Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-08-19 08:44:25
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6874|London, England
Ok...Soros makes political donations, he's with Turner...these are all individuals acting as individuals though. Show me something where a major Media company itself is making the donations rather than individuals (So for your example, It would be Time Warner or Turner or whatever, the companies themselves). That's one of the important things I already stressed before...

This is the key distinction. If Murdoch individually donated the money I doubt it'd be any sort of news. It's the fact that it was the media company doing it.
2010-08-19 08:47:49
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5490|Cleveland, Ohio

Mekstizzle wrote:

Ok...Soros makes political donations, he's with Turner...these are all individuals acting as individuals though. Show me something where a major Media company itself is making the donations rather than individuals (So for your example, It would be Time Warner or Turner or whatever, the companies themselves). That's one of the important things I already stressed before...

This is the key distinction. If Murdoch individually donated the money I doubt it'd be any sort of news. It's the fact that it was the media company doing it.
dude.....sorsos IS part of CNN via his partnership.
2010-08-19 08:49:31
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6658|North Carolina

eleven bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Legally speaking, there is a difference between a media organization and an individual funding candidates.
wrong

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p3284247
Well, what's ironic is that this particular Supreme Court ruling hasn't changed the discrepancy in funding limits between individuals and corporations.  Technically, if we apply this ruling to current campaign finance regulations, then that means a corporation shouldn't be able to spend any more than an individual per interim per candidate.

Hmmm....
2010-08-19 08:52:33
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5512|foggy bottom
there is no cash limit for PAC to support a candidate.  the limit only exists with direct contributions to a political campaign.  you could have some organization spend 5 billion dollars on a campaign promoting a candidate as long as its not a direct contributor to that politician.
Tu Stultus Es
2010-08-19 08:54:42
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6874|London, England

11 Bravo wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Ok...Soros makes political donations, he's with Turner...these are all individuals acting as individuals though. Show me something where a major Media company itself is making the donations rather than individuals (So for your example, It would be Time Warner or Turner or whatever, the companies themselves). That's one of the important things I already stressed before...

This is the key distinction. If Murdoch individually donated the money I doubt it'd be any sort of news. It's the fact that it was the media company doing it.
dude.....sorsos IS part of CNN via his partnership.
don't you get the difference between someone donating as an individual (no matter what their connections are) and a company donating as... a company.

Writing cheques in your name vs the companies name. They can mean alot when it comes to things like the media with the way they try to portray themselves

I don't understand why you keep talking about individuals acting as individuals. If you're gonna take this further you need to show an article like I have which talks about companies making donations. The BBC just made things worse (in terms of the argument) by mentioning Murdoch and such when they didn't even need to because the point would still stand.
2010-08-19 08:54:42
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5490|Cleveland, Ohio
so ok Mek murdoch is upfront about it and who he supports yet you have issue with that versus backroom handshakes by soros and turner?
2010-08-19 08:55:11
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6658|North Carolina

eleven bravo wrote:

there is no cash limit for PAC to support a candidate.  the limit only exists with direct contributions to a political campaign.  you could have some organization spend 5 billion dollars on a campaign promoting a candidate as long as its not a direct contributor to that politician.
Ok, that part always has confused me.  So what you're saying is that the current limits on spending only apply to direct funding to a specific candidate's campaign.  So again, there's no limit to funding say...  the RNC, but there is a limit for funding Newt Gingrich directly.

Wow...  that's so easy to abuse it's not even funny...  lol
2010-08-19 08:57:04
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5611|London, England
What's the difference between the CEO of a company making a personal donation and the company making one themselves? I see none and don't really understand the outrage. Did this suddenly shake your belief that the media is neutral or, to borrow Fox's term, "Fair and Balanced"? The media has never been neutral, they've always taken a side, they were just more subtle about it in the past.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-19 08:58:04
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5490|Cleveland, Ohio
when someone can show me how this changes the story about a 10 car pileup on interstate 90 then i will care

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-08-19 09:04:25)

2010-08-19 09:01:20
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5512|foggy bottom

Turquoise wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

there is no cash limit for PAC to support a candidate.  the limit only exists with direct contributions to a political campaign.  you could have some organization spend 5 billion dollars on a campaign promoting a candidate as long as its not a direct contributor to that politician.
Ok, that part always has confused me.  So what you're saying is that the current limits on spending only apply to direct funding to a specific candidate's campaign.  So again, there's no limit to funding say...  the RNC, but there is a limit for funding Newt Gingrich directly.

