.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

no, not the same rights. but the overwhelming case law is that corps are extended 1st amendment rights. i have no problem with this, if you want to deny corporations the 1st amendment, then you need to deny unions, political parties or any other organization that does not exist except by the laws that allow its creation.

i'm not positive that political parties have to incorporate, but the DNC party appears to be incorporated


DNC Services Corporation
http://my.democrats.org/page/content/partybuilderPF/

even if they are not incorporated, if we don't want corps to have the ability to pay for politcal ads, then neither should any group or organization.

[Bonestorm]

Personally, I'm looking forward to Saudi - Aramco, Gazprom, PetroChina and myriad other foreign-owned corporations bankrolling candidates for public office. That should work out well for the U.S.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Personally, I'm looking forward to Saudi - Aramco, Gazprom, PetroChina and myriad other foreign-owned corporations bankrolling candidates for public office. That should work out well for the U.S.

yeah. See. That is really fucked.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Personally, I'm looking forward to Saudi - Aramco, Gazprom, PetroChina and myriad other foreign-owned corporations bankrolling candidates for public office. That should work out well for the U.S.

you need to read the decision, corps/unions cannot give money to candidates, the decision is only about speech, eg, advertising

[Bonestorm]

you need to read the decision, corps/unions cannot give money to candidates, the decision is only about speech, eg, advertising


What practical effect does that distinction have? Instead of giving money directly they can act as a candidate's PR firm. That's even better since it gives the candidate plausible deniability.


Edit: I admittedly haven't read the entirety of the decision, but I fail to see on what basis the Court can now say that corporations are limited in what they can give directly to candidates. There is a case currently wending its way up to the Supreme Court that was filed by the RNC to challenge the soft-money ban. The logical extension of this case is that the soft-money ban is going to be struck down and direct contributions to candidates upheld.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Nigel Tufnel is on 11 today! Go nigel!~

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

maybe this decision is all bad. Im conflicted. I need h.e.l.p.

dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What practical effect does that distinction have? Instead of giving money directly they can act as a candidate's PR firm. That's even better since it gives the candidate plausible deniability.


Edit: I admittedly haven't read the entirety of the decision, but I fail to see on what basis the Court can now say that corporations are limited in what they can give directly to candidates. There is a case currently wending its way up to the Supreme Court that was filed by the RNC to challenge the soft-money ban. The logical extension of this case is that the soft-money ban is going to be struck down and direct contributions to candidates upheld.

it is a distinction in fact. corps will have to disclose that it is not paid for by the candidate, just as when political parties make ads. are you claiming that political parties bankroll candidates?

as i said, the issue was about speech, not donations. donations can be restricted without having a 1st amendment violation.

did you have a problem with obama's half hour prime time speech? do you have a problem that political parties can run political ads?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

it is a distinction in fact. corps will have to disclose that it is not paid for by the candidate, just as when political parties make ads. are you claiming that political parties bankroll candidates?

as i said, the issue was about speech, not donations. donations can be restricted without having a 1st amendment violation.

did you have a problem with obama's half hour prime time speech? do you have a problem that political parties can run political ads?

You were also against cross state purchasing of insurance, no?

[PostmodernProphet]

it is a distinction in fact. corps will have to disclose that it is not paid for by the candidate, just as when political parties make ads. are you claiming that political parties bankroll candidates?

as i said, the issue was about speech, not donations. donations can be restricted without having a 1st amendment violation.

did you have a problem with obama's half hour prime time speech? do you have a problem that political parties can run political ads?

while we're at it, how about disclosure on shell corporations....I would like to know when a commercial is being paid for by Exxon instead of some "Council of Citizens Concerned About Public Safety, Inc."

[Cancel 2018. 3]

while we're at it, how about disclosure on shell corporations....I would like to know when a commercial is being paid for by Exxon instead of some "Council of Citizens Concerned About Public Safety, Inc."

absolutely, if there is a parent corp or the corp is funded/created by another corp, all corporation involvement must be disclosed...that leads to a more informed populace

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You were also against cross state purchasing of insurance, no?

i don't ever recall be agains that

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

absolutely, if there is a parent corp or the corp is funded/created by another corp, all corporation involvement must be disclosed...that leads to a more informed populace

Is that how the law is?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

i don't ever recall be agains that

I thought it was you. Maybe not.

[Bonestorm]

it is a distinction in fact. corps will have to disclose that it is not paid for by the candidate, just as when political parties make ads. are you claiming that political parties bankroll candidates?

as i said, the issue was about speech, not donations. donations can be restricted without having a 1st amendment violation.

did you have a problem with obama's half hour prime time speech? do you have a problem that political parties can run political ads?


First, so what. Who cares about a meaningless disclosure requirement? For a few hundred dollars and a little bit of paperwork anyone, including foreign corporations, could easily set up a corporation that hides where the money is actually coming from. And yes, to an extent, political parties do bankroll candidates.

Second, for first amendment purposes, money talks. Right now, donations can be restricted without a first amendment violation because under previous Supreme Court decisions that the Court overruled yesterday, the identity of the speaker mattered. Now it doesn't. Once the RNC case gets the Supreme Court, unless they intend to overturn Buckley v. Valeo (which they aren't) the soft-money ban will be struck down.

You just want to ignore the obvious harmful implications of yesterday's decision.

[Bonestorm]

absolutely, if there is a parent corp or the corp is funded/created by another corp, all corporation involvement must be disclosed...that leads to a more informed populace


That is absolutely not how it works. At all.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

That is absolutely not how it works. At all.

strawman...i never said it did...i responded to a statement that was a should/i would like to see this statement, i agreed

do keep up

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

strawman...i never said it did...i responded to a statement that was a should/i would like to see this statement, i agreed

do keep up


absolutely, if there is a parent corp or the corp is funded/created by another corp, all corporation involvement must be disclosed...that leads to a more informed populace


What do you mean by 'must' here? must according to what authority.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

First, so what. Who cares about a meaningless disclosure requirement? For a few hundred dollars and a little bit of paperwork anyone, including foreign corporations, could easily set up a corporation that hides where the money is actually coming from. And yes, to an extent, political parties do bankroll candidates.

Second, for first amendment purposes, money talks. Right now, donations can be restricted without a first amendment violation because under previous Supreme Court decisions that the Court overruled yesterday, the identity of the speaker mattered. Now it doesn't. Once the RNC case gets the Supreme Court, unless they intend to overturn Buckley v. Valeo (which they aren't) the soft-money ban will be struck down.

You just want to ignore the obvious harmful implications of yesterday's decision.

and you keep ignoring obama's half hour of prime time and the fact political parties, despite the DNC labeling themselves a corporation, can raise funds for candidates and air political ads

if you want to not allow corps the ability to air ads, then you should be against any and all organizations, groups etc airing ads...

donating to a candidate is different. that is a fact. your theory that this case changes that is without merit as scotus reaffirmed that that law is still valid....you should really read the case, it is clear you are incredible ignorant about what the case actually says

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What do you mean by 'must' here? must according to what authority.

my opinion that it must be disclosed....

i must have that car, i must go to the beach today

go back and read pmp's post, i merely responded and agreed that it should/must be that way...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/must

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

and you keep ignoring obama's half hour of prime time and the fact political parties, despite the DNC labeling themselves a corporation, can raise funds for candidates and air political ads

if you want to not allow corps the ability to air ads, then you should be against any and all organizations, groups etc airing ads...

donating to a candidate is different. that is a fact. your theory that this case changes that is without merit as scotus reaffirmed that that law is still valid....you should really read the case, it is clear you are incredible ignorant about what the case actually says

corporate cash will dwarf these expenditures and you know it.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

corporate cash will dwarf these expenditures and you know it.

no, i don't know it....how much money did the dnc raise? are you actually claiming corps will spend more than obama's 600 million dollars?

look, if the issue is that ads are harmful to the democratic process, then create a law that applies everyone or every entity that covers speech. its silly to think that only corps are going to wreak havoc on the already polluted campaigns that are shoved down our throat. by the time elections come around, i'm sick of politicians....

like i said, if the issue is money causing harm to our political process, then we need to ban all orgs, groups from political ads. IMO, that is the spirit of the first amendment, free speech is not absolute.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

no, i don't know it....how much money did the dnc raise? are you actually claiming corps will spend more than obama's 600 million dollars?

look, if the issue is that ads are harmful to the democratic process, then create a law that applies everyone or every entity that covers speech. its silly to think that only corps are going to wreak havoc on the already polluted campaigns that are shoved down our throat. by the time elections come around, i'm sick of politicians....

like i said, if the issue is money causing harm to our political process, then we need to ban all orgs, groups from political ads. IMO, that is the spirit of the first amendment, free speech is not absolute.

Then you're just a foolish idiot. OF course they will spend more than that.

[Bonestorm]

and you keep ignoring obama's half hour of prime time and the fact political parties, despite the DNC labeling themselves a corporation, can raise funds for candidates and air political ads

if you want to not allow corps the ability to air ads, then you should be against any and all organizations, groups etc airing ads...

donating to a candidate is different. that is a fact. your theory that this case changes that is without merit as scotus reaffirmed that that law is still valid....you should really read the case, it is clear you are incredible ignorant about what the case actually says


I realize that donating to a candidate is different. The Court may have reaffirmed that the law is still valid but the question of donations was not presented by the case. When the question is presented by the RNC lawsuit I don't see how the ban on soft-money donations holds up.

And Obama was a candidate. He can do whatever the fuck he wants.

As for the DNC, I don't think it is a corporation. Additionally, I don't think that all business organizations have to be treated the same for purposes of campaign finance laws. There are myriad reasons for treating for-profit corporations differently from non-profits, etc . . .

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I realize that donating to a candidate is different. The Court may have reaffirmed that the law is still valid but the question of donations was not presented by the case. When the question is presented by the RNC lawsuit I don't see how the ban on soft-money donations holds up.

And Obama was a candidate. He can do whatever the fuck he wants.

As for the DNC, I don't think it is a corporation. Additionally, I don't think that all business organizations have to be treated the same for purposes of campaign finance laws. There are myriad reasons for treating for-profit corporations differently from non-profits, etc . . .

Copyright © 1995-2009 DNC Services Corporation

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Then you're just a foolish idiot. OF course they will spend more than that.

lol...and you base this on what? oh yeah, because you have an irrational fear of corporations as they are turning us into a global corpocracy

[Bonestorm]

Copyright © 1995-2009 DNC Services Corporation


I responded to this in that other thread. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

lol...and you base this on what? oh yeah, because you have an irrational fear of corporations as they are turning us into a global corpocracy

what's irrational about it?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

what's irrational about it?

it aint going to happen, it is conspiracy, tin foil hat stuff, 80's movies stuff...but, i'm open to the possibility if you can convince

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

it aint going to happen, it is conspiracy, tin foil hat stuff, 80's movies stuff...but, i'm open to the possibility if you can convince

No. It;s obviously happening right before our eyes. Considering the constant neocon drumbeat of 'corporations good, government bad', combined with globalization zealotry, and the openly globalist goals of THe UN, CFR and other unseemly organizations, where we are headed is indisputable.

The only way you ignore it is by keeping your head in your ass.

