Jump to content

Horrible decision by the Supreme Court


Guest One of Five

Recommended Posts

 

 

The way I see it is that it has become like any other religion. If you just read the 4 gospels of the new testament you would have an entirely different picture of what it means to be a christian than if you stepped into any number of fundamentalist churches. What has happened is that a large group of people have picked up the objectivist religion and then tortured it into something that justifies all the evil shit they want to do, just like a large group of fundamentalist christians has tortured the bible into something that can be used to oppress and judge people. I don't particularly agree with much of what Rand wrote, but I would not blame her for what many of her modern day followers do any more than I would blame Jesus for what any number of fundamentalist christians do today.

 

Her thoughts have not been twisted much at all. It's that sick. I agree with the person who said that "It is a book that should not be put down, it should be thrown with great force."

 

I think she has a lot to answer for. Her and clowns like Jean-Jacques Rousseau molded a lot of minds in a very destructive way and wound up doing a hell of a lot of damage. Man is neither a perfect nor a perfectible critter. She encourages the blind self- interest of adolescence, even deifies it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 491
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Somewhere back in the deep recesses of my memory I remember some politician or lobbyist saying: “ the problem with buying a politician is making sure he stays bought.” Robert Heinlein in “Strange

No, it landed here because you put it here.  If I wanted it to be here, I would have done so myself.  If you want to keep this thread alive by quoting others, there's plenty in this thread.  And

And that is exactly why so many of us have Tom on ignore.

Posted Images

The way I see it is that it has become like any other religion. If you just read the 4 gospels of the new testament you would have an entirely different picture of what it means to be a christian than if you stepped into any number of fundamentalist churches. What has happened is that a large group of people have picked up the objectivist religion and then tortured it into something that justifies all the evil shit they want to do, just like a large group of fundamentalist christians has tortured the bible into something that can be used to oppress and judge people. I don't particularly agree with much of what Rand wrote, but I would not blame her for what many of her modern day followers do any more than I would blame Jesus for what any number of fundamentalist christians do today.

 

Her thoughts have not been twisted much at all. It's that sick. I agree with the person who said that "It is a book that should not be put down, it should be thrown with great force."

 

I think she has a lot to answer for. Her and clowns like Jean-Jacques Rousseau molded a lot of minds in a very destructive way and wound up doing a hell of a lot of damage. Man is neither a perfect nor a perfectible critter. She encourages the blind self- interest of adolescence, even deifies it.

 

As I said, I don't agree with much of her thoughts, but throughout her writings she was pretty critical of govt power regardless of who wielded it. I don't know of any of Rand's writings that would justify using the govt to strip property owners of their property, however there are plenty of Rand followers who could find some way to justify it. I don't think what she actually wrote and meant is much better than what many of her followers today believe, but it is different. My only point was that whether dealing with fundamentalist christians or modern day objectivists, you are dealing with what they believe today not what Rand or Jesus actually tried to convey. And I am definitely not trying to compare Rand to Jesus, just comparing how "followers" can twist their religion for their own selfish ends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it is that it has become like any other religion. If you just read the 4 gospels of the new testament you would have an entirely different picture of what it means to be a christian than if you stepped into any number of fundamentalist churches. What has happened is that a large group of people have picked up the objectivist religion and then tortured it into something that justifies all the evil shit they want to do, just like a large group of fundamentalist christians has tortured the bible into something that can be used to oppress and judge people. I don't particularly agree with much of what Rand wrote, but I would not blame her for what many of her modern day followers do any more than I would blame Jesus for what any number of fundamentalist christians do today.

 

Her thoughts have not been twisted much at all.

 

Says the guy who turned them exactly backwards. :rolleyes:

 

How the hell did we get here, anyway? I dredged this one up to ask Moe a question about Citizens United, we wandered off into Keloland and now Mark is stuck in Anti Ayn Again mode?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it is that it has become like any other religion. If you just read the 4 gospels of the new testament you would have an entirely different picture of what it means to be a christian than if you stepped into any number of fundamentalist churches. What has happened is that a large group of people have picked up the objectivist religion and then tortured it into something that justifies all the evil shit they want to do, just like a large group of fundamentalist christians has tortured the bible into something that can be used to oppress and judge people. I don't particularly agree with much of what Rand wrote, but I would not blame her for what many of her modern day followers do any more than I would blame Jesus for what any number of fundamentalist christians do today.

 

Her thoughts have not been twisted much at all. It's that sick. I agree with the person who said that "It is a book that should not be put down, it should be thrown with great force."

 

I think she has a lot to answer for. Her and clowns like Jean-Jacques Rousseau molded a lot of minds in a very destructive way and wound up doing a hell of a lot of damage. Man is neither a perfect nor a perfectible critter. She encourages the blind self- interest of adolescence, even deifies it.

 

As I said, I don't agree with much of her thoughts, but throughout her writings she was pretty critical of govt power regardless of who wielded it. I don't know of any of Rand's writings that would justify using the govt to strip property owners of their property, however there are plenty of Rand followers who could find some way to justify it. I don't think what she actually wrote and meant is much better than what many of her followers today believe, but it is different. My only point was that whether dealing with fundamentalist christians or modern day objectivists, you are dealing with what they believe today not what Rand or Jesus actually tried to convey. And I am definitely not trying to compare Rand to Jesus, just comparing how "followers" can twist their religion for their own selfish ends.

 

Rand distorted reality to the degree that it is practically turned upside down. In her science fiction world, the government is not controlled by the "Producers", and at the same time, she implies that what the "Producers" need most is power, and the willingness to use power ruthlessly. What else could happen in an oligarchy controlled by Objectivists but the stripping of the weak of their possessions?

 

It is very shallow, naive, and stupid, but at the same time psychologically powerful stuff. Bad combination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it is that it has become like any other religion. If you just read the 4 gospels of the new testament you would have an entirely different picture of what it means to be a christian than if you stepped into any number of fundamentalist churches. What has happened is that a large group of people have picked up the objectivist religion and then tortured it into something that justifies all the evil shit they want to do, just like a large group of fundamentalist christians has tortured the bible into something that can be used to oppress and judge people. I don't particularly agree with much of what Rand wrote, but I would not blame her for what many of her modern day followers do any more than I would blame Jesus for what any number of fundamentalist christians do today.

 

Her thoughts have not been twisted much at all.

 

Says the guy who turned them exactly backwards. :rolleyes:

 

How the hell did we get here, anyway? I dredged this one up to ask Moe a question about Citizens United, we wandered off into Keloland and now Mark is stuck in Anti Ayn Again mode?

 

You decided you had to make a big issue out of a little joke I wrote. That's how.

 

Your obsession with me is getting creepy. Creeeeepy. Go polish your Glock, or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice distraction from actually discussing Kelo, I must admit.

