Sign in to follow this  
dylan winter

NRA paymaster in Mueller/FBI probe and sanctions

Recommended Posts

this man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Torshin

who has been stuffing the coffers at the NRA - who have in turn  been stuffing the coffers of the Trump Party is now in the firing line

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/russia-sanctions-nra-trump-w518832

Alexander Torshin, the Russian government official Rolling Stone reports is central to a nearly decade-long influence campaign over the NRA, has been hit with sanctions by the United States Treasury Department. Torshin is a lifetime, voting member of the NRA, and the FBI is reportedly investigating whether he illegally funneled money through the organization with the intention to help the 2016 Trump campaign.

 

 

I was wondering how the redneck uber patriotic gun fondling second amendment at all costerss feel about this turn of events

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we need  use our .22's to defend our democracy and our freedom.

NRA will defend our rights to own assault weapons(.22's)

and

anyone who will help the NRA is our pal

- even if they are Russians seeking to undermine our democracy which guarantees our freedoms.

ysBwN1PYMM-4.png

 

and we also love guns because they make us feel good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA has already admitted to being a money laundering operation for foreigners. They contribute to the NRA who then mix the money in with domestic contributions so it can't be tracked and then donate to politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

The NRA has already admitted to being a money laundering operation for foreigners. They contribute to the NRA who then mix the money in with domestic contributions so it can't be tracked and then donate to politicians.

Fake news. Just ask any politician.

We have similar problems except it's the Chinese (currently) donating to political parties.

My purely personal take - *nobody* but an actual human being on the electoral roll and therefore eligible to vote in an election should be permitted to donate money to political parties, in any guise. No corporations, no unions, no committees, nobody but individuals with the right to vote.

I expect this sort of reform to be implemented shortly after the heat death of the universe, because it cuts the money flow to politicians quite severely.

FKT

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SCOTUS has already said that cutting that sort of contribution (organizations) is unconstitutional so it will be up to the rest of us to implement it.

It's slowly happening here.

Very slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want a new .22..... Not a "new" new one, an old new one. I'd like a model 1893.... But with the round barrel, and non-ribbed forestock....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nra is allowed to make campaign contributions and have a specific account set up to make them. The funding of that account is unknown. The nra accepts foreign money and has recently admitted to accepting money from russian sources. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This dark money adventure, with these untraceable sources of funds, is brought to you as a ripple of Citizens United.

This trail extends from Torshin to the NRA's David Keene in 2011. Torshin monitored national elections in 2012, using NRA ID. He is a director figure of the Russian state bank system. His sidekick there and in the USA is a tall, striking redhead named Maria Butina. She traveled with the Trump campaign to ask questions from the audience in Wisconsin.

2013 is a key date for this crowd, when many key American figures were invited to Moscow. It was also the year that Butina's Right to Bear Arms group got CC approved in Russia. She is studying postgrad in DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

This dark money adventure, with these untraceable sources of funds, is brought to you as a ripple of Citizens United.

This trail extends from Torshin to the NRA's David Keene in 2011. Torshin monitored national elections is 2012, using NRA ID. He is a director figure of the Russian state banks system, His sidekick there and in the USA is a tall, striking redhead named Maria Butina.

2013 is a key date for this crowd, when many key American figures were invited to Moscow. It was also the year that Butina's Right to Bear Arms group got CC approved in Russia.

here she is

fondling a lovely gun -

 

could it be a .22 that is essential for hog control on her property?

 

PXZUsM_XkQ-5-zbB7nQ4dspyuzAYf8hRLXYJqK-S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dylan winter said:

But we need  use our .22's to defend our democracy and our freedom.

NRA will defend our rights to own assault weapons(.22's)

and

anyone who will help the NRA is our pal

- even if they are Russians seeking to undermine our democracy which guarantees our freedoms.

ysBwN1PYMM-4.png

 

and we also love guns because they make us feel good.

 

10 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

.22

Sol is right that the whole political debate is about D's who want to ban and confiscate our .22's and R's (and outcasts like me) who do not think that we need to ban .22's.

Lots of non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations take foreign contributions. That bothers me far less than the NRA's abandonment of our first amendment over the DISCLOSE Act. That action is really the only reason I'm not a member yet. However, if it appears that TeamD will be successful in their efforts to ban and confiscate my .22, I'll definitely join.

9 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

My purely personal take - *nobody* but an actual human being on the electoral roll and therefore eligible to vote in an election should be permitted to donate money to political parties, in any guise. No corporations, no unions, no committees, nobody but individuals with the right to vote.

If a pre$$ corporation, in the course of reporting on campaign events, $ay$ something that reflects positively or negatively on a candidate, would that be a "guise" in your view?

How about if a non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation did the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dylan winter said:

here she is

fondling a lovely gun -

 

could it be a .22 that is essential for hog control on her property?

 

PXZUsM_XkQ-5-zbB7nQ4dspyuzAYf8hRLXYJqK-S

I'd like to see her in a room with Dana Loush.

Butina's boss (Torshin) was called "Godfather" in money laundering tapes in Spain in 2013 by a Mr. Romanov. Only Romanov went to prison.