How's that air there, fartsniff?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

National Governments are to be reduced to merely compelling citizens to comply with the multinational corporate agenda.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No. It;s obviously happening right before our eyes. Considering the constant neocon drumbeat of 'corporations good, government bad', combined with globalization zealotry, and the openly globalist goals of THe UN, CFR and other unseemly organizations, where we are headed is indisputable.

The only way you ignore it is by keeping your head in your ass.

How's that air there, fartsniff?

please stop sniffing my farts, it makes me uncomfortable

neocons may drum that beat, however, it is the same beat as the left or far left drums that corps bad, government good.

in the middle, are most people who believe corps should have some regulations regulated by a government that is also "regulated" or limited if you will.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

please stop sniffing my farts, it makes me uncomfortable

neocons may drum that beat, however, it is the same beat as the left or far left drums that corps bad, government good.

in the middle, are most people who believe corps should have some regulations regulated by a government that is also "regulated" or limited if you will.

But corporations are now ruining the american standard of living for short term profit by outsourcing all the jobs so now libs see that business can be used to destroy the american way of life over the long term, one of their goals too. So now we have these extremist ideologies colluding to, yes, in fact, destroy america.

THe things both parties agree on are the most dangerous of all. Globalization and globalist insanity.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!

People work at corporations, but that doesn't mean the candidate the ceos want to promote is the one all employees want to.

The employees might actually prefer a candidate which would give them more rights in the workplace.

bottom line: you're a moron.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

People work at corporations, but that doesn't mean the candidate the ceos want to promote is the one all employees want to.

The employees might actually prefer a candidate which would give them more rights in the workplace.

bottom line: you're a moron.

It doesn't matter. Top to bottom, our corporations are our people. It's our jobs, our salaries, our way of living, our future. Corporations are US, the people of the United States of America. If they fail, we fail. What is good for them, is also good for us.

What you are doing, is much the same as Desh is doing, you are projecting class envy, resentment, and hate, toward the CEO's, who you feel hostile toward because they make a lot of money.... or in Desh's case, because they don't look like her! The CEO is only a single individual in a company... the larger the company, the more of US there are!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

It doesn't matter. Top to bottom, our corporations are our people. It's our jobs, our salaries, our way of living, our future. Corporations are US, the people of the United States of America. If they fail, we fail. What is good for them, is also good for us.

What you are doing, is much the same as Desh is doing, you are projecting class envy, resentment, and hate, toward the CEO's, who you feel hostile toward because they make a lot of money.... or in Desh's case, because they don't look like her! The CEO is only a single individual in a company... the larger the company, the more of US there are!

No. You're playing loose with abstractions, blurring the real relationship and pretending they're the same thing.

People work at corporations. It doesn't mean the ceo's wishes represents the will of all his employees.

These tricks work on stupid people, but not on me.

Your thinking is 100% fascist, dangerous, and unamerican.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

You can never beat me dixie. Im like 3X smarterthanyou.

[Canceled2]

I don't like the poll question...it's too general.

This is a bad ruling. I would like to see candidates have to raise money for campaigns the old fashioned way. I don't think we should have PAC's either. I think if a candidate wishes to run they should create a political fund where "individual donations" can be given. That any donations that look supicious are tied up until cleared up. Let's get ALL special interest out of politics! You cannot have a candidate for the people by the people if he/she is paid for by the union, corporation, or lobby...PERIOD!

I would also like to remove ALL tax exempt status on any organization that does not provide charity relief. That these orgs are regularly audited to ensure compliance.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. You're playing loose with abstractions, blurring the real relationship and pretending they're the same thing.

People work at corporations. It doesn't mean the ceo's wishes represents the will of all his employees.

These tricks work on stupid people, but not on me.

Your thinking is 100% fascist, dangerous, and unamerican.

LMAO... I am speaking the truth, I can't help that you see it as a blurred abstraction! That's not my fault! People do work at corporations, they run them too! The better the corporation does, the better off the people who work there are!

No one argued that the CEO's views reflect those of all the employees, but one view they all have in common, the better the business does, the better off they are. It takes a really stupid person not to understand that.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I don't like the poll question...it's too general.

This is a bad ruling. I would like to see candidates have to raise money for campaigns the old fashioned way. I don't think we should have PAC's either. I think if a candidate wishes to run they should create a political fund where "individual donations" can be given. That any donations that look supicious are tied up until cleared up. Let's get ALL special interest out of politics! You cannot have a candidate for the people by the people if he/she is paid for by the union, corporation, or lobby...PERIOD!

I would also like to remove ALL tax exempt status on any organization that does not provide charity relief. That these orgs are regularly audited to ensure compliance.


Since when does making something more rare, make it less important? The more you try to remove financial influence from politics, the more you ultimately exasperate the problem, because financial influence is vital to any campaign. I understand what you are saying, it is essentially what Dick Armey proposed to McCain during CFR.... let's just ban ALL political contributions! I could go for that, but honestly, that will never happen, and even if it did, the "money" people would still find a way to influence politics. It's just the world we live in, and we should just accept that.

In light of that reality, I say... let the money pour! From wherever and whomever... no limits or restrictions on ANY political free speech! Let the chips fall where they may!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Since when does making something more rare, make it less important? The more you try to remove financial influence from politics, the more you ultimately exasperate the problem, because financial influence is vital to any campaign. I understand what you are saying, it is essentially what Dick Armey proposed to McCain during CFR.... let's just ban ALL political contributions! I could go for that, but honestly, that will never happen, and even if it did, the "money" people would still find a way to influence politics. It's just the world we live in, and we should just accept that.

In light of that reality, I say... let the money pour! From wherever and whomever... no limits or restrictions on ANY political free speech! Let the chips fall where they may!

No. You fascist fucker. Wer'e not just gonna accept it. Take your cynical fascism then go fuck off and die.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

LMAO... I am speaking the truth, I can't help that you see it as a blurred abstraction! That's not my fault!


No. You're being dishonest about the fundamental nature of the relationship.
People are not corporations. People work at corporations.





People do work at corporations, they run them too! The better the corporation does, the better off the people who work there are!


But it's different people doing the running versus the working, hence the unfair of your disingenous lumping them all together.



No one argued that the CEO's views reflect those of all the employees, but one view they all have in common, the better the business does, the better off they are. It takes a really stupid person not to understand that.

Not if the new strategy is to elimnate all american workers.



You're just flat dead wrong on your every retarded utterance.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I would favor a law that would make eliminating american jobs illegal.

"Oh no", you say, "that will drive away all corporations."

That's just perfect. Let all the traitor fascists leave. We will start all new businesses. nothing is so complicated that we cant' throw out all global players and do it ourselves.

That's the reality.

[Canceled2]

Since when does making something more rare, make it less important? The more you try to remove financial influence from politics, the more you ultimately exasperate the problem, because financial influence is vital to any campaign. I understand what you are saying, it is essentially what Dick Armey proposed to McCain during CFR.... let's just ban ALL political contributions! I could go for that, but honestly, that will never happen, and even if it did, the "money" people would still find a way to influence politics. It's just the world we live in, and we should just accept that.

In light of that reality, I say... let the money pour! From wherever and whomever... no limits or restrictions on ANY political free speech! Let the chips fall where they may!

Not quite understanding the direction of your first question?

Your attitude is also one I understand, but I think it is precisely the wrong one; it's the ol' "throw the baby out with the bath water" logic. There is nothing wrong and everything right about reforming government. I am not suggesting banning all contributions, only special interest money from organizations. To create legislation allowing only individual donations is not some impossible ability. As you note there will always be corruption, but the best way to limit it is to get rid of special interest.

Let the vital financial influence in any campaign belong to the people the candiate is representing, not the multi billion dollar org special interest donors.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

dixie, what authority are you using to claim corporations are citizens?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Dixie has massive rectal bleeding about now.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I see you indexing my hate speech, baidu spider. Fuck you chicom baidu spider.

[midcan5]

Corporations already do this, they do it through middle women like the BBB. So what changes, maybe we now know why Exxon supports 'trash the environment Ed' for Congress,' maybe not, maybe they still hide in backrooms and dark alleys hoping exploitation gathers a nice smell.

The problem I have with this is power, the individual can only do so much damage, the corporations can really screw up or screw you. Consider our recent financial meltdown for proof positive, now add 'supply side Sallie' and poof, out goes common sense. The Obama administration in contrast to Bush on BPA is an interesting example.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. You're being dishonest about the fundamental nature of the relationship.
People are not corporations. People work at corporations.

People work at corporation, people run corporations, people are invested in corporations. When corporations prosper, so do the people associated with them.


But it's different people doing the running versus the working, hence the unfair of your disingenous lumping them all together.

So people who run the corporations do not work for the corporation? That's brilliant, how long did it take you to formulate THAT thought?


Not if the new strategy is to elimnate all american workers.
You're just flat dead wrong on your every retarded utterance.

I would argue that is precisely the objective of the Socialists! Destroy capitalism, wage war on "evil corporations" until not a soul in this country has a job, and we are all dependent upon the Socialists to take care of us!

I'm not wrong on anything, EVER! Being a Living Legend, you have to be right 100% of the time!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. You fascist fucker. Wer'e not just gonna accept it. Take your cynical fascism then go fuck off and die.

Yes, you are going to accept what the SCOTUS rules, you have no choice on that, unless you want to ratify a Constitutional Amendment! ...and it doesn't matter if I go fuck off or die, that will STILL be the case!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

dixie, what authority are you using to claim corporations are citizens?

Common sense. What IS a corporation? Is it not the people who comprise the corporation? Are they not citizens? When we hear pinheads yammering about the "evil corporation" it really just means "the evil people" because corporations ARE people!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Not quite understanding the direction of your first question?

Your attitude is also one I understand, but I think it is precisely the wrong one; it's the ol' "throw the baby out with the bath water" logic. There is nothing wrong and everything right about reforming government. I am not suggesting banning all contributions, only special interest money from organizations. To create legislation allowing only individual donations is not some impossible ability. As you note there will always be corruption, but the best way to limit it is to get rid of special interest.

Let the vital financial influence in any campaign belong to the people the candiate is representing, not the multi billion dollar org special interest donors.

Well the first question is designed to make you think about your position. Is the act of making money more rare in politics, actually going to make money less important? Of course it won't, it will make what little money they can get, even MORE important and crucial, and the politician even more beholden to the source. You are smart enough to understand, there will always be a loophole... you want to make it where only individuals can contribute... okay, here's $5,000 from the XYZ Corporation for you to donate in your name to the candidate WE support! See how simple that was? And what about The Media? In your idea, do you account for the increased influence the MEDIA will have in telling us about the candidates and issues, now that we've restricted it elsewhere?

As I said, I can see where your idea is wonderful, IF we lived in a perfect world! That is the problem I have with Libertarianism... it all sounds GREAT if the world only worked that way! It doesn't.... simple as that!

[Canceled2]

Well the first question is designed to make you think about your position. Is the act of making money more rare in politics, actually going to make money less important? Of course it won't, it will make what little money they can get, even MORE important and crucial, and the politician even more beholden to the source. You are smart enough to understand, there will always be a loophole... you want to make it where only individuals can contribute... okay, here's $5,000 from the XYZ Corporation for you to donate in your name to the candidate WE support! See how simple that was? And what about The Media? In your idea, do you account for the increased influence the MEDIA will have in telling us about the candidates and issues, now that we've restricted it elsewhere?