 

Getting back to the thread topic...

 

Moe's got nothing. How about you Mark?

Seriously, the idea that the law is unable to distinguish between live people and legal constructs is just a bunch of clever silliness. Can corporations argue insanity when they kill someone? Can they be incarcerated or executed, if they're found to be sane? Can we require that they attend school? None of this is any sillier than the idea that their political "opinions" which, after all, are no more than the opinions of the individuals involved, require protection as such.

 

Let's apply that reasoning to NAACP vs Button, shall we?

 

In that case, the State of Virginia had basically outlawed the practice of hunting for a good client to bring a civil rights lawsuit, and they disbarred lawyers who violated the law. The law was clearly aimed at crippling the activities of the NAACP, which it was doing.

 

The court held that the NAACP, even though it is a corporation, has a right of expression that is protected by the first amendment, and that in this context, solicitation of legal business was a form of expression that effected political change.

 

Did the NAACP not require that protection? Could individuals, acting alone, have accomplished the same things?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

January 22, 2010

Justices Block Key Part of Campaign Law

 

By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

 

The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.

 

The 5-to-4 decision was a doctrinal earthquake but also a political and practical one. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision, which also applies to labor unions and other organizations, to reshape the way elections are conducted.

 

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

 

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. His decision was joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing.

 

The case had unlikely origins. It involved a documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” a 90-minute stew of caustic political commentary and advocacy journalism. It was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, and was released during the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008.

 

Citizens United lost a suit that year against the Federal Election Commission, and scuttled plans to show the film on a cable video-on-demand service and to broadcast television advertisements for it. But the film was shown in theaters in six cities, and it remains available on DVD and the Internet.

 

The lower court said the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, usually called the McCain-Feingold law, prohibited the planned broadcasts. The law bans the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. That leaves out old technologies, like newspapers, and new ones, like YouTube.

 

The law, as narrowed by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, applies to communications “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” It also requires spoken and written disclaimers in the film and advertisements for it, along with the disclosure of contributors’ names.

 

The lower court said the film was prohibited electioneering communication with one purpose: “to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world and that viewers should vote against her.”

 

The McCain-Feingold law does contain an exception for broadcast news reports, commentaries and editorials.

 

When the case was first argued last March, it seemed a curiosity likely to be decided on narrow grounds. The court could have ruled that Citizens United was not the sort of group to which the McCain-Feingold law was meant to apply, or that the law did not mean to address 90-minute documentaries, or that video-on-demand technologies were not regulated by the law. Thursday’s decision rejected those alternatives.

 

Instead of deciding the case in June, the court set down the case for a rare re-argument in September. It now asked the parties to address the much more consequential question of whether the court should overrule a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, along with part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the 2003 decision that upheld the central provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

 

On Thursday, the court answered its own questions with a resounding yes.

 

This was an interesting thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It could use some new content.

 

How about:

 

Supreme Court Strikes Down Major Campaign Finance Restriction

just more proof that the government is well and truly for sale to the highest bidder.

 

See "The Golden Rule" in sig line below...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary purpose of campaign finance restrictions is to protect incumbents, who have inherent advantages in fundraising (they already have favors to sell) and name recognition. This is why incumbents LOVE restrictive and confusing campaign finance laws.

 

 

If you want political change in this country (and I do) you should applaud this common sense decision. Entrenched politicians deciding to restrict the ability of their opponents to raise campaign funds is not a prescription for change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary purpose of campaign finance restrictions is to protect incumbents, who have inherent advantages in fundraising (they already have favors to sell) and name recognition. This is why incumbents LOVE restrictive and confusing campaign finance laws.

 

 

If you want political change in this country (and I do) you should applaud this common sense decision. Entrenched politicians deciding to restrict the ability of their opponents to raise campaign funds is not a prescription for change.

That's change I can believe in. All this ruling does is allows the 1% to set the agenda.

http://www.wolf-pac.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

The primary purpose of campaign finance restrictions is to protect incumbents, who have inherent advantages in fundraising (they already have favors to sell) and name recognition. This is why incumbents LOVE restrictive and confusing campaign finance laws.

 

 

If you want political change in this country (and I do) you should applaud this common sense decision. Entrenched politicians deciding to restrict the ability of their opponents to raise campaign funds is not a prescription for change.

 

...and they will never vote for (even though their constituents want it) term limits.

 

Citizens in government are long dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlimited campaign financing, as approved by the right wing majority of SCOTUS onThursday, will only amplify the power of the top 1% to control Congress, while further disenfranchising the rest of us.....

 

Kill the EPA!! Drill baby drill! More Corporate welfare for Big Oil, Coal, Pharma and Agri-biz...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Now, according to Newt, I can be on equal footing with the likes of the Koch Brothers, Bloomberg, Adelson, Soros, and others.

 

http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/latest-news/newt-gingrich-unlimited-campaign-donations-will-equalize-the-middle-class-and-the-rich/

 

 

Reice Priebus said the same thing. One dollar, or a million, have the same effect and value to politicians....ROFLMAO!

 

Chris Christie is so desperate to get some of Sheldon Adelsons MONEY, he apologized for calling the Left Bank "occupied territory". YCMTSU!!!.. :wacko::lol::P

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow. Now, according to Newt, I can be on equal footing with the likes of the Koch Brothers, Bloomberg, Adelson, Soros, and others.

 

http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/latest-news/newt-gingrich-unlimited-campaign-donations-will-equalize-the-middle-class-and-the-rich/

 

 

Reice Priebus said the same thing. One dollar, or a million, have the same effect and value to politicians....ROFLMAO!

 

Chris Christie is so desperate to get some of Sheldon Adelsons MONEY, he apologized for calling the Left Bank "occupied territory". YCMTSU!!!.. :wacko::lol::P

 

I saw that. Kinda puts Adelson on the same level as Rush.

 

If you say something they don't like, apologize immediately, or suffer the consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wow. Now, according to Newt, I can be on equal footing with the likes of the Koch Brothers, Bloomberg, Adelson, Soros, and others.

 

http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/latest-news/newt-gingrich-unlimited-campaign-donations-will-equalize-the-middle-class-and-the-rich/

 

 

Reice Priebus said the same thing. One dollar, or a million, have the same effect and value to politicians....ROFLMAO!

 

Chris Christie is so desperate to get some of Sheldon Adelsons MONEY, he apologized for calling the Left Bank "occupied territory". YCMTSU!!!.. :wacko::lol::P

 

I saw that. Kinda puts Adelson on the same level as Rush.

 

If you say something they don't like, apologize immediately, or suffer the consequences.

As I mentioned in another thread, that willingness to apologize instead of attacking the other person's patriotism or understanding of the world in which we live, indicates that he is not ready to be President.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Wow. Now, according to Newt, I can be on equal footing with the likes of the Koch Brothers, Bloomberg, Adelson, Soros, and others.