Wow...  that's so easy to abuse it's not even funny...  lol
pretty much


a corporation could donate the limit to a candidate but they could organizae a pac and spend unlimited monies on it.  two categories a corporation could donate, through contributions (which are direct and have a limit) and expenditures (money donated on behalf of the candidate, like into a pac) .  Citizens united determined that corporations have the same rights as individuals regarding free speech.  so instead of the buzz word of this thread, george soros having a limit through contributions with all his umbrella organizations, now he could just make one big as company with all his money supporting a candidate. Target and Walmart have already started massively donating to republican campaigns for this coming election.

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-08-19 09:05:20)

Tu Stultus Es
2010-08-19 09:03:26
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5512|foggy bottom

JohnG@lt wrote:

What's the difference between the CEO of a company making a personal donation and the company making one themselves? I see none and don't really understand the outrage. Did this suddenly shake your belief that the media is neutral or, to borrow Fox's term, "Fair and Balanced"? The media has never been neutral, they've always taken a side, they were just more subtle about it in the past.
less to to do with the neutrality of the media and everything to do with the rights the supreme courth granted to corporations this past january.  Corporations now have the same rights of speech as individuals do.

in other words, there is no difference to speech you make as a person and the speech a corporation promotes as an "artificial entity" (words of prior jurisprudence)

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-08-19 09:04:25)

Tu Stultus Es
2010-08-19 09:05:03
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5611|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

What's the difference between the CEO of a company making a personal donation and the company making one themselves? I see none and don't really understand the outrage. Did this suddenly shake your belief that the media is neutral or, to borrow Fox's term, "Fair and Balanced"? The media has never been neutral, they've always taken a side, they were just more subtle about it in the past.
less to to do with the neutrality of the media and everything to do with the rights the supreme courth granted to corporations this past january.  Corporations now have the same rights of speech as individuals do.

in other words, there is no difference to speech you make as a person and the speech a corporation promotes as an "artificial entity" (words of prior jurisprudence)
We need another Michael Milken.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-19 09:05:15
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6874|London, England

11 Bravo wrote:

so ok Mek murdoch is upfront about it and who he supports yet you have issue with that versus backroom handshakes by soros and turner?
Just that it shows off so much more of a blatant bias on behalf of the companies themselves. There's probably a reason why this is so rare amongst the media companies of the world. CEO's and such obviously hold a lot of influence over their companies but there's still a difference between what they personally do and the company itself.

once someone can show me how this changes the story about a 10 car pileup on interstate 90 then i will care
You know it's more than just that. Simpleton news like that requires nothing special. It's when it comes to the more serious things you can pick up on the subtle (sometimes not so subtle) nuances. I even see it on the BBC with their god awful unashamed pro-Olympics bias.
2010-08-19 09:07:05
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5490|Cleveland, Ohio

Mekstizzle wrote:

You know it's more than just that. Simpleton news like that requires nothing special. It's when it comes to the more serious things you can pick up on the subtle (sometimes not so subtle) nuances. I even see it on the BBC with their god awful unashamed pro-Olympics bias.
what would be more serious than what is happening?  i dont get what you are saying really.  that is what news is.
2010-08-19 09:07:55
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5512|foggy bottom
you guys need to get off the "fox news is shit" wagon and understand that this has far reaching consequences beyond media bias.
Tu Stultus Es
2010-08-19 09:09:47
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5512|foggy bottom
p.s. corporations dont have to be american either.
Tu Stultus Es
2010-08-19 09:09:57
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5611|London, England