As I said, I can see where your idea is wonderful, IF we lived in a perfect world! That is the problem I have with Libertarianism... it all sounds GREAT if the world only worked that way! It doesn't.... simple as that!

I get the princple of someone getting money from a particular source to donate~~~All of that happens now in PAC's. If PAC's are made illegal, it will make those kinds of transactions much more transparent unless said donor does not file taxes.

Money that is more important coming from individual people is exactly what we want candidates to be aware of and who we want them to be beholden to! The "we the people" being said group! We don't want them whoring after corporate dollars and beholden to them for it.

Media are already biased and that bias is causing an implosion because the American people are on to them and tuning them out!


Let's make politicans accountable during elections to Main Street Dix.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Is the act of making money more rare in politics, actually going to make money less important? Of course it won't, it will make what little money they can get, even MORE important and crucial, and the politician even more beholden to the source.


No. THat's not true. It will keep politics from becoming a spending competition, and force cadidates to focus their message, instead of relying slick corporate productions. A candidate speakinging into his webcam and posting on the internet is nearly free.

Candidates will be less beholden, as their candidacies will not rely on glossy productions, but will rely on their actual message.





You are smart enough to understand, there will always be a loophole... you want to make it where only individuals can contribute... okay, here's $5,000 from the XYZ Corporation for you to donate in your name to the candidate WE support! See how simple that was? And what about The Media? In your idea, do you account for the increased influence the MEDIA will have in telling us about the candidates and issues, now that we've restricted it elsewhere?

As I said, I can see where your idea is wonderful, IF we lived in a perfect world! That is the problem I have with Libertarianism... it all sounds GREAT if the world only worked that way! It doesn't.... simple as that!

The new media. Webcams and portals make the cash unnecessary. Candidates should get travelling expenses to live speeches and a web server to do a blog on. to explain their policies. and that's it. That sounds good to me.

make it so.

[cancel2 2022]

Bloody Hell, I voted the same way as US boil on her end.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. THat's not true. It will keep politics from becoming a spending competition, and force cadidates to focus their message, instead of relying slick corporate productions. A candidate speakinging into his webcam and posting on the internet is nearly free.

Candidates will be less beholden, as their candidacies will not rely on glossy productions, but will rely on their actual message.


The new media. Webcams and portals make the cash unnecessary. Candidates should get travelling expenses to live speeches and a web server to do a blog on. to explain their policies. and that's it. That sounds good to me.

make it so.

You can believe what you wish, the proof is in the proverbial pudding. When CFR took effect, restricting campaign money from private enterprise, what happened? The money simply changed source... it started coming in through 527's instead. It's all great and wonderful to have such faith in your fellow man, that you believe he would simply do without money, forgo any funding, and attempt to win an election with "free media" ...but let's be real, it isn't going to happen. If there is a way for money to influence politics, it will find a way... no matter WHAT restrictions you impose. There is ALWAYS a loophole, and ALWAYS someone clever enough to find it!

The BEST solution, is to allow everyone to spend whatever amount they want to spend, have them be required to disclose it, so we have transparency, but allow the money to come from wherever. Restricting the funding is essentially restricting free speech, and it's a dangerous slope to go sliding down, in my opinion.

[Onceler]

"Restricting the funding is essentially restricting free speech, and it's a dangerous slope to go sliding down, in my opinion"

Yeah - sounds dangerous. I feel so much safer having the corporations run America.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Restricting the funding is essentially restricting free speech, and it's a dangerous slope to go sliding down, in my opinion"

Yeah - sounds dangerous. I feel so much safer having the corporations run America.

As opposed to MoveOn.org and ACORN?

ME TOOO!!!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

As opposed to MoveOn.org and ACORN?

ME TOOO!!!

That's not the only other choice.

You've committed the logical fallacy of false dichotomy, or false choice as it's sometimes called.

Your every belief is a logical chimera.

[Good Luck]

How about this for a thought:
If people would get off their dead McMansion size asses and actually study issues, politicians, etc. instead of relying on being spoon fed by 30 second sound bites provided by your friendly banker on behalf of their pet politician, we would not have to worry quite so much about the power of money in influencing politics.

WE, the People of the United States, are still the ones who darken that circle, poke holes in the punch cards, touch that touch screen, and in doing so select those who ask us for the opportunity to lead our government. We are also the ones who choose whether we allow mindless rhetoric to influence our decisions, or whether we want to use facts and knowledge. Therefore it is the fault of the people, not the fault of our constitutional liberties that demand free press and open expression of ideas, when money has undue influence over politics.

[cancel2 2022]

That's not the only other choice.

You've committed the logical fallacy of false dichotomy, or false choice as it's sometimes called.

Your every belief is a logical chimera.

Cunning linguistics do not disguise your fallacious argument.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Cunning linguistics do not disguise your fallacious argument.

It's not cunning linguistics. He really made a stupid statement. Havng the government run by moveon.org is not the only alternative to having it run by corporations.

That's the form of the logical error called the false dichotomy, false dilemma, or false choice.

Look it up, stooge.

[cancel2 2022]

That's not the only other choice.

You've committed the logical fallacy of false dichotomy, or false choice as it's sometimes called.

Your every belief is a logical chimera.

What exactly is an illogical chimera (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/chimera)?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

What exactly is an illogical chimera (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/chimera)?

your mother.

[cancel2 2022]

It's not cunning linguistics. He really made a stupid statement. Havng the government run by moveon.org is not the only alternative to having it run by corporations.

That's the form of the logical error called the false dichotomy, false dilemma, or false choice.

Look it up, stooge.




Cunning linguistics do not disguise your fallacious argument.



Don't order the #69 in a Chinese restaurant, you may not know if you are coming or going!!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Don't order the #69 in a Chinese restaurant, it might be too rich for you!!

It's not cunning linguistics. He really made a stupid statement. Havng the government run by moveon.org is not the only alternative to having it run by corporations.

That's the form of the logical error called the false dichotomy, false dilemma, or false choice.

Look it up, stooge.

The 70 fucks you up everytime, stain.

[Onceler]

How about this for a thought:
If people would get off their dead McMansion size asses and actually study issues, politicians, etc. instead of relying on being spoon fed by 30 second sound bites provided by your friendly banker on behalf of their pet politician, we would not have to worry quite so much about the power of money in influencing politics.

WE, the People of the United States, are still the ones who darken that circle, poke holes in the punch cards, touch that touch screen, and in doing so select those who ask us for the opportunity to lead our government. We are also the ones who choose whether we allow mindless rhetoric to influence our decisions, or whether we want to use facts and knowledge. Therefore it is the fault of the people, not the fault of our constitutional liberties that demand free press and open expression of ideas, when money has undue influence over politics.

It's a good thought, and ideally, democracy would work that way.

Unfortunately, it isn't reality. I love the polls that they do showing that people don't want negative ads, but there are more of them every election. Because they work.

[cancel2 2022]

It's not cunning linguistics. He really made a stupid statement. Havng the government run by moveon.org is not the only alternative to having it run by corporations.

That's the form of the logical error called the false dichotomy, false dilemma, or false choice.

Look it up, stooge.

The 70 fucks you up everytime, stain.

Whoosh, there goes another rubber tree plant.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxuKZSI6Pd8"

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's not cunning linguistics. He really made a stupid statement. Havng the government run by moveon.org is not the only alternative to having it run by corporations.

That's the form of the logical error called the false dichotomy, false dilemma, or false choice.

Look it up, stooge.

The government is run by the people we elect, not by corporations or special interest groups. This discussion is about the money behind the enormous cost involved in running a large-scale national presidential campaign, and where it comes from. I personally don't see why it's a problem where it comes from, whether it's a union, a special interest group, PAC, individuals, or corporations. What is the difference where it comes from? Why are you insisting on singling out "companies" and arguing they would "unfairly influence" the body politic, when these other entities don't seem to cause that problem for you?

Can you offer some kind of logical explanation for that? Is money from George Soros' MoveOn.org somehow "less" influential in politics, you think? I am really interested to know! You don't like the George Soros example, use Rush Limbaugh, or some rich republican who could fund a 527 or PAC group! Is THAT money less influential than corporations? Corporations who are governed by their Board of Directors and Stockholders? There is some danger THERE to American government? I don't get it!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let me ask you guys this.... Do you think MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, are corporations? If so, shouldn't we restrict them from "contributions" to political campaigns by virtue of the product they produce? If you are going to argue that we should restrict any "corporate" influence, wouldn't it have to include media corporations as well? Or do they get a pass with MoveOn.org and ACORN as purveyors of "truth" in America?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The government is run by the people we elect, not by corporations or special interest groups. This discussion is about the money behind the enormous cost involved in running a large-scale national presidential campaign, and where it comes from. I personally don't see why it's a problem where it comes from, whether it's a union, a special interest group, PAC, individuals, or corporations. What is the difference where it comes from? Why are you insisting on singling out "companies" and arguing they would "unfairly influence" the body politic, when these other entities don't seem to cause that problem for you?

Can you offer some kind of logical explanation for that? Is money from George Soros' MoveOn.org somehow "less" influential in politics, you think? I am really interested to know! You don't like the George Soros example, use Rush Limbaugh, or some rich republican who could fund a 527 or PAC group! Is THAT money less influential than corporations? Corporations who are governed by their Board of Directors and Stockholders? There is some danger THERE to American government? I don't get it!


But when elections depend on advertising expenditure and corporations are free to weild unlimited influence, politicians must please corporations inordinately. Your failure to understand this is why you are stupid.

[Canceled2]

The government is run by the people we elect, not by corporations or special interest groups. This discussion is about the money behind the enormous cost involved in running a large-scale national presidential campaign, and where it comes from. I personally don't see why it's a problem where it comes from, whether it's a union, a special interest group, PAC, individuals, or corporations. What is the difference where it comes from? Why are you insisting on singling out "companies" and arguing they would "unfairly influence" the body politic, when these other entities don't seem to cause that problem for you?

Can you offer some kind of logical explanation for that? Is money from George Soros' MoveOn.org somehow "less" influential in politics, you think? I am really interested to know! You don't like the George Soros example, use Rush Limbaugh, or some rich republican who could fund a 527 or PAC group! Is THAT money less influential than corporations? Corporations who are governed by their Board of Directors and Stockholders? There is some danger THERE to American government? I don't get it!

The difference is that when individual politicians are beholding to the average individual joe voter, they are not inclined to make special deals with corporations that use money to influence decisions for their profits. It's called corruption and I do not understand how you cannot see that?

Here's a breakdown analogy.

200,000 voters donate 10.00 dollars to a candidate (encouraged by his PAC's.) A corporation donates 400 million in ads for the same candidate. The candidate is elected; who will he be more beholden to? The guy's supplying the smart flashy ads presenting skewed truths bordering on falsehoods that secured his election or the average joes who vote lock-step with the BS ads?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But when elections depend on advertising expenditure and corporations are free to weild unlimited influence, politicians must please corporations inordinately. Your failure to understand this is why you are stupid.

Again I ask... what difference does it make if the money comes from a PAC group or a corporation? Is there something inherently different about currency coming from a corporation, which makes a politician behave differently? I don't get it!

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Let me ask you guys this.... Do you think MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, are corporations? If so, shouldn't we restrict them from "contributions" to political campaigns by virtue of the product they produce? If you are going to argue that we should restrict any "corporate" influence, wouldn't it have to include media corporations as well? Or do they get a pass with MoveOn.org and ACORN as purveyors of "truth" in America?

exactly....something the libs are scared to death of

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The difference is that when individual politicians are beholding to the average individual joe voter, they are not inclined to make special deals with corporations that use money to influence decisions for their profits. It's called corruption and I do not understand how you cannot see that?