 

http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/latest-news/newt-gingrich-unlimited-campaign-donations-will-equalize-the-middle-class-and-the-rich/

 

 

Reice Priebus said the same thing. One dollar, or a million, have the same effect and value to politicians....ROFLMAO!

 

Chris Christie is so desperate to get some of Sheldon Adelsons MONEY, he apologized for calling the Left Bank "occupied territory". YCMTSU!!!.. :wacko::lol::P

 

I saw that. Kinda puts Adelson on the same level as Rush.

 

If you say something they don't like, apologize immediately, or suffer the consequences.

As I mentioned in another thread, that willingness to apologize instead of attacking the other person's patriotism or understanding of the world in which we live, indicates that he is not ready to be President.

 

You miss "W", don't you, sol? "You are either with us, or you are with the tear-arrests!!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Wow. Now, according to Newt, I can be on equal footing with the likes of the Koch Brothers, Bloomberg, Adelson, Soros, and others.

 

http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/latest-news/newt-gingrich-unlimited-campaign-donations-will-equalize-the-middle-class-and-the-rich/

 

 

Reice Priebus said the same thing. One dollar, or a million, have the same effect and value to politicians....ROFLMAO!

 

Chris Christie is so desperate to get some of Sheldon Adelsons MONEY, he apologized for calling the Left Bank "occupied territory". YCMTSU!!!.. :wacko::lol::P

 

I saw that. Kinda puts Adelson on the same level as Rush.

 

If you say something they don't like, apologize immediately, or suffer the consequences.

As I mentioned in another thread, that willingness to apologize instead of attacking the other person's patriotism or understanding of the world in which we live, indicates that he is not ready to be President.

 

You miss "W", don't you, sol? "You are either with us, or you are with the tear-arrests!!"

Not much. There are a lot more people interested in small government, fiscal responsibility, and limitations on executive power now. I think that is a good thing. Unfortunately, I suspect it will change back to the way it was before after 11/2016, but I kinda like it. We heard all kinds of gloom and doom about the sequester, but even after those cuts, the world didn't come to an end. Sure, the folks who purchase Congress will get their money restored eventually, but at least we demonstrated that we can make spending cuts, they just have to be across the board (as they should be, imo).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Nice distraction from actually discussing Kelo, I must admit.

 

Getting back to the thread topic...

 

 

Moe's got nothing. How about you Mark?

Seriously, the idea that the law is unable to distinguish between live people and legal constructs is just a bunch of clever silliness. Can corporations argue insanity when they kill someone? Can they be incarcerated or executed, if they're found to be sane? Can we require that they attend school? None of this is any sillier than the idea that their political "opinions" which, after all, are no more than the opinions of the individuals involved, require protection as such.

 

Let's apply that reasoning to NAACP vs Button, shall we?

 

In that case, the State of Virginia had basically outlawed the practice of hunting for a good client to bring a civil rights lawsuit, and they disbarred lawyers who violated the law. The law was clearly aimed at crippling the activities of the NAACP, which it was doing.

 

The court held that the NAACP, even though it is a corporation, has a right of expression that is protected by the first amendment, and that in this context, solicitation of legal business was a form of expression that effected political change.

 

Did the NAACP not require that protection? Could individuals, acting alone, have accomplished the same things?

 

 

Hillary and Bernie have the same SCOTUS litmus test: overturn Citizens United

 

...Clinton has made overhauling the current campaign finance system one of the major planks of her campaign, even as she has tacitly endorsed the efforts of two big-money super PACs working to help get her elected in 2016 -- Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record. Advisers have said that they cannot reject such vehicles when they are being vigorously embraced by the Republican field.

 

Still, the prominent role that wealthy donors are expected to play in boosting her bid could make it hard for Clinton to cast herself as a champion of campaign finance reform, particularly in the eyes of some advocates who remember the soft-money scandals of the Bill Clinton administration.

 

On Thursday, the former secretary of state spoke and took questions for about 45 minutes in a converted warehouse on a pier in Brooklyn's Red Hook neighborhood, with sweeping waterfront views of the Manhattan skyline and the Statue of Liberty. The fundraisers on hand for the meeting -- a mix of longtime Clinton backers and a small number of bundlers who played major roles in the campaigns of President Obama -- had all raised at least $27,000 for her campaign....

 

 

Bundlers and Super-PACs are so much more controllable than political activist corporations. You never know when one of those is going to make an anti-Hillary propaganda video and claim it's the kind of political expression that our first amendment was meant to protect.

 

The idea that the first amendment was meant to protect our ability to $peak out against politicians is, of course, preposterous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Oddly enough, Americans prefer a government that is not for sale to the highest bidder, or so it seems. Perhaps they need a hand figuring out what they really think.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/us/politics/poll-shows-americans-favor-overhaul-of-campaign-financing.html

 

Business enters politics because politics (government) has entered business. The demand for rent-seeking, favoritism, cronyism, will always rise to meet the available supply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, business bought politics, not the other way around.

 

The people have spoken and Congress is listening, not to the people who have spoken but to those who have given.

We have free speech but expensive government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quid pro quo...something for something. The politicians get cash and the corporation (or union or partnership or association or club...) gets some favorable regulatory treatment, and the people pay.

It's a problem, but the solution is not to revoke the speech rights of citizens that are organized as a corporation while leaving the speech rights of all other interest groups intact. Citizens United was correctly decided. My solutions would be to uphold the speech rights of all groups but to limit contributions to individual citizens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quid pro quo...something for something. The politicians get cash and the corporation (or union or partnership or association or club...) gets some favorable regulatory treatment, and the people pay.

It's a problem, but the solution is not to revoke the speech rights of citizens that are organized as a corporation while leaving the speech rights of all other interest groups intact. Citizens United was correctly decided. My solutions would be to uphold the speech rights of all groups but to limit contributions to individual citizens.

THat's not far off. Limit contributions to a certain amount per year, per registered voter from the district that candidate is seeking to represent. Jail time for violators.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, business bought politics, not the other way around.

 

The people have spoken and Congress is listening, not to the people who have spoken but to those who have given.

We have free speech but expensive government.

 

Looking at Open Secrets' numbers for 2014, it appears that businesses do generally buy "politics" in the sense of both halves of the Duopoly, but union$ concentrate the corrupting influence of their $peech on DemocRAT$. Weird that we hear so few complaints about union$ buying government, considering how they rank on the list.

 

open-secrets-2014.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quid pro quo...something for something. The politicians get cash and the corporation (or union or partnership or association or club...) gets some favorable regulatory treatment, and the people pay.

