Poor America... Poor democracy...

[Humodour]

Yes, I know it's a big surprise, but we have free speech in this country.

 

Individuals do, corporations are not individuals. Make things equal and tax them like individuals perhaps? And why won't you let corporations run for office? Discrimination!

 

P.S.: I was deeply disgusted by this move when I first read about it, and still am.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Krezack

[Guard Dog]

Yes, I know it's a big surprise, but we have free speech in this country.

 

Individuals do, corporations are not individuals. Make things equal and tax them like individuals perhaps? And why won't you let corporations run for office? Discrimination!

The constitution makes no distinctions between companies and individuals on this matter.

[Humodour]

Yes, I know it's a big surprise, but we have free speech in this country.

 

Individuals do, corporations are not individuals. Make things equal and tax them like individuals perhaps? And why won't you let corporations run for office? Discrimination!

The constitution makes no distinctions between companies and individuals on this matter.

 

Oh, go on!

[Wrath of Dagon]

OK, first of all, this ruling does not mean that corporations can give unlimited money to candidates. What it does mean is that they themselves can run ads on any subject, including supporting or opposing a candidate. They can not coordinate with a campaign either, so theoretically they could do more harm than good. Under McCain-Feingold, perfectly legitimate organizations like the NRA or NARAL couldn't run adds 60 days before the election for or against a candidate, in other words you have the right of free speech, except when it actually matters. Also McCain-Feingold did nothing to decrease the influence of special interests, if anything it increased it, since the harder it is to collect money, the more influence the lobbyists have, and their influence has only been increasing in spite and because all of the laws.

[Enoch]

There seems to be some confusion about what this decision does and doesn't do. A handy chart from the WSJ:

 

 

 

@GD, I'm not nearly enough of a salesman to run for anything. I do occasionally get an opportunity to comment on legislation, but it is in a limited sense, usually for technical reasons rather than overall policy. It is also the general rule that careers in Washington generally go on one of 3 paths: partisan on the Left, partisan on the Right, or non-partisan. I've started out on the third path, which I like, but it means that a future job as an elected or appointed official is a lot less likely. (Actually, under the Hatch Act, I am prohibited from lots of political activity if I want to keep my job.)

Edited January 24, 2010 by Enoch

[Aram]

if I could get you guys to dial down the Marx for just a moment.

shut the **** up

[Guard Dog]

if I could get you guys to dial down the Marx for just a moment.

shut the **** up

Don't like sarcasm?

[lord of flies]

Relevant to this topic:

Much like the democracy of ancient Greece, U.S.

[Aram]

if I could get you guys to dial down the Marx for just a moment.

shut the **** up

Don't like sarcasm?

I was being sarcastic.

[Volourn]

" Make things equal and tax them like individuals perhaps? "

 

 

Companies do get taxed. And, they more often than not pay more taxes than your typical individual.

 

Like I sasid, companies have to follow the country'sm laws, have to pay taxes, so they should have the right to have their say.

 

Again, bribery and the like is still illegal so if they try to bribe to get their way, punish them still.

[ramza]

Those that support this court decision underestimate the power of lobbies on national policies, be it in the US, in Europe or anywhere else in the world.

There should be limits as to how much a political party can receive funds from a private company or an individual person for the electoral campaign or anything else.

 

The main problem with today's politicians is that most of the time they represent corporate interests rather than the interests of the people that voted for them. I have witnessed the power of lobbies with my own eyes when I worked some time ago for the European Commission. I was appalled...

 

And I believe freedom of speech was just an excuse. This has nothing to do with the presented case...

[Guard Dog]

Those that support this court decision underestimate the power of lobbies on national policies, be it in the US, in Europe or anywhere else in the world.

There should be limits as to how much a political party can receive funds from a private company or an individual person for the electoral campaign or anything else.

 

The main problem with today's politicians is that most of the time they represent corporate interests rather than the interests of the people that voted for them. I have witnessed the power of lobbies with my own eyes when I worked some time ago for the European Commission. I was appalled...