Here's a breakdown analogy.

200,000 voters donate 10.00 dollars to a candidate (encouraged by his PAC's.) A corporation donates 400 million in ads for the same candidate. The candidate is elected; who will he be more beholden to? The guy's supplying the smart flashy ads presenting skewed truths bordering on falsehoods that secured his election or the average joes who vote lock-step with the BS ads?

But the thing is, we don't have a system where "joe voter" is the only financial influence for politicians! We're never going to live in THAT world! Someone is always going to find a way to funnel money into a political campaign, it's just how it goes. And yes, corporations will contribute money to the candidate who promises to help their interests... what the hell is wrong with that? Are you falling into the same trap as the pinheads, wanting to blame all evil on corporations, and acting like they are some independent entity devoid of human attribute? Corporations are made up of INDIVIDUALS! They are beholden to their stockholders and investors... if the politician in question is beholden to them, he is also beholden to the same stockholders and investors in the corporation! THE PEOPLE!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

exactly....something the libs are scared to death of

I really don't think they are! I think they would ban Fox News today if they could! I think it would suit all of them just fine if we let Rom Emanuel tell us daily what to think and believe, and do away with the "news" altogether! We already know they want to get rid of talk radio... Fairness Doctrine... what is that? Same thing! Censorship of FREE SPEECH!

[Canceled2]

But the thing is, we don't have a system where "joe voter" is the only financial influence for politicians! We're never going to live in THAT world! Someone is always going to find a way to funnel money into a political campaign, it's just how it goes. And yes, corporations will contribute money to the candidate who promises to help their interests... what the hell is wrong with that? Are you falling into the same trap as the pinheads, wanting to blame all evil on corporations, and acting like they are some independent entity devoid of human attribute? Corporations are made up of INDIVIDUALS! They are beholden to their stockholders and investors... if the politician in question is beholden to them, he is also beholden to the same stockholders and investors in the corporation! THE PEOPLE!

There will always be those who attempt to corrupt, yes, some will be able to funnel money, but you don't open the flood gates and say hell yeah go for it! No, you create laws that makes it illegal for ALL organizations, including personal PAC's. You use the governemnt to keep check on the governement!

Corporations operate as an entity that can weild abnormal power. It is not the same as an individual. Only 1% of individual's are that wealthy and that powerful.

The number of investors and or stockholders are again less than 2% of individuals. If a candidate is to be truly representative of his constituents, and not a handful, we need to remove the temptation to be so beholden. Certainly you do not think that a corporations self interests are neccesarilly equal to the interests of a candidates constituency?

I am not a pinhead, I am a poster with an opinion Dix, one you have not been able to sway your way is all. The anger right now is over the tone deaf, business as usual, don't listen to the people attitude. Allowing unimaginable amts of money to flow into the campaigns of particular candiates will, imo, only exacerbate it!

[Good Luck]

Let me ask you guys this.... Do you think MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, are corporations? If so, shouldn't we restrict them from "contributions" to political campaigns by virtue of the product they produce?
This is exactly what the decision was about. All the rhetoric about corporate personhood (which I disagree with - it is not the purpose of granting the legal construct of corporation), or free speech rights, etc. is barking up the wrong tree. The decision was about equal application of the law with respect to Free PRESS, not free speech. Since it is impractical to limit the media (ie: press) without violating the 1st Amendment 9 ways from Sunday, then equal application of the law demands we apply the same rule to ALL corporations. It does not matter if we treat corporations as persons or not, the idea is the need to treat all of them the same. We can NOT apply the Constitution selectively, because that violates the very concept of being a Constitutional Republic.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You use the governemnt to keep check on the governement!

You do realize that is like asking the fox to guard the hen house, right?


Corporations operate as an entity that can weild abnormal power. It is not the same as an individual. Only 1% of individual's are that wealthy and that powerful....The number of investors and or stockholders are again less than 2% of individuals.

Listen to what you're saying... it doesn't even make sense! Corporations are 100% people, they would simply not function without them! 100% of ALL Stockholders in ALL companies, are PEOPLE! INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE! What part of that are you not comprehending?

Corporations are NOT independent entities without human element! This is how you seem to want to view them, and it's patently unfair. Most corporations are not corrupt or interested in corruption, they are simply legitimate businesses in America, with normal reasonable interests related to trade and commerce.

At some point in time, did someone give you a cup with something sweet and fruity to drink? I think you may have been infected... Corporations are NOT our enemy! They are comprised of people just like you and me, and the interest of the corporation, is the interest of every stockholder, employee, investor, and the CEO! If they lobby a politician for something to advantage their corporation, doesn't it also benefit the people who work there, the investors, the affiliated individuals? Isn't that good for jobs and economic prosperity? Or have you started being overwhelmed with the thought that all capitalism is greed, and evil?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Again I ask... what difference does it make if the money comes from a PAC group or a corporation? Is there something inherently different about currency coming from a corporation, which makes a politician behave differently? I don't get it!

Yes. Its the access to the massive quantities of cash corporations get. Maybe they take tarp next time and use it to lobby for more tarp. Maybe using massive cash to secure monopolies through election control becomes a new business model. Well isn't that freaking excellent.

And also, the expenditures are presumably controlled only by the executive level of the corporations, further disenfranchising people who actually work, who would maybe prefer other candidates who would be more pro laborer, and less asshole. Do you understand any of this?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This is exactly what the decision was about. All the rhetoric about corporate personhood (which I disagree with - it is not the purpose of granting the legal construct of corporation), or free speech rights, etc. is barking up the wrong tree. The decision was about equal application of the law with respect to Free PRESS, not free speech. Since it is impractical to limit the media (ie: press) without violating the 1st Amendment 9 ways from Sunday, then equal application of the law demands we apply the same rule to ALL corporations. It does not matter if we treat corporations as persons or not, the idea is the need to treat all of them the same. We can NOT apply the Constitution selectively, because that violates the very concept of being a Constitutional Republic.

Exactly, but a corporation has the same right to free speech as any citizen. Congress shall make NO LAW... Not, Congress can make some laws if it feels it may help curb corruption!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes. Its the access to the massive quantities of cash corporations get. Maybe they take tarp next time and use it to lobby for more tarp. Maybe using massive cash to secure monopolies through election control becomes a new business model. Well isn't that freaking excellent.

And also, the expenditures are presumable controlled only by the executive level of the corporations, further disenfranchising people who actually work, who would maybe prefer other candidates who would be more pro laborer, and less asshole. Do you understand any of this?

I understand that every corporation in America has to produce an Annual Report, where it will chronicle any and all expenditures. I understand a CEO can't act arbitrarily to support something with the company money, without answering to the Board of Directors and Stockholders.

But primarily, what I understand is, regardless of what individuals of the company and powers that control the purse-strings of the company may have as political views, what is beneficial to the corporation, is beneficial to everyone down to the garbage collector in that company.

[Good Luck]

It's a good thought, and ideally, democracy would work that way.

Unfortunately, it isn't reality. I love the polls that they do showing that people don't want negative ads, but there are more of them every election. Because they work.
While it's a reality that people are influenced by such, that reality is slowly growing weaker. How many times over the past several years has a main stream news story come out, only to end up debunked by internet blogs forcing MSM to retract their story? How many times has an internet story forced the MSM to pick up what they would prefer to ignore? It's a movement, and it is growing stronger. During the height of a political campaign the internet is a hotbed of fact checking, debunking, and otherwise criticizing the latest political ads.

And you want to talk about reality, how about the reality that we will never, ever move away from monetary influence in government through the use of government regulation. Talk about asking the fox to guard the hen house from the wolves. It is not going to work because the very corruption we are fighting against is being used to keep the corruption going. The only way it WILL work is through the efforts currently observed, where the people themselves are taking on the responsibility of finding and disseminating truth amidst all the rhetoric and lies of the political (and main stream media) system. For a republic to work (we are NOT A DEMOCRACY!!), the responsibility for keeping control of government MUST rest on the shoulders of the people, not be shoveled off on the very governnment we need to keep in control.

[Good Luck]

But primarily, what I understand is, regardless of what individuals of the company and powers that control the purse-strings of the company may have as political views, what is beneficial to the corporation, is beneficial to everyone down to the garbage collector in that company.
Unless the garbage collector is the one laid off so the corporation can still afford it's annual executive bonuses after a crap year.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Unless the garbage collector is the one laid off so the corporation can still afford it's annual executive bonuses after a crap year.

So what is this you're doing? Projecting some phantom corporate fraud onto ALL corporations in America? You mean, every company in America is laying off garbage collectors so they can line the pockets of their executives? And why is it YOUR business what THEY do with THEIR profits? Since WHEN did the US Constitution give YOU the right to determine what is best for them to spend their money on?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And you want to talk about reality, how about the reality that we will never, ever move away from monetary influence in government through the use of government regulation. Talk about asking the fox to guard the hen house from the wolves. It is not going to work because the very corruption we are fighting against is being used to keep the corruption going. The only way it WILL work is through the efforts currently observed, where the people themselves are taking on the responsibility of finding and disseminating truth amidst all the rhetoric and lies of the political (and main stream media) system. For a republic to work (we are NOT A DEMOCRACY!!), the responsibility for keeping control of government MUST rest on the shoulders of the people, not be shoveled off on the very governnment we need to keep in control.

Kudos! I agree with this 100%

[Good Luck]

So what is this you're doing? Projecting some phantom corporate fraud onto ALL corporations in America? You mean, every company in America is laying off garbage collectors so they can line the pockets of their executives? And why is it YOUR business what THEY do with THEIR profits? Since WHEN did the US Constitution give YOU the right to determine what is best for them to spend their money on?
No, but if you like beatinng up scarecrows, have at it.

I am pointing out that your claim of "anything that benefits the corporation benefits all who work for it" is, at best, overly broad, and at worst, outright denial of reality. Corporations will not hesitate to strengthen themselves at the cost of those working for it. That is not "fraud" - that is the way corporations work, sometimes by necessity, sometimes simply to grant greater benefit to those controlling it. Therefore "what is beneficial to the corporation, is beneficial to everyone" is just plain not true.

There are advantages to strong corporatism, including (in general, but with exceptions) a stronger economy than would be if corporatism were drastically weakened or overly regulated. And there are also many drawbacks, such as the corruption of government that results from the natural concentration of wealth derived from corporatism.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I really don't think they are! I think they would ban Fox News today if they could! I think it would suit all of them just fine if we let Rom Emanuel tell us daily what to think and believe, and do away with the "news" altogether! We already know they want to get rid of talk radio... Fairness Doctrine... what is that? Same thing! Censorship of FREE SPEECH!

no dixie....they don't want to get rid of their corporate media

[Don Quixote]

no, not the same rights. but the overwhelming case law is that corps are extended 1st amendment rights. i have no problem with this, if you want to deny corporations the 1st amendment, then you need to deny unions, political parties or any other organization that does not exist except by the laws that allow its creation.

i'm not positive that political parties have to incorporate, but the DNC party appears to be incorporated



even if they are not incorporated, if we don't want corps to have the ability to pay for politcal ads, then neither should any group or organization.

i agree, let politics go back to the individual level, but what about wealthy individuals, should they have more power than less wealthy individuals?