It's a problem, but the solution is not to revoke the speech rights of citizens that are organized as a corporation while leaving the speech rights of all other interest groups intact. Citizens United was correctly decided. My solutions would be to uphold the speech rights of all groups but to limit contributions to individual citizens.

THat's not far off. Limit contributions to a certain amount per year, per registered voter from the district that candidate is seeking to represent. Jail time for violators.

Nah, just recognize it for what it is. Taxable expense to the business, taxable income to the recipient for services rendered or retained.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So few complaints? Where've you been?

 

Here. Have you complained about union $peech?

 

I haven't noticed.

 

I've noticed quite a few comments like yours in post 231 that are about busine$$ $peech and some about individual $peech but practically none about how the union$ seem to be trying to focus on corrupting DemocRAT$.

 

If I've missed some, perhaps you could link to them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Uh, business bought politics, not the other way around.

 

The people have spoken and Congress is listening, not to the people who have spoken but to those who have given.

We have free speech but expensive government.

 

Looking at Open Secrets' numbers for 2014, it appears that businesses do generally buy "politics" in the sense of both halves of the Duopoly, but union$ concentrate the corrupting influence of their $peech on DemocRAT$. Weird that we hear so few complaints about union$ buying government, considering how they rank on the list.

 

open-secrets-2014.jpg

 

It almost as though the emphasis on corporations is more political than principled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So few complaints? Where've you been?

Here. Have you complained about union $peech?

 

I haven't noticed.

 

I've noticed quite a few comments like yours in post 231 that are about busine$$ $peech and some about individual $peech but practically none about how the union$ seem to be trying to focus on corrupting DemocRAT$.

 

If I've missed some, perhaps you could link to them?

I don't differentiate Union speech as I see unions as a business.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So few complaints? Where've you been?

Here. Have you complained about union $peech?

 

I haven't noticed.

 

I've noticed quite a few comments like yours in post 231 that are about busine$$ $peech and some about individual $peech but practically none about how the union$ seem to be trying to focus on corrupting DemocRAT$.

 

If I've missed some, perhaps you could link to them?

I don't differentiate Union speech as I see unions as a business.

 

So presumably you would want them treated as such and agree with the Citizens United decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So few complaints? Where've you been?

Here. Have you complained about union $peech?

 

I haven't noticed.

 

I've noticed quite a few comments like yours in post 231 that are about busine$$ $peech and some about individual $peech but practically none about how the union$ seem to be trying to focus on corrupting DemocRAT$.

 

If I've missed some, perhaps you could link to them?

I don't differentiate Union speech as I see unions as a business.

 

So presumably you would want them treated as such and agree with the Citizens United decision.

 

Why not attempt a solution to address the purchasing of both teams? Recognizing that union spending dwarfs the chump change given to American candidates, such a solution would level the playing field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So few complaints? Where've you been?

Here. Have you complained about union $peech?

 

I haven't noticed.

 

I've noticed quite a few comments like yours in post 231 that are about busine$$ $peech and some about individual $peech but practically none about how the union$ seem to be trying to focus on corrupting DemocRAT$.

 

If I've missed some, perhaps you could link to them?

I don't differentiate Union speech as I see unions as a business.

 

 

But I just showed that there's a very clear difference. Union$ are almost exclusively trying to corrupt DemocRAT$.

 

That's not what other bu$ine$$e$ seem to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Uh, business bought politics, not the other way around.

 

The people have spoken and Congress is listening, not to the people who have spoken but to those who have given.

We have free speech but expensive government.

 

Looking at Open Secrets' numbers for 2014, it appears that businesses do generally buy "politics" in the sense of both halves of the Duopoly, but union$ concentrate the corrupting influence of their $peech on DemocRAT$. Weird that we hear so few complaints about union$ buying government, considering how they rank on the list.

 

open-secrets-2014.jpg

 

It almost as though the emphasis on corporations is more political than principled.

 

 

Not to mention the emphasis on PAC's.

 

Top of the list, the very worst offender, and another that is obviously intent on corrupting D's and not R's is ActBlue.

 

You'd think that would draw quite a bit of discussion in a place like PA, where people are so very concerned about how these PAC's buy our politicians.

 

Until you did a forum search for actblue...

 

actbluesearchSA.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Tom. I've been meaning to ask you this for a while but just never got around to it.

 

Put aside CU, the SCOTUS, corporate personhood, political $peech, news corporations, 1st Am rights and all the other stuff for a moment. Outside of the principles of the law and the constitution, which I'm pretty sure most of us know where you stand on that by now..... I'm curious what you think of the influence of money in politics? I want to ask you a series of questions to see if I can understand where you sit wrt to money and politics outside of the constitution. Ignore what the current laws may or may not be now and consider this from a King Tom for a day perspective:

 

1. Do you think there should be less money, more money or about the same amount as now in politics, political campaigns, spends by PACS, etc?

 

2. Do you think that direct cash donations to candidates should be limited or unlimited?

 

3. Should PACS be allowed to give money or spend money directly on a candidate's campaign? Should they be allowed to coordinate directly with the campaign?

 

4. Should lobbyists, corporations, and individuals be allowed to give gifts or cash directly or indirectly to a politician once in office?

 

5. Should corporations that have zero affiliation or relationship with the press (like in your GE owns ABC example earlier) have the full "freedom of the Press" 1A rights?

 

6. Do you think unlimited and unregulated money is good for politics, bad for politics or neutral in the context of campaigning, lobbying, advocating, advertising, etc.?

 

7. Should there be any limits on money in politics or government?

 

These are not yes or no answers - so feel free to flesh them out as you see fit to explain your positions. Thanks.

Interesting questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JBSF, I asked you the GE question first. Set a good example and answer:

 

 

 

 

Blah blah blah. You don't need to give corporations "personhood" in order to give them some of the rights of people. In fact the 1st doesn't even require personhood to exercise freedom of the press. The "press" is already implied to be a corporate entity. And we also already don't give some rights to corporations as we so real people - voting for instance. So I see no issue with limiting what they can do in other ways.

Back to the press issue - the "press" gets freedom of the press becaus they are the press, not because they are a corporation. Conversely, corporations who are not the press do not automatically get press rights. People who are the press (bloggers) get both freedom of speech and the press. Microsoft, OTOH is neither the press or a person. But we give them rights similar to a person without having to call them a person.

 

 

The two seem related to me because the complaints about corporate personhood from people like O started when Citizens United was decided.

 

Freedom of the press doesn't mean we have an elite group with extra freedom of speech. That's the modern understanding promoted by the minority in Citizens United, but freedom of the press means the freedom to publish and we all have it, whether operating individually or as part of a group.

 

Microsoft is a bad example. General Electric would be a better one. Do we give them freedom of the press? They own NBC, you know.

 

How about Disney? Do we give them freedom of the press? Owners of ABC.

