Were fucking owned

evince said:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&hp


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
Click to expand...

What I find fascinating is the immediate neocon kneejerk that Unions have been solely doing what the SCOTUS just granted them and corporations. Fascinating, because it was the neocons who smugly pointed out the large corporate finance contributions to the Obama 2008 campaign. The same claims of "liberal double standards" went to Clinton as well. So the claim that Unions were the sole corrupting force is kind of hypocritical.

The truly SCARY thing here is that the SCOTUS used a case about whether it was legal for ONE individual group (non-corporate) had to divulge funding when they put a out slam tape against Hillary during 2008 campaign...to leapfrog into cementing corporations as individual entities on par with individual human beings.

So now, the company that you work for or are a shareholder in can take your money and bankroll any politician it wants whether you like it or not. The Board of Trustees and the management come together and become a person on paper....a person who has the vast resources of ALL the workers, union and non-union. Man, that's FUBB (f***ed up beyond belief). And you can't complain, because THEY are a person, with rights just like you.

Yeah, with one fail swoop the Reagan/Bush boys in the SCOTUS have eliminated a century of combined legal rules to try and limit corporate/union influence on our political system. Man, the proverbial excrement is REALLY tilting towards that fan.
 
Onceler said:
Frankly, Desh's thread title isn't too far off. I don't have to convince you about the depth & ever-growing breadth of corporate influence in American politics...do I?

And honestly, I won't have you calling the founders of this country fools, for so clearly understanding how expansive & overly influential corporations would be in the 21st century, on legislation, politicians, votes & the direction of policy (both foreign & domestic), but allowing for such influence in the Constitution.

How could they have missed that, understanding the current corporate world as they did?
Click to expand...
Again, flat ignorant.

What they didn't understand was a strong centralized government that would grow from a civil war four score and seven years later. The Federal government was not where the legislation regarding corporations came from back then, as I explained. But they were certainly not ignorant of corporations and money purchasing political power. It was worse back then than it is now, since that time we have passed laws that would put people in jail for much of what passed as normal when they were writing the constitution. Corporations had more political power back then by simple and direct means than they have today, we just don't allow them to go and directly inflict their will on us through bribes.
 
"tell me what corporation today has that kind of power... "

That's the point. You guys keep bringing up "East India Trading Company." That shows more than anything how things have changed over the years.

It isn't just 1 or 2 companies today. We've got oil, pharma, tech, health, et al. - each with dozens or hundreds of companies, spending unbelievable amounts of money not just electing politicians, but influencing their votes & actually writing legislation. And they're doing it on a global scale.
 
Onceler said:
"tell me what corporation today has that kind of power... "

That's the point. You guys keep bringing up "East India Trading Company." That shows more than anything how things have changed over the years.

It isn't just 1 or 2 companies today. We've got oil, pharma, tech, health, et al. - each with dozens or hundreds of companies, spending unbelievable amounts of money not just electing politicians, but influencing their votes & actually writing legislation. And they're doing it on a global scale.
Click to expand...
Yeah, corporations used to be much more powerful. You know, back in the time that you simply didn't even believe that the founders had any idea that such an entity EVEN EXISTED.

You are flat ignorant. And back then the corporations wrote the legislation as well, and all it took was direct bribery (not even illegal) to "get it passed" by the monarch.

My point here isn't to say it is "good" that this happens now, it is to say you are flatly ignorant of economic history. You actually tried to tell me that the founders didn't even know what a corporation was... That is just flat stupid. The attempt to tell me that it is "worse" today because they are doing much what they did back then but on a less direct route after you actually tried to tell me that the the founders didn't even know such an entity existed would be laughable if you weren't so earnest.

It wasn't just "one or two" companies back then either, we just mentioned a few that were uber-powerful like Carnegie and Rockefeller. Bribes were an accepted form of power.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, corporations used to be much more powerful. You know, back in the time that you simply didn't even believe that the founders had any idea that such an entity EVEN EXISTED.

You are flat ignorant. And back then the corporations wrote the legislation as well, and all it took was direct bribery (not even illegal) to "get it passed" by the monarch.

My point here isn't to say it is "good" that this happens now, it is to say you are flatly ignorant of economic history. You actually tried to tell me that the founders didn't even know what a corporation was... That is just flat stupid. The attempt to tell me that it is "worse" today because they are doing much what they did back then but on a less direct route after you actually tried to tell me that the the founders didn't even know such an entity existed would be laughable if you weren't so earnest.

It wasn't just "one or two" companies back then either, we just mentioned a few that were uber-powerful like Carnegie and Rockefeller. Bribes were an accepted form of power.
Click to expand...

You win. It was a poor choice of words, that we've parsed to the nth degree. I'm sure the corporate masters will be happy about the distraction.

I concede your knowledge of economic history...
 