[Don Quixote]

it is a distinction in fact. corps will have to disclose that it is not paid for by the candidate, just as when political parties make ads. are you claiming that political parties bankroll candidates?

as i said, the issue was about speech, not donations. donations can be restricted without having a 1st amendment violation.

did you have a problem with obama's half hour prime time speech? do you have a problem that political parties can run political ads?

what about shell groups like citizens for/against -fill in the blank- and last week ads where the donors are not identified until after the election...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, but if you like beatinng up scarecrows, have at it.

I am pointing out that your claim of "anything that benefits the corporation benefits all who work for it" is, at best, overly broad, and at worst, outright denial of reality. Corporations will not hesitate to strengthen themselves at the cost of those working for it. That is not "fraud" - that is the way corporations work, sometimes by necessity, sometimes simply to grant greater benefit to those controlling it. Therefore "what is beneficial to the corporation, is beneficial to everyone" is just plain not true.

There are advantages to strong corporatism, including (in general, but with exceptions) a stronger economy than would be if corporatism were drastically weakened or overly regulated. And there are also many drawbacks, such as the corruption of government that results from the natural concentration of wealth derived from corporatism.


Earlier, when I said that anything which benefits the corporation, benefits all who work for it, I was making an admittedly over-simplified point. Corporations ARE people. Really simple point! It doesn't take a lot of pontification or explaining, a corporation IS the people who comprise it. I can't think of any instance a corporation would actively lobby for any political issue which benefited only the CEO or owners, at the expense of the employees and stockholders. Yeah, maybe through corruption... but corruption is illegal! What insanity makes you think we can stop corruption through regulations? We pass a law that says... no more corruption! Problem solved, right?

So we can reasonably agree, no matter what we do, there will still be corruption in politics and in corporate leadership. We can "reform" campaign finance all we like, and guess what? There will still be corruption at the end of the day... there will still be 'money' people finding ways to influence politicians.

My take is this... Full Transparency... Candidates must disclose where every single penny came from, no exceptions... Everyone has to disclose who they are in advertising... the rest takes care of itself. Let Freedom Ring!

This way, we have transparency as a public, to know who is behind who, what's really going on... we have MORE information about the candidates, not less! We are then empowered as MORE informed voters. This silly presumption that we are all just mind-numb robots who follow blindly what we're told to follow, and we can't smell a rat, is ridiculous. Then again, our electorate DID give us Obama!

My primary point has been this... Remember how, for a while, SUV's were demonized? It was so humorous, Rush routinely did SUV Alerts! Where he would literally read the report verbatim, and it sounded as if the SUV acted of its own volition and caused the havoc itself! Well, much the same thing has happened with "Corporations" ....the left has successfully demonized them! Even somewhat moderate conservatives will get sucked in to this idea that corporations act on their own volition... they are mad, out of control entities, with purely sinister intent! If we don't stop these evil corporations, they will completely take over our government and rule us all! It's just INSANE!

Corporations are comprised of PEOPLE! They are NOTHING without PEOPLE! The Corporation represents US, our JOBS, our LIVES, our FUTURE! They are US and WE are THEM! We need to stop demonizing corporations, because we are essentially demonizing ourselves!

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i agree, let politics go back to the individual level, but what about wealthy individuals, should they have more power than less wealthy individuals?

i have asked the same question. should bill gate be prohibited from purchasing political ads? what about soros?


what about shell groups like citizens for/against -fill in the blank- and last week ads where the donors are not identified until after the election...

in the decision, scotus addressed shell groups and found shell groups, iirc, the same as corps...or similar....i skimmed it three days ago, so i might be wrong on that....but i think they made an issue about the shell groups and how they have speech and the actual corps do not

[Don Quixote]

i have asked the same question. should bill gate be prohibited from purchasing political ads? what about soros?



in the decision, scotus addressed shell groups and found shell groups, iirc, the same as corps...or similar....i skimmed it three days ago, so i might be wrong on that....but i think they made an issue about the shell groups and how they have speech and the actual corps do not

once more full employment for lawyers - sorting out what the decision actually means will take a while, but it looks like the average person is totally screwed...again

but, there are more of us than them, maybe we can fight back somehow - look what bho did using the internet...and some large donors

[Canceled2]

You do realize that is like asking the fox to guard the hen house, right?

No, it is not the same. Regulatory oversight is what we already depend on.



Listen to what you're saying... it doesn't even make sense! Corporations are 100% people, they would simply not function without them! 100% of ALL Stockholders in ALL companies, are PEOPLE! INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE! What part of that are you not comprehending?

Corporations are entities made up of people, but that does not make it the single voice of the people it employs. It's like teacher friends I have that hate how their unions speak for education in DC. You keep wanting to pretend that the power that a corporation has to weild influence, is some benevolent voice of the people who it employs. It is NOT. It is merely the voice of its own self interest which may or may not be of benefit to the people it employs or of this country!


Corporations are NOT independent entities without human element! This is how you seem to want to view them, and it's patently unfair. Most corporations are not corrupt or interested in corruption, they are simply legitimate businesses in America, with normal reasonable interests related to trade and commerce.

I never said they had no human element Dix. I said it was not neccesarilly representitive of the people within it. I have insinuated it is too likely only representative of a very small percentage of people at the very top. That this is what is wrong with it having the ability to weild so much influence. I have also said that it is my opinion, and one you have not swayed, insults aside.


At some point in time, did someone give you a cup with something sweet and fruity to drink? I think you may have been infected... Corporations are NOT our enemy! They are comprised of people just like you and me, and the interest of the corporation, is the interest of every stockholder, employee, investor, and the CEO! If they lobby a politician for something to advantage their corporation, doesn't it also benefit the people who work there, the investors, the affiliated individuals? Isn't that good for jobs and economic prosperity? Or have you started being overwhelmed with the thought that all capitalism is greed, and evil?

Again with the dumb insults? I have never said corporations are our enemy. I do believe that their very self interest is what we should be guarding against in the political arena. The kind of power they; PAC's; Unions; and other special interest can use to influence elections is beyond ugly, it's fascist. And frankly I am sick and tired of it and excited that so many other people are too!

You can have the last word.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, it is not the same. Regulatory oversight is what we already depend on.

Yes, the Federal Election Commission, the people who were taken to the Supreme Court and lost, because it is unconstitutional to stifle free speech.


Corporations are entities made up of people

Corporations are not entities unto themselves. The "entity" is the collection of people who comprise the corporation, it has NO animate power whatsoever!


but that does not make it the single voice of the people it employs.

Is anyone questioning this? The point I've made is, the people who speak for the corporation, have the corporate interests at heart, and this is beneficial to every associate of that corporation. They DO share this commonality.


It's like teacher friends I have that hate how their unions speak for education in DC. You keep wanting to pretend that the power that a corporation has to weild influence, is some benevolent voice of the people who it employs. It is NOT.


Again, I didn't make that claim, but now that you've mentioned unions... why does their money and influence not do whatever terrible thing will be done if corporations have the same advantage? I fail to understand that part of your logic. I understood when you were dreaming about a world where no money would be involved in politics, but I thought we came back to reality? The fact is, there will always be someone with money to influence people in power, that is why it is especially important to elect people with integrity!



It is merely the voice of its own self interest which may or may not be of benefit to the people it employs or of this country!

Listen to yourself!!! "It's" own self interest? You mean the evil maniacal corporation? The "entity" which acts on its own volition to consume power and corrupt politics, and we are powerless to control IT? Careful not to look into the corporation's eyes.... you'll simply have to follow along and do as it says from now on! IT only has IT's self interest at heart... not YOU and ME!


I never said they had no human element Dix. I said it was not neccesarilly representitive of the people within it. I have insinuated it is too likely only representative of a very small percentage of people at the very top. That this is what is wrong with it having the ability to weild so much influence. I have also said that it is my opinion, and one you have not swayed, insults aside.

I'm not trying to sway your opinion, you can have a different one than me and the Supreme Court on freedom of speech! You have repeatedly insinuated that corporations are "it's" without a human element, and even described them as "entities" at one point. Now you want to say that is silly, which it is, but you are the one who keeps talking about corporations as if they are self-serving independent evil forces acting on their own behalf... to a fault, every corporation is run by people! Most of them have hundreds of people who would have to fully support ANY political affiliation of ANY kind, and perhaps thousands of stockholders who would be after the CEO's head if the corporation ever supported something detrimental to them in any way, or drew negative publicity (lower stock prices) for the corporation.


Again with the dumb insults? I have never said corporations are our enemy. I do believe that their very self interest is what we should be guarding against in the political arena. The kind of power they; PAC's; Unions; and other special interest can use to influence elections is beyond ugly, it's fascist. And frankly I am sick and tired of it and excited that so many other people are too!

You can have the last word.

Okay... you believe in freedom of SOME speech, but not ALL? Is that what you're trying to tell me? Because I think we have to agree, we aren't likely to ever stifle all political speech, so where do YOU draw the line? Who's speech is less valuable than someone else? Why are corporate self-interests less important than union self-interests?

Let's do this... ban all political speech! Once a politician announces his/her candidacy, they can no longer make public appearances, because that would involve a public or private venue, who could be an "influence" on politics or a conflict of interest. So no speeches... no appearances... and all they get to put out, is a 3x5 index card with what they oppose and favor... black ink only, and no pictures, that would involve a photographers union who may have some political influence! No mentions of any candidate or party on the news... wouldn't want the news corporations to have undue influence! How does all this sound to you? It's not far from where you are heading!

The SCOTUS decision was a victory for free speech.

[Onceler]

The idea that "money is speech" is exactly what they want everyone to buy into. They count on a large # of mind-numbed rubes to continue to push this fallacy.

Money is not speech. Money is only power, with the power to corrupt absolutely. Our government does not get better as it gets more corporate money. It only gets more corporate.

Read a history of the pill bill sometime, and take a look where the major players in Congress ended up on that one...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The idea that "money is speech" is exactly what they want everyone to buy into. They count on a large # of mind-numbed rubes to continue to push this fallacy.

Money is not speech. Money is only power, with the power to corrupt absolutely. Our government does not get better as it gets more corporate money. It only gets more corporate.

Read a history of the pill bill sometime, and take a look where the major players in Congress ended up on that one...

There is no fallacy that it costs money to publicize your message on a national scale. That is a fact of life.

Our country would be bankrupt if not for corporate money. Specifically, tax revenues from profits! We would also have very few paying jobs, if not for corporate money. So your contention that corporate money is some evil we would be better off without, is absolute insanity. Your continued notion that we can somehow curb corruption by initiating more regulation on free speech, is absurd.

I still don't understand the logic... It's okay for anti-capitalist socialist nincompoops to espouse their anti-business liberal garbage day and night, on every news channel, spending billions from activists donors, lobbying every congressman in Washington, but it's not okay for corporations to be able to respond?

well... but now it IS, because the SCOTUS said so! ...Yea Free Speech! :cheer:

[Onceler]

"Our country would be bankrupt if not for corporate money. Specifically, tax revenues from profits! We would also have very few paying jobs, if not for corporate money. So your contention that corporate money is some evil we would be better off without, is absolute insanity. Your continued notion that we can somehow curb corruption by initiating more regulation on free speech, is absurd. "

Dixie - you are master of the strawman. I am 100% capitalist, and a big believer in profit and corporations in general.