 

I think non-profit corporations like the NAACP and Citizens United can be more valuable than NBC and ABC combined when it comes to informing the electorate.

 

 


Bus Driver, you're very late.

 

 

Corporations will be people when Texas executes one.

 

And not even all that funny, considering that states do revoke corporate charters. That's an execution. So what you're waiting for already happened. You can go ahead and agree with the entire Supreme Court on this point, since I did already show you that all 9 believe corporations are people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry, I thought those were rhetorical questions. But sure, I'll answer your questions. IMHO, a parent company is not the press. NBC is the press. SO NBC is a press corporation. Not GE. Back to you.... do you consider Microsoft or another corporation that has no affiliation with the press to be the press?

 

As for your CU and NAACP example - They already have 1st Am free speech rights, I don't know what the press has to do with this. In fact now that I think about it, why are we discussing the press even at all? ...

 

What does the MS in MSNBC stand for?

 

MSNBC is an American basic cable and satellite news television channel that was created in 1996 by Microsoft and General Electric's NBC unit, which is now the Comcast-owned NBCUniversal.

 

The idea that you can give freedom of the pre$$ to a corporation I own without at the same time giving it to me is illogical. Same thing if MS or GE owns a pre$$ corp. Everyone should buy one!

 

I don't like the idea that a company must have special government recognition or meet some qualification or other to be allowed freedom of the pre$$. I've said before that I believe freedom of the press is the freedom to publish and belongs to us all, whether we act individually or with a group. So the answer to your first question is yes.

 

To the second question, we're talking about it because some love to promote the meme that the Bill of Rights is for individuals, not groups. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are related because they're both part of the first amendment. If pressed, meme-lovers will admit that they believe the first amendment applies to corporations, but only $pecial pre$$ ones. Like the NY TImes. But not Fox.

 

 

 

The Miami Herald Corporation $peaks

 

For the position of governor in the Democratic primary, the Miami Herald recommends CHARLIE CRIST.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't MicroSoft be allowed to do that on the eve of an election? Is the Miami Herald Corporation really so special? Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, whatever. I don't recall ever saying that MS shouldn't be allowed to recommend someone on the eve of an election. You must be thinking of someone else that you had that argument with.

 

I've answered your questions - now are you going to keep dancing or are you going to answer mine?

 

I thought we were in a thread about Citizens United.

 

The law they overturned did say that corporations couldn't do that kind of thing, but exempted pre$$ corporations.

 

And I answered question 5 above, which was about that issue. You know, the thread topic.

 

I'll get around to the rest, but want to discuss the one most related to the thread first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bus Driver, you're very late.

 

 

Corporations will be people when Texas executes one.

 

And not even all that funny, considering that states do revoke corporate charters. That's an execution. So what you're waiting for already happened. You can go ahead and agree with the entire Supreme Court on this point, since I did already show you that all 9 believe corporations are people.

 

Well, now. If I said I saw a NEW bumper sticker, I might agree with your admonishment regarding my punctuality. But, I didn't.

 

Besides, you should try to find humor in such things. I know I did.

 

If you don't, you run the risk of being labeled a humorless DemocRAT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I get the sense you are just playing word games rather than having a serious discussion about the topic.

 

 

Which is why I finally put Tom on ignore. It's very tiresome. I'd rather read FPs sophomoric attempt at humor.

 

It's too bad, too, cause he has lots of good things to say over in CA, I especially like the Ugly Boat thread. Guess I'll just have to selectively read his stuff over there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Tom. I've been meaning to ask you this for a while but just never got around to it.

 

Put aside CU, the SCOTUS, corporate personhood, political $peech, news corporations, 1st Am rights and all the other stuff for a moment. Outside of the principles of the law and the constitution, which I'm pretty sure most of us know where you stand on that by now..... I'm curious what you think of the influence of money in politics? I want to ask you a series of questions to see if I can understand where you sit wrt to money and politics outside of the constitution. Ignore what the current laws may or may not be now and consider this from a King Tom for a day perspective:

 

1. Do you think there should be less money, more money or about the same amount as now in politics, political campaigns, spends by PACS, etc?

 

2. Do you think that direct cash donations to candidates should be limited or unlimited?

 

3. Should PACS be allowed to give money or spend money directly on a candidate's campaign? Should they be allowed to coordinate directly with the campaign?

 

4. Should lobbyists, corporations, and individuals be allowed to give gifts or cash directly or indirectly to a politician once in office?

 

5. Should corporations that have zero affiliation or relationship with the press (like in your GE owns ABC example earlier) have the full "freedom of the Press" 1A rights?

 

6. Do you think unlimited and unregulated money is good for politics, bad for politics or neutral in the context of campaigning, lobbying, advocating, advertising, etc.?

 

7. Should there be any limits on money in politics or government?

 

These are not yes or no answers - so feel free to flesh them out as you see fit to explain your positions. Thanks.

 

1. More. We spend more educating people about the taste of soft drinks. Way more. But that's my opinion on what other people should do with their money. As such, it's a worthless opinion.

 

2. Unlimited.

 

3. Sure. Sure.

 

4. I'm pretty sure some of this is allowed and more than is allowed goes on. I'd rather just allow it.

 

5. Freedom of the press doesn't mean we have an elite group with extra freedom of speech. That's the modern understanding promoted by the minority in Citizens United, but freedom of the press means the freedom to publish and we all have it, whether operating individually or as part of a group. That answer might look familiar to you. It should, considering I gave it before the question was asked.

 

6. Bad, at least for outsiders like me. There always seems to be some sort of Duopoly exemption...

 

7. Yes, we should give these nasty corporation$ and union$ less government to buy. Also there should be limits on taxation and maybe sunset clauses on tax laws. Or were you talking about limiting citizens, not government? ;)

 

You didn't ask about disclosure. I don't like attempts to limit speech or $peech but have some sympathy with disclosure rules. I like knowing what ActBlue and the union$ are up to in their efforts to corrupt DemocRAT$. But you'd better catch me quick. I'm getting older and grumpier and more and more suspicious even of disclosure rules. Those also always seem to have a Duopoly exemption.

 

As for all the childish comments about my absence, can't a guy work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The primary purpose of campaign finance restrictions is to protect incumbents, who have inherent advantages in fundraising (they already have favors to sell) and name recognition. This is why incumbents LOVE restrictive and confusing campaign finance laws.

 

 

If you want political change in this country (and I do) you should applaud this common sense decision. Entrenched politicians deciding to restrict the ability of their opponents to raise campaign funds is not a prescription for change.

 

...and they will never vote for (even though their constituents want it) term limits.

 

Citizens in government are long dead.

 

 

Therein lies the rub. We are well and truly fucked when anyone would blindly vote for a Clinton or a Bush

 

Sure. The argument that one or another should be elected because he or she can get something done is bull shit.

