Conervatives in the Supreme Court just Loosened Rules on Corporate Campagn Contibutions... (Limbaugh, Putin)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the individuals/shareholders within those corporations don't have the ability to state how they feel about legislation effecting their industry? The corporation has to do it for them?
They can already voluntarily donate to a corporate PAC if they want to, there is nothing preventing that.
All this decision really does is shift (more) power from workers/shareholders to the management within that corporation/union/whatever.
The corporation doesn't speak for the individuals. The corporation speaks for itself, as an entity that gets affected by legislation. The employees and shareholders have the ability and the opportunity to speak individually, but their views might be different from the corporations. Is that a bad thing? Do we logically think that the coal industry is speaking for every coal miner and employee, or do we think that the coal industry is speaking for the coal industry? Do we think the dairy council speaks for the dairy industry, or for every dairy farmer individually? We know there is a dichotomy. But does that mean that when the coal industry puts together a movie about how far we've progressed in making coal energy clean energy, that they shouldn't distrbute that movie? After all, that information is propaganda, and the Green candidate disputes it. Distribution of that movie could hurt the Green candidate. On the other hand, stopping distribution of the movie is censorship, censorship that benefits the Green candidate. Should the government be censoring information to the benefit of a candidate? Is censorship something we want? Because, bottom line, that is what we are talking about. Censoring information by source. That's what we do when we burn books. We censor information by source. Is that what we want?
I'm all for holding corporations responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information/propaganda they disseminate in order to influence the political process. But I'm cautious about censorship. And I think the Supreme Court justices were arguing that it's not the government's job to protect Americans from their own laziness. Americans have the skills and can access reports, research, data to make their own assessments. They just don't have the energy it seems to find out for themselves.
But once we start censoring sources of information, where does it stop? Today we censor General Electric and General Mills and Citibank. Tomorrow are we going to censor Fox News? They're a corporation. They work to influence politics. They use propaganda. MSNBC? New York Times? Unions? They are all about influencing politics and have very deep pockets. What's the criteria we are using for limits here? How much money a corporation has? How popular it is? We all know that even non-profits have management staffs that sometimes earn a lot of money? And those non-profits are spending donations to influence politics? Is it okay for MADD to donate money to a candidate, but not okay for Target? Why?
The Supreme Court didn't throw out McCain-Feingold. They just ruled that certain provisions are Unconstitutional. There are still limits. But it seems like a lot of people are very pro-censorship.
So the individuals/shareholders within those corporations don't have the ability to state how they feel about legislation effecting their industry? The corporation has to do it for them?
They can already voluntarily donate to a corporate PAC if they want to, there is nothing preventing that.
All this decision really does is shift (more) power from workers/shareholders to the management within that corporation/union/whatever.
That is my "take" on it. . . .others seem to see it differently
The Supreme Court didn't throw out McCain-Feingold. They just ruled that certain provisions are Unconstitutional. There are still limits. But it seems like a lot of people are very pro-censorship.
Nice jab. I'm for the power of the individual over large power structures, while you're a flaming corporatist. We can both play that game, but no one wins and it's not very fun
All I can say is that in the next decade we're going to in all probability see a lot of challenges to this decision in particular because it raises a whole slew of dubious questions the court didn't really bother to answer when they made their decision.
Fundamentally I have a feeling that "Money = Free Speech" (if you're a corporation) is definitely going to get challenged at some point.
So you may call it censorship, I will disagree with that and state a corporation has a certain set of goals which sometimes fit within the goals of the rest of society, and sometimes they don't. We grant corporations certain rights that individuals do not get and vice versa.
I mean the entire argument is that "a corporation receives the right to free speech". Well, there are a couple issues here:
1. Free speech is restricted in some cases for individuals. I can't talk about bombs on an airplane because it puts other people at risk. Why is it okay for it to be completely unrestricted in the case of a corporation?
2. Corporations have various rights individuals do not have and vice versa. Stating that every corporation requires the right to free speech is a weak argument. Corporations can not vote. Individuals receive various forms of protection while operating under a corporation that they would not have when operating as an individual. If we're saying "it's all the same" then these rights should apply to both corporations and individuals.
3. Foreign contributions (from either a foreign company or a company with foreign shareholders). These were not legal before and I have no idea how this would be handled now. The SC doesn't either since that seems to be absent from their ruling.
4. Finally, Money = Free Speech (but only for a corporation apparently) brings up a pretty broad series of issues that haven't been challenged. Can money I spend on an advertisement be taxed? How far does "free speech" go in this case. If my company buys products for political reasons, I guess that would be free speech and completely nontaxable. Why is this okay for a corporation, but not for an individual? As a note this brings up even MORE questions because more money would (in a legal sense) signify MORE free speech. No idea how that would translate in constitutional terms.
I mean if you want to argue broad platitudes it's fine, but there are a pretty serious set of questions that are cracked open. Given the court's complete inconsistency in handling issues like this with regards to corporations we'll just have to wait and see what happens. 2010 election will be an interesting test case.
And clearly it's not a clear cut decision, 4 members of the court seemed to disagree. So the "supreme court ruled", isn't a very fair statement. The Supreme Court ruled in a narrow fashion is more accurate.