Quote

WaPo, The Bodies of Putin

The Madrid-based newspaper El Pais last year reported that Spanish police were on the verge of arresting Torshin in the summer of 2013, when he had planned to attend a birthday party for Romanov, but a Russian prosecutor tipped the banker to plans to nab him if he set foot in Spain, and Torshin canceled his trip.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

Sol is right that the whole political debate is about D's who want to ban and confiscate our .22's and R's (and outcasts like me) who do not think that we need to ban .22's.

Lots of non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations take foreign contributions. That bothers me far less than the NRA's abandonment of our first amendment over the DISCLOSE Act. That action is really the only reason I'm not a member yet. However, if it appears that TeamD will be successful in their efforts to ban and confiscate my .22, I'll definitely join.

If a pre$$ corporation, in the course of reporting on campaign events, $ay$ something that reflects positively or negatively on a candidate, would that be a "guise" in your view?

How about if a non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation did the same thing?

Dizzy about .22's. Stream of consciousness with .22's superimposed on everything. This is Tom Ray doing Blue Steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Lots of non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations take foreign contributions. That bothers me far less than the NRA's abandonment of our first amendment over the DISCLOSE Act. That action is really the only reason I'm not a member yet. However, if it appears that TeamD will be successful in their efforts to ban and confiscate my .22, I'll definitely join.

If a pre$$ corporation, in the course of reporting on campaign events, $ay$ something that reflects positively or negatively on a candidate, would that be a "guise" in your view?

How about if a non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation did the same thing?

What part of 'donate money to political parties' is confusing you?

A biased press is a lot more difficult issue. Start with the simple stuff. No money except from a human being on the electoral roll to politicians, political parties, political party admin or closely related entities including 3rd parties that pay for & run support campaigns for a person/party. That last might be difficult to define.

*AND* all donations to be public on a Web site within 48 hours of being made. Name of donor & amount.

The press one - tell me a reliable way of distinguishing between reporting facts and commenting/editorialising on facts and maybe there's an approach. One suggestion floated locally is to publicly fund a set amount of advertising and ban short ads that are generally attack ads. This would further entrench established parties so would need to be approached with caution.

Still wouldn't address the issue of someone filthy rich owning a major media group and heavily pushing a candidate/party. ATM I haven't a clue how to deal with that as a lot of the things that come to mind can easily be used to suppress opinions et al that the Govt in power doesn't want said.

I'm under no illusion that this would ever happen, it's an internet talk-fest on a slow night is all.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

What part of 'donate money to political parties' is confusing you?

So if you're a candidate and I happen to like you and own a pre$$ corporation, I could make darn sure that anyone who wished to continue working for me found lots of good things and no bad ones to $ay through my medium about you.

That's donating something of value. It might not be money, but since money is only a marker for things of value, it could be money "in any guise" to those who see such corporate $pending as something that must be regulated.

Oops, maybe my example should have just been a very noisy non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation instead of a pre$$ one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dylan winter said:

PXZUsM_XkQ-5-zbB7nQ4dspyuzAYf8hRLXYJqK-S

She wouldn't need the gun to make me obey. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So if you're a candidate and I happen to like you and own a pre$$ corporation, I could make darn sure that anyone who wished to continue working for me found lots of good things and no bad ones to $ay through my medium about you.

That's donating something of value. It might not be money, but since money is only a marker for things of value, it could be money "in any guise" to those who see such corporate $pending as something that must be regulated.

Oops, maybe my example should have just been a very noisy non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation instead of a pre$$ one.

If they use their own personal resources and declare such, what's the difference? None.

If they use *corporate* resources, that's not an individual entitled to vote and therefore forbidden. Doesn't matter if an individual wholly owns the corporation, the individual needs to make the donation not the corporation.

A corporation donating or paying for advertising time is an in-kind contribution. Also forbidden.

WRT media bias, good luck on that one. Frankly your system is so fucked it's hard to see how it could become worse. Perhaps a 'truth in reporting' act might help.

What you're rabbiting on about is so ill-defined it's impossible to determine just what you mean. My care factor is also quite low.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The web is a bit freaky

 

in this thread I mentioned that people need assault rifles for hog control

 

and fek me youtube starts offering me films about hog control

 

I know why and how it happens but I do not like it

 

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dylan winter said:

The web is a bit freaky

 

in this thread I mentioned that people need assault rifles for hog control

 

and fek me youtube starts offering me films about hog control

 

I know why and how it happens but I do not like it

 

D

Care to share the details?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mad said:

Care to share the details?

I am assuming that who-ever harvests the data from here moves it onto google servers..After all writing on here is free.

 

and if it is free then I am the product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

A corporation donating or paying for advertising time is an in-kind contribution. Also forbidden.

I suspected you might say that, which is why I asked. To answer your previous question, no part of "donate money to a political party" confuses me, right up until you get to in-kind contributions.

The thing about this is, Fox News seems to me like one long, ongoing, corporate-sponsored advertisement for the R half of the Duopoly.

MSNBC News seems to me like one long, ongoing, corporate-sponsored advertisement for the D half of the Duopoly.

That's super if you're part of the Duopoly, but people like me end up represented by non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations like the Institute for Justice. Or like the NAACP and Citizens United.

The Duopoly would like to keep their respective corporate megaphones by saying they're $pecial pre$$ corporations but silence my elk by saying we're represented by the evil kind of corporations and our "in kind" contributions are not just wonderful freedom of the pre$$ in action, but are instead evil, corrupt, vote-buying in action.

