Were fucking owned

This decision is correct. Paid corporate spokespeople have the right to free speech. So do actors in corporate commercials.

No corporation will be talking to you. They have no lips.

At least this can be used to defend the free speech of non affiliated indiviudals as well. The truth is cheap to produce.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
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.....
Click to expand...

if the court interpreted the constitution to deny corps 1st amendment protection, wouldn't this extend to any group or organization? such as political parties.

i also doubt the framers thought a presidential candidate could afford a half hour of prime time political ad about himself because he rejected public financing
 
Interesting article on the decision (though, pretty much how I read things yesterday):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34983042/ns/business-answer_desk/

Of note: “The large corporation will have an enormous new foothold in U.S. politics,” said Howard Rubenstein, a public relations executive who has advised numerous large corporations over the past five decades and opposes the ruling. “We shouldn’t have a 'For sale' sign on these elections.”

"It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

“Imagine if you’re running for office and you take a stand on a particular issue, say climate change. You would then face the prospect of seeing energy companies spending millions of dollars against you.”

Yay....
 
Onceler said:
Interesting article on the decision (though, pretty much how I read things yesterday):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34983042/ns/business-answer_desk/

Of note: “The large corporation will have an enormous new foothold in U.S. politics,” said Howard Rubenstein, a public relations executive who has advised numerous large corporations over the past five decades and opposes the ruling. “We shouldn’t have a 'For sale' sign on these elections.”

"It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

“Imagine if you’re running for office and you take a stand on a particular issue, say climate change. You would then face the prospect of seeing energy companies spending millions of dollars against you.”

Yay....
Click to expand...
Yeah, because otherwise they had to donate to 527s in order to do that...

I'm an advocate of open records showing who is paying for any political speech. With ABC/Disney/CBS or FOX/Murdoch it is clear, with a 527 you can call it "people for healthy citizens" and spend billions advocating death rays and tanks and nobody will ever know who donated...
 
Any one who runs that the corps see as costing them a fucking dime will not be able to raise enough money to last a month in an election now.

The cost for Republicans to run will be next to nothing.

The cost for a dem to run will be unsermountable.

We are going to have a permenant Republican majority.

It wont be too many years before even you rightys wont like this much, then it will too late for you too.
 
evince said:
Any one who runs that the corps see as costing them a fucking dime will not be able to raise enough money to last a month in an election now.

The cost for Republicans to run will be next to nothing.

The cost for a dem to run will be unsermountable.

We are going to have a permenant Republican majority.

It wont be too many years before even you rightys wont like this much, then it will too late for you too.
Click to expand...

you might have a scintilla of credibility had obama not raised the largest campaign war chest in history, estimated to be over 600 million dollars, you might have a point if obama didn't pay for a 1/2 hour of political ad for himself that mccain could not afford as mccain took public financing.....you would have a point if corporations donated heavily to republicans and not dems, however, that is not true they donate near equal....you would have a point if unions didn't heavily donate to dems and not repubs....

as you can see, your point is without merit
 
evince said:
Any one who runs that the corps see as costing them a fucking dime will not be able to raise enough money to last a month in an election now.

The cost for Republicans to run will be next to nothing.

The cost for a dem to run will be unsermountable.

We are going to have a permenant Republican majority.

It wont be too many years before even you rightys wont like this much, then it will too late for you too.
Click to expand...
Right, as evinced by all that money that McOldguy was able to spend. Sometimes you just ignore what really happens for your version of what you want to see. I think it makes you feel good to feel "better" than other people, but when it takes ignorance of reality in order to do that it is simply a form of insanity.

:rolleyes:
 
evince said:
Any one who runs that the corps see as costing them a fucking dime will not be able to raise enough money to last a month in an election now.

The cost for Republicans to run will be next to nothing.

The cost for a dem to run will be unsermountable.

We are going to have a permenant Republican majority.

It wont be too many years before even you rightys wont like this much, then it will too late for you too.
Click to expand...

The trend doesn't favor Republicans or Democrats. It favors corporations, and their influence over America...
 
