A corporation is running for congress

evince

evince

Truthmatters
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010...activity&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=20100130


TOOO funny


Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing corporations to be treated as ‘people’ for political donation purposes, a Maryland based corporation, Murray Hill, Inc. is throwing its hat in the ring, seeking to represent Maryland’s 8th District in Congress.

Promising a campaign that “puts people second, or even third”, the company is challenging Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen in the district’s Democratic primary.
 
Corporations ARE people.... Just like AARP are people... just like NAACP are people... just like ACLU are people... just like MoveOn.org are people! The fact they belong to a group, doesn't negate the fact they are people.
 
Dixie said:
Corporations ARE people.... Just like AARP are people... just like NAACP are people... just like ACLU are people... just like MoveOn.org are people! The fact they belong to a group, doesn't negate the fact they are people.
Click to expand...

Yes, and those you named all have specific agendas to further their interests.

What specific agenda does a corporation have, besides not wanting any roadblocks to making money?
 
A corporation is not a person. It is an association of people not in anyway different (for first amendments considerations) than any other association of people.

The left is being completely dishonest on this subject and trying to confuse the public. The issue has nothing at all to do with corporations as people. It has to do with whether the state may broadly limit the speech of certain people.
 
christiefan915 said:
Yes, and those you named all have specific agendas to further their interests.

What specific agenda does a corporation have, besides not wanting any roadblocks to making money?
Click to expand...

What other agenda does it need for the people associated with it to have freedom of speech? I don't really understand your point, are you saying that our freedom of speech is determined by what our agendas are, and only agendas YOU agree with, or think are appropriate, can qualify for the freedom?
 
christiefan915 said:
Yes, and those you named all have specific agendas to further their interests.

What specific agenda does a corporation have, besides not wanting any roadblocks to making money?
Click to expand...

So? Financial concerns are a factor in politics with or without corporations. Financial concerns are not unique to corporations.

Much of what the AARP advocates is related to the financial concerns of its members. Should the AARP be banned from arguing for government benefits for its members?
 
christiefan915 said:
Yes, and those you named all have specific agendas to further their interests.

What specific agenda does a corporation have, besides not wanting any roadblocks to making money?
Click to expand...

Couldn't the same be said for really any other group? If you insert unions instead of corporations into your statement would the meaning change at all?

Every group is looking out for their best interest.
 
RStringfield said:
A corporation is not a person. It is an association of people not in anyway different (for first amendments considerations) than any other association of people.

Really ? Just you until TCMoron sees this and sets you straight...:lol:


The left is being completely dishonest on this subject and trying to confuse the public. The issue has nothing at all to do with corporations as people. It has to do with whether the state may broadly limit the speech of certain people.
Click to expand...
.
 
The massive funds needed to pay for constant "campaigns" must come from somewhere, do they not?

What do you believe the source of such finance could be?

Who lends the billions that create your illusion of a 'two-party' poltical system?

I am very amused.
 
Ask yourself how it could be realistic that USA individuals would provide billions in 'campaign finance'.

Your people are notoriously resistant to taxation and fee-paying of all sorts yet you serenely accept that your mammoth elections funds come from 'private donations'?
 
Dixie said:
What other agenda does it need for the people associated with it to have freedom of speech? I don't really understand your point, are you saying that our freedom of speech is determined by what our agendas are, and only agendas YOU agree with, or think are appropriate, can qualify for the freedom?
Click to expand...

"The Supreme Court on Thursday opened wide new avenues for big-moneyed interests to pour money into politics in a decision that could have a major influence on the 2010 midterm elections and President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

The long-awaited 5-4 decision overruled all or parts of two prior rulings by the court that allowed governments to restrict corporations and unions from spending their general funds on ads expressly urging a candidate’s election or defeat. But the decision upheld disclosure requirements for groups like the one that brought the case.

The decision, handed down in a special session of the court, is generally expected to boost Republicans more than Democrats, because corporations and corporate-backed outside groups tend to align with conservatives and also often have access to more money than unions or liberal outside groups

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31786.html#ixzz0e7eVCFm0

What planet are you on Dixie?
 
What planet are you on Dixie?
Click to expand...

What planet are you on Crashtestdummy?

I asked a goddamn question, can't you give me an answer?

Does our freedom of speech only apply to the specific groups who's agendas you agree with? Does the Constitution allow Congress to pass laws restricting free speech for people it disagrees with politically? Can we really have a system of fairness which discriminates against a particular group because you don't approve of their agenda?
 
Here's what the U.S. really needs to do:

"Most Americans don’t know it but Thomas Jefferson, along with James Madison worked assiduously to have an 11th Amendment included into our nation’s original Bill of Rights. This proposed Amendment would have prohibited “monopolies in commerce.” The amendment would have made it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, or to give money to politicians, or to otherwise try to influence elections. Corporations would be chartered by the states for the primary purpose of “serving the public good.” Corporations would possess the legal status not of natural persons but rather of “artificial persons.” This means that they would have only those legal attributes which the state saw fit to grant to them. They would NOT; and indeed could NOT possess the same bundle of rights which actual flesh and blood persons enjoy. Under this proposed amendment neither the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, nor any provision of that document would protect the artificial entities known of as corporations.

Jefferson and Madison were so insistent upon this amendment because the American Revolution was in substantial degree a revolt against the domination of colonial economic and political life by the greatest multinational corporation of its age: the British East India Company. After all who do you think owned the tea which Sam Adams and friends dumped overboard in Boston Harbor? Who was responsible for the taxes on commodities and restrictions on trade by the American colonists? It was the British East India Company, of course. In the end the amendment was not adopted because a majority in the first Congress believed that already existing state laws governing corporations were adequate for constraining corporate power. Jefferson worried about the growing influence of corporate power until his dying day in 1826. Even the more conservative founder John Adams came to harbor deep misgivings about unchecked corporate power...

Please read the rest here
http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000205.htm
 
Dixie said:
What other agenda does it need for the people associated with it to have freedom of speech? I don't really understand your point, are you saying that our freedom of speech is determined by what our agendas are, and only agendas YOU agree with, or think are appropriate, can qualify for the freedom?
Click to expand...

Okay, hypothetical. Domino's Pizza was founded by an anti-abortion Catholic. Let's say Mr. Monaghan in the name of Domino's wants to donate to Republican candidates who are anti-abortion. (If that's not how it would work, please correct.) What about all the Domino's employees and management who don't think the same as Monaghan and don't want corporate money to go to those people?

The individuals who make up corporations already have freedom of speech. They can use their money to support anything they want. Why does a corporation, which is not a person, get what amounts to more rights?
 
Your assumption that a corporation is a person is false and monied interests should not have the right to influence our political process for their own personal/corporate gain.

The backlash over this ruling is just beginning. We'll see how the battle turns our down the road. But I consider this decision a death blow to our democratic republic and hello fascism.
 
RStringfield said:
So? Financial concerns are a factor in politics with or without corporations. Financial concerns are not unique to corporations.

Much of what the AARP advocates is related to the financial concerns of its members. Should the AARP be banned from arguing for government benefits for its members?
Click to expand...

That's not my point. All of those groups are composed of people who are united in their agendas. You can't say the same for corporations because all of the people who make them up are not united in the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top