The corporation doesn't speak for the individuals. The corporation speaks for itself, as an entity that gets affected by legislation. The employees and shareholders have the ability and the opportunity to speak individually, but their views might be different from the corporations. Is that a bad thing? Do we logically think that the coal industry is speaking for every coal miner and employee, or do we think that the coal industry is speaking for the coal industry? Do we think the dairy council speaks for the dairy industry, or for every dairy farmer individually? We know there is a dichotomy. But does that mean that when the coal industry puts together a movie about how far we've progressed in making coal energy clean energy, that they shouldn't distrbute that movie? After all, that information is propaganda, and the Green candidate disputes it. Distribution of that movie could hurt the Green candidate. On the other hand, stopping distribution of the movie is censorship, censorship that benefits the Green candidate. Should the government be censoring information to the benefit of a candidate? Is censorship something we want? Because, bottom line, that is what we are talking about. Censoring information by source. That's what we do when we burn books. We censor information by source. Is that what we want?
I'm all for holding corporations responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information/propaganda they disseminate in order to influence the political process. But I'm cautious about censorship. And I think the Supreme Court justices were arguing that it's not the government's job to protect Americans from their own laziness. Americans have the skills and can access reports, research, data to make their own assessments. They just don't have the energy it seems to find out for themselves.
But once we start censoring sources of information, where does it stop? Today we censor General Electric and General Mills and Citibank. Tomorrow are we going to censor Fox News? They're a corporation. They work to influence politics. They use propaganda. MSNBC? New York Times? Unions? They are all about influencing politics and have very deep pockets. What's the criteria we are using for limits here? How much money a corporation has? How popular it is? We all know that even non-profits have management staffs that sometimes earn a lot of money? And those non-profits are spending donations to influence politics? Is it okay for MADD to donate money to a candidate, but not okay for Target? Why?
The Supreme Court didn't throw out McCain-Feingold. They just ruled that certain provisions are Unconstitutional. There are still limits. But it seems like a lot of people are very pro-censorship.
D.C. I certainly do not attribute to "lazyness" a citizens inability to sort through hundreds of conflicting claims, and do the reasearch to determine what is truth and what is not. . . most, even if they have the time to do that, do not have the access to inside information needed. Just from a "time" perspective, let's say I'm a 41 year old mother of 3 children with a full time job. . . .do you suggest that I learn to get along without sleep, in order to be able to vote intelligently? I'm pretty certain, from your posts, that is not the case. As citizens, we deserve both comprehensive and accurate information on which to make these decisions, and we most certainly will not get it from any special interest, no matter if that is a Union or a multi-million dollar corporation.
Once again, you pivot and tip toe around directly addressing the issues I put forth before. It almost feels like we're doing a routine from So You Think You Can Dance!
D.C. I certainly do not attribute to "lazyness" a citizens inability to sort through hundreds of conflicting claims, and do the reasearch to determine what is truth and what is not. . . most, even if they have the time to do that, do not have the access to inside information needed. Just from a "time" perspective, let's say I'm a 41 year old mother of 3 children with a full time job. . . .do you suggest that I learn to get along without sleep, in order to be able to vote intelligently? I'm pretty certain, from your posts, that is not the case. As citizens, we deserve both comprehensive and accurate information on which to make these decisions, and we most certainly will not get it from any special interest, no matter if that is a Union or a multi-million dollar corporation.
Despite the accusations of some on this thread, I'm not a corporatist. I'm a liberal. And as a liberal, I find censorship to be something I don't like to be employed. Some voters certainly are lazy. Other voters aren't lazy, but they choose information sources which I think lack credibility. I'm sure they would say the information sources I prefer lack credibility. But part of who we are, our personal political identities, is based on the information sources we select. It worries me that some people are so willing to muzzle information sources, because that's censorship.
As I stated earlier, I think all the information sources we use should be held to a higher standard, both in imparting accurate information as well as imparting complete information. It would make it a lot easier for that 41-year old mother of three to be provided with dependable information.
But even if I distrust the information from a special interest, do I want the government preventing that information from being available? No, I'm not sure the government is the right party to censor what information is available to me. And I'm not a conspiracist or someone who doesn't trust the government. I would just prefer to uphold the First Amendment, no matter what.
Despite the accusations of some on this thread, I'm not a corporatist. I'm a liberal. And as a liberal, I find censorship to be something I don't like to be employed. Some voters certainly are lazy. Other voters aren't lazy, but they choose information sources which I think lack credibility. I'm sure they would say the information sources I prefer lack credibility. But part of who we are, our personal political identities, is based on the information sources we select. It worries me that some people are so willing to muzzle information sources, because that's censorship.
As I stated earlier, I think all the information sources we use should be held to a higher standard, both in imparting accurate information as well as imparting complete information. It would make it a lot easier for that 41-year old mother of three to be provided with dependable information.
But even if I distrust the information from a special interest, do I want the government preventing that information from being available? No, I'm not sure the government is the right party to censor what information is available to me. And I'm not a conspiracist or someone who doesn't trust the government. I would just prefer to uphold the First Amendment, no matter what.
Point taken, and you may even have started to convince me that you are right. I suppose I am still, at my age, enough of an idealist to want everybody to tell the truth all the time. . . .well even I know that isn't going to happen!
Once again, you pivot and tip toe around directly addressing the issues I put forth before. It almost feels like we're doing a routine from So You Think You Can Dance!
You put forth the idea of impeachment.
On what grounds?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
