Were fucking owned

sounds like Nigel was cool all along as Unions could spend whatever, now corps MIGHT spend more and him and turbolibsareus.com are all up in arms.
 
Please elaborate on their other levers of influence.

If you think corporations that rely on profits to survive are just going to pump endless amounts of cash at politicians, I think you are wrong. Obviously there is no way to KNOW what will happen. This is just my opinion.


Well, first of all union members, unlike shareholders are an organized group of individuals. Shareholders are disparate persons all over the place that have no interaction with one another as shareholders. As a result, union members are much much easier to mobilize for a particular candidate, cause, etc. . . That matters, particularly for campaign and electoral purposes.

And I'm not suggesting that corporations will pump endless amounts of cash at politicians. I'm merely claiming that corporations have more cash resources than unions to pump at politicians. I don't think that is disputable.
 
sounds like Nigel was cool all along as Unions could spend whatever, now corps MIGHT spend more and him and turbolibsareus.com are all up in arms.


Prior to this opinion, unions and corporations were subject to the same restrictions. Unions couldn't spend whatever.
 
Well, first of all union members, unlike shareholders are an organized group of individuals. Shareholders are disparate persons all over the place that have no interaction with one another as shareholders. As a result, union members are much much easier to mobilize for a particular candidate, cause, etc. . . That matters, particularly for campaign and electoral purposes.

And I'm not suggesting that corporations will pump endless amounts of cash at politicians. I'm merely claiming that corporations have more cash resources than unions to pump at politicians. I don't think that is disputable.

you kinda contradict yourself, unions are easier to organize than shareholders.
Shareholders do have a common linked interest just like unions and being as they are harder to organize why wouldn't it be OK to spend more money to get the same influence.
 
Well, first of all union members, unlike shareholders are an organized group of individuals. Shareholders are disparate persons all over the place that have no interaction with one another as shareholders. As a result, union members are much much easier to mobilize for a particular candidate, cause, etc. . . That matters, particularly for campaign and electoral purposes.

And I'm not suggesting that corporations will pump endless amounts of cash at politicians. I'm merely claiming that corporations have more cash resources than unions to pump at politicians. I don't think that is disputable.

Ok... I agree with the first paragraph... valid point.

As for the second, I do agree they HAVE more cash... I agree that is not disputable. What IS disputable is whether they would pump all that extra cash towards politicians. As I stated, I doubt it... mainly because there is a limit to how much their bribes will return to them.
 
Well, first of all union members, unlike shareholders are an organized group of individuals. Shareholders are disparate persons all over the place that have no interaction with one another as shareholders. As a result, union members are much much easier to mobilize for a particular candidate, cause, etc. . . That matters, particularly for campaign and electoral purposes.

And I'm not suggesting that corporations will pump endless amounts of cash at politicians. I'm merely claiming that corporations have more cash resources than unions to pump at politicians. I don't think that is disputable.

For all practical purposes, unions force you into the union, take your money as dues, and spend it on the DNC....YOU have nothing to say about it...the only way out of it is to demand in writing that you don't want your portion of the dues to go the DNC...imagine the treatment you would endure form your coworkers after that request....
Its like the card check bullshit....imagine 5 goons coming to your work station in full view of your coworkers and you saying you won't sign the card....
you'd be fucked....
 
i don't recall evince or atheistmark complaining about obama's 600 million dollar campaign war chest....

if you support that, why not corps and unions?
 
Sure unions contribute to campaigns, after today multi-national corporations can contribute billions to campaigns. Are you trying to say American unions have as much money as big pharm, big oil and on and on? Please...

how about the value of the donated time.....manning phone banks, slashing tires, beating up little old ladies on the way to their polling station......
 
how about this, then....