 

And I believe freedom of speech was just an excuse. This has nothing to do with the presented case...

Ramza, political parties receiving money from lobbyists has nothing what-so-ever to do with this ruling, or the case. It was not even part of the discussion. There ARE limits on how much money any group can donate to any campaign and requirements for candidates to disclose where they get donations from.

 

This ruling is all about a private group called Citizens United that made a movie, using their own money, distributed with their own money, not done in coordination with any one else, politician or otherwise. The movie painted Hillary Clinton in an unfavorble way and called on voters to not support her. It did not advocate anyone else. The FEC banned their movie and prevented them from showing it. This was the power granted to it by McCain Feingold. Had they been a Union, or PAC, they could have done it. But private citizens were not allowed to express political opinions in this way under MC/Fe. The SCOTUS determined that it was unconstitutional for one group to be allowed to express themselves but not another. Now it is true this ruling allows anyone with the money and desire to run an ad advocating a candidate or issue to do so, including corporations, it DOES NOT put one penny in any candidates pocket.

 

Frankly, I am a little surprised everyone is so worked up about this. I thought freedom was good. This is not some landmark ruling that shook the foundations of the country. It just removed one part of a fairly recent law that limited the ability of private citizens and anyone else to run their own issue ads.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Those that support this court decision underestimate the power of lobbies on national policies, be it in the US, in Europe or anywhere else in the world.

There should be limits as to how much a political party can receive funds from a private company or an individual person for the electoral campaign or anything else.

 

The main problem with today's politicians is that most of the time they represent corporate interests rather than the interests of the people that voted for them. I have witnessed the power of lobbies with my own eyes when I worked some time ago for the European Commission. I was appalled...

 

And I believe freedom of speech was just an excuse. This has nothing to do with the presented case...

I agree, but nothing done in the US so far has fixed the problem in the least, it only keeps gettting worse. And freedom of speech is not an excuse, it's a fundamental right. As an individual you can speak till you're blue in the face, no one will listen to you. The only way to make yourself heard is organize with other like minded individuals and make the politicians pay attention to you. This is what this ruling is about.

[Guard Dog]

*Edit* Never mind. I said some unkind things about some of you in this posts original text. But it was just the whisky talking (or typing).

Edited January 25, 2010 by Guard Dog

[lord of flies]

I agree, but nothing done in the US so far has fixed the problem in the least, it only keeps gettting worse. And freedom of speech is not an excuse, it's a fundamental right. As an individual you can speak till you're blue in the face, no one will listen to you. The only way to make yourself heard is organize with other like minded individuals and make the politicians pay attention to you. This is what this ruling is about.

Corporations aren't "organizations" of "like minded individuals." They're mechanistic, economic entities which exist to enrich the rich and serve their interests. A political organization and a corporation are two wildly different things.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Political organizations in the US are also corporations. What you're talking about are "Evil Corporations". A corporation is not an economic entity btw, it's a legal entity, it could very well be a non-profit, or even, heaven forbid, leftist!

[lord of flies]

Political organizations in the US are also corporations. What you're talking about are "Evil Corporations". A corporation is not an economic entity btw, it's a legal entity, it could very well be a non-profit, or even, heaven forbid, leftist!

This ruling regards for-profit corporations, don't change the subject.

[Killian Kalthorne]

This ruling regards for-profit corporations, don't change the subject.

 

This ruling regards both types of corporations.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Political organizations in the US are also corporations. What you're talking about are "Evil Corporations". A corporation is not an economic entity btw, it's a legal entity, it could very well be a non-profit, or even, heaven forbid, leftist!

This ruling regards for-profit corporations, don't change the subject.

What are you doing on an evil corporation's forum anyway? I may have to report you to the Commissariat comrade.

[Niten_Ryu]

I love this. It's like watching Brezhnev era Soviet Union. You know that system is going full speed ahead towards the wall but can't do nothing about it. Well, I hope that good citizens of the US have same interests as the big bank executives or corporation leadership because your paying their yatchs, hookers and blow

[ramza]

Those that support this court decision underestimate the power of lobbies on national policies, be it in the US, in Europe or anywhere else in the world.