And yes, Dylan, though I'm not a member, the NRA is one of those evil non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations and I do appreciate their ability to stop TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah, .22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Blah, blah, blah, (assault weapon, .22)

FIFY.

I have started including both terms so that people can read the one of their choice without changing the meaning one iota.

You should start doing the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2018 at 12:37 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's super if you're part of the Duopoly, but people like me end up represented by non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations like the Institute for Justice. Or like the NAACP and Citizens United.

Don't just hide behind respectable others Tom. Put "like CATO" in there, and "like ALEC;" they are your actual outfits. They are your product, and you need to present them for what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2018 at 3:04 AM, SloopJonB said:

Blah, blah, blah, .22

Unfair. Post 23 was free of .22 nonsense. We want to encourage that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

FIFY.

I have started including both terms so that people can read the one of their choice without changing the meaning one iota.

You should start doing the same.

Tom, the approach is not acceptable; it's your personal mental pollution, everywhere. You need to lose this offensive behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
On 4/8/2018 at 3:37 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's super if you're part of the Duopoly, but people like me end up represented by non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations like the Institute for Justice. Or like the NAACP and Citizens United.

Don't just hide behind respectable others Tom. Put "like CATO" in there, and "like ALEC;" they are your actual outfits. They are your product, and you need to present them for what they are.

That's fine with me, and I'd throw in a "like Bloomberg" to go with them. My disapproval of cen$or$hip does not depend on who is being cen$ored.

This may seem confusing to those who are horrified by the NRA's political spending but never express a similar horror at Bloomberg'$. It's called being consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Tom, the approach is not acceptable; it's your personal mental pollution, everywhere. You need to lose this offensive behavior.

Senator Murray from your state is among DiFi's cosponsors on her bill to ban (assault weapons, our .22's).

Have you written to her to let her know that including our .22's in an "assault weapons" ban is offensive? If so, post the letter. If not, you're complaining to the wrong person. As I've said many times, I'll stop referring to (assault weapons, our .22's) interchangeably the day after TeamD grabberz do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's fine with me, and I'd throw in a "like Bloomberg" to go with them. My disapproval of cen$or$hip does not depend on who is being cen$ored.

This may seem confusing to those who are horrified by the NRA's political spending but never express a similar horror at Bloomberg'$. It's called being consistent.

Hmm. You made out like you were unaware of these clowns. The clowns who won four out of five before the SCOTUS: they only failed with Kelo vs New London.

Quote

Jane Mayer in her book Dark Money describes how the Institute for Justice began,

"By 1990, enterprising conservative and libertarian activists were wearing a path to Wichita, where they, like (Rich) Fink before them, would pitch their proposals to Charles Koch in hopes of patronage. Typical was the experience in 1991 of two former Reagon administrations lawyers, Clint Bolick, a former aide to Clarence Thomas, and William "Chip" Mellor III, in search of seed money for a new kind of aggressive, right-wing public interest law firm that would litigate against government regulations in favor of "economic liberty." Mellor recalled thinking, "Who else would give us enough money to be serious?" According to Mellor, after lower-level aides initially turned down the proposal, Charles Koch himself committed $1.5 million on the spot, but with strings attached, keeping him in control. As Mellor recalled, "He said, 'Here's what I'm going to do. I'll give you up to $500,000 a year for three years, each year, but you have to come back each year and demonstrate that you've met these milestones that you've set out to accomplish and I will evaluate it on a yearly basis, and there's no guarantees.'" The legal group, the Institute for Justice, went on to bring numerous successful cases against government regulations, including campaign-finance laws, several of which reached the Supreme Court."[10]

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice

 

You have Charles Koch blocking for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To whom it may concern. Clint Bolick was one of the three founders of the "Institute for Justice."

Quote

Clint Bollick, Chief Lawyer for Goldwater Institute Named to Arizona Supreme Court

In January, 2016, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) appointed Clint Bolick, former vice president of litigation at the Goldwater Institute, to the Arizona Supreme Court.[6] Despite having never served as a judge, Ducey chose Bolick because, "Clint is nationally renowned and respected as a constitutional law scholar and as a champion of liberty."[6] Before joining Goldwater, Bolick founded another SPN member: the Institute for Justice.[6]

Bolick was an assistant at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was EEOC chairman. While working for the Landmark Legal Foundation, Bolick led the defense for the first Wisconsin school voucherprogram.[7]

Until Bolick began presenting himself as a defender of low-income African American schoolchildren, he had been most closely associated with attacks on affirmative action. He is the author of "The Affirmative Action Fraud: Can We Restore the American Civil Rights Vision?" published by the Cato Institute.[7]

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Goldwater_Institute

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NRA gathers documents amid scrutiny over ties to Kremlin-linked banker

Quote

 

The NRA has faced fresh scrutiny from congressional investigators about its finances and ties to Alexander Torshin, one of the 17 prominent Russian government officials the US Treasury Department recently slapped with sanctions. The gun-rights group has said it is reexamining its relationship with Torshin, who is a lifetime NRA member, in the wake of the sanctions.
The renewed attention has highlighted the close-knit if sometimes uneasy alliance between top NRA officials and Torshin -- a relationship that ensnared members of Trump's team during the presidential campaign, inviting further congressional scrutiny.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/27/politics/nra-documents-russian-banker/index.html?sr=twCNNp042718nra-documents-russian-banker0507PMStory&CNNPolitics=Tw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2018 at 4:11 AM, Fah Kiew Tu said:

My purely personal take - *nobody* but an actual human being on the electoral roll and therefore eligible to vote in an election should be permitted to donate money to political parties, in any guise. No corporations, no unions, no committees, nobody but individuals with the right to vote.

