OTOH, do you think that if some company gave enough money to the candidate you did vote for, he or she might be persuaded to do things you don't agree with?
Yes, I believe they would be more than just tempted.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
OTOH, do you think that if some company gave enough money to the candidate you did vote for, he or she might be persuaded to do things you don't agree with?
I have yet to see any legal precedent that leads to corporations being considered persons with all the rights associated with personhood. Corporate personhood is something that everybody in this thread seems to misunderstand. This decision was not caused by considering corporations a separate legal entity (this is what corporate personhood is, and this is necessary to have laws specific to corporations and for contract signing etc).But "people" is just the plural of "person", and it's now established that under the law, a corporation is a person. Therefore, the right of the corporations to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No?
Edit: arguably, this would be closer to the strict letter of the amendment, since a corporate private army would be a lot closer to a "well regulated militia" than an armed individual citizen would be.
Speaking for myself, the problem I have with the decision is that corporations can now donate endless funds to the candidate of choice whereas before there was a cap. Is that not the case?I have yet to see any legal precedent that leads to corporations being considered persons with all the rights associated with personhood. Corporate personhood is something that everybody in this thread seems to misunderstand. This decision was not caused by considering corporations a separate legal entity (this is what corporate personhood is, and this is necessary to have laws specific to corporations and for contract signing etc).
For people against this decision, what would you have asked the Supreme Court to do? Look at FOX news, they already are extremely political and are only protected due to their dubious distinction as the press, so define "press" in a meaningful and distinct way. Was MSNBC the press when they were owned by GE?
Obama takes a swipe at the justices for the decision.
Alito shakes his head. You can feel the 8 seconds of tension in the air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KMKD1Mi8o0&feature=player_embedded
Buttercup said:Speaking for myself, the problem I have with the decision is that corporations can now donate endless funds to the candidate of choice whereas before there was a cap. Is that not the case?
I still don't like the idea. The horror of endless acerbic, slanderous, aggrandized campaign commercials running on TV, radio, billboards, automobiles, 18 wheelers, ice cream trucks, tricycles, etc, etc for months and months sounds tortuous. How can this decision be a good thing? And try to forget the status quo for a minute.It's not the case. The decision dealt with funding for advertisements. The key issue was that a video was produced regarding Hillary and it violated the McCain-Feingold law. It was determined that, considering corporations were already assumed to possess 1st Amendment rights from a case before the 20th Century, that the McCain-Feingold law was unconstitutional in that it abridged the political speech of corporations.
I still don't like the idea. The horror of endless acerbic, slanderous, aggrandized campaign commercials running on TV, radio, billboards, automobiles, 18 wheelers, ice cream trucks, tricycles, etc, etc for months and months sounds tortuous. How can this decision be a good thing? And try to forget the status quo for a minute.
Then why the change now? What's the impetus?The funny thing is that I don't like the way things are myself.
I think we, as a nation, need to rethink the role corporations play in our community. But in order to do so we have to revisit the decision that allowed corporations the same Bill of Rights protections as citizens under the 14th Amendment that the SCOTUS decided long ago.
That's why I mentioned all those other court decisions that directly involve private citizens. But the current decision is in line with the current understanding of the role of corporations no matter how much I might dislike it. If the SCOTUS views corporations as possessing such rights than the decision is a consistent one.
Can't argue with that.The only way to effect real change is to improve the education of our children in civics, get the American electorate more involved and to fight back against government malfeasance. But the electorate as a whole has become lazy.
Give him a bit more time. After our last administration, I'm willing to allow Obama the benefit of the doubt for now....at least another year. The Washington machine is vicious.Look at Obama. Here's a President that promised so much so called change and has not delivered.
Too true.We, as a nation, spend more to combat illicit drugs while ignoring the fact that the alcohol and tobacco industry are important economic drivers for our economy while spending less to combat modern day slavery which all indicators state is worse now than it has ever been.
Well, to defend the average American, including myself, most of us aren't interested in politics enough to do the research it takes to know the issues from top to bottom. We work, we come home to take care of our families and then it's time for bed before another identical round starts the next day. On the weekends we just want to relax. When we do try to stay informed, our easy news sources are TV, newspapers and the internet. You have to really dig to find out anything that isn't whitewashed, coddled for middle America or drown out by advertising. Sometimes there just aren't enough hours in the day to take assessment of how the world turns and the myriad of problems unfolding.Our priorities are wrong. Which is why I believe that the current distaste of a rather simple SCOTUS decision based on simple understanding laid in precedent by so many people obscures even greater issues. Personally, I find the arguments so far not only across the media but on this forum regarding this decision to be likened to the argument against gay marriage. Lots of woe but very little argumentation to support the derision.
edit: And the sick thing with me is that I want the argumentation. Good arguments. But frankly the chicken little responses thus far have been completely pathetic.
There was a cap in how much you could donate to a particular organization that created the ads. Nothing, however, stopped corporations from creating support ads that just happened to strongly agree with one candidate and disagree strongly with another. This decision changes nothing really. It just allows explicit support of a political candidate. Ad campaigns provide corporations far less leverage than lobbying (see the success of the health insurance industry) and cost far more. They are also transparent and rarely particularly convincing.Speaking for myself, the problem I have with the decision is that corporations can now donate endless funds to the candidate of choice whereas before there was a cap. Is that not the case?
I would hope the average american would take the time to know the first amendment, because that is all the research required to support the supreme court's decision.Well, to defend the average American, including myself, most of us aren't interested in politics enough to do the research it takes to know the issues from top to bottom.
It's more complicated than that....I'm not the only one confused. Just trying to decipher how a corporation equates with person hood is baffling enough.I would hope the average american would take the time to know the first amendment, because that is all the research required to support the supreme court's decision.
You really think so? If advertising was so unconvincing, why would Budweiser pay millions of dollars to place a Super Bowl ad? I worked for an advertising agency...you can't imagine the consumer studies done regarding the effectiveness of advertising. Advertising works. No question.They are also transparent and rarely particularly convincing.
Advertising is powerful. While subliminal messaging doesn't work that well, regular advertising is what lures consumers in. Advertising works by putting out a name, and people probably won't remember the add, but they will remember the name.Ad campaigns provide corporations far less leverage than lobbying (see the success of the health insurance industry) and cost far more. They are also transparent and rarely particularly convincing.
This decision has nothing to do with corporate personhood.It's more complicated than that....I'm not the only one confused. Just trying to decipher how a corporation equates with person hood is baffling enough.
A couple that makes 250,000 a year is NOT RICH.
Middle class millionaires cannot even afford to live in Manhattan.
I would put someone making 250,000 a year (depending on where you live) in the "well off" catergory.
Dallas
Ok, I have to come forth and admit my ignorance regarding this issue...and I blame the nightly news. You know, I watch American news on television maybe once a month. I hate the hyperbole and scare tactics used by ALL news networks and therefore quite using the TV as a news source. I should have stuck with the program. I watched two night's worth of broadcasting about the decision and was left confused as hell.This decision has nothing to do with corporate personhood.
The first amendment is a restriction on government rights (Congress shall pas no laws). It does not state that people have these rights, simply that Congress cannot restrict them.
You're probably thinking of television advertising when you say it's extremely expensive but radio advertising is relatively cheap as are billboards and flyers. Online advertising is another venue that can be used profusely. I probably would have killed myself if I had to keep deleting McCain pop up ads the last election go around.While advertising does produce results, it is extremely expensive compared to lobbying and much less effective. Even then, why bother producing advertisements, which people have a tendency to view as misleading, when you can simply influence the media, which people consider far more reliable?
How are they not rich? Granted, in some cities $250,000 is just a comfortable living, but in most parts of America, that much money isn't super rich, but indeed it is rich.Agreed. They are well off not rich.
The issue of "foreign" corporations is the biggest one caused by this decision, and will probably lead to another case being brought before the court. Most corporations are, at this point, so multinational that you can hardly assign a nationality to them. When that case inevitably makes it way towards the court I would guess that they would have to firmly establish if the bill of rights applies solely to american citizens or not. (there may well already be precedent regarding this, so they will rule along those lines).Ok, I have to come forth and admit my ignorance regarding this issue...and I blame the nightly news. You know, I watch American news on television maybe once a month. I hate the hyperbole and scare tactics used by ALL news networks and therefore quite using the TV as a news source. I should have stuck with the program. I watched two night's worth of broadcasting about the decision and was left confused as hell.
So, now that I've read up slightly more on the issue, there are definitely huge differences of opinions regarding the ramifications of this decision, and at this point, it's difficult to know what will happen. The questions I need answered now are about foreign corporations and the influence that's intertwined with American corporations. Do you have any thoughts about that aspect?
That is a possibility, but I'm pretty much convinced that this won't give large corporations any more influence that they already have through lobbying, but it will give smaller ones more options. This ruling does apply to every sort of corporation out there, so we'll probably see unions and the aclu make more use of this new option than, say, the insurance companies.You're probably thinking of television advertising when you say it's extremely expensive but radio advertising is relatively cheap as are billboards and flyers. Online advertising is another venue that can be used profusely. I probably would have killed myself if I had to keep deleting McCain pop up ads the last election go around.
Agreed. They are well off not rich.