US Supreme Court strikes down campaign finance limits

[Neo-Logic]

Are you seriously asserting that a corporation is morally the same as a person? Good god!

The Constitution opens with "we the people of the United States." Corporations are not autonomous robots. They are run by the same people who individually pay taxes, but legally have formed a corporation of some nature to accomplish certain goals. This corporation pays taxes, is vital to our commerce, and represent the interest of many 'people.'

It's similar in many respects. It is held accountable for its actions. When a corporation hits the ground, the designated officers are liable for the financial obligations including debts. When it does well, it is taxed accordingly. It's responsible to its shareholders.

It's only fair they too get a say. Their speech, like hate speech, should be free speech. Speech is speech is speech.

 

[Neo-Logic]

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.

They are run by citizens. They represent the interest of shareholders, many of whom will be citizens. They have employees who are citizens. They work with vendors who are likely to employ citizens of their own. They serve customers who are probably citizens.

By all purposes of this conversation, corporations have a human element behind them. They're formed as a result of contractual agreements and they are law abiding entities that can be held responsible.

No, they're not citizens or people, but they do represent the interests of many. And like many they pay taxes, sometimes twice. Why shouldn't they get their say?

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.

You're right. Incomes are all very relative. $250,000 is a drop in the bucket in metropolitans, East Coast sprawls, and Bay Area cities, but it is significant and it is much better off than the median incomes.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Just skimmed through the opinion. Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissenting.The dissent argues the difference between corporation and citizens -- mainly that corporations can be controlled by those abroad and foreign having no actual citizenship or interests, cannot vote, and cannot hold office. They saw it as a danger to the electoral process.

Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with Congress passing laws to limit this than unelected, unrepresented justices making decisions, one way or the other. I'd like to see this go through the political process instead of the courts limiting free speech of anyone -- including corporations -- where a constitutional amendment is the only remedy. And that's a damn hard thing to do.

 

[Aquitaine]

Just skimmed through the opinion. Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissenting. I think this case can be overturned soon. The dissent argues the difference between corporation and citizens -- mainly that corporations can be controlled by those abroad and foreign having no actual citizenship or interests, cannot vote, and cannot hold office. They saw it as a danger to the electoral process.

To me, that makes sense. There are many global corporations that're run or owned by non-US Citizens that could gain influence in US Politics etc. I personally am undecided on this decision about Corporations being recognized as a person(s) in terms of free speech, I mean technically yeah they're run by Citizens, but given the vast resources they can tap into just seems to give them an unfair advantage. I do think I'm leaning more towards the side of the dissenters on this one.

 

[Sunstone]

The Constitution opens with "we the people of the United States." Corporations are not autonomous robots. They are run by the same people who individually pay taxes, but legally have formed a corporation of some nature to accomplish certain goals. This corporation pays taxes, is vital to our commerce, and represent the interest of many 'people.'

It's similar in many respects. It is held accountable for its actions. When a corporation hits the ground, the designated officers are liable for the financial obligations including debts. When it does well, it is taxed accordingly. It's responsible to its shareholders.

It's only fair they too get a say. Their speech, like hate speech, should be free speech. Speech is speech is speech.

Spoken like an 1800s jurist, bought and paid for by a corporation, but not spoken like one of the Founders.

 

[dust1n]

Spoken like an 1800s jurist, bought and paid for by a corporation, but not spoken like one of the Founders.

:foot:

 

[Aquitaine]

It's similar in many respects. It is held accountable for its actions. When a corporation hits the ground, the designated officers are liable for the financial obligations including debts.

I thought that whenever that happens the tax payers just bail them out. The same with all the Wall Street Banks: privitize profit, socialize losses?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, they're not citizens or people, but they do represent the interests of many. And like many they pay taxes, sometimes twice. Why shouldn't they get their say?

I was actually wondering the other day. Does a corporate donation come from the pocket books of those who run said corporation, or from company funds? If it does come from company funds, which I suspect it does, then it adds another advantage of the people who run them having access to money that isn't there own.

You're right. Incomes are all very relative. $250,000 is a drop in the bucket in metropolitans, East Coast sprawls, and Bay Area cities, but it is significant and it is much better off than the median incomes.

True. $250,000 can go fast in some areas. But, it also comes down to life style choices. You can make the big bucks and live it up, or live modestly and still stretch your money further.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I now understand why americans have the right to bear arms.

However the next step will be corporate armies... they have shown their face in Iraq.

followng that will be the right for corporations to conscript workers. This is only a small step from reintroducing slavery.

 

[PureX]

I now understand why americans have the right to bear arms.

However the next step will be corporate armies... they have shown their face in Iraq.

followng that will be the right for corporations to conscript workers. This is only a small step from reintroducing slavery.

We're slaves to them, already. Can anyone here afford to refuse to work?

 

[yossarian22]

Spoken like an 1800s jurist, bought and paid for by a corporation, but not spoken like one of the Founders.

I would like to see a meaningful distinction between "the press" and corporations. Why is speech from, say, Haliburton fundamentally different from speech from the NY times? Now what about GE, who happened to have a majority share in MSNBC, who we ostensibly consider a news station.

Again, the first amendment is a restriction on government action. It does not give people a right to free speech so much as prevent government from regulating speech regardless of its source. This is markedly different from the second amendment which specifically stipulates personhood.

The issue of corporate personhood is completely and utterly irrelevant to this decision--nevermind that everybody in this thread has totally failed to understand what corporate personhood is.

 

[PureX]

We need to redefine a "corporation" in this country. Right from the beginning they were given too much power. To me, a corporation has no right to free speech. It needs no vote or say in the conduct of the nation because all the individuals involved ALREADY HAVE THEIR SAY. But years ago this country decided to view corporations as though they were human citizens, themselves, and this gave them special dispensations under the laws. I suppose the fix was in even back then.

It's coming down to the wire, now, though. We need to quit complaining about this to each other and start taking action against the politicians that have been encouraging this legalized bribery. Action is the only way we can put a stop to it.

We have anther very powerful weapon, as well, and that's the boycott. If the consuming public began to boycott the products of corporations that are most notorious for bribing our politicians, they would suddenly "get religion" in a big hurry. Nothing speaks to them more loudly and clearly than the dollars on their bottom line.

We have the internet. All we need is a group of citizens to begin investigating these corporations and their lobbies to see just how much they're spending to get legislation written in their favor. And then publish this information on line for the rest of us to act on. These corporations are not gods. We ultimately have the power to break them. They are far more acutely aware of this than we are.

 

[Dunemeister]

What Americans need fear is that their elected representatives, including the president, no longer consider and debate policy. Their function is to rubber-stamp those who (quite legally) bribe them. The real power rests with the judiciary. Theoretically, they are out of the patronage loop, but the fact is that it is through the manipulation and interpretation of law, including the constitution, that law is created. And it's a dangerously passive way to govern, for the courts must wait for a case to be brought.

The USA needs to do some serious soul-searching. Surely this can't be what they want out of government?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What Americans need fear is that their elected representatives, including the president, no longer consider and debate policy

What this American fears is that most Americans believe they have absolutely no power in the political spectrum. Some believe that voting is the only power we have.

 

[Smoke]

Don't get me wrong. I do not like the idea of granting corporations the same status as a citizen. I think it was one of the worst decisions made. But my cynicism in the face of the actual practice of citizen politics in this country tells me it's basically too late. The American people as a collective are just too stupid. The fire is already raging and this decision is just a small log at this point.

That's about where I am. The USA is basically over, and this is just a symptom. The rampant stupidity of the electorate and the unabashed corruption of those who have any actual power have both gone too far.

Things I heard at my parents' house yesterday:

1) There's no such thing as global warming; it's a fiction designed to make Al Gore rich.

2) If we have universal health care, people over 65 won't get any medical treatment; they'll just be sent to hospice when they get sick.

3) The United States has the greatest healthcare system in the world. People in Europe and Canada and Japan wish they had a healthcare system like ours. That's why foreigners who can afford it always come to the US for medical treatment.

4) The government never does anything right; universal healthcare will destroy healthcare in this country.

5) Obama is a Communist Muslim who was born in Kenya.

6) The US has forgotten about God, and God will judge us for it. We have to bring this country back to God if it's not too late.

7) In another generation, the US will be a Buddhist country. (So I guess it's too late.)

8) The Democrats want to take away our guns so we won't be able to defend ourselves against the Communists.

I'd hate to imagine what they say about gay rights when I'm not there.

If it were just my parents and their friends who believed **** like this, it might be amusing. Unfortunately, an astounding number of Americans believe -- and think they know -- things that are absolute nonsense. Real progress is impossible. Real communication is impossible. We are in the hands of fools and scoundrels, and things will probably going to get much worse before they get better. When they do get worse, the very people who caused the problems will redouble their efforts.

 

[Reverend Rick]

OMG, that mouse is soooo cute.

 

[Smoke]

Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with Congress passing laws to limit this than unelected, unrepresented justices making decisions, one way or the other.

... :thud:

 

[KatNotKathy]

So just a quick Q: what about foreign corporations? I mean, if the Cuban Government can form CubaCo and fund campaigns to lift the embargo, maybe we can at least get something good out of this.

 

[gnomon]

So just a quick Q: what about foreign corporations? I mean, if the Cuban Government can form CubaCo and fund campaigns to lift the embargo, maybe we can at least get something good out of this.

But the question that is begged that is begging to be begged is this?

Will the electorate pay any serious attention to such campaign ads?

My opinion is no.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Hi, Neo, if you have the time, you should watch Century of the Self. It's not just the advertising people can't compete with, it's the billions of dollars spent studying human psychology in an intentional effort to subvert the critical thinking process in order to shape public perceptions in favour of the agenda of corporate interests. The people generating these messages have a very different philosophy to what we would assume (if we didn't know better). They are certain that you are not able to think for yourself, examine the facts and make sound decisions about the direction you want your country to go in. They are certain that their vision and ideology is superior to yours, and is the best for you whether you know it or not. But instead of arguing an honest case, they use dirty psychological underhanded tricks to get you to behave the way they would like: think as little as possible and consume as much as possible.

I know you're a thinking person - I'd be interested to hear whether your attitude that the complacency of voters is entirely their own fault is affected by this documentary. It's a long haul, but well worth it. Personally I believe you can't fault them entirely if they have been intentionally manipulated to behave that way by the manipulation of their subconscious drives in order to neutralize their engagement and critical thinking. I hold people partly accountable, but the majority of my ire is directed at the PR (formerly known as "propaganda" before the Nazis and commies gave the word a bad rap) industry.

Anyway, basically the Supreme Court has decided there should be no limit whatsoever to the efforts of corporate interests to intentionally subvert your free will to serve their agenda. It's a crying shame. There's nothing for it but to burn your TV.