dust1n
Zindīq
Agreed. Corporations shouldn't be considered citizens in the first place.
And the end of democracy happened along time ago. :yes:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
US Supreme Court strikes down campaign finance limits
- Thread starter Wandered Off
- Start date
Agreed. Corporations shouldn't be considered citizens in the first place.
And the end of democracy happened along time ago. :yes:
KatNotKathy
Well-Known Member
Oh come on now. The ****-drippings unions could give to political campaigns are nothing compared to the full golden shower any major corporation could accomplish. While unions might be able to donate more now, they are outclassed more than ever by our corporate masters.
It was reported that way by Keith Olbermann last night on MSNBC. The video is still on his page. Start watching at about 3 minutes 40 seconds in : Countdown with Keith Olbermann Countdown with Keith Olbermann
gnomon
Well-Known Member
The point is that the regulations did little to effect corporations while those same regulations did much to hinder smaller organizations. Especially grass roots organizations, small business and unions. Unions were more restricted prior to this decision than corporations.
The recent health care bills showed the power and influence of those corporations to effect legislation. Not filing paperwork on time could result in a small grass roots organizations paying fines far in excess of the actual cost of their campaign. Actually, it could hinder small campaigns as well.
What this decision does not do is allow for unlimited direct contributions to political campaigns.
Also, you cannot ignore the notion that if the U.S. government recognizes that corporations themselves do have free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment then you cannot abridge those rights if those same rights are still protected for individual citizens.
Which is why we need to readdress the whole concept of corporations completely.
Remember, this case was not brought by an auto manufacturer, an oil company or some other big bad evil overlord corporation (there's my hyperbole for the thread). It was brought by a group called Citizens United. A relatively small non-profit organization that most people never heard of until they released that movie critical of Hillary Clinton. A very small corporation took this to the courts and won. Their political ideology is irrelevant.
Other groups that could have challenged the McCain-Feingold law, which is what was challenged by Citizens United, would have been Californians Against Corruption who were fined, under the McCain-Feingold law, approximately $800,000 for failing to file reports regarding donors. A $100,000 recall campaign was fined for 8 times more the cost of that campaign because the employment and occupations of less than a hundred donors who gave more than $100 were not filed properly. No corporation or aspiring rich politician, especially an incumbent, would ever be so burdened.
Last point. This decision is no bar to future laws, with better language, reforming campaign finance. The decision is not a sweeping, absolute and permanent end to campaign finance. This decision specifically details speech regarding political ads just prior to an election.
We have to review the relationship between corporations and individual rights. Keeping bad laws in place isn't the answer.
One other thing I think that needs to be pointed out as people demonize the big mean faceless corporations... the same way Unions represent millions of workers, corporations represent millions of shareholders. Obama classifies some as rich who makes over $250,000/year, but I make far less than that, and own stock directly in a dozen corporations, and in hundreds of corporations indirectly through funds. Pension funds and 401k retirement accounts have the Average Joe the owners of "Big Oil" and "Big Healthcare". These companies are run to benefit shareholders... me, you (the general you), our parents, our grandparents, and our kids. Little the government does affects the wealth of the mega-rich, but it does impact me and you.
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
I'm not as concerned about this.
Corporate interest to me has always been a sort of special interest. As with most special interest, they're in the minority. Regardless of our opinions on corporations doesn't change the fact that at any time, if the regular voters cared enough about a subject, they can almost always out vote and out influence the special interests and big corporations. That is just the simple and plain fact, whether or not the potential of it is realized in the actual.
I don't blame corporations and special interests for having interests. We all have interests. If there's any blame to go around, I blame the complacency of the voting public in many issues and their prime time induced lethargy.
And as much as corporations have done us wrong in the recent years, they've also done us well in many respects. They've innovated, pioneered, and have given us many things we enjoy (minus the snuggie). They employ a good chunk of our work force, pay a lot of taxes, and have large humanitarian/ social responsibility means at their disposal. It's not hard to imagine they would have interests of their own to represent their shareholders and employees.