Onceler said:
Interesting article on the decision (though, pretty much how I read things yesterday):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34983042/ns/business-answer_desk/

Of note: “The large corporation will have an enormous new foothold in U.S. politics,” said Howard Rubenstein, a public relations executive who has advised numerous large corporations over the past five decades and opposes the ruling. “We shouldn’t have a 'For sale' sign on these elections.”

"It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

“Imagine if you’re running for office and you take a stand on a particular issue, say climate change. You would then face the prospect of seeing energy companies spending millions of dollars against you.”

Yay....
Click to expand...

again, i believe free speech trumps this concern. a more informed populace makes for a more informed republic or democracy. you apparently believe people are sheeple....

and i have yet to see you make a stink about obama's half hour prime time political ad that he could afford and mccain couldn't....

btw, was my answer to your question sufficient, it seems to have left you speechless
 
Yurt said:
again, i believe free speech trumps this concern. a more informed populace makes for a more informed republic or democracy. you apparently believe people are sheeple....

and i have yet to see you make a stink about obama's half hour prime time political ad that he could afford and mccain couldn't....

btw, was my answer to your question sufficient, it seems to have left you speechless
Click to expand...

You still didn't answer the question; I have moved on.

Since you keep bringing it up, I find the money that Obama had at his disposal during '08 pretty disgusting. There will never be a viable 3rd party as long as the kind of spending we are seeing occurs.

You keep bringing up the "speech" thing. I take it you're one of those who sees money as speech? And you don't understand - at all - what kind of advertising we're about to see if you think it will lead to a "more informed populace."

Corporations spending more money on campaigns, and having more autonomy to do so, is not a good thing for America....
 
evince said:
Any one who runs that the corps see as costing them a fucking dime will not be able to raise enough money to last a month in an election now.

The cost for Republicans to run will be next to nothing.

The cost for a dem to run will be unsermountable.

We are going to have a permenant Republican majority.

It wont be too many years before even you rightys wont like this much, then it will too late for you too.
Click to expand...

In that case, when are you moving; because obviously you see no way to solve what you see as a problem, nor do you appear to be willing to even work towards changing what you see is a problem.
 
Onceler said:
You still didn't answer the question; I have moved on.

Since you keep bringing it up, I find the money that Obama had at his disposal during '08 pretty disgusting. There will never be a viable 3rd party as long as the kind of spending we are seeing occurs.

You keep bringing up the "speech" thing. I take it you're one of those who sees money as speech? And you don't understand - at all - what kind of advertising we're about to see if you think it will lead to a "more informed populace."

Corporations spending more money on campaigns, and having more autonomy to do so, is not a good thing for America....
Click to expand...

you know, your little lies are really boring....post 135....i took the time to answer you, but i guess it makes you feel better to lie, i think you are just incapable of responding because you lack the intelligence to debate or discuss what i wrote....

you haven't once complained about obama's 1/2 hour of prime political ad about himself....it appears you are hypocritical

if you want to deny speech to corps, then we need to also deny speech to any organization or group of people such as political parties....interestingly, the DNC states on their website they are a corporation, yet they are allowed to raise money for candidates and buy political ads....
 
Yurt said:
you might have a scintilla of credibility had obama not raised the largest campaign war chest in history, estimated to be over 600 million dollars, you might have a point if obama didn't pay for a 1/2 hour of political ad for himself that mccain could not afford as mccain took public financing.....you would have a point if corporations donated heavily to republicans and not dems, however, that is not true they donate near equal....you would have a point if unions didn't heavily donate to dems and not repubs....

as you can see, your point is without merit
Click to expand...


The corps can make the record levels that Obama was able to muster meaningless.

They would have just done a Movie on him like they did Hillary. They would define him in the publics mind BEFORE he was able to define himself.

I really dont think you understand what some corporate heads are going to be willing to do.
 
evince said:
The corps can make the record levels that Obama was able to muster meaningless.

They would have just done a Movie on him like they did Hillary. They would define him in the publics mind BEFORE he was able to define himself.