That's a completely separate issue from corporate money inundating politics.

The fact that you are unable to separate the 2 shows me pretty conclusively that this is yet another topic which you have only a surface understanding of. You really have no idea what goes on. You should stick to the threads about the Alabama football team.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Dixie. Corporate money is to pay employees, not manipulate the political climate.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Our country would be bankrupt if not for corporate money. Specifically, tax revenues from profits! We would also have very few paying jobs, if not for corporate money. So your contention that corporate money is some evil we would be better off without, is absolute insanity. Your continued notion that we can somehow curb corruption by initiating more regulation on free speech, is absurd. "

Dixie - you are master of the strawman. I am 100% capitalist, and a big believer in profit and corporations in general.

That's a completely separate issue from corporate money inundating politics.

The fact that you are unable to separate the 2 shows me pretty conclusively that this is yet another topic which you have only a surface understanding of. You really have no idea what goes on. You should stick to the threads about the Alabama football team.

Well it's a good sign you've schooled one of them in debate when they start claiming to support capitalism! Maybe I can do like Bush did for the voters of MA and piss you off so bad you start supporting capitalism regularly?

I'll ask this again, since you obviously missed it first time...

What is the difference between a dollar from ACORN or PNAC, and a dollar from a corporation? Is one dollar less or more prone to be corrupt? Also, what is the difference between the freedom of someone representing ACORN or PNAC and the freedom of someone who owns a corporation? Is one persons right to free speech more valuable?

If you can't give me a solid answer and reasonable explanation, I will have to conclude there is really not a difference. Since there is no difference, it is unconsitutional for you to say Group A can do this, and Group B can't. That's what you are trying to do, and it's not constitutional, do you comprehend?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie. Corporate money is to pay employees, not manipulate the political climate.

Corporate money should be for whatever the damn CEO, Board of Directors, and Stockholders want it to be for, and unless Obama has imposed some socialist law I'm not aware of, it's really not anyone else's business how they spend their money!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Corporate money should be for whatever the damn CEO, Board of Directors, and Stockholders want it to be for, and unless Obama has imposed some socialist law I'm not aware of, it's really not anyone else's business how they spend their money!

Yes it is. It is everyone's business when they use it to sculpt our society through undue influence.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes it is. It is everyone's business when they use it to sculpt our society through undue influence.

It's not YOUR business how anyone else spends their money! SORRY!

What you seem to want, is a system where AssClown decides who speaks and who doesn't, and this is based on whether they believe in what AssClown believes. If you get the chance, you should check out this cat named Mussolini and his political ideology, you have much in common with him!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

It's not YOUR business how anyone else spends their money! SORRY!

What you seem to want, is a system where AssClown decides who speaks and who doesn't, and this is based on whether they believe in what AssClown believes. If you get the chance, you should check out this cat named Mussolini and his political ideology, you have much in common with him!

No. I want a system where corporations cannot openly put "propaganda to control government" as an expense.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. I want a system where corporations cannot openly put "propaganda to control government" as an expense.

Well, when you get on the board of directors of one, you can bring that up. Until then, you are free to join any number of activist groups which use their resources solely for this purpose, and recommend they stop the practice. Or you could find a union job somewhere, and vote for leadership who wouldn't do this with your dues. Those are just some suggestions to help you realize your dream. Good Luck... I'll be pulling for ya!

[PostmodernProphet]

Dixie. Corporate money is to pay employees, not manipulate the political climate.

????....the purpose of corporate money is to pay employees?........where's the tongue in cheek icon?......

[Don Quixote]

????....the purpose of corporate money is to pay employees?........where's the tongue in cheek icon?......

i think that ahz included shareholders, after all, ceo's are employees

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Well, when you get on the board of directors of one, you can bring that up. Until then, you are free to join any number of activist groups which use their resources solely for this purpose, and recommend they stop the practice. Or you could find a union job somewhere, and vote for leadership who wouldn't do this with your dues. Those are just some suggestions to help you realize your dream. Good Luck... I'll be pulling for ya!

I'll bring it up now, as an issue the government should handle to stop our descent in a fascist state.

[Onceler]

Well it's a good sign you've schooled one of them in debate when they start claiming to support capitalism! Maybe I can do like Bush did for the voters of MA and piss you off so bad you start supporting capitalism regularly?

I'll ask this again, since you obviously missed it first time...

What is the difference between a dollar from ACORN or PNAC, and a dollar from a corporation? Is one dollar less or more prone to be corrupt? Also, what is the difference between the freedom of someone representing ACORN or PNAC and the freedom of someone who owns a corporation? Is one persons right to free speech more valuable?

If you can't give me a solid answer and reasonable explanation, I will have to conclude there is really not a difference. Since there is no difference, it is unconsitutional for you to say Group A can do this, and Group B can't. That's what you are trying to do, and it's not constitutional, do you comprehend?

I don't think there should be any organizational money in politics.

And I'm more of a capitalist than you are, Dix. I can guarantee you that I make more profit than you do. I always find it pretty funny when fools on the right think there is something about progressive thought that excludes capitalism. Members of "the left" also comprise some of America's most prominent business minds. Ever hear of Ted Turner? Bill Gates? Warren Buffett?

Consider yourself schooled. Again.

[Crashk]

Capitalism exists under the rules of govt. Capitalism is a monetary system not a form of government. When govt acts in the interests of corporations over the interests of the people, the government is defined as a form of Fascism, no longer a democracy or a communist form of govt. I guess the new term for this is corpocracy.

cor·poc·ra·cy (kôr-pkr-s)
n. pl. cor·poc·ra·cies
1. A society dominated politically and economically by large corporations.

Dixie..
"What is the difference between a dollar from ACORN or PNAC, and a dollar from a corporation? Is one dollar less or more prone to be corrupt? Also, what is the difference between the freedom of someone representing ACORN or PNAC and the freedom of someone who owns a corporation? Is one persons right to free speech more valuable?

The only difference between the dollars from Acorn or Pnac and corporate dollars is the amounts. Chinese backed businesses will spend billions to promote their interests in our govt.

If the person who owns or directs or makes decisions for a corporation and is a Chinese communist he now has free speech in our electoral system. He can influence millions of votes. There are no controls on the amount of money his corporation can funnel into advertising for or against whatever this man deems good for his profits. He now has a voice in our govt. policy making while he sits in foreign country.

Communist and other multinational corporations can't give money directly to candidates yet but there are no limits on what they can spend for advertising as long as the 'sponsored by' disclaimer is in the small print. And there are a million ways to hide where the real money is coming from.

You wing-nuts dont see any danger in all this? Really?

[Cypress]

Capitalist than you are, Dix. I can guarantee you that I make more profit than you do. I always find it pretty funny when fools on the right think there is something about progressive thought that excludes capitalism. Members of "the left" also comprise some of America's most prominent business minds. Ever hear of Ted Turner? Bill Gates? Warren Buffett?

Consider yourself schooled. Again.

Dixie comes from the feudal south that had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by FDR and LBJ. Everyone here is a bigger capitalist than Dixie. Wasn’t there a rumour that Pixie worked at some photomart quick stop?***

The south is the red headed poster child of federal welfare dependency. They get more tax dollars back than they pay in. Far more. You could basically say that Pixie is a Welfare Queen. Contrast that to New York and California which are the turbo-charged centers of American capitalism.

Judging from the tidbits that have been shared, I’m can guaran-effing-tee it that Uscitizen, you, and I have made more money for stockholders in a few months than Dixie will make in of lifetime of developing photo negatives.

Sweet Jesus, my gig as an oil robber baron back in the day was a barrel of fun. And unlike the captains of wall street, I created wealth and profit out of something real and tangible. Not just from pushing wealth around on paper, like your typical republican teabagging wall street banker does.:can:





*** totally kidding



p.s., I don't think any corporatists, or any organizations should be able to donate money to political campaigns. Except for Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Amnesty International, and Code Pink.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I don't think there should be any organizational money in politics.

And I'm more of a capitalist than you are, Dix. I can guarantee you that I make more profit than you do. I always find it pretty funny when fools on the right think there is something about progressive thought that excludes capitalism. Members of "the left" also comprise some of America's most prominent business minds. Ever hear of Ted Turner? Bill Gates? Warren Buffett?

Consider yourself schooled. Again.

LOL... You couldn't school your little sister, don't make me laugh!

The thing is, there IS ALREADY organizational money in politics! There has always been organizational money in politics, and if you want to eliminate it, you will have to ban all political speech in America. Since that would obviously be a direct contradiction of the 1st Amendment, I doubt you will ever realize this dream!

As for you being a capitalist, please don't make me laugh any more in one post! You've been funny enough already, my sides are hurting! You are a socialist, and socialism is the antithesis of capitalism! To listen to what you say, one would think you have this notion that capitalism is only about wealth and profit, you offer up wealthy socialists as an example of capitalists, and you lie about your obviously sub-par income, as if your personal profit makes you a capitalist. However, capitalism is about more than wealth and profit. Purely socialist societies have people who make enormous profits and control great wealth... look at Saddam Hussein, certainly he wasn't a great example of a capitalist, was he? The man had more wealth and riches than anyone in his country, but he wasn't a capitalist!

Now, I am still waiting for you to explain the difference in a dollar from ACORN or PNAC and a dollar from a corporation! Can you do that?

[Onceler]

8 exclamation points...in one fairly short post?

Usually, when people are losing, they get more frantic.

Look, since you're on another thread arguing for "speech for the means of production," I think there is little question who the socialist is, and who the capitalist is here.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Capitalism exists under the rules of govt. Capitalism is a monetary system not a form of government. When govt acts in the interests of corporations over the interests of the people, the government is defined as a form of Fascism, no longer a democracy or a communist form of govt. I guess the new term for this is corpocracy.

cor·poc·ra·cy (kôr-pkr-s)
n. pl. cor·poc·ra·cies
1. A society dominated politically and economically by large corporations.

Dixie..
"What is the difference between a dollar from ACORN or PNAC, and a dollar from a corporation? Is one dollar less or more prone to be corrupt? Also, what is the difference between the freedom of someone representing ACORN or PNAC and the freedom of someone who owns a corporation? Is one persons right to free speech more valuable?

The only difference between the dollars from Acorn or Pnac and corporate dollars is the amounts. Chinese backed businesses will spend billions to promote their interests in our govt.

If the person who owns or directs or makes decisions for a corporation and is a Chinese communist he now has free speech in our electoral system. He can influence millions of votes. There are no controls on the amount of money his corporation can funnel into advertising for or against whatever this man deems good for his profits. He now has a voice in our govt. policy making while he sits in foreign country.

Communist and other multinational corporations can't give money directly to candidates yet but there are no limits on what they can spend for advertising as long as the 'sponsored by' disclaimer is in the small print. And there are a million ways to hide where the real money is coming from.

You wing-nuts dont see any danger in all this? Really?