 

This is not what the Founding Fathers invisioned

 

Thank God the slave holding white men established the Supeme Court..

 

Sarah Palin or Catlin Jenner?

 

BL, and other progressive cunts will basque in a billion dollar program to attach "nipples to cripples".

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The primary purpose of campaign finance restrictions is to protect incumbents, who have inherent advantages in fundraising (they already have favors to sell) and name recognition. This is why incumbents LOVE restrictive and confusing campaign finance laws.

 

 

If you want political change in this country (and I do) you should applaud this common sense decision. Entrenched politicians deciding to restrict the ability of their opponents to raise campaign funds is not a prescription for change.

 

...and they will never vote for (even though their constituents want it) term limits.

 

Citizens in government are long dead.

 

 

Therein lies the rub. We are well and truly fucked when anyone would blindly vote for a Clinton or a Bush

 

Sure. The argument that one or another should be elected because he or she can get something done is bull shit.

 

This is not what the Founding Fathers invisioned

 

Thank God the slave holding white men established the Supeme Court..

 

Sarah Palin or Catlin Jenner?

 

BL, and other progressive cunts will basque in a billion dollar program to attach "nipples to cripples".

 

 

"Basque is a language/country in the Northeast of Spain. No wonder everyone thinks you're an idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mark's comment from the Iraqi Army thread shows exactly why big government types liked it when freedom of the press only applied to $pecial pre$$ corporation$.

 

Quite simply, because they can be tamed. If you can shut everyone else (you know, non-profits like Citizens United or the NAACP) up, you can control messaging.

 

 

 

Just stupid sloppy of me on nation building. Of course you're right.

I'm sure a significant moiety of the admin; including, perhaps, GWB believed that nonsense. There were many rationales given at different times

 


The fallout from that which is still landing is the weeding out of the last of the "Arabists" in State and associated organizations. Cheney and Rumsfeld really, really, REALLY liked to have everybody pulling in the same direction. This extended to the press as well. Most of the old hands who had the balls to speak out lost their "access". The more simple minded the better is how those guys liked their reporters and they weren't the least bit bashful about using their power to get them.

...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry, I thought those were rhetorical questions. But sure, I'll answer your questions. IMHO, a parent company is not the press. NBC is the press. SO NBC is a press corporation. Not GE. ...

 

 

I'm going to hand the crown back at this point.

 

King JBSF, how do we know which corporations are $pecial pre$$ corporations that are entitled to first amendment protection of their elk and which ones are not?

 

Is Mr. CLEAN really international media, even if he doesn't have his pink flag?

 

Is REASON magazine the pre$$?

 

If we're going to give special freedom of the press to some corporations but not others, we have to know which ones. How will you identify them?

 

"I'll know them when I see them" is how jocal identifies "assault" weapons so please don't go down that road. I want a rule. You're the King. Give me a rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The primary purpose of campaign finance restrictions is to protect incumbents, who have inherent advantages in fundraising (they already have favors to sell) and name recognition. This is why incumbents LOVE restrictive and confusing campaign finance laws.

If you want political change in this country (and I do) you should applaud this common sense decision. Entrenched politicians deciding to restrict the ability of their opponents to raise campaign funds is not a prescription for change.

 

...and they will never vote for (even though their constituents want it) term limits.

 

Citizens in government are long dead.

Therein lies the rub. We are well and truly fucked when anyone would blindly vote for a Clinton or a Bush

 

Sure. The argument that one or another should be elected because he or she can get something done is bull shit.

 

This is not what the Founding Fathers invisioned

 

Thank God the slave holding white men established the Supeme Court..

 

Sarah Palin or Catlin Jenner?

 

BL, and other progressive cunts will basque in a billion dollar program to attach "nipples to cripples".

"Basque is a language/country in the Northeast of Spain. No wonder everyone thinks you're an idiot.

RDs a basquet case.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The supreme court justices are not political appointees. They magically dropped from heaven... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that politicians are going to get rid of their money is a fantasy, much like the idea that drug prohibition is going to work.

 

A new approach is needed.

 

I'd say let individuals set the standard.

 

Reporter to candidate: "Where did you get all that money you're spending?"

 

Candidate: "None of your business. Fuck off."

 

If people still want to vote for that, let 'em. They're looking at the pic I posted from Open Secrets and continuing to vote for corrupt politicians now.

 

If another candidate wants to come along and say, "Here's where, and here's how I will prove it" then maybe that will be a winning strategery. It should be.

 

This would allow standards of such proof to change over time, as political habits and technology change. Or not, if people decide they don't care and just elect the first guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The idea that politicians are going to get rid of their money is a fantasy, much like the idea that drug prohibition is going to work.

 

A new approach is needed.

 

I'd say let individuals set the standard.

 

Reporter to candidate: "Where did you get all that money you're spending?"

 

Candidate: "None of your business. Fuck off."

 

If people still want to vote for that, let 'em. They're looking at the pic I posted from Open Secrets and continuing to vote for corrupt politicians now.

 

If another candidate wants to come along and say, "Here's where, and here's how I will prove it" then maybe that will be a winning strategery. It should be.

 

This would allow standards of such proof to change over time, as political habits and technology change. Or not, if people decide they don't care and just elect the first guy.

 

Again that whole premise is predicated on an informed, involved, active, and curious public. It doesn't exist - so we will always elect the first guy anyway. The one who can do a better dog & pony show.

 

 

We just need a pre$$ for that. How do we identify them, my King?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kennedy (for the majority) on that question:

 

Austin ’s antidistortion rationale would produce the dangerous, and unacceptable, consequence that Congress could ban political speech of media corporations. See McConnell , 540 U. S., at 283 (opinion of Thomas, J. ) (“The chilling endpoint of the Court’s reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press”). Cf. Tornillo , 418 U. S., at 250 (alleging the existence of “vast accumulations of unreviewable power in the modern media empires”). Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. See 2 U. S. C. §§431(9)( B)(i). Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views. Austin , 494 U. S., at 660. Thus, under the Government’s reasoning, wealthy media corporations could have their voices diminished to put them on par with other media entities. There is no precedent for permitting this under the First Amendment .

 

The media exemption discloses further difficulties with the law now under consideration. There is no precedent supporting laws that attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be exempt as media corporations and those which are not. “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.” Id. , at 691 ( Scalia, J. , dissenting) (citing Bellotti, 435 U. S. , at 782); see Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. , 472 U. S. 749, 784 (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens , JJ., dissenting); id. , at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment). With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.

 

The law’s exception for media corporations is, on its own terms, all but an admission of the invalidity of the antidistortion rationale. And the exemption results in a further, separate reason for finding this law invalid: Again by its own terms, the law exempts some corporations but covers others, even though both have the need or the motive to communicate their views. The exemption applies to media corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news. So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue. This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment .

 

 

Stevens on that question:

 

In critiquing Austin ’s antidistortion rationale and campaign finance regulation more generally, our colleagues place tremendous weight on the example of media corporations. See ante , at 35–38, 46; ante , at 1, 11 (opinion of Roberts , C. J.); ante , at 6 (opinion of Scalia , J.). Yet it is not at all clear that Austin would permit §203 to be applied to them. The press plays a unique role not only in the text, history, and structure of the First Amendment but also in facilitating public discourse; as the Austin Court explained, “media corporations differ significantly from other corporations in that their resources are devoted to the collection of information and its dissemination to the public,” 494 U. S., at 667. Our colleagues have raised some interesting and difficult questions about Congress’ authority to regulate electioneering by the press, and about how to define what constitutes the press. But that is not the case before us. Section 203 does not apply to media corporations, and even if it did, Citizens United is not a media corporation. There would be absolutely no reason to consider the issue of media corporations if the majority did not, first, transform Citizens United’s as-applied challenge into a facial challenge and, second, invent the theory that legislatures must eschew all “identity”-based distinctions and treat a local nonprofit news outlet exactly the same as General Motors. 75 This calls to mind George Berkeley’s description of philosophers: “[W]e have first raised a dust and then complain we cannot see.”

 

 

Stevens' objection amounts to "this wouldn't be a question if no one asked it."

 

Well, someone did and it's a good question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry, I thought those were rhetorical questions. But sure, I'll answer your questions. IMHO, a parent company is not the press. NBC is the press. SO NBC is a press corporation. Not GE. ...

 

The reason my question is not rhetorical is that it's not just an idle musing from a disgruntled libertarian.

 

franken-petition.jpg

 

He's a Senator, you know. Not just some dude on a forum.

 

The "terrible problem" with Citizens United, the one they want to amend the constitution to solve, is that it treats corporations as people and applies the first amendment to them.

 

Freedom of speech has been interpreted to mean freedom of expression and freedom of the press is the freedom to publish. They are different but related.

 

Senator Franken wants to solve the problem of which corporations should enjoy freedom of the press by answering none. It seems silly that I should have to ask whether the NY Times corp, for example, should enjoy freedom of the press. I can see why you thought it was a rhetorical question, but it's a real policy proposal from an elected official.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry, I thought those were rhetorical questions. But sure, I'll answer your questions. IMHO, a parent company is not the press. NBC is the press. SO NBC is a press corporation. Not GE. ...

 

The reason my question is not rhetorical is that it's not just an idle musing from a disgruntled libertarian.

 

franken-petition.jpg

 

He's a Senator, you know. Not just some dude on a forum.

 

The "terrible problem" with Citizens United, the one they want to amend the constitution to solve, is that it treats corporations as people and applies the first amendment to them.

 

Freedom of speech has been interpreted to mean freedom of expression and freedom of the press is the freedom to publish. They are different but related.

 

Senator Franken wants to solve the problem of which corporations should enjoy freedom of the press by answering none. It seems silly that I should have to ask whether the NY Times corp, for example, should enjoy freedom of the press. I can see why you thought it was a rhetorical question, but it's a real policy proposal from an elected official.

 

 

Which national network, national newspaper, NEWS syndicate is NOT a corporation.

 

Odd that the left has been a champion of aggregating voices in the form of unions yet a privately owned business or a publicly held corporation can't aggregate the voices of their ownership into one coordinated message.? Why the double standard? Smells a lot like hypocrisy to me.

 

And... Union membership is too often involuntary but no one is forced to buy a personal stake in a corporation's stock. To argue that the owners of a corporation both private and public should be silenced is as the SCOTUS pointed out, unconstitutional.

 

Unions speak collectively for their members and corporation speak jointly for their owners. Seems fair and in keeping with freedom of speech. Any effort to censor any voice is is UnAmerican.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We just need a pre$$ for that. How do we identify them, my King?

 

 

Easy.... they are the ones with the press badges.

 

 

It'll be a cold day in hell when anyone gives a pre$$ badge to these guys.

 

You know, the guys responsible for us knowing about Fast and Furious at all. The ones who performed the "unique role not only in the text, history, and structure of the First Amendment but also in facilitating public discourse" as Justice Stevens put it.

 

No corporate pre$$ performed that function. They came in later because they're tame. See post 262.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We just need a pre$$ for that. How do we identify them, my King?

 

 

Easy.... they are the ones with the press badges.

 

 

Hmm...

 

 

...I get the sense you are just playing word games rather than having a serious discussion about the topic.

 

 

My question is as serious as a heart attack. I already showed you that one US Senator wants to change the Constitution so that the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations any more.

 

Hillary and Bernie feel the same way, as noted above.

 

I think they're dangerous. The campaign finance laws had to let pre$$ corporations $pend corporate money talking about candidates or the Miami Herald would not have been able to $peak like they did in my example above.

 

But if you're going to let some corporations do that and not others, we need to know which ones.

 

So identify the special ones and try to take your own admonition about a serious discussion, well, seriously.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I thought those were rhetorical questions. But sure, I'll answer your questions. IMHO, a parent company is not the press. NBC is the press. SO NBC is a press corporation. Not GE. ...

The reason my question is not rhetorical is that it's not just an idle musing from a disgruntled libertarian.

 

franken-petition.jpg

 

He's a Senator, you know. Not just some dude on a forum.

 

The "terrible problem" with Citizens United, the one they want to amend the constitution to solve, is that it treats corporations as people and applies the first amendment to them.

 

Freedom of speech has been interpreted to mean freedom of expression and freedom of the press is the freedom to publish. They are different but related.

 

Senator Franken wants to solve the problem of which corporations should enjoy freedom of the press by answering none. It seems silly that I should have to ask whether the NY Times corp, for example, should enjoy freedom of the press. I can see why you thought it was a rhetorical question, but it's a real policy proposal from an elected official.

Which national network, national newspaper, NEWS syndicate is NOT a corporation.

 

Odd that the left has been a champion of aggregating voices in the form of unions yet a privately owned business or a publicly held corporation can't aggregate the voices of their ownership into one coordinated message.? Why the double standard? Smells a lot like hypocrisy to me.

 

And... Union membership is too often involuntary but no one is forced to buy a personal stake in a corporation's stock. To argue that the owners of a corporation both private and public should be silenced is as the SCOTUS pointed out, unconstitutional.

 

Unions speak collectively for their members and corporation speak jointly for their owners. Seems fair and in keeping with freedom of speech. Any effort to censor any voice is is UnAmerican.

Oh no, the unions!!!!

 

Meh

Link to post
Share on other sites

THat's not far off. Limit contributions to a certain amount per year, per registered voter from the district that candidate is seeking to represent. Jail time for violators.