Organization Total '89-'09 Dem % Repub % Tilt
1 AT&T Inc $44,027,485 44% 55%
2 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $41,751,311 98% 1%
3 National Assn of Realtors $35,438,725 48% 51%
4 Goldman Sachs $31,413,462 64% 35%
5 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $31,359,957 97% 2%
6 American Assn for Justice $31,319,029 90% 9%
7 National Education Assn $30,068,167 92% 6%
8 Laborers Union $28,814,400 92% 7%
9 Service Employees International Union $27,911,232 95% 3%
10 Carpenters & Joiners Union $27,769,683 89% 10%
11 Teamsters Union $27,684,624 92% 6%
12 Communications Workers of America $26,992,076 99% 0%
13 Citigroup Inc $26,983,588 50% 49%
14 American Federation of Teachers $26,282,491 98% 0%
15 American Medical Assn $26,280,223 39% 60%
16 United Auto Workers $25,767,002 98% 0%
17 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $25,105,777 98% 0%
18 National Auto Dealers Assn $24,253,708 31% 67%
19 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $24,088,333 98% 1%
20 United Parcel Service $24,064,929 36% 63%
21 Altria Group $23,888,416 27% 72%
22 American Bankers Assn $22,366,216 41% 58%
23 National Assn of Home Builders $21,821,655 36% 63%
24 EMILY's List $21,149,778 99% 0%
25 National Beer Wholesalers Assn $20,913,845 32% 67%
26 Time Warner $20,236,510 71% 28%
27 Microsoft Corp $19,943,896 53% 46%
28 JPMorgan Chase & Co $19,739,603 51% 48%
29 National Assn of Letter Carriers $19,399,034 88% 11%
30 Verizon Communications $18,597,952 40% 58%
31 Morgan Stanley $18,514,658 46% 53%
32 Lockheed Martin $18,289,877 42% 56%
33 AFL-CIO $18,121,572 95% 4%
34 FedEx Corp $17,940,916 40% 59%
35 General Electric $17,806,669 51% 48%
36 National Rifle Assn $17,300,136 17% 82%
37 Credit Union National Assn $17,170,864 48% 51%
38 Ernst & Young $17,072,536 44% 55%
39 Bank of America $17,034,888 47% 52%
40 Sheet Metal Workers Union $16,997,913 97% 2%
41 American Dental Assn $16,448,704 46% 53%
42 American Hospital Assn $16,408,480 53% 46%
43 Operating Engineers Union $16,332,550 85% 14%
44 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $16,226,518 40% 59%
45 Plumbers & Pipefitters Union $16,218,011 94% 5%
46 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $15,903,470 35% 64%
47 International Assn of Fire Fighters $15,862,643 82% 17%
48 Air Line Pilots Assn $15,626,027 84% 15%
49 PricewaterhouseCoopers $15,385,893 36% 62%
50 Natl Assn/Insurance & Financial Advisors $15,047,355 42% 56%
51 AFLAC Inc $14,811,769 44% 55%
52 Merrill Lynch $14,303,130 37% 61%
53 Union Pacific Corp $14,250,198 24% 75%
54 Boeing Co $14,002,607 47% 52%
55 United Transportation Union $13,592,695 88% 10%
56 United Steelworkers $13,557,751 99% 0%
57 Pfizer Inc $13,552,466 29% 69%
58 Reynolds American $13,344,777 24% 75%
59 Ironworkers Union $13,114,525 92% 7%
60 BellSouth Corp $12,993,782 45% 54%
61 American Institute of CPAs $12,879,721 42% 57%
62 Credit Suisse Group $12,415,040 44% 54%
63 American Postal Workers Union $12,000,826 95% 4%
64 National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn $11,941,321 52% 47%
65 General Dynamics $11,714,409 46% 52%
66 American Financial Group $11,444,075 18% 81%
67 GlaxoSmithKline $11,088,494 29% 70%
68 Walt Disney Co $10,939,699 67% 32%
69 Chevron $10,878,604 24% 75%
70 Exxon Mobil $10,636,923 14% 85%
71 Natl Active & Retired Fed Employees Assn $10,496,000 77% 22%
72 MBNA Corp $10,059,006 17% 82%
73 UST Inc $9,938,811 21% 78%
74 Human Rights Campaign $9,885,129 90% 9%
75 Freddie Mac $9,871,490 43% 56%
76 AIG $9,769,162 50% 49%
77 National Restaurant Assn $9,738,145 16% 83%
78 Southern Co $9,703,044 31% 68%
79 MetLife Inc $9,489,692 55% 44%
80 Prudential Financial $9,440,699 48% 51%
81 American Academy of Ophthalmology $9,321,538 52% 47%
82 National Cmte to Preserve Social Security & Medicare $9,213,499 80% 19%
83 Eli Lilly & Co $9,152,009 29% 70%
84 CSX Corp $9,036,529 31% 68%
85 Associated General Contractors $8,883,941 14% 85%
86 American Maritime Officers $8,855,221 46% 53%
87 Amway/Alticor Inc $8,763,001 0% 99%
88 National Cmte for an Effective Congress $8,707,940 99% 0%
89 General Motors $8,560,520 37% 62%
90 Archer Daniels Midland $8,304,114 43% 56%
91 Seafarers International Union $8,252,144 84% 14%
92 American Airlines $8,136,285 47% 52%
93 MCI Inc $8,093,472 46% 53%
94 American Council of Life Insurers $7,640,504 37% 62%
95 Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn $7,427,127 74% 25%
96 Bristol-Myers Squibb $7,263,612 21% 77%
97 Enron Corp $6,583,257 28% 71%
98 Andersen $6,253,477 37% 62%
99 BP $6,137,028 28% 70%
100 Vivendi $4,502,240 66% 32%
Based on data released by the FEC on December 06, 2009.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
 
its all bullshit....