What kind of a moron assumes that corporations being able to return to political contributions as they did before McCain-Feingold, is going to turn us into a different form of government now? What is your basis for this fear mongering? We obviously didn't turn into a 'corpocracy' before, why would that happen now? Rich sinister Chinese men didn't try to take over government by running political ads and brainwashing us before, why would it happen now? Seems to me, you are creating a bunch of boogie-men to care people with! Why do they have to sound like the bad guy in a Bond movie? What about a somewhat notorious film director who isn't foreign or doesn't look much different than a toothless ignorant redneck, producing political propaganda and calling it 'documentaries' to the cheers of radical liberals across the country? Oh wait... we already have one of those, and he isn't restricted in any way on his political speech! Hmmm, I wonder why we aren't all turning into pinhead socialists?

[Damocles]

8 exclamation points...in one fairly short post?

Usually, when people are losing, they get more frantic.

Look, since you're on another thread arguing for "speech for the means of production," I think there is little question who the socialist is, and who the capitalist is here.
Liberals always mistake laughter and/or passion for freneticism...

He's right, Onceler. All this does is make it so they don't have to donate to 527s. Very little changes. In fact I predict there will still be 527s as some corps will want to get donations from others that agree with the stance they are taking in their ads.

[Onceler]

Liberals always mistake laughter and/or passion for freneticism...

He's right, Onceler. All this does is make it so they don't have to donate to 527s. Very little changes. In fact I predict there will still be 527s as some corps will want to get donations from others that agree with the stance they are taking in their ads.

So you agree with him that in order to eliminate (or reduce) organizational money in politics, you have to ban free speech? How about getting rid of 527's?

Do you also agree with him that I'm like Saddam Hussein?

[Damocles]

So you agree with him that in order to eliminate (or reduce) organizational money in politics, you have to ban free speech? How about getting rid of 527's?

Do you also agree with him that I'm like Saddam Hussein?
I don't know if you have a manly enough mustache to be like Saddam.

And you'd have to ban nearly all equal speech. Unions would be out, for instance. Should groups that band together have a right to speak? Do we stop foreigners from that same right when they visit?

The more I think about it, the more I understand the decision. Sometimes you have problems that come along with freedoms, you have to decide if they overwhelm the freedom itself... We've seen this particular freedom for at least 200 years, I'd disagree with the necessity to end it because we don't like some "groups" to speak while we like others. Sometimes you don't get to like how people use their rights.

At least with publicly traded corps the shareholders can band together to kick out the leadership if they go too crazy.

[Onceler]

I don't know if you have a manly enough mustache to be like Saddam.

And you'd have to ban nearly all equal speech. Unions would be out, for instance. Should groups that band together have a right to speak? Do we stop foreigners from that same right when they visit?

The more I think about it, the more I understand the decision. Sometimes you have problems that come along with freedoms, you have to decide if they overwhelm the freedom itself... We've seen this particular freedom for at least 200 years, I'd disagree with the necessity to end it because we don't like some "groups" to speak while we like others. Sometimes you don't get to like how people use their rights.

At least with publicly traded corps the shareholders can band together to kick out the leadership if they go too crazy.

I'm just all about limiting corporate money. I know there is no way to eliminate it. Epi made the argument that the Supremes did the right thing according to the law, and it's up to the legislature, and that's probably true. But the fact is, corporate money is way too involved in the political process - and this is something Dixie is celebrating. He doesn't want to see it limited at all.

And I hold that same standard for unions, PAC's & the rest.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm just all about limiting corporate money. I know there is no way to eliminate it. Epi made the argument that the Supremes did the right thing according to the law, and it's up to the legislature, and that's probably true. But the fact is, corporate money is way too involved in the political process - and this is something Dixie is celebrating. He doesn't want to see it limited at all.

And I hold that same standard for unions, PAC's & the rest.

Dixie is celebrating a victory for freedom of speech. I am sorry you don't agree with me, the supreme court, or the constitution! ....Too bad ...so sad!

You do NOT hold the same standards, you just elected a president who took enormous amounts of funding from unions, pacs and the rest! It did not seem to bother you in the least!

What you've done, is taken advantage of things like Enron, to demonize corporations. To effectively use that fomented hate to promote the idea that it's a good idea to limit their freedom of speech! Dunderhead McCain, in a pathetic attempt to pander to liberals, decided to give us CFR, with most of the right screaming... "John! It's Unconstitutional!" Now the SCOTUS has determined we were right, it WAS unconstitutional!

The way I see it, we can now return to how things were, when there was a BALANCE to the activist groups and unions, in political influence! Now the forces of capitalism can defend capitalism, when socialist liberals attack it in politics! I can certainly see why you wanted to continue denying people their freedom of speech, it will be the death nail in the modern progressive movement! That must really suck for you!!

[Onceler]

Dixie is celebrating a victory for freedom of speech. I am sorry you don't agree with me, the supreme court, or the constitution! ....Too bad ...so sad!

You do NOT hold the same standards, you just elected a president who took enormous amounts of funding from unions, pacs and the rest! It did not seem to bother you in the least!

What you've done, is taken advantage of things like Enron, to demonize corporations. To effectively use that fomented hate to promote the idea that it's a good idea to limit their freedom of speech! Dunderhead McCain, in a pathetic attempt to pander to liberals, decided to give us CFR, with most of the right screaming... "John! It's Unconstitutional!" Now the SCOTUS has determined we were right, it WAS unconstitutional!

The way I see it, we can now return to how things were, when there was a BALANCE to the activist groups and unions, in political influence! Now the forces of capitalism can defend capitalism, when socialist liberals attack it in politics! I can certainly see why you wanted to continue denying people their freedom of speech, it will be the death nail in the modern progressive movement! That must really suck for you!!

You're so clueless. That's the reason we're seeing so many exclamation points; this is a partisan issue for you, as everything is.

It's not a partisan issue. Like I said - limit the unions, limit the corps. Because we're getting to a point where there aren't really Democrats, or Republicans; the are Corporats/Corublicans. I don't think you understand - at all - how intimately involved corporations are in writing legislation, and then buying the votes they need to pass it. If you believed in a gov't "by and for the people", you wouldn't be talking as you are.

And quit projecting your hack shit on me; I was disgusted with the amount of money Obama had this past campaign, and have said so dozens of times. I'm disgusted by the amount Presidential campaigns in general cost. It effectively nullifies the chance for ANY 3rd party viability, barring a billionaire candidate who is willing to spend his own.

It DOES suck, because America is not a better nation for it. And you continue to be the proud, ignorant rube in the face of that. You don't even realize what's happening.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're so clueless. That's the reason we're seeing so many exclamation points; this is a partisan issue for you, as everything is.

It's not a partisan issue. Like I said - limit the unions, limit the corps. Because we're getting to a point where there aren't really Democrats, or Republicans; the are Corporats/Corublicans. I don't think you understand - at all - how intimately involved corporations are in writing legislation, and then buying the votes they need to pass it. If you believed in a gov't "by and for the people", you wouldn't be talking as you are.

And quit projecting your hack shit on me; I was disgusted with the amount of money Obama had this past campaign, and have said so dozens of times. I'm disgusted by the amount Presidential campaigns in general cost. It effectively nullifies the chance for ANY 3rd party viability, barring a billionaire candidate who is willing to spend his own.

It DOES suck, because America is not a better nation for it. And you continue to be the proud, ignorant rube in the face of that. You don't even realize what's happening.


Oh, you're disgusted, but you're still going to line up to vote for the man and kiss his ass every time he speaks! You're still going to parade his agenda out and carry the water for the democrat party, because as disgusted as you are with the money, you are a kool-aid drenched socialist nitwit! Your words of "disgust" ring HOLLOW!

No, it's really NOT a partisan issue, it's a FREE SPEECH issue! And THAT is the reason for the number of exclamation points!!!!!!!!!

[Onceler]

Oh, you're disgusted, but you're still going to line up to vote for the man and kiss his ass every time he speaks! You're still going to parade his agenda out and carry the water for the democrat party, because as disgusted as you are with the money, you are a kool-aid drenched socialist nitwit! Your words of "disgust" ring HOLLOW!

No, it's really NOT a partisan issue, it's a FREE SPEECH issue! And THAT is the reason for the number of exclamation points!!!!!!!!!

Yep; because money = speech, right?

Careful what you wish for, Dix. Once again, I find myself pitying you, in a kind of weird way.

You'll get it eventually...

[Onceler]

Oh, and I dont' "carry water" for the Democrats. That's what you & Rush do for the GOP...remember?

LOL

[Good Luck]

I'm just all about limiting corporate money. I know there is no way to eliminate it. Epi made the argument that the Supremes did the right thing according to the law, and it's up to the legislature, and that's probably true. But the fact is, corporate money is way too involved in the political process - and this is something Dixie is celebrating. He doesn't want to see it limited at all.

And I hold that same standard for unions, PAC's & the rest.
You do understand, don't you, that corporate donations to campaigns is still limited? This decision had nothing to do with corporate donations to political candidates and/or parties. It had everything to do with what was effectively a gag order against corporations making direct political statements.

So now McDonalds (for instance) can (if they so wish) run their own political commercials in favor or against a political issue and/or candidate. The only thing THAT changes is they can do so directly, whereas before they had to form and register, or join/contribute to a 527, which could then run their ads for them. It saves McDs a few bucks from not having to pay 527 staffers.

From a legal/constitutional standpoint, what this does is put all corporations on equal footing with regard to free press/speech. With the limitation, corporations like McDonalds (or the ever-detested Exxon) could not make any kind of public statement in favor of or against a political candidate or issue. Meanwhile, MEDIA corporations could get away with saying damned near anything they wanted to under the heading of "news." With no practical way of limiting THAT without a HUGE free press controversy, the only other option was to take an "equal application of law" approach and allow all corporations the liberty to do what the media corporations were already effectively doing.

From a practical standpoint, it really does nothing except, possibly, put some 527 staffers in the unemployment line because they can run the ads directly. Then again, running ads directly stands the chance of pissing off a substantial block of investors and/or customers, (boycotting is SO popular these days!) in which case most corporations will most likely continue to hide behind 527s.

Therefore, IMO, in a practical sense nothing substantial will change, except we are (for a CHANGE) actually standing on the principle that Constitutionally guaranteed liberties are guaranteed liberties no matter how much we disagree with who is being protected.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Conservatives are murderers and deserve to die.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Oh, you're disgusted, but you're still going to line up to vote for the man and kiss his ass every time he speaks! You're still going to parade his agenda out and carry the water for the democrat party, because as disgusted as you are with the money, you are a kool-aid drenched socialist nitwit! Your words of "disgust" ring HOLLOW!

No, it's really NOT a partisan issue, it's a FREE SPEECH issue! And THAT is the reason for the number of exclamation points!!!!!!!!!

Speaking freely is one thing. Using your money to buy airtime to speak on that airtime is another. Regulating the airtime is not regulating your speech - you are perfectly free to speak that speech into the air right next to you. This is only fair.

Unregulated money * speech eliminates speech from those who aren't well off. Having no campaign regulations is a violation of free speech.

[Minister of Truth]

Liberals are murderers and deserve to die.

Yes.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Conservatives are murderers and deserve to die.

Wow... are we going to have to put you on suicide watch? I mean, we're only one year into the Obama presidency and the Tea Party Express has just started rolling... you are going to be climbing the walls before this is over, if you are this worked up now!

It's a good thing you're a pussy who lives in your grandmother's basement, and wouldn't have the courage to swat a fly... I'd be worried for public safety with the death threats you keep making.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Speaking freely is one thing. Using your money to buy airtime to speak on that airtime is another. Regulating the airtime is not regulating your speech - you are perfectly free to speak that speech into the air right next to you. This is only fair.