 

 

What does this solution have to do with the topic case?

 

Citizens United didn't give money to anyone. They $poke about a candidate prior to an election.

 

You know, like the Miami Herald did in my example above. Except without the pre$$ exemption.

 

Is $peaking giving money?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole purpose of a lobbyist is to contact a politician. People (broadly) need to do that.

 

Where does Facebook have a significant presence?

 

Not that it matters. You want to govern giving money, but as I pointed out to Sol, that's not what the topic case was about.

 

If you're going to let corps $peak about anyone, any time, without regard to whether or not they are officially the pre$$, they don't really have to give money. They can simply run commercials like Citizens United Inc. wanted to do.

 

Is running commercials for or against a candidate anything remotely similar to giving them money? Think carefully about that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course running ads is remotely similar to giving money. ...

 

So if $peech = money then the transitive property would say that money = $peech.

 

Taking it a bit further, suggestions like yours and Sol's to regulate money miss quite a bit. They miss non-monetary contributions like the running of commercials. Or the running of an op-ed like the one from the Miami Herald that I linked.

 

If you were not going to be such a wishy-washy King, prone to giving up your argument at the first sign of resistance, how would you define pre$$ corporations that are entitled to first amendment protection of their pre$$ freedom and non-pre$$ corporations that can be censored?

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Where does Facebook have a significant presence?

 

...

 

The answer to this one seems obvious to me. Everywhere. Or possibly nowhere, but everywhere captures it better.

 

Does it really matter where their HQ is? Where the servers are? They are everywhere. Their people are everywhere. Their interests are everywhere.

 

So where should they be allowed to pursue those interests and where should they not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because I get the sense you are just playing word games rather than having a serious discussion about the topic.

 

 

Which is why I finally put Tom on ignore. It's very tiresome....

 

Let's provide a good example of a serious discussion.

 

When I pointed out Franken's petition to amend the Constitution above, your reaction was to sign it. I asked why.

 

 

 

just muck around a bit, you know, throw the old constitution a curve ball.

 

That seems to be about the same amount of thought that Franken has put into it, so I guess it's appropriate that you signed. Scary, but appropriate.

 

The President complained that the Supreme Court had dismantled some 100 year old precedents governing how businesses are treated. So Franken proposed pulling the rug from underneath all the rest of the precedents in all areas of law that depend on treating corporations as persons. It's like responding to a fire in a closet by blowing up the house. Yeah, that'll work.

 

 

 

Yeah, I need to take some "serious" lessons from you.

 

Why don't you explain what the terrible problem with the Constitution is that you hope to solve? It has something to do with corporations, people and Citizens United. I took a guess at what the problem is but I'd rather hear someone who agrees explain it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Tom, I have a really novel concept for you. instead of continually asking us circular questions over and over again - why don't you just plainly state your positions on corporations, the press, CU, speech and money. Like a Tom Ray manifesto of sorts. Then those of us who have stopped paying attention to your merry-go-round of questions long ago might be able to re-engage and have an honest discussion with your for a change rather than asking us rhetorical questions like a bored father would with his 7 yr old. I get that its effective on on jocal, since he has about the reasoning level of a 7 yr old. and I applaud you for that, but as someone said earlier - it does get tiring.

 

 

On corporations: they're still people, just like in the 19th century.

 

On the pre$$: freedom of the press means the right to publish and belongs to us all, whether operating individually or in groups.

 

On CU,

 

 

 

...

I don't think the Supreme Court got everything right in Citizens United. I have said before that if my opinion were published with the rest, it would look like the rest: concurring in part, dissenting in part, and going off on my own wild tangent because the issues are so incredibly complex.

 

I have said over and over that they got ONE thing right, and ALL NINE of them got it right: corporations are people, and have been for a long time. They have first amendment rights, and have for a long time.

 

 

On $peech and money, restrictions on money that are intended to inhibit expression are censorship and restrictions on behavior (like plaintiff-shopping in NAACP vs Button or $pending money on commercials in the case of CU Inc) that are intended to inhibit expression are censorship. I don't trust in the benefits of censorship nor do I buy the fantasy that politicians will censor anyone but their opponents.

 

We obviously disagree on the bolded one above. You think "the press" in our first amendment refers to a group of people/institutions. I think it refers to all of us. We can't have an honest discussion about that? Why not?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well fuck! Now where am I supposed to go to find someone who will identify the pre$$ for me?

 

I have asked quite a few forum members but didn't expect an answer from most and didn't get one.

 

I had hope that I was actually on the path to an answer.

 

Oh well, another Sunday ruined. Time to go play outside!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well fuck! Now where am I supposed to go to find someone who will identify the pre$$ for me?

 

I have asked quite a few forum members but didn't expect an answer from most and didn't get one.

 

I had hope that I was actually on the path to an answer.

 

Oh well, another Sunday ruined. Time to go play outside!

 

Jeff is misreading the 1st amendment. I was guilty of the same common misinterpretation in the past as well.

 

"Press" is not an industry, person or occupation.

 

The first prevents the federal government (the 14th extends that to all levels of government) from abridging your right to "Speak" or to "Publish" your thoughts, rants, hate, ideas, beliefs etc.

 

Freedom of the press is not a protection reserved for some elite, anointed News Reporters, Newspapers or News Media companies etc; although it certainly applies to them as well. It is a general freedom granted every citizen to Say or Print whatever they choose. Of course printing in that era involved a printing press. When Radio, TV , Internet evolved the right expanded to include these new "virtual presses".

 

 

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's astonishing to me that we have two Presidential candidates running to overturn Citizens United, whatever that means in the context of this mess.

 

 

Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined, in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined as to Part IV. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined in part. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Breyer , and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

 

And overturning this decision is not a small matter. Bernie says it's top of the list. Al Franken wants to amend the constitution. It must be hugely important.

 

11377127_10153374673057908_5856141603440

 

And I can't find a single person here who wants to defend the minority view of freedom of the press? No one who wants to explain the purpose of the needed constitutional amendment?

 

When people without a purpose or explanation want to go "fixing" our first amendment, I get very suspicious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 kids in the sailing camp this week, ranging from a 74 lb'er on a sailboat for his first time to a 13 year old whose dad is one of our coaches. He's not expected to make mistakes at this point, but still does and gets hazed ruthlessly. All these kids know each other. The littlest kid was just barely heavy enough to right a Sunfish, but he did it.

 

11425164_10205708228378997_7094574683761

Link to post
Share on other sites

We let the kids go out into Alligator Bay in search of some wind yesterday. I tried to sail a Sunfish backward and found I have forgotten how. A few of the newer kids still do it accidentally pretty regularly but I couldn't do it on purpose. How humiliating.

 

 

1554614_10205712731651576_35987092812377

Link to post
Share on other sites