Onceler said:
Don't get testy. You most certainly did NOT answer it, though...
Click to expand...

go reread my first amendment post that you lied about when said i copied from someone else...

you claimed you wanted to cut the bs and actually debate, yet all you're doing is bsing....you have ignored the overwhelming proof that there were global corporations in the 1700's that were far more powerful than today's corps...which flatly contracts your assertion that the founders 'had no idea' how big and spooky today's corps would be....

either live up to your own request, or stfu little buddy :)
 
Yurt said:
go reread my first amendment post that you lied about when said i copied from someone else...

you claimed you wanted to cut the bs and actually debate, yet all you're doing is bsing....you have ignored the overwhelming proof that there were global corporations in the 1700's that were far more powerful than today's corps...which flatly contracts your assertion that the founders 'had no idea' how big and spooky today's corps would be....

either live up to your own request, or stfu little buddy :)
Click to expand...

The QUESTION, Yurt, was not about precedent or about the existence of corporations in the 1700's.

The QUESTION was why, oh why, if the founders had this intimate understanding about what corporate influence would be like in America today...why would they write a Constitution that would allow a ruling like today's?
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, corporations used to be much more powerful. You know, back in the time that you simply didn't even believe that the founders had any idea that such an entity EVEN EXISTED.

You are flat ignorant. And back then the corporations wrote the legislation as well, and all it took was direct bribery (not even illegal) to "get it passed" by the monarch.

My point here isn't to say it is "good" that this happens now, it is to say you are flatly ignorant of economic history. You actually tried to tell me that the founders didn't even know what a corporation was... That is just flat stupid. The attempt to tell me that it is "worse" today because they are doing much what they did back then but on a less direct route after you actually tried to tell me that the the founders didn't even know such an entity existed would be laughable if you weren't so earnest.

It wasn't just "one or two" companies back then either, we just mentioned a few that were uber-powerful like Carnegie and Rockefeller. Bribes were an accepted form of power.
Click to expand...

Not to get off topic here but I found it interesting when reading about Vanderbilt recently that one thing corrupt legislatures did in the early 19th Century was say pass legislation which allow a company to build railtracks into Manhattan. On that news the company's stock would go up significantely. The legislatures when then short the stock and shortly thereafter recind the company's right to build said track and make a bunch of money as the stock price dropped.
 
Taichiliberal said:
What I find fascinating is the immediate neocon kneejerk that Unions have been solely doing what the SCOTUS just granted them and corporations. Fascinating, because it was the neocons who smugly pointed out the large corporate finance contributions to the Obama 2008 campaign. The same claims of "liberal double standards" went to Clinton as well. So the claim that Unions were the sole corrupting force is kind of hypocritical.

The truly SCARY thing here is that the SCOTUS used a case about whether it was legal for ONE individual group (non-corporate) had to divulge funding when they put a out slam tape against Hillary during 2008 campaign...to leapfrog into cementing corporations as individual entities on par with individual human beings.

So now, the company that you work for or are a shareholder in can take your money and bankroll any politician it wants whether you like it or not. The Board of Trustees and the management come together and become a person on paper....a person who has the vast resources of ALL the workers, union and non-union. Man, that's FUBB (f***ed up beyond belief). And you can't complain, because THEY are a person, with rights just like you.

Yeah, with one fail swoop the Reagan/Bush boys in the SCOTUS have eliminated a century of combined legal rules to try and limit corporate/union influence on our political system. Man, the proverbial excrement is REALLY tilting towards that fan.
Click to expand...
Actually that is what I basically said earlier. Corporations are not people, neither are unions. They are both simply gatherings of people. Union members have rights, unions do not, shareholders and employees (even CEOs) have rights, Corporations do not IMO.

Neither should be able to wield "rights" as an individual can.

Basically, what is good for the goose is good for the gander...

However, in order to have "freedom of the press" and to make sure "that congress shall pass no law restricting the right to free speech" could have this effect. "The Press" is, in fact, made up of corporations that exercise a right directly written into the constitution.
 
Onceler said:
The QUESTION, Yurt, was not about precedent or about the existence of corporations in the 1700's.

The QUESTION was why, oh why, if the founders had this intimate understanding about what corporate influence would be like in America today...why would they write a Constitution that would allow a ruling like today's?
Click to expand...
I believe that they thought the benefits of freedom outweighed the negatives of the same and thought that people, over time, would vote out those they found to be corrupt. In fact, I think there are even essays written at that time about exactly that. One that even spoke about Congressmen and Senators returning home to live as a safeguard against just such an activity... a government "of" and "for" the people....
 
Onceler said:
How has that one worked out for them?
Click to expand...
You would have to ask them, considering they died before the power of the government was centralized against what they designed I would say that it is remarkably good... I believe that they thought that because I read essays written by those same people that spoke of those "risks" that we should avoid using government to end...
 
Onceler said:
The QUESTION, Yurt, was not about precedent or about the existence of corporations in the 1700's.

The QUESTION was why, oh why, if the founders had this intimate understanding about what corporate influence would be like in America today...why would they write a Constitution that would allow a ruling like today's?
Click to expand...

:palm: calm down and count to 10 onceler

have you even read the case? it was about speech, like i've already answered you. it was about chilling speech simply because of the identity of the entity buying political ads.....i don't recall you complaining aobut obama's multimillion dollar 1/2 hour prime time campaign ad about himself....

