BF2S Forums No More Campaign Funding Limits for Corporations

FEOS wrote:

Narupug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So I guess limitations on the First Amendment are OK then?

Because all this SCOTUS decision did was remove limitations on First Amendment rights of certain portions of our populace.

Here we go again with the siting a more then 200 year old document written by people who couldn't even dream of all the ways people with a lot of money can influence your decisions.   The first Amendment was written to guarantee certain freedoms to the American people, and while I know it seems like it but Corporations are NOT people.  I also would like to point out that freedom to buy an election is not one of those freedoms listed in the First Amendment.  I'm pretty sure if the founding fathers were here today they would be against signing the death warrant for democracy.

The limitations were about more than just corporate donations, IIRC. They limited individual donations, as well. That is a limitation of individual free speech.

And just how is this "the death warrant for democracy" (cue dark music)? The limitations were only on ads at the end of the campaigns. As if that would really make some kind of a difference at that point, anyway.

Seriously...the melodrama is ridiculous here.

Right, and the restrictions had been in place for a whopping 6 years. Did the country change drastically between then and now? How ever did people make up their own minds back then? It was like we were living in the dark ages!

The legislation was written to stop Swift Boating from ever happening again. Next time the Dems should vet their candidate a bit better. Don't want any fake war heroes running for office now do we?

Narupug wrote:

Yes because a fake war hero is so much worse then someone who claims that because their state is near a foreign country, they have foreign policy experiance

Anyway, the amount of money doesn't change free speech.  Giving 10 dollars to a campaign sends the same message of support as giving 10,000 dollars, the person who gave 10,000 dollars just has a little more money to give then the one who gave 10.  This decision by the supreme court allows companies to take money out of their tresauries to pay for these ads which are often not only are extremely harsh, but also false.

Yeah, because shareholders will allow corporations to raid the treasury to support a candidate

Cybargs wrote:

Who watches TV anymore anyway. Torrents ftw.

DVR ftw.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Narupug wrote:

Yes because a fake war hero is so much worse then someone who claims that because their state is near a foreign country, they have foreign policy experiance

Anyway, the amount of money doesn't change free speech.  Giving 10 dollars to a campaign sends the same message of support as giving 10,000 dollars, the person who gave 10,000 dollars just has a little more money to give then the one who gave 10.  This decision by the supreme court allows companies to take money out of their tresauries to pay for these ads which are often not only are extremely harsh, but also false.

Yeah, because shareholders will allow corporations to raid the treasury to support a candidate

Uh, yes, if that said candidate has an agenda that supports that Corporation's agenda.  Halliburton anyone?  Any laws keeping politicians from being members of the Boards?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Narupug wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Just how old does a law have to be before you get to ignore it?  I'm getting pretty tired of that silly old income tax law, and that crusty old thing was enacted almost 100 years ago.

That doesn't change the fact that corporations are not people, and the freedom to buy an election is not an unalieanble right.

Corporations ARE people. Do some research before talking out of your ass.

To Paraphrase Shakespere, The Merchant

I am a Corp. Hath
not a Corp eyes? hath not a Corp hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Human Being is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge?


Fact is a Corporation is none of those, a corp is not a human beings.
But a Corp is considered a legal person as a matter of legal necessity so it can sue, defend itself in a suit and own property.
Those abilities are necessary, but a full claim to everything in the bill of rights is not. A corporation being a person for all reasons is policy gone awry.

The real problem we have today is that the scalia SCOTUS thinks that the 1870s-1890s were some sort of pinnacle in the vision of the founding fathers and they are actively changing law to drag us back to that era. It should not be surprising that in an economic structure like that of the 1870s, the entities that will benefit most will be large corporations and decisions like this one will help pave the way to a brave new old world. Looks like we're going back to the days of the robber barons. I can't wait to see the cleveland steamer rolling over individuals on this one.

Hark, dost thou protest propaganda too much... that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet

get ready to see campaign ads sponsored by the chinese government

eleven bravo wrote:

get ready to see campaign ads sponsored by the chinese government

They'll spell thing or use words in the completely wrong context

FUCK IS BAD FOR YOU.

Narupug wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012200659.html

Yet another gem from Scalia and his minions

Looks like it is now possible to effectively buy an election.

Or are you just pissed that funding to political campaigns can be done by someone other than unions now?

eleven bravo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Narupug wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012200659.html

Yet another gem from Scalia and his minions

Looks like it is now possible to effectively buy an election.

Or are you just pissed that funding to political campaigns can be done by someone other than unions now?

yeah, like the peoples republic of china or the saud family.  Great news, YAY!

I musta missed it, where did it mention China or Saudi?

Problem is the dems want to stiffle business from contribution because logic dictates they will contribute to the republicans. However those same democrats have no problem with unions and special interest contributiong to the democrat party.

that means a foreign aviation company could take that juicy contract youve been wanting because the guy they sponsored was elected in office and made it that way

lowing seems to have no problem with it

foreign interests holding larges shares of domestic corporations.