Media Corporations, as in, MSNBC featuring Kieth Olbernman have free speech and air left wing propaganda on a nightly basis....so why not give the same freedom of speech to non media corporations.....
 
Doesn't seem to bother any of you that it was the legally correct ruling.

It definitely produces some unpleasant results, but it is the judiciary's job to interpret the law as it is written. They did that, and correctly in this case.

It is incumbent upon the legislature to enact such reforms as may be necessary. Your gripe should be with them. The Supreme Court was absolutely correct on this issue. If you don't like the way the laws are, press for a constitutional amendment to change it. Don't go griping about the Supreme Court just because they won't pretend a law is constitutional when it isn't. Change it.
 
Doesn't seem to bother any of you that it was the legally correct ruling.

It definitely produces some unpleasant results, but it is the judiciary's job to interpret the law as it is written. They did that, and correctly in this case.

It is incumbent upon the legislature to enact such reforms as may be necessary. Your gripe should be with them. The Supreme Court was absolutely correct on this issue. If you don't like the way the laws are, press for a constitutional amendment to change it. Don't go griping about the Supreme Court just because they won't pretend a law is constitutional when it isn't. Change it.

That's what I've been noticing. No qualms about the admitted 'bad law' of Roe v Wade, but lots of angst over a good constitutional ruling, which of course per constitution has the remedy available of 'making a new law.' LOL!
 
The framers of the Consititution didn't even know what a corporation is, much less have any idea that it would someday control the government.

Maybe that's why.
 
The framers of the Consititution didn't even know what a corporation is, much less have any idea that it would someday control the government.

Maybe that's why.

What are you talking about? Corporations existed then in an only slightly different form.

Plus you didn't address my argument. You are just whining about the state of affairs. Sure I would like better controls on all donations to political campaigns, but there is a proper way to do it and then there is an unconstitutional way to do it.

The point is that the SCOTUS can't wave a magic wand and change the law. That is not their job. There are rules, essential to the proper governance of our nation, that must be respected.
 
The framers of the Consititution didn't even know what a corporation is, much less have any idea that it would someday control the government.

Maybe that's why.

No, and I'm sure they didn't dream that desecration of the national flag would be considered free speech or I'm sure they had no idea that killing the unborn would be seen as a right to privacy, or that women would get the right to vote, etc....whats your point ?
 
No, and I'm sure they didn't dream that desecration of the national flag would be considered free speech or I'm sure they had no idea that killing the unborn would be seen as a right to privacy, or that women would get the right to vote, etc....whats your point ?

I've got this one, thanks. You can go home. You do more damage than good.
 
No, and I'm sure they didn't dream that desecration of the national flag would be considered free speech or I'm sure they had no idea that killing the unborn would be seen as a right to privacy, or that women would get the right to vote, etc....what your point ?

We can debate abortion, flag-burning as free speech or your apparent view that women shouldn't be allowed to vote on another thread.

This thread is about allowing corporations even MORE influence than they already had. Do you agree with that, or not?
 
What are you talking about? Corporations existed then in an only slightly different form.

Plus you didn't address my argument. You are just whining about the state of affairs. Sure I would like better controls on all donations to political campaigns, but there is a proper way to do it and then there is an unconstitutional way to do it.

The point is that the SCOTUS can't wave a magic wand and change the law. That is not their job. There are rules, essential to the proper governance of our nation, that must be respected.

They didn't understand or wouldn't have been able to see corporations in their current form, with their intimate involvement in government through money. It's kind of ridiculous to say that corporations existed then as though it's apples to apples.

And yeah - I guess I'm "whining." Honestly, I am not able to argue consitutional law, so I don't know whether what SCOTUS did is within the exact letter of the law or not (but it sure was a close vote). Frankly, I don't even care; a ruling like this, and the broader issue of corporate control over our government, undermines American ideals in a much more egregious & permanent way.

Sorry if that's melodramatic, but man, if you knew what goes on....
 
They didn't understand or wouldn't have been able to see corporations in their current form, with their intimate involvement in government through money. It's kind of ridiculous to say that corporations existed then as though it's apples to apples.

And yeah - I guess I'm "whining." Honestly, I am not able to argue consitutional law, so I don't know whether what SCOTUS did is within the exact letter of the law or not (but it sure was a close vote). Frankly, I don't even care; a ruling like this, and the broader issue of corporate control over our government, undermines American ideals in a much more egregious & permanent way.

Sorry if that's melodramatic, but man, if you knew what goes on....

Dutch East India Company was established in 1602
It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock.[1] It was also arguably the world's first megacorporation

....think the 'founding Fathers ever heard of it a hundred and 50 years later...?...Do you picture them as illiterate hicks or something ?
 
Back
Top