 

Agree.  And I would take this one step further in that outside of Preznitial elections, you cannot donate money to any candidate unless you physically reside in the state or district of the candidate or have "substantial connections to" that state or district such as own a home or physical business there.  I think only the people who have a vested interest in the outcome of that state or district election should have a $ay in the election.  That would prevent someone like the Koch bros or George Soros for instance, from donating huge amounts of money to some senator in another state where they have no specific interests in or ties to.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Agree.  And I would take this one step further in that outside of Preznitial elections, you cannot donate money to any candidate unless you physically reside in the state or district of the candidate or have "substantial connections to" that state or district such as own a home or physical business there.  I think only the people who have a vested interest in the outcome of that state or district election should have a $ay in the election.  That would prevent someone like the Koch bros or George Soros for instance, from donating huge amounts of money to some senator in another state where they have no specific interests in or ties to.  

If you're rich enough, you could buy a "substantial connection" though.

In my personal situation I'm actually resident of 2 States in Australia at different periods each year but I'm only permitted to be on the electoral roll in one place, so that'd be where I could donate.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just I can see ways of gaming your suggestion. It's actually closer to our rules about local government elections where you're either a resident or a property owner, the rationale being that property owners pay rates to local govt for services and therefore should have a say.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I control three LLC's that own property here, along with a limited partnership and some that's personally owned. Do I get 5 or more $ay$ in local govt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Agree.  And I would take this one step further in that outside of Preznitial elections, you cannot donate money to any candidate unless you physically reside in the state or district of the candidate or have "substantial connections to" that state or district such as own a home or physical business there.  I think only the people who have a vested interest in the outcome of that state or district election should have a $ay in the election.  That would prevent someone like the Koch bros or George Soros for instance, from donating huge amounts of money to some senator in another state where they have no specific interests in or ties to.  

In so doing you'd hand absolute power to corporations, who are "people" thanks to Citizens United. They could just create a new branch in a state in which they want to donate, or take advantage of their current multi-state status, to influence elections. Up with the oligarchy. 

Do you REALLY think this would stop Koch or Soros? They'd have no problem with this rule... it would stop regular people in Pennsylvania donating to directly help a race in Georgia, perhaps, until they realize that they just donate to a PAC which isn't formally aligned with a candidate. That's been working really well to keep money out of political pockets.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, phillysailor said:

In so doing you'd hand absolute power to corporations, who are "people" thanks to Citizens United Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific RR.

Corrected.

It was 1886...
 

Quote

 

Before argument, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said:

"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does. "

 

And they have been unanimous on that point ever since, including in Citizens United, in which Justice Stevens, writing in dissent, said:

Quote

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Corrected.

It was 1886...
 

And they have been unanimous on that point ever since, including in Citizens United, in which Justice Stevens, writing in dissent, said:

 

Hmm. You copped the first half of a key argument, straight from Wiki, uncited, and failed to present the other side. Your quote is spoken by an ex-railroad executive who had wrangled his way into being the fucking court reporter. Your source:

Bancroft_Davis.png

(Tom's source, Wiki) "...was written by the court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company J.C. Bancroft Davis."

 

Quote

Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself.

Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.[6]

 

In summary, MR CHIEF JUSTICE :P Waite cautioned Tom's court reporter/railroad exec that consitutional matters had not even been discussed, and that Davis was merely parroting railroad law briefs. Left to his own devices the railroad exec skewed the presentation of the court's decision, mentioning matters un-discussed by the court.

From the database he doesnt have, this is what Tom quotes, more than once, to begin his defense of corporations with the rights of persons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Hmm. You copped the first half of a key argument from Wiki, and failed to present the other side.

No, I excerpted the relevant part of the Syllabus from the case page that I linked and didn't visit Wiki.

The Chief Justice said why the court didn't wish to hear or discuss those arguments: they were already unanimous on them.

Since that time, the court has had over 130 years in which to correct the court reporter if he said something with which they disagreed.

They haven't done it yet, and have instead confirmed what he said numerous times, including in Citizens United, NAACP vs Button, Boston vs Bellotti, etc, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No, I excerpted the relevant part of the Syllabus from the case page that I linked and didn't visit Wiki.

What a turkey. At a bare minimum, read Wiki on this subject. LMFAO. I smelled a rat Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

What a turkey. At a bare minimum, read Wiki on this subject. LMFAO. I smelled a rat Tom.

I read the cases. You copy/paste from Wiki without doing much reading. And the difference shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I read the cases. You copy/paste from Wiki without doing much reading. And the difference shows.

You read Miller too, then you came back and "messaged" it all wrong, in five pages of post snippets. You reported MLK kinda sideways, big guy.

Davis was the inside guy in Santa Clara County, eh? That court avoided the discussion he claimed it made?

