Citizens United v. FEC

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

It is a great ruling, and about time.
Let corporations or other groups make their case directly to the people if they want. I would prefer that corporations try to sell the public than buying off congressman with lavish trips and sweetheart deals on this or that behind the scenes. I think this ruling takes a bit of power from congress and will make it easier to take out incumbents.

It might not be pretty, but I'm all for opening things up. As long as the names of the corporations appear clearly on the ads, they shouldn't be able to hide behind some phony name thats just a front and disguises the real funder.

I just assumed that in our Idiocracy future, elections and politicians will resemble Nascar racing events. They will have corporate sponsors, wear the logos, etc. Acceptance speeches will begin with "I'd like to thank the entire Tide-CocaCola team that did such a wonderful job getting out the vote.."
okay only joking about that but I wouldn't bet against it.

i don't think you're going to see corporate names on the ads. more likely you'll see money funneled through the chamber of commerce or similar organizations.

they already filter the limited pac money through made up names like "americans for a strong economy" instead of "big coal company". why would they treat unlimited corporate cash differently?

[hi_im_god]

here's why i think advocates of an innovative free market should be concerned:

what do large corporations want from washington?

subsidies and regulatory blocks to competition.

they don't want innovation unless they own it. they want to crush small companies with good idea's that might harm their market position.

and guess what? small innovative businesses aren't going to have the money to spend on campaign ad's that their gigantic competitors do.

the idea that all any business wants is an unfettered free market is naive. monopolies maximize profits. it's in their self interest to drive competitors out by any means necessary.

i'm not all that worried about a partisan divide because the bottom line is that corporations will want to sell to me, riot, jim, and cannon. they won't want a "republican" or "democrat" label attached.

but they've just been handed a nuke to use in addition to the heavy artillery they already had while the rest of us get knives.

they won't have to take out the sponsor of a bill they don't like. they'll just need to take out 1 or 2 supporters and then tell the others, "look, we really like you but we're willing to spend anything needed".

because now they can.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

This is why you don't elect Republicans. There is a steep price to pay for it. It's not some silly game with ex baseball players n' pick up trucks. It's about real consequences. You had to elect Bush back in 2004. This is the price we all have to pay. No, Democrats wouldn't do this crap. There is a difference, n' this crap can be partly blamed on Independents being so stupid as to think there's no difference between these parties(bullshit.) Look how the justices nominated by the Republicans voted on this. If you voted for them, you deserve this crap. It is crap. Total crap.

[Danzig]

it's got nothing to do with party, and everything to do with free speech. it's not perfect-much as we'd like the world to be so, it's not. our rights have always had people who have abused them. but to say corporations have no rights to speak their mind is an incorrect assumption. the constitution is there for everyone, not just those with a popular point of view.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's got nothing to do with party, and everything to do with free speech. it's not perfect-much as we'd like the world to be so, it's not. our rights have always had people who have abused them. but to say corporations have no rights to speak their mind is an incorrect assumption. the constitution is there for everyone, not just those with a popular point of view.

no one said corporations had no right to speak their mind. they've been active participants in our democracy through lobbying and pac's.

and it isn't as if they've been muzzled. the fact is the influence of large corporations on legislation already far outweighed any other countervailing force. and now that balance is going to tip even farther.

it won't be restricted to legislation. in all likelihood, any limits states have placed on campaign finance is also unconstitutional under this ruling. which means judicial races will be subject to the same corporate influence that already permeates the rest of our elected bodies.

my basic disagreement is with a view that corporations are somehow underrepresented in our current system. if you think otherwise, i'm not sure how i'd convince you of something that i think is self evident.

[Danzig]

I have no opinion on whether anyone is over or under represented. All I'm basically saying is that I understand why the court ruled as it did.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I have no opinion on whether anyone is over or under represented. All I'm basically saying is that I understand why the court ruled as it did.

That's why you should make the leap, and join that Republican mess. If you believe this garbage (you're #1 issue is already the right to have a personal gun shop) then I think your social issue concerns are dwarfed into being almost insignificant. You've shown your loyalty is with corporations. You can't deny that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

our rights have always had people who have abused them. but to say corporations have no rights to speak their mind is an incorrect assumption. the constitution is there for everyone, not just those with a popular point of view.

I'll take some counterpoint to the above comments.

First - the Supreme Court just abused the rights of voters everywhere, by placing non-voting corporate entities in a position greater than us - individual voters - to influence elections.

Secondly - Corporations are not "people", or "voters". They do not go in a voting booth. They are corporate entities, that can be wholly foreign-owned.

Third - corporations have always had a voice in elections, they just have had to do it through political action committees (PACS) that were open to scrutiny, and had financial limitations and transparency.

That was just eliminated.

This hasn't been addressed in the news (as the vote coming up), because nobody, NOBODY, though the Supreme Court would rule in this manner. It's completely in opposition to the way every previous Supreme Court has viewed and voted upon these issues. It is indeed "judicial activism", to overturn 100 years of Supreme Court decisions.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's got nothing to do with party, and everything to do with free speech. it's not perfect-much as we'd like the world to be so, it's not. our rights have always had people who have abused them. but to say corporations have no rights to speak their mind is an incorrect assumption. the constitution is there for everyone, not just those with a popular point of view.

A corporation isn't a citizen. Spare me the bullsht n' go kill something warm.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

This is why you don't elect Republicans. There is a steep price to pay for it.

This is a totally weird ruling, considering what it's overturned and ignored (the past 100 years of previous judicial interpretation) - and that wasn't even asked for or addressed in lower rulings!

It's a weird ruling coming from the "conservative" side of the Justices, too, as it is far from "conservative" - it is completely opposite to, unsupports and undermines, the simplicity and power of the single voter in our electoral system.

The "tea party patriot" movement has to be going completely ballistic.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

The "tea party patriot" movement has to be going completely ballistic.

Quite the opposite as they aren't afraid of capitalism or freedom of speach!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Quite the opposite as they aren't afraid of capitalism or freedom of speach!

This has nothing at all to do with "capitalism" ??? How so?

Corporations are not voters or individuals. They have always had "freedom of speech" as corporate entities to support candidates of their choice financially and in the press, with ads, etc.

I think the "Tea Baggers" are not understanding what just happened here, if they are supporting this.

Are they not against big government, government involvement and interference, corporate control of government, and for the rights of the individual above all else?

This ruling is completely opposite to that

[dellinger63]

Teabaggers aren't afraid of Wall Street banks, oil companies, health insurers etc. etc. they are afraid of government controls and violations of freedom of speach whether it be individuals or 'evil' corporations.

Corporations, incidently owned by most anyone with a stock fund or retirement account. The fact that Obama so strongly opposes the ruling and which Justices ruled for it should have been a huge clue on how the patriots feel.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think the "Tea Baggers" are not understanding what just happened here, if they are supporting this.

Are they not against big government, government involvement and interference, corporate control of government, and for the rights of the individual above all else?

This ruling is completely opposite to that

I'm afraid once again its you who doesn't understand. my tea party group sent out a bulletin within the hour after the ruling came down, rejoicing.

big government got smacked down by the court. no longer will they be able to control this fundamental expression of political speech. a right this country was founded on.

tea party people don't demonize corporations, we don't fear corporations or other groups that might have a message. we do fear big government however.