In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell . It has been noted that “ Austin was a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles,” Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. , 551 U. S. 449, 490 (2007) (WRTL) ( Scalia , J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). We agree with that conclusion and hold that stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin . The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. We turn to the case now before us.
Click to expand...

since you claim to not be a scholar and don't want to hurt your head, i thought i would simply give you the quick summary....your question lacks merit as it misses the issue of the case. it is not about corporate power, it is about speech, the court clearly says there can be disclaimers, disclosure etc...but cannot be suppressed. given that you have no problem with obama's 1/2 hour prime address, i fail to see your problem with corp's buying time. i highly doubt they will buy a half hour of prime time....

the framer's were very keen on not chilling speech. such freedom did not exist under the monarchy. the free exchange of ideas was paramount to them. if you want to chill speech for corps simply because they have money, what is next, not allowing any person who is worth over 12 million dollars (the budge of the corp in question) to buy political ads?

there is nothing wrong with allowing more speech, it allows for a more informed public. from the case:

Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley , supra , at 14–15 (“In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential”).
Click to expand...

as i mentioned earlier, corporations enjoy 1st amendment protection:

The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra , at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro , 431 U. S. 85 (1977) ; Time, Inc. v. Firestone , 424 U. S. 448 (1976) ; Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. , 422 U. S. 922 (1975) ; Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad , 420 U. S. 546 (1975) ; Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn , 420 U. S. 469 (1975) ; Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo , 418 U. S. 241 (1974) ; New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill , 385 U. S. 374 (1967) ; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 ; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y. , 360 U. S. 684 (1959) ; Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson , 343 U. S. 495 (1952) ); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC , 520 U. S. 180 (1997) ; Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC , 518 U. S. 727 (1996) ; Turner , 512 U. S. 622 ; Simon & Schuster , 502 U. S. 105 ; Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC , 492 U. S. 115 (1989) ; Florida Star v. B. J. F. , 491 U. S. 524 (1989) ; Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps , 475 U. S. 767 (1986) ; Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia , 435 U. S. 829 (1978) ; Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. , 427 U. S. 50 (1976) ; Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 418 U. S. 323 (1974) ; Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler , 398 U. S. 6 (1970) .
Click to expand...

if i haven't answered your question to your exacting requirements, please let me know how i can be of further assistance to you. :)
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
If the founders were perfectly aware of the dangers that could be posed by global corporations eventually exerting way too much influence over our governance, why did they write the Consitution in such a way that our constitutional scholars here agree allowed for the rather egregious decision today?
Click to expand...

it may be a side effect of what they DID to prevent influence.....the balance of powers.....in order for a corporation to obtain total control, they would have to own the president, both houses of Congress AND the courts......free speech, actually an afterthought, throws a further trump card in the deck by guaranteeing we still have the right to bitch even if a corporation DID acquire all three.....

I think the true error here is the extension of the concept of the corporate "person" to the extent of granting corporations "free speech".....THAT is something I doubt the original framers contemplated......but then, they didn't contemplate television and advertising time that costs a million dollars a second, either.....
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Actually that is what I basically said earlier. Corporations are not people, neither are unions. They are both simply gatherings of people. Union members have rights, unions do not, shareholders and employees (even CEOs) have rights, Corporations do not IMO.

Neither should be able to wield "rights" as an individual can.

Basically, what is good for the goose is good for the gander...

However, in order to have "freedom of the press" and to make sure "that congress shall pass no law restricting the right to free speech" could have this effect. "The Press" is, in fact, made up of corporations that exercise a right directly written into the constitution.
Click to expand...

Bingo.....
 
Taichiliberal said:
What I find fascinating is the immediate neocon kneejerk that Unions have been solely doing what the SCOTUS just granted them and corporations. Fascinating, because it was the neocons who smugly pointed out the large corporate finance contributions to the Obama 2008 campaign. The same claims of "liberal double standards" went to Clinton as well. So the claim that Unions were the sole corrupting force is kind of hypocritical.

The truly SCARY thing here is that the SCOTUS used a case about whether it was legal for ONE individual group (non-corporate) had to divulge funding when they put a out slam tape against Hillary during 2008 campaign...to leapfrog into cementing corporations as individual entities on par with individual human beings.

So now, the company that you work for or are a shareholder in can take your money and bankroll any politician it wants whether you like it or not. The Board of Trustees and the management come together and become a person on paper....a person who has the vast resources of ALL the workers, union and non-union. Man, that's FUBB (f***ed up beyond belief). And you can't complain, because THEY are a person, with rights just like you.

Yeah, with one fail swoop the Reagan/Bush boys in the SCOTUS have eliminated a century of combined legal rules to try and limit corporate/union influence on our political system. Man, the proverbial excrement is REALLY tilting towards that fan.
Click to expand...

I see you intend to ignore the donor list I posted to this thread.....corporate donations tend to be split between Dems and Reps......union donations tend to be divided 9:1.......and union donors rank as high as corp donors......
 
Onceler said:
See "apples to apples" comment shortly thereafter.

Trying to compare corporate size & influence in the 1700's to the present day is idiotic.

Ergo, you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

see, now you're trying to make the 'living constitution' argument in order to illegally change what you don't like about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top