Your argument is full of holes and corruption from the git-go. Nothing sails faster upwind than cash my good man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2018 at 5:51 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Agree.  And I would take this one step further in that outside of Preznitial elections, you cannot donate money to any candidate unless you physically reside in the state or district of the candidate or have "substantial connections to" that state or district such as own a home or physical business there.  I think only the people who have a vested interest in the outcome of that state or district election should have a $ay in the election.  That would prevent someone like the Koch bros or George Soros for instance, from donating huge amounts of money to some senator in another state where they have no specific interests in or ties to.  

Nah. The Best Americans would still have total control. If corporations, unions, etc. want to make donations, let them pay their employees, members, etc better, so that they may contribute and advocate for their employer, Union, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2018 at 3:37 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

no part of "donate money to a political party" confuses me, right up until you get to in-kind contributions.

Like, for example, newspaper corporations publishing editorial endorsements of candidates.

 

6 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

If corporations, unions, etc. want to make donations, let them pay their employees, members, etc better, so that they may contribute and advocate for their employer, Union, etc. 

If  pre$$ corporation says something nice about a candidate, is that a donation? An "in kind contribution" or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the "personhood" of corporations, I said that it was due to Citizens United, and you responded with:

2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Corrected.

It was 1886...  (referring to Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific RR.)

And they have been unanimous on that point ever since, including in Citizens United, in which Justice Stevens, writing in dissent, said:

 

I don't agree with your interpretation with the Cali case based on discourse after that case, as reported in wikipedia (give me a break on the source, its Sunday morning)

 

So the headnote was a reporting by the Court Reporter of the Chief Justice's interpretation of the Justices' opinions. But the issue of applicability of "Equal Protection to any persons" to the railroads was not addressed in the decision of the Court in the case.

Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:

Dear Chief Justice,

I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.

Waite replied:

I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.[4]

C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports...had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases."[5] At the same time, the correspondence makes clear that the headnote does reflect the Court's thinking, at least before hearing any arguments to the contrary.

Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself.

"Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue."

HOLY CRAP: Jocal just pointed out the same thing... I hadn't gotten to the following posts in this thread

Edited by phillysailor
Jocal got there first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

At the same time, the correspondence makes clear that the headnote does reflect the Court's thinking, at least before hearing any arguments to the contrary.

It also makes clear the court's thinking in the decades since then.

And Justice Stevens made clear in his Citizens United dissent that what you said was not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It also makes clear the court's thinking in the decades since then.

And Justice Stevens made clear in his Citizens United dissent that what you said was not true.

It's NOT what I said. It's what was written by the Chief Justice who wrote the opinion. The court "avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, phillysailor said:

In so doing you'd hand absolute power to corporations, who are "people" thanks to Citizens United.

That is untrue based on this statement

...in Citizens United, in which Justice Stevens, writing in dissent, said:

Quote

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

It's NOT what I said. It's what was written by the Chief Justice who wrote the opinion. The court "avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision."

And the Chief Justice said why. Here, I bolded it for you:

Quote

"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does. "

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It also makes clear the court's thinking in the decades since then.

And Justice Stevens made clear in his Citizens United dissent that what you said was not true.

They are opinions made by political appointees.   Plessy v Ferguson.   Scott v Sanford.   Korematsu v United States.  Hammer v Dragenhart.  Kelo v new London. Exxon v Baker.   Bowers v Hardwick.   Pace v Alabama   Almost forgot, Bennis v Michigan.

You act like they are the pronouncements of legal demigods.   Think of them as Presidental tweets:   Official pronouncements of occasional wisdom.   

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Lark said:

They are opinions made by political appointees.   Plessy v Ferguson.   Scott v Sanford.   Korematsu v United States.  Hammer v Dragenhart.  Kelo v new London. Exxon v Baker.   Bowers v Hardwick.   Pace v Alabama   Almost forgot, Bennis v Michigan.

You act like they are the pronouncements of legal demigods.   Think of them as Presidental tweets:   Official pronouncements of occasional wisdom.   

 

I know they are opinions of political appointees.

I'm not sure how Kelo v New London got into that list. As Joe has pointed out in the thread on that topic, that Libertarian assault on the American legal system was turned back and Pfizer and the Forces of Good won the day.

In what way am I acting like they are pronouncements of legal demigods? They're the last word in our system. So when a righteous court says that the "public good" of increased tax revenue is a "public use" that justifies taking the occasional Little Pink House, that's the way it is. Even if Justice Thomas and I disagree.

Whose opinion did you like best in that case?

It's not even established whether Presidential Tweets are official communications. Supreme Court opinions like Roe v Wade and Kelo v New London and NAACP v Button affect our lives. So I learn stuff about them.

Saying that Citizens United decided that corporations are people is similar to a Trump Tweet, if not the Tweet of any President. It's a dumbed-down understanding of what happened and is exactly the opposite of the truth, just as Justice Stevens said in his CU opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2018 at 5:27 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 4/29/2018 at 9:54 AM, Lark said:

They are opinions made by political appointees.   ...  Kelo v new London. ...

 

...

Whose opinion did you like best in that case?

Still wondering?

My answer is Justice Thomas' opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Still wondering?

My answer is Justice Thomas' opinion.

Thomas's lips were moving, but Alito's voice was coming out.

I do agree with your basic argument...It was a ridiculously bad decision.  Let's assume the opposite case... The property Pfizer took and promised to develop remains vacant today. Let's say a group of private citizens filed an eminent domain case on the vacant property with the intent to build housing on it, thus increasing tax revenue. Does anyone think the SCTUS will remain consistent and rule in their favor? Or will they rule in favor of corporate interests in the mother of all flip-flops? I'm betting the latter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RKoch said:

Thomas's lips were moving, but Alito's voice was coming out.