Mekstizzle wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

so ok Mek murdoch is upfront about it and who he supports yet you have issue with that versus backroom handshakes by soros and turner?
Just that it shows off so much more of a blatant bias on behalf of the companies themselves. There's probably a reason why this is so rare amongst the media companies of the world. CEO's and such obviously hold a lot of influence over their companies but there's still a difference between what they personally do and the company itself.

once someone can show me how this changes the story about a 10 car pileup on interstate 90 then i will care
You know it's more than just that. Simpleton news like that requires nothing special. It's when it comes to the more serious things you can pick up on the subtle (sometimes not so subtle) nuances. I even see it on the BBC with their god awful unashamed pro-Olympics bias.
Oh whatever Mek. Does the monetary aid really make a difference when the media company can maintain it's 'neutrality' by not donating to a set of candidates and instead help them by publishing yellow journalism articles against the candidate they don't want to win? Who do you hold up as the ideal? The New York Times? They're a shill for whatever progressive candidate is running. The praise they heaped on Obama during his campaign was so excessive it wasn't even amusing. Same goes for 90% of the rest of the MSM. I applaud Fox in this because at least they're being honest with their audience rather than pretending they're something they're not which is neutral and unbiased.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-19 09:12:32
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6934|Disaster Free Zone
Are there "donations" tax deductible??

Cause that would be lol worthy.
2010-08-19 09:13:44
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5490|Cleveland, Ohio

DrunkFace wrote:

Are there "donations" tax deductible??

Cause that would be lol worthy.
i would expect nothing less
2010-08-19 09:13:51
13rin
Member
+977|6732
I see nothing wrong with that GS.  If one operates a business subject to the laws of the land, why shouldn't it have a voice in the political process?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2010-08-19 09:15:45
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5490|Cleveland, Ohio

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I see nothing wrong with that GS.  If one operates a business subject to the laws of the land, why shouldn't it have a voice in the political process?
i agree.  its his company, his money, whats the issue?  cuz its media?  well dont turn the channel to his stations then.  simple.
2010-08-19 09:15:51
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5512|foggy bottom

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I see nothing wrong with that GS.  If one operates a business subject to the laws of the land, why shouldn't it have a voice in the political process?
because corporations are not individuals.  they are artifical entities that have vast amounts of other peoples money (shareholders) to play with. 

look at this way, now its perfectly legal for Citgo (hugo Chavez) to make 30 million dollar pac and support cynthia mckinney for president.

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-08-19 09:16:01)

Tu Stultus Es
2010-08-19 09:16:05
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5611|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:

you guys need to get off the "fox news is shit" wagon and understand that this has far reaching consequences beyond media bias.
Why does it change anything? It just makes it more open rather than backroomish. I mean I know people want to live in their fantasy world where they can still maintain some semblance of the fiction that our politicians aren't mercenaries but it just isn't true.

Hold on to your seat Turquoise... ready? We need the Canadian system of campaign finance in this country if we are ever to cut down on the corruption. The Canadian government provides the funding for candidates election campaigns, not private or corporate donations. If a candidate receives (I think) 5% of the vote in an election cycle, he and his party receive government funding for their campaign in the next cycle that matches the other parties.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-19 09:17:27
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5512|foggy bottom
I really dont believe you guys believe that multi billion dollar companies have the same rights of speech as individuals do.  Its called a "distortion of the market place of ideas"
Tu Stultus Es
2010-08-19 09:17:35
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5611|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I see nothing wrong with that GS.  If one operates a business subject to the laws of the land, why shouldn't it have a voice in the political process?
because corporations are not individuals.  they are artifical entities that have vast amounts of other peoples money (shareholders) to play with. 

look at this way, now its perfectly legal for Citgo (hugo Chavez) to make 30 million dollar pac and support cynthia mckinney for president.
Which is why I said we need another Michael Milken.

Too bad they put him in jail for making corporate board members actually accountable to their shareholders...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard