Citizens United v. FEC

[hi_im_god]

here's why i think advocates of an innovative free market should be concerned:

what do large corporations want from washington?

subsidies and regulatory blocks to competition.

they don't want innovation unless they own it. they want to crush small companies with good idea's that might harm their market position.

and guess what? small innovative businesses aren't going to have the money to spend on campaign ad's that their gigantic competitors do.

the idea that all any business wants is an unfettered free market is naive. monopolies maximize profits. it's in their self interest to drive competitors out by any means necessary.

i'm not all that worried about a partisan divide because the bottom line is that corporations will want to sell to me, riot, jim, and cannon. they won't want a "republican" or "democrat" label attached.

but they've just been handed a nuke to use in addition to the heavy artillery they already had while the rest of us get knives.

they won't have to take out the sponsor of a bill they don't like. they'll just need to take out 1 or 2 supporters and then tell the others, "look, we really like you but we're willing to spend anything needed".

because now they can.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

This is why you don't elect Republicans. There is a steep price to pay for it. It's not some silly game with ex baseball players n' pick up trucks. It's about real consequences. You had to elect Bush back in 2004. This is the price we all have to pay. No, Democrats wouldn't do this crap. There is a difference, n' this crap can be partly blamed on Independents being so stupid as to think there's no difference between these parties(bullshit.) Look how the justices nominated by the Republicans voted on this. If you voted for them, you deserve this crap. It is crap. Total crap.

[Danzig]

it's got nothing to do with party, and everything to do with free speech. it's not perfect-much as we'd like the world to be so, it's not. our rights have always had people who have abused them. but to say corporations have no rights to speak their mind is an incorrect assumption. the constitution is there for everyone, not just those with a popular point of view.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's got nothing to do with party, and everything to do with free speech. it's not perfect-much as we'd like the world to be so, it's not. our rights have always had people who have abused them. but to say corporations have no rights to speak their mind is an incorrect assumption. the constitution is there for everyone, not just those with a popular point of view.

no one said corporations had no right to speak their mind. they've been active participants in our democracy through lobbying and pac's.

and it isn't as if they've been muzzled. the fact is the influence of large corporations on legislation already far outweighed any other countervailing force. and now that balance is going to tip even farther.

it won't be restricted to legislation. in all likelihood, any limits states have placed on campaign finance is also unconstitutional under this ruling. which means judicial races will be subject to the same corporate influence that already permeates the rest of our elected bodies.

my basic disagreement is with a view that corporations are somehow underrepresented in our current system. if you think otherwise, i'm not sure how i'd convince you of something that i think is self evident.

[Danzig]

I have no opinion on whether anyone is over or under represented. All I'm basically saying is that I understand why the court ruled as it did.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I have no opinion on whether anyone is over or under represented. All I'm basically saying is that I understand why the court ruled as it did.

That's why you should make the leap, and join that Republican mess. If you believe this garbage (you're #1 issue is already the right to have a personal gun shop) then I think your social issue concerns are dwarfed into being almost insignificant. You've shown your loyalty is with corporations. You can't deny that.

[Riot]

no problem whatsoever, the foreign companies/entities are doing it now behind the scenes. you think Obama wasn't funded by foreign entities and that they went to great lengths to conceal it? bringing it out in the open is better.

But that's the whole point - being "out in the open" has just been repealed by this ruling.

This has undone campaign finance law in like 43 states, plus part of Federal law regarding corporate accountability.

judicial activism in the name of the first ammendment is most welcome.
i'm sure there are candidates and issues that you support who will also take advantage of this new freedom to get their message out.

This isn't a "right vs left" issue at all. It's a "big government run by corporations versus citizens voters" issue. There are plenty of "conservative" Constitutional scholars that are appalled by this ruling.

The Supreme Court just put the influence strength of corporations above we voters!

i suppose you would not be in favor of government muzzling all corporations, say the New York Times for example. why should they have free rein to actively campaign on behalf of Democratic candidates and ideals, while other corporations are muzzled?

Corporations have not been muzzled - they have had "free rein" to campaign for whomever they want. They can contribute to campaigns financially, they can run ads

However, the accountability - the ability of the public to see what corporations are doing, the limitations upon how corporations can influence candidates - has just been removed.

the court correctly decided that government cannot pick and chose which companies and associations are allowed to have free speech.

I don't know where you read that, but that isn't what just happened at all. What has happened is that the one with the most money, now wins.

are you afraid that corporate ads will influence your decision about who to vote for? if not what is the problem?

No, I'm afraid that who I vote for, and who you vote for, and who we contribute to and support, no longer matters at all.

If one supports unregulated increase in big corporations buying and controling our political system, exclusion of the opinions of clamoring masses of voters having town hall meetings and sending e-mails, your dream just came true. Courtesy of the United States Supreme Court.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's why you should make the leap, and join that Republican mess. If you believe this garbage (you're #1 issue is already the right to have a personal gun shop) then I think your social issue concerns are dwarfed into being almost insignificant. You've shown your loyalty is with corporations. You can't deny that.

No. My number one issue is what's constittional. Its not always pretty tho.
My loyalty is not to corps. I can and do deny that. You tend to confuse someone having a thought about one thing with belonging to a group.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

our rights have always had people who have abused them. but to say corporations have no rights to speak their mind is an incorrect assumption. the constitution is there for everyone, not just those with a popular point of view.

I'll take some counterpoint to the above comments.

First - the Supreme Court just abused the rights of voters everywhere, by placing non-voting corporate entities in a position greater than us - individual voters - to influence elections.

Secondly - Corporations are not "people", or "voters". They do not go in a voting booth. They are corporate entities, that can be wholly foreign-owned.

Third - corporations have always had a voice in elections, they just have had to do it through political action committees (PACS) that were open to scrutiny, and had financial limitations and transparency.

That was just eliminated.

This hasn't been addressed in the news (as the vote coming up), because nobody, NOBODY, though the Supreme Court would rule in this manner. It's completely in opposition to the way every previous Supreme Court has viewed and voted upon these issues. It is indeed "judicial activism", to overturn 100 years of Supreme Court decisions.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's got nothing to do with party, and everything to do with free speech. it's not perfect-much as we'd like the world to be so, it's not. our rights have always had people who have abused them. but to say corporations have no rights to speak their mind is an incorrect assumption. the constitution is there for everyone, not just those with a popular point of view.

A corporation isn't a citizen. Spare me the bullsht n' go kill something warm.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

This is why you don't elect Republicans. There is a steep price to pay for it.

This is a totally weird ruling, considering what it's overturned and ignored (the past 100 years of previous judicial interpretation) - and that wasn't even asked for or addressed in lower rulings!

It's a weird ruling coming from the "conservative" side of the Justices, too, as it is far from "conservative" - it is completely opposite to, unsupports and undermines, the simplicity and power of the single voter in our electoral system.

The "tea party patriot" movement has to be going completely ballistic.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

The "tea party patriot" movement has to be going completely ballistic.

Quite the opposite as they aren't afraid of capitalism or freedom of speach!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Quite the opposite as they aren't afraid of capitalism or freedom of speach!

This has nothing at all to do with "capitalism" ??? How so?

Corporations are not voters or individuals. They have always had "freedom of speech" as corporate entities to support candidates of their choice financially and in the press, with ads, etc.

I think the "Tea Baggers" are not understanding what just happened here, if they are supporting this.

Are they not against big government, government involvement and interference, corporate control of government, and for the rights of the individual above all else?

This ruling is completely opposite to that

[dellinger63]

Teabaggers aren't afraid of Wall Street banks, oil companies, health insurers etc. etc. they are afraid of government controls and violations of freedom of speach whether it be individuals or 'evil' corporations.

Corporations, incidently owned by most anyone with a stock fund or retirement account. The fact that Obama so strongly opposes the ruling and which Justices ruled for it should have been a huge clue on how the patriots feel.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Corporations, incidently owned by most anyone with a stock fund or retirement account. The fact that Obama so strongly opposes the ruling and which Justices ruled for it should have been a huge clue on how the patriots feel.

Again, this is not a "right vs. left" issue. Obama's specialty was Constitutional law. There are plenty of "conservative" Constitutionalists that are shocked at this, too.

You'd better do a good review of your investments, for those "corporations incidently owned by most anyone with a stock fund or retirement account", because controls on what those corporations can do with your profits (politically) just were removed.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think the "Tea Baggers" are not understanding what just happened here, if they are supporting this.

Are they not against big government, government involvement and interference, corporate control of government, and for the rights of the individual above all else?

This ruling is completely opposite to that

I'm afraid once again its you who doesn't understand. my tea party group sent out a bulletin within the hour after the ruling came down, rejoicing.

big government got smacked down by the court. no longer will they be able to control this fundamental expression of political speech. a right this country was founded on.

tea party people don't demonize corporations, we don't fear corporations or other groups that might have a message. we do fear big government however.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I'm afraid once again its you who doesn't understand. my tea party group sent out a bulletin within the hour after the ruling came down, rejoicing.

Well, good luck with that!

Which tea party to you belong to? Are you doing to Nashville?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I'm afraid once again its you who doesn't understand. my tea party group sent out a bulletin within the hour after the ruling came down, rejoicing.

big government got smacked down by the court. no longer will they be able to control this fundamental expression of political speech. a right this country was founded on.

tea party people don't demonize corporations, we don't fear corporations or other groups that might have a message. we do fear big government however.

i'm surprised to hear this framed as a big government issue.

i'll predict right now that more corporate influence over election results leads to additional regulation designed to limit competition, not less. it'll also lead to additional government subsidies given to the new corporate masters.

the voice of your tea party group is going to matter less in the new election paradigm, not more.

when the government is fully in the pocket of corporations, will you still distinguish between "good" corporations and "bad" government?