I do agree with your basic argument...It was a ridiculously bad decision.  Let's assume the opposite case... The property Pfizer took and promised to develop remains vacant today. Let's say a group of private citizens filed an eminent domain case on the vacant property with the intent to build housing on it, thus increasing tax revenue. Does anyone think the SCTUS will remain consistent and rule in their favor? Or will they rule in favor of corporate interests in the mother of all flip-flops? I'm betting the latter. 

I'm not yet sure what I think of Alito but I hope you're right that he would agree with Thomas on that case. No one else on the court did.

I'm not sure what the majority would do today in the situation you suggest. Several new faces on the court. I would think those on the left, who ruled in favor of Pfizer last time around, would be amenable to ruling in favor of another such development project again. I'd expect Thomas to oppose it again for the same reasons. So if Pfizer still owns it, he'd be on their side this time around, but for the same reason he previously opposed them, so is that really a flip flop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I'll be up your way at the end of this month to see the movie.

On 4/21/2018 at 3:59 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Places to see Little Pink House

http://littlepinkhousemovie.com/action.html#header3-2p

Looks like I'll have to drive to Miami or Tampa at the end of next month to see it. I'll probably go to Tampa just because it's an hour closer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2018 at 9:25 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 4/28/2018 at 9:58 AM, phillysailor said:

In so doing you'd hand absolute power to corporations, who are "people" thanks to Citizens United.

That is untrue based on this statement

...in Citizens United, in which Justice Stevens, writing in dissent, said:

Quote

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

Hmmm..

We do seem to have a point of agreement:

On 5/1/2018 at 7:56 PM, phillysailor said:

What is the point of developing and advocating the merits of a learned opinion in this political climate? There is no informed debate with the opposition

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for any who may be wondering: yes, I'm enjoying hijacking the shit out of a gun thread with first and fifth amendment material. It would be even better if someone would come along and complain that I'm not talking about guns.

The only thing I can think of that would be more fun right now would be getting my boat ready and going fishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 4/29/2018 at 9:25 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 4/28/2018 at 9:58 AM, phillysailor said:

In so doing you'd hand absolute power to corporations, who are "people" thanks to Citizens United.

That is untrue based on this statement

...in Citizens United, in which Justice Stevens, writing in dissent, said:

Quote

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

 To me, it seemed that the opinion on which this was based (the Cali railroad tax case) was a back door sort of interpretation... a limited interpretation of corporations rights that was s basis for an argument that got expanded to full citizenship by CU. In the RR case they specifically avoided the issue, and then it was used as precedent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2018 at 8:34 PM, Mrleft8 said:

I want a new .22..... Not a "new" new one, an old new one. I'd like a model 1893.... But with the round barrel, and non-ribbed forestock....

Wasn't the 1893 Winchester a shotgun? ;-) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Wasn't the 1893 Winchester a shotgun? ;-) 

Perhaps my mistake.... 1890? I'm getting conflicting info on the web.

 I had one, which I long term loaned to a friend when I moved to the Caribbean (Grenada has this thing about Americans with guns, for some reason)... I could swear it was a model 1893, but it may have been an 1890.... Or a 1906, but I know it only took .22 shorts, and the 1906 takes either .22l/.22s....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

 To me, it seemed that the opinion on which this was based (the Cali railroad tax case) was a back door sort of interpretation... a limited interpretation of corporations rights that was s basis for an argument that got expanded to full citizenship by CU. In the RR case they specifically avoided the issue, and then it was used as precedent. 

It's what Tom calls a baby step in the case of Heler. No front door entry for these guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Perhaps my mistake.... 1890? I'm getting conflicting info on the web.

 I had one, which I long term loaned to a friend when I moved to the Caribbean (Grenada has this thing about Americans with guns, for some reason)... I could swear it was a model 1893, but it may have been an 1890.... Or a 1906, but I know it only took .22 shorts, and the 1906 takes either .22l/.22s....

Hmm - describe it, if ya don't mind the tangent.  I like neat old rifles, though the only "old" one I own now is my pre '64 Model 94 Winchester .30/.30.   The distinction is that in 1965, Winchester stopped hand fitting the internal components.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Hmm - describe it, if ya don't mind the tangent.  I like neat old rifles, though the only "old" one I own now is my pre '64 Model 94 Winchester .30/.30.   The distinction is that in 1965, Winchester stopped hand fitting the internal components.  

It's a take down (has thumb/coin screws on the receiver so it can be fully disassembled w/o tools) pump action .22s with a smooth forestock. The stocks are probably Tulip Poplar stained Walnut. It was never blued, the metal finish is steel/or tea colored which is an oil rubbed finish. It was my grandfather's boyhood gun, and he was born in 1886. I looked up the serial number once a long, long time ago, but don't remember the year it was made. I think it cost something like $4 new....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

It's a take down (has thumb/coin screws on the receiver so it can be fully disassembled w/o tools) pump action .22s with a smooth forestock. The stocks are probably Tulip Poplar stained Walnut. It was never blued, the metal finish is steel/or tea colored which is an oil rubbed finish. It was my grandfather's boyhood gun, and he was born in 1886. I looked up the serial number once a long, long time ago, but don't remember the year it was made. I think it cost something like $4 new....