Corporate interest to me has always been a sort of special interest. As with most special interest, they're in the minority. Regardless of our opinions on corporations doesn't change the fact that at any time, if the regular voters cared enough about a subject, they can almost always out vote and out influence the special interests and big corporations. That is just the simple and plain fact, whether or not the potential of it is realized in the actual.
I don't blame corporations and special interests for having interests. We all have interests. If there's any blame to go around, I blame the complacency of the voting public in many issues and their prime time induced lethargy.
And as much as corporations have done us wrong in the recent years, they've also done us well in many respects. They've innovated, pioneered, and have given us many things we enjoy (minus the snuggie). They employ a good chunk of our work force, pay a lot of taxes, and have large humanitarian/ social responsibility means at their disposal. It's not hard to imagine they would have interests of their own to represent their shareholders and employees.
KatNotKathy
Well-Known Member
Too bad we'll probably never get publicly-funded elections.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
The problem with this is that corporations control more than a bulk of the wealth. We have very little. Corporations can get a political candidate a 5 minute long commercial on the Superbowl. This will allow any candidate, or idea, that is in alignment with big business to dominate airwaves. And since the average voter is not well informed, and very easily lead, this means corporations will have a very easy time getting their way just because they have more money.
I'm very pro-union, but even they are becoming more corrupt. Just look at what the UAW allowed Chrysler and Delphi to get away with. Retirees are loosing benefits, pay and benefits have become very uncertain, jobs, even those with high seniority, have become uncertain, parts of contracts that are supposed to protect workers are being ignored, and all because the UAW seems to not really care anymore.
dust1n
Zindīq
Awww.. the mega-rich get to stay how they are, and we get a wittle bit of class privilege...
My issue with this type of thinking is it seems to devalue speech based on some vague idea of fairness. It also places a value on speech with qualifiers... "big business" is "evil" and needs to have its speech controlled and limited. Either free speech is free speech, or it is not.
Are you seriously asserting that a corporation is morally the same as a person? Good god!
A couple that makes 250,000 a year is NOT RICH.
Middle class millionaires cannot even afford to live in Manhattan.
Get a clue, it takes billions to live like a millionaire now a days.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Yeah! They can only afford one yacht rather than a whole fleet.
Give me a break, how much of that 250,000 does a couple get to keep after paying federal, social security, medicare, state, county and city taxes?
When that money goes into the bank they then get to pay, sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, utility tax, cigarettes and liquor tax, motel and resturant tax, yada yada yada.
Just how much do you think a respectable yacht costs anyways?
OK FH, lets say a small yacht costs 500,000.
Can a person making 50,000 a year buy a 100,000 dollar car?
Can a person making 50,000 a year buy a 100,000 dollar car?
KatNotKathy
Well-Known Member
Not as rich as some, but certainly rich. I mean, back in high school when both my parents and I were working to support the family, we barely made 10% of that.
If you can live in this country without 90% of your wealth, you're rich.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Corporations are entities, not citizens though. It's grossly unfair because that means they will have a much easier time having it their way just because they have more money. They already buy senators, but now they can manipulate the masses.
That I think is the funniest thing I have ever heard. I only made 16,000 last year. That basically means I have all the basic needs covered, a few luxuries such as satellite TV. What it also means, car repairs are a burden, especially expensive ones (50 dollars, on up through 400.), taking time off from work due to illness puts a massive strain on finances, any extra bill can be difficult to pay, and when you finally get some money saved up, something happens and you don't have anything saved up.
Now, had I made 234,000 dollars more, my college would be covered, car repairs wouldn't be a hassle, my tax refund wouldn't be paying the bills while I'm recovering from surgery, and I'd be able to afford to eat higher quality, healthier foods. A quarter of a million a year may not be super rich, but it is certainly very rich.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
This decision has absolutely nothing to do with corporate personhood. The first amendment is a restriction on government regulation of speech. It does not use the word "person" at all.
And oh no! Now a corporation won't have to own a news station to create political media! How horrifying.
And oh no! Now a corporation won't have to own a news station to create political media! How horrifying.