There should be limits as to how much a political party can receive funds from a private company or an individual person for the electoral campaign or anything else.

 

The main problem with today's politicians is that most of the time they represent corporate interests rather than the interests of the people that voted for them. I have witnessed the power of lobbies with my own eyes when I worked some time ago for the European Commission. I was appalled...

 

And I believe freedom of speech was just an excuse. This has nothing to do with the presented case...

Ramza, political parties receiving money from lobbyists has nothing what-so-ever to do with this ruling, or the case. It was not even part of the discussion. There ARE limits on how much money any group can donate to any campaign and requirements for candidates to disclose where they get donations from.

 

This ruling is all about a private group called Citizens United that made a movie, using their own money, distributed with their own money, not done in coordination with any one else, politician or otherwise. The movie painted Hillary Clinton in an unfavorble way and called on voters to not support her. It did not advocate anyone else. The FEC banned their movie and prevented them from showing it. This was the power granted to it by McCain Feingold. Had they been a Union, or PAC, they could have done it. But private citizens were not allowed to express political opinions in this way under MC/Fe. The SCOTUS determined that it was unconstitutional for one group to be allowed to express themselves but not another. Now it is true this ruling allows anyone with the money and desire to run an ad advocating a candidate or issue to do so, including corporations, it DOES NOT put one penny in any candidates pocket.

 

Frankly, I am a little surprised everyone is so worked up about this. I thought freedom was good. This is not some landmark ruling that shook the foundations of the country. It just removed one part of a fairly recent law that limited the ability of private citizens and anyone else to run their own issue ads.

 

Thanks for the clarification!

Nonetheless, I have never seen in Europe a private group making ads in favor/in disfavor of a specific political party.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, yes but there should be some limits to it. Just as in Europe and in the US, the major limitation is justified by the preservation of public order. In a sense, individual groups making pro/con ads for specific parties does create some degree of disturbance in the public order. Then, some day, the big corporations will fund tv spots in favor of the candidate who will be the most lenient with them.

 

You may create documentaries and tv programs against a specific party, yes. I haven't seen the movie that was the object of this court decision, but I believe it should be a privilege of political parties to make promotional ads (on tv at least). In Europe there are very specific rules about how those electoral ads can be broadcasted: they have a limited time (no more than a couple of minutes), they can be shown only at specific times and one after another, etc.

[Walsingham]

I'd have to take the pragmatic view that special interests will always find ways to make their presence felt. If I were working for them, and the govt banned advertising I'd simply spend the budget on 'treating' the constituents of our supporters. A few children's playgrounds, a clinic, facilitated by the senator/councilman and on the evening news. Lovely. If that's too obvious what about a factory?

[Enoch]

I'd have to take the pragmatic view that special interests will always find ways to make their presence felt. If I were working for them, and the govt banned advertising I'd simply spend the budget on 'treating' the constituents of our supporters. A few children's playgrounds, a clinic, facilitated by the senator/councilman and on the evening news. Lovely. If that's too obvious what about a factory?

This happens too, particularly with defense contractors. Major systems production (like, say, the Joint Strike Fighter) is deliberately planned out so that parts of the product are produced in the maximum number of states and congressional districts, so that they know they'll have the largest possible contingent of Congresspeople fighting against any cuts to the program. It makes the prices they can offer less competitive, but there isn't a whole lot of competition for many of the really really complex contracts, so budget cuts present a greater threat than losing the contract to a rival firm.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, yes but there should be some limits to it. Just as in Europe and in the US, the major limitation is justified by the preservation of public order. In a sense, individual groups making pro/con ads for specific parties does create some degree of disturbance in the public order.

The only limits to political speech the Supreme Court has recognized is when there's an immediate incitement to violence/injury. Such as you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Thank God this isn't Europe yet.

[Junai]

"buy elections."

 

As in bribing voters or pollsters to rig results? That's already illegal so jail them.

 

The IRS is illegal too. Try and jail'em.

The entire internal revenue code is illegal.

 

J.