That sounds like a cool old piece - if you find pics of one, I'd enjoy seeing them.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That sounds like a cool old piece - if you find pics of one, I'd enjoy seeing them.   

image.png.f97e45fc97fd01020a1ba73e7f4da337.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.2abbe790f777fadaf96655980b75d83f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, seriously. There's a current gun porn thread Lefty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, phillysailor said:

 To me, it seemed that the opinion on which this was based (the Cali railroad tax case) was a back door sort of interpretation... a limited interpretation of corporations rights that was s basis for an argument that got expanded to full citizenship by CU. In the RR case they specifically avoided the issue, and then it was used as precedent. 

Actually, the precedent cases cited in Citizens United for the notion that corporations have first amendment rights were NAACP vs Button and Bank of Boston vs Belotti. The older of those is the NAACP one, with lots of parallels to CU. It was decided in 1965.

In the RR case they avoided the issue because the court told them to avoid it and that was because the court was already unanimous on that point, as the Chief Justice said.

Precedents from the 1800's and 1960's said corporations are people with first amendment rights. Justice Stevens acknowledged that this was long-settled law in his dissent. And yet the BIG TALKING POINT became that a narrow majority of the Supreme Court had suddenly decided that corporations are people with first amendment rights.

Now that you know the BIG TALKING POINT isn't true, does it make you wonder what the truth might actually be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Nice, seriously. There's a current gun porn thread Lefty. 

Thank you. I was merely responding to a query.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

image.png.f97e45fc97fd01020a1ba73e7f4da337.png

A gallery gun? I had a couple of these too, at one point. One I picked up had an octagonal barrel, like an old-fashioned cowboy gun. Cool points for style but it was a cheapo and didn't shoot very well.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

image.png.2abbe790f777fadaf96655980b75d83f.png

Funny. I own a Brazilian Rossi copy of that rifle in the 'gallery rifle' variant with a 16-1/2" barrel. Lovely little rifle with a beautiful crisp trigger pull, it's been used to shoot a lot of rabbits in its lifetime before I retired it (and me) to shooting cans.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

A gallery gun? I had a couple of these too, at one point. One I picked up had an octagonal barrel, like an old-fashioned cowboy gun. Cool points for style but it was a cheapo and didn't shoot very well.

-DSK

They were the gallery guns, from what I can tell. Interchangeable parts, and really small and light.

 They were also often a kids' first "squirrel gun".

I will say that more than a few squirrels met their destiny thanks to that lil' gun, and I may just drive out to Tulsa to get it back, if I need to..... It shot straight and true, and it had less of a kick than a BB gun..... Made less noise too.

 The octagon barrel ones are worth more, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Nice, seriously. There's a current gun porn thread Lefty. 

Sounds like a good place to discuss the fifth amendment. Or maybe the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 12:47 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 5/3/2018 at 7:21 AM, phillysailor said:

 To me, it seemed that the opinion on which this was based (the Cali railroad tax case) was a back door sort of interpretation... a limited interpretation of corporations rights that was s basis for an argument that got expanded to full citizenship by CU. In the RR case they specifically avoided the issue, and then it was used as precedent. 

Actually, the precedent cases cited in Citizens United for the notion that corporations have first amendment rights were NAACP vs Button and Bank of Boston vs Belotti. The older of those is the NAACP one, with lots of parallels to CU. It was decided in 1965.

In the RR case they avoided the issue because the court told them to avoid it and that was because the court was already unanimous on that point, as the Chief Justice said.

Precedents from the 1800's and 1960's said corporations are people with first amendment rights. Justice Stevens acknowledged that this was long-settled law in his dissent. And yet the BIG TALKING POINT became that a narrow majority of the Supreme Court had suddenly decided that corporations are people with first amendment rights.

Now that you know the BIG TALKING POINT isn't true, does it make you wonder what the truth might actually be?

Oops, got the date wrong. It was 1963 when the Supreme Court decided that NAACP Inc had first amendment rights, not 1965.

The point remains, the YUUUGE UPHEAVAL of recognizing corporate first amendment rights happened a long time before Citizens United was heard.

If it was such a big problem, did you ever complain about it prior to CU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Oops, got the date wrong. It was 1963 when the Supreme Court decided that NAACP Inc had first amendment rights, not 1965.

The point remains, the YUUUGE UPHEAVAL of recognizing corporate first amendment rights happened a long time before Citizens United was heard.

If it was such a big problem, did you ever complain about it prior to CU?

Does it matter? One day a straw broke the camel's back. This bullshit has to go.

The basic benefits and sound ideas within CU can be retained.  It doesn’t have to be that corporations have all rights or no rights: CATO needs to stay out of it.

Quote

'Citizens United' Thrust Corporate Personhood Into the Spotlight, But It's Actually an Idea Rooted in America's Founding   Adam Winkler

“Corporations have often been constitutional innovators,” Winkler said during our chat. “Some of the constitutional rights we hold most dear today were first given life in the courts in cases brought by corporations.” They include cases brought by newspaper corporations “striking down laws for violating the First Amendment.” Other cases brought by business corporations fighting regulation were “some of the earliest cases on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and rights against self-incrimination.”