I really dont think you understand what some corporate heads are going to be willing to do.
Click to expand...

yet you have no problem with obama's half hour of prime time...he could have made a movie about himself with that money

yet you have no problem with ogs/corps like the DNC raising money and buying political ads....

either you are against all organizations or groups buying political speech or you're being hypocritical
 
Yurt said:
you know, your little lies are really boring....post 135....i took the time to answer you, but i guess it makes you feel better to lie, i think you are just incapable of responding because you lack the intelligence to debate or discuss what i wrote....

you haven't once complained about obama's 1/2 hour of prime political ad about himself....it appears you are hypocritical

if you want to deny speech to corps, then we need to also deny speech to any organization or group of people such as political parties....interestingly, the DNC states on their website they are a corporation, yet they are allowed to raise money for candidates and buy political ads....
Click to expand...

Damo answered for you; that's kind of what I was looking for. Some free thought.

I'm not a hypocrite; I said that I thought the amount Obama had in his campaign was disgusting, and I have said so in the past. I don't see the hypocrisy there, but I'm not the hypocrisy police, so...

I'm all for limiting campaign spending, in a big way. I think the DNC & RNC are somewhat different animals, because they are not outside parties; the DNC runs & advertises for the Democratic Party, and the RNC does the same for Republicans. But I'm open to anything that reduces spending & the influence of corporate/union/PAC money in campaigns.

You really have no problem with this ruling, or with corporations spending more & more money to influence elections, legislation & votes, as long as it's under the umbrella of "speech"?

Do you understand what's happening to America these days?
 
Damocles said:
Right, as evinced by all that money that McOldguy was able to spend. Sometimes you just ignore what really happens for your version of what you want to see. I think it makes you feel good to feel "better" than other people, but when it takes ignorance of reality in order to do that it is simply a form of insanity.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That was the old system and now this is the new one.

At first the Rs will be happy as hell with the results.

There is nothing representing the wishes of the left that can compare with the wealth of the Corporation.

They will be able to support any issue or candidate in such large numbers that what Obama was able to raise in a historic campaign will be too little too late.

my point of view will be in exile.
 
While I cannot agree that big money influence in politics is a good thing, I have to agree that the court decision was correct from a legal/constitutional aspect. It is not so much a matter of free speech as free press combined with equal application of law. To restrict the corporate ability to express political opinion would be a direct challenge to 1st Amendment guarantees of any media outlet which is owned and operated through a corporation.

However, with the existence of this board and others like it, liberal blog sites, conservative blog sites, etc. etc. etc., I do not believe this to be as much a threat to free politics as it would have been, say, 20 years ago. Of note is how MSM media stories have been openly criticized in the internet arena, with numerous examples of the blogs actually forcing MSM to withdraw and/or change the claims of some of their stories.

Thomas Jefferson stated quite unequivocally that the continued health of a free republic depends on an well educated and well informed electorate. If we want to combat the influence of big money in politics, we have the means and the tools in the internet. Unlike 20 years ago, it does not take a million dollars to reach millions of people - it just takes a (usually free) membership in a popular blog site.

But we, as a people, must have the will to educate ourselves and keep ourselves well informed - which is what TJ was talking about (as opposed to those who think it was justification for public education). That means taking responsibility, which IMO, is not an attribute of the average citizen. But then, perhaps in the arena of political rhetoric, the 3% rule of revolution can be applied. If 3% of the populace takes it upon themselves to actively participate in free information exchange to counter corporate political rhetoric, that's 9 million people from all political philosophies involved with fact checking and posting counter opinion. It's been successful in outing media lies before, there is no reason to think it cannot continue, or even accelerate its effect against the influence of big money interests.

When push comes to shove the corporations have the money to inundate the populace with their rhetoric; but in the end it is still the people that select the leadership of this country. It's a battle of information, and as long as we can keep government's mitts the hell out of the internet, we have a chance as we have never had before to combat the influence of big money.
 
Onceler said:
The trend doesn't favor Republicans or Democrats. It favors corporations, and their influence over America...
Click to expand...

I know that but for the near future it will be behind the Rs until it no longer even needs them.


I dont think they will just invent a party out of thin air to do their bidding.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top