Unregulated money * speech eliminates speech from those who aren't well off. Having no campaign regulations is a violation of free speech.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, and they say the Constitution disagrees with you as well. Using money to buy airtime is free speech, and Congress shall make no law to restrict it!

YOU PHAIL!

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, and they say the Constitution disagrees with you as well. Using money to buy airtime is free speech, and Congress shall make no law to restrict it!

YOU PHAIL!

Using money to buy airtime is using money to buy airtime. Speech is speech.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Wow... are we going to have to put you on suicide watch? I mean, we're only one year into the Obama presidency and the Tea Party Express has just started rolling... you are going to be climbing the walls before this is over, if you are this worked up now!

It's a good thing you're a pussy who lives in your grandmother's basement, and wouldn't have the courage to swat a fly... I'd be worried for public safety with the death threats you keep making.

All conservatives deserve to die. Hopefully one day you'll all be murdered, like you deserve, in the most gruesome way possible. There's no way to inflict enough pain on a conservative for them to get what they deserve, so we just have to kill as many of you cockroaches as possible.

[Minister of Truth]

Using money to buy airtime is using money to buy airtime. Speech is speech.

Money, writing, printing, speaking, bargaining, signaling, etc.: all are speech retard.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

All conservatives deserve to die. Hopefully one day you'll all be murdered, like you deserve, in the most gruesome way possible. There's no way to inflict enough pain on a conservative for them to get what they deserve, so we just have to kill as many of you cockroaches as possible.

Why haven't you started killing us then? Are you too chicken shit? I say you should go for it if you really mean this, otherwise you are just a cowardly simpering crybaby who needs his diaper changed. I'll even volunteer to be your first victim, if you want to come to Alabama. Come kill me gruesomely like I deserve, waterhead... I'm waiting!

[Minister of Truth]

He can't, the Village lynched his idiot ass.

[Mott the Hoople]

Did you hear Obama's criticism of SCOTUS for this decision? Ole Sam Alito winced like Obama had bitch slapped him. It was hillareous. Best part of his whole speech!

[Mott the Hoople]

Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, and they say the Constitution disagrees with you as well. Using money to buy airtime is free speech, and Congress shall make no law to restrict it!

YOU PHAIL! So Dixie, would that apply to British Petroleum? Do they have Free Speech in this country? As a Foriegn Corporation do they have the right to influence our elections or influence important domestic policy issues such as energy independence? God Knows BP doesn't want the US to be energy independant.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Mott just jizzed all over dixie's face.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Mott just jizzed all over dixie's face.

It was a premature jizz.


So Dixie, would that apply to British Petroleum? Do they have Free Speech in this country? As a Foriegn Corporation do they have the right to influence our elections or influence important domestic policy issues such as energy independence? God Knows BP doesn't want the US to be energy independant.

You act like I made this ruling, and I am responsible for applying it or deciding how it is applied in law. I didn't make the ruling, the Supreme Court did... you know? Those 9 judges in black robes who decide what is constitutional and what isn't? Anyway, the decision was theirs, not mine. I suppose you could take a case to them and ask whether BP gets Constitutional rights as a foreign entity, I have no idea what they would rule on that, it would be interesting to see, and if they determined foreign individuals do not have constitutional rights, we will settle several other issues currently facing us, like illegal immigrants using our services, and terrorists getting criminal trials in US courts.

SCOTUS decisions always have ramifications!

[Good Luck]

So Dixie, would that apply to British Petroleum? Do they have Free Speech in this country? As a Foriegn Corporation do they have the right to influence our elections or influence important domestic policy issues such as energy independence? God Knows BP doesn't want the US to be energy independent.
Does any group of British citizens, legally residing in the United States, have the right to speak out on U.S. elections?

Yes.

The question is how much attention do U.S. citizens pay to the yammering of a bunch of limeys?

The biggest problem with the objections to this decision is that the money corporations put into politics only has as much effect the people allow it to. To demonstrate, how much would any of you be swayed, personally, by a commercial about wind power paid for by a major coal mining company? And in anticipation of most answers, why do you think everyone else is that much different?

Ultimately the power still actually resides in those who actually cast votes, (which, as has been pointed out, pretty much negates the claim of giving human rights to corporations) not in those who try to sway them. As such, the problem lies not with a decision which is ultimately in support of maximum liberty and rights, but rather with the phenomenon of people willing to allow themselves to be led by the nose instead of think for themselves. The power of money comes from the people abdicating their authority. How much influence would money have if the people actually paid attention to the issues and voted based on performance instead of empty broken promises? That applies to those at both ends of the corporatism/anti-corporatism philosophy.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the problem lies not with a decision which is ultimately in support of maximum liberty and rights, but rather with the phenomenon of people willing to allow themselves to be led by the nose instead of think for themselves. The power of money comes from the people abdicating their authority. How much influence would money have if the people actually paid attention to the issues and voted based on performance instead of empty broken promises?

:good4u: THIS!

[Don Quixote]

Does any group of British citizens, legally residing in the United States, have the right to speak out on U.S. elections?

Yes.

The question is how much attention do U.S. citizens pay to the yammering of a bunch of limeys?

The biggest problem with the objections to this decision is that the money corporations put into politics only has as much effect the people allow it to. To demonstrate, how much would any of you be swayed, personally, by a commercial about wind power paid for by a major coal mining company? And in anticipation of most answers, why do you think everyone else is that much different?

Ultimately the power still actually resides in those who actually cast votes, (which, as has been pointed out, pretty much negates the claim of giving human rights to corporations) not in those who try to sway them. As such, the problem lies not with a decision which is ultimately in support of maximum liberty and rights, but rather with the phenomenon of people willing to allow themselves to be led by the nose instead of think for themselves. The power of money comes from the people abdicating their authority. How much influence would money have if the people actually paid attention to the issues and voted based on performance instead of empty broken promises? That applies to those at both ends of the corporatism/anti-corporatism philosophy.

perhaps, but what about a group called 'citizens against/for wind power' where donors hide behind some committee or at least until after the time limit has passed requiring posting of 'major' contributors (currently about one week before an election)

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Does any group of British citizens, legally residing in the United States, have the right to speak out on U.S. elections?

Yes.

The question is how much attention do U.S. citizens pay to the yammering of a bunch of limeys?

The biggest problem with the objections to this decision is that the money corporations put into politics only has as much effect the people allow it to. To demonstrate, how much would any of you be swayed, personally, by a commercial about wind power paid for by a major coal mining company? And in anticipation of most answers, why do you think everyone else is that much different?

Ultimately the power still actually resides in those who actually cast votes, (which, as has been pointed out, pretty much negates the claim of giving human rights to corporations) not in those who try to sway them. As such, the problem lies not with a decision which is ultimately in support of maximum liberty and rights, but rather with the phenomenon of people willing to allow themselves to be led by the nose instead of think for themselves. The power of money comes from the people abdicating their authority. How much influence would money have if the people actually paid attention to the issues and voted based on performance instead of empty broken promises? That applies to those at both ends of the corporatism/anti-corporatism philosophy.

and according to US law, there is a difference between speaking solely as an individual and an organization and donating and advertising or having any influence in american elections.....

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Ultimately the power still actually resides in those who actually cast votes, (which, as has been pointed out, pretty much negates the claim of giving human rights to corporations) not in those who try to sway them. As such, the problem lies not with a decision which is ultimately in support of maximum liberty and rights, but rather with the phenomenon of people willing to allow themselves to be led by the nose instead of think for themselves. The power of money comes from the people abdicating their authority. How much influence would money have if the people actually paid attention to the issues and voted based on performance instead of empty broken promises? That applies to those at both ends of the corporatism/anti-corporatism philosophy.


This is nice in theory, but it's wrong. You have merely developed an excuse to blame the victims of the corporatist state you crave so much.

[Good Luck]

This is nice in theory, but it's wrong. You have merely developed an excuse to blame the victims of the corporatist state you crave so much.
Wrong? "Theory"?

Since there is nothing in the recent SCOTUS decision that gives corporations the right to select the membership of our governing bodies, then the actual authority in our government still resides with the people IF they choose to exercise that power. There is nothing "wrong" with that statement, nor is there anything theoretical about it. If people CHOOSE to abrogate their authority, choosing to listen only to whatever rhetoric supports their preconceptions, or choosing to simply vote for party name, that in no way negates the FACT that the people are still in authority over who governs - they just are choosing to use lazy, unthinking methods to exercise their authority.

You are trying to make "victims" out of the phenomenon of people not thinking for themselves. Victimization requires force. Without force, there is no victimization. Where is the force in rhetoric? There is none, and rhetoric is all the corporations have in determining who is selected to govern.

Of course, there is also the factor of corruption, which gives corporations and other big money undue influence over those selected to govern. But corruption is not affected one way or the other by applying to all corporations the same constitutional protections as we provide to our media services. Corruption takes place AFTER the selection process is done and over with, and the rhetoric put away until the next election cycle. So regulating the rhetoric will have no effect on the genuine harmful manner big money is operating in government. In fact corruption will never be affected in any way by government regulations of any kind because corruption, by definition, occurs outside of and in spite of any regulations.

As for "wanting" a corporatist state - you are now stooping to the typical demonization of any opinion that does not conform to your totalitarian belief system. (See, two can play at that game.) The corruption of the republican system of government by big money interests is a serious problem. However, crapping on our first amendment is not going to solve it; all that will do is set a precedent for the control of any type of speech or press that is determined to be "harmful" to our system of government. Limiting "harmful" speech or press sounds all rosy - until it is yours that is the next to be defined as harmful.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Wrong? "Theory"?

Since there is nothing in the recent SCOTUS decision that gives corporations the right to select the membership of our governing bodies, then the actual authority in our government still resides with the people IF they choose to exercise that power. There is nothing "wrong" with that statement, nor is there anything theoretical about it. If people CHOOSE to abrogate their authority, choosing to listen only to whatever rhetoric supports their preconceptions, or choosing to simply vote for party name, that in no way negates the FACT that the people are still in authority over who governs - they just are choosing to use lazy, unthinking methods to exercise their authority.

You are trying to make "victims" out of the phenomenon of people not thinking for themselves. Victimization requires force. Without force, there is no victimization. Where is the force in rhetoric? There is none, and rhetoric is all the corporations have in determining who is selected to govern.

Of course, there is also the factor of corruption, which gives corporations and other big money undue influence over those selected to govern. But corruption is not affected one way or the other by applying to all corporations the same constitutional protections as we provide to our media services. Corruption takes place AFTER the selection process is done and over with, and the rhetoric put away until the next election cycle. So regulating the rhetoric will have no effect on the genuine harmful manner big money is operating in government. In fact corruption will never be affected in any way by government regulations of any kind because corruption, by definition, occurs outside of and in spite of any regulations.

As for "wanting" a corporatist state - you are now stooping to the typical demonization of any opinion that does not conform to your totalitarian belief system. (See, two can play at that game.) The corruption of the republican system of government by big money interests is a serious problem. However, crapping on our first amendment is not going to solve it; all that will do is set a precedent for the control of any type of speech or press that is determined to be "harmful" to our system of government. Limiting "harmful" speech or press sounds all rosy - until it is yours that is the next to be defined as harmful.


Wrong. The right to unlimited expenditure on political messaging IS the de facto right to select our leadership.