 

 But in fact the court has used the power of judicial review to expansively protect corporations for far longer. When corporations have found themselves subject to unwanted taxes and regulations, they have invited the court to exercise that power of judicial review to overturn those regulations.

 

AW: The first and most important thing is to recognize how commonplace it is for corporations to seek constitutional rights. That we need to recognize the phenomenon before we can really understand its implications and potential reforms.

 

(lawyers may need to) to look to the rights of the members, and that lawyers arguing in this space should not argue that corporations are people so much that they should argue that corporations are collections of people, associations entitled to all the rights that any association of people should have. And on the other side, those who are fighting against corporate constitutional rights might invoke corporate personhood as a way to limit constitutional rights.

 It doesn’t have to be that corporations have all rights or no rights.

 And in fact, for most of American history corporate constitutional rights were not very controversial. In part because the court only extended property rights to corporations. In recent years, with cases like Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court is expanding what we might think as liberty rights, rights associated with personal conscience and political freedom, to corporations. And this is much more controversial.

 While I’m sympathetic to those who want to amend the Constitution to end constitutional rights for corporations, I think such an amendment would be a mistake. 

Corporations need some of the rights protected by the Constitution. Corporations need a right of property so that the government doesn’t take their assets without paying just compensation. Corporations need a right of due process, otherwise the government could simply declare a corporation guilty of a crime without a trial. And clearly media corporations, like The New York Times and Fox News, need a First Amendment right to freedom of the press.

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/02/01/whats-your-most-cherished-individual-liberty-you-might-have-a-corporation-to-thank-for-that/?slreturn=20180321065115

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

 And in fact, for most of American history corporate constitutional rights were not very controversial. In part because the court only extended property rights to corporations. In recent years, with cases like Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court is expanding what we might think as liberty rights, rights associated with personal conscience and political freedom, to corporations. And this is much more controversial.

The issue of first amendment rights for non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations like the NAACP and Citizens United was decided in 1963. It's refreshing to hear someone call a year so close to the year of my birth "recent" but I am aware that it's BS and I'm old and so are the first amendment rights of non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 12:47 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Actually, the precedent cases cited in Citizens United for the notion that corporations have first amendment rights were NAACP vs Button and Bank of Boston vs Belotti. The older of those is the NAACP one, with lots of parallels to CU. It was decided in 1965.

To clarify, it was not just those two. There were a few others cited by the CU majority opinion:

Quote

 

The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra , at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro , 431 U. S. 85 (1977) ; Time, Inc. v. Firestone , 424 U. S. 448 (1976) ; Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. , 422 U. S. 922 (1975) ; Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad , 420 U. S. 546 (1975) ; Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn , 420 U. S. 469 (1975) ; Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo , 418 U. S. 241 (1974) ; New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill , 385 U. S. 374 (1967) ; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 ; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y. , 360 U. S. 684 (1959) ; Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson , 343 U. S. 495 (1952) ); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC , 520 U. S. 180 (1997) ; Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC , 518 U. S. 727 (1996) ; Turner , 512 U. S. 622 ; Simon & Schuster , 502 U. S. 105 ; Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC , 492 U. S. 115 (1989) ; Florida Star v. B. J. F. , 491 U. S. 524 (1989) ; Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps , 475 U. S. 767 (1986) ; Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia , 435 U. S. 829 (1978) ; Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. , 427 U. S. 50 (1976) ; Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 418 U. S. 323 (1974) ; Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler , 398 U. S. 6 (1970) .

     This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button , 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co. , 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936) . Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal. , 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion) (“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 783)).      The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” Id., at 776; see id. , at 780, n. 16. Cf. id. , at 828 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2018 at 8:35 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 5/2/2018 at 11:22 AM, RKoch said:

Thomas's lips were moving, but Alito's voice was coming out.

I do agree with your basic argument...It was a ridiculously bad decision.  Let's assume the opposite case... The property Pfizer took and promised to develop remains vacant today. Let's say a group of private citizens filed an eminent domain case on the vacant property with the intent to build housing on it, thus increasing tax revenue. Does anyone think the SCTUS will remain consistent and rule in their favor? Or will they rule in favor of corporate interests in the mother of all flip-flops? I'm betting the latter. 

I'm not yet sure what I think of Alito but I hope you're right that he would agree with Thomas on that case. No one else on the court did.

I'm not sure what the majority would do today in the situation you suggest. Several new faces on the court. I would think those on the left, who ruled in favor of Pfizer last time around, would be amenable to ruling in favor of another such development project again. I'd expect Thomas to oppose it again for the same reasons. So if Pfizer still owns it, he'd be on their side this time around, but for the same reason he previously opposed them, so is that really a flip flop?

Just to clarify, I knew you meant to say Scalia and just screwed up the talking point, probably due to unfamiliarity with such issues.

It's a mindless and, in my opinion, racist talking point. "Of course the black guy can't reason for himself and copies the clever Italian!" Yeah, right.

I am not saying you think that way, just that's the origin of the talking point you were trying to repeat.

In addition to being racist, it is mindless, especially in this instance since Scalia didn't join Thomas' dissent, let alone Thomas joining Scalia.

It's also mindless in other cases, notably the Raich case.

So rather than respond to the bungled, mindless, racist talking point, I pretended that you meant what you said. Did it in another thread too, just because it seemed funny to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow several new gun threads started yesterday and this one just attracts no interest now that it's not about guns any more.

 

Share this post


Link to post