Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Let the Candidate Buying Begin!!! (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Let the Candidate Buying Begin!!!
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.

Siding with filmmakers of "Hillary: The Movie," who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."

"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."

Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others.

"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added.

The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, whose name bears the law that was upended Thursday, said he hadn't read the decision but thought that it was headed that way when he listened to arguments presented last fall. McCain said he does not think it completely repudiates the law he wrote with Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.

It also undercuts recent congressional legislation mandating tighter controls on political donations that had restricted the flow of corporate dollars into the political system.

The case involves the film by conservative group Citizens United, which criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign.

Citizens United planned to air ads promoting its distribution through cable television video-on-demand services. The FEC said the film amounted to a campaign ad and that Citizens United, an incorporated entity that takes corporate money, could only use limited, disclosed contributions from individuals to promote and broadcast it.

Prior to the ruling, Bob Edgar, president of watchdog group Common Cause, warned against overturning McCain-Feingold.

"Money has already corroded the discussion before Congress," he said. "It'll open Pandora's Box."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and other groups sided with Citizens United in calling a loosening of restrictions.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-fil mmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
this is so wrong headed that i can't beleive it.

corporations are not voters.

labor unions are not voters.


the First Ammendment does not grant them any rights.

interestingly? this was decided by the conservative members of SCOTUS with an Anthony Kennedy swing to their side.


the special interest domination of politics has reached anew low.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
what about foreigners? are they now going to be allowed to spend whatever they want ot buy our politicians? the Chinese Govt should love that...

SCOTUS has totally screwed up this time.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Bigfoot
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Bigfoot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OYE!

This is a step in the wrong direction.

Question is? Are they right? Is there no basis for the government restricting corporate independant expenditures?

--------------------
No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.

Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This stinks The corporations of the world have to be set in there place and it is not next to humans This will lead to a complete body politic to be owned and Americans will be secound class citizens if this is allowed to mature. If Obama has anything to stop this with I hope he stops it.

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
OYE!

This is a step in the wrong direction.

Question is? Are they right? Is there no basis for the government restricting corporate independant expenditures?

I think Big is on the right track with his question here.

Does the Government have a constitutional right to tell business that they can't express their individual preferences on candidates?

If I remember my history, Thomas Paine actually proposed a version of Congress that would have had one of the two bodies composed of Business leaders to make sure that the needs\desires of the money makers of the natiion were represented in policy decisions.

Shouldn't those that create the jobs in this country have a voice in regard to who makes the policies that effect them?

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This decision by the Supreme Court is just as criminal as The Dread Scott decision that was made just before the Civil War That decision said people could be turned into property. This is just the reverse this ruling says that you can turn property into people. In my opinion this is worth going to war for as it is the start of fascism.

--------------------
Chicken Little was wright

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
OYE!

This is a step in the wrong direction.

Question is? Are they right? Is there no basis for the government restricting corporate independant expenditures?

I think Big is on the right track with his question here.

Does the Government have a constitutional right to tell business that they can't express their individual preferences on candidates?

If I remember my history, Thomas Paine actually proposed a version of Congress that would have had one of the two bodies composed of Business leaders to make sure that the needs\desires of the money makers of the natiion were represented in policy decisions.

Shouldn't those that create the jobs in this country have a voice in regard to who makes the policies that effect them?

Paine? maybe, but keep in mind that "business" in The States a the time of the Revolution was farming.

Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue.

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.


http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/paine_agrarianjustice_02.html

he went on to propose that land not be inheritable

Various methods may be proposed for this purpose, but that which appears to be the best (not only because it will operate without deranging any present possessors, or without interfering with the collection of taxes or emprunts necessary for the purposes of government and the Revolution, but because it will be the least troublesome and the most effectual, and also because the subtraction will be made at a time that best admits it) is at the moment that property is passing by the death of one person to the possession of another. In this case, the bequeather gives nothing: the receiver pays nothing. The only matter to him is that the monopoly of natural inheritance, to which there never was a right, begins to cease in his person. A generous man would not wish it to continue, and a just man will rejoice to see it abolished.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not espousing the idea merely because Paine proposed it, Glass. But it does put forth an interesting point.

Should those that are in charge of actual wealth production and employment have the ability to state their support\opposition to a particular party\candidate by using their money to sponsor ads? I would love to hear a valid arguement against it if it's out in the open where everyone knows whether a candidate received corporate funding or not. If it's transparent, what's the harm?

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i beleive they are allowed to as private indiviudals.

the problem as i see it is that corporations and unions (keep in mind that this sword cuts both ways) are made up of individuals who do not agree on everything.

a CEO of a corporation may dictate what direction the company goes, and the other persons in the corporation may not agree.

futhermore? there is the issue of liability. what if a liar forms a corporation and uses the corporation to hide behind while he/she slanders and libels people? Corporations have this privilege that releases individuals within them from liabilities, many people abuse this. Sure the officers are liable but in relaity there are very few prosectuion because people find it distasteful to prosecute the officers for somehting others did.

the bottom line question for me is does a corporation have the right to vote? i beleive that should be a prerequisite for getting involved.

does/should the Chinese govt have the right to make political contributions?

they have lots of cash does that give them the right?

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lemme 'splain how screwball this decison really is:

remember the swiftboat group? suppose a group of political activists get together and decide to make movies (like this group did). they have no other real intent but to DONATE their efforts and cash at a campaign of some sort. They form a corporation, sell stock and do their thing. Then after the election? They declare BK and the stock is worthtess and they (guess what?) write it off on their taxes. That's what this comes down to.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What do you think ACORN and SEIU sending people out to register voters (dead or alive, fictious or real) for a certain party is, Glass?

If this bring all of this 'under the table' crap out into the light so that the people know exactly who's being supported by what groups I think that it will help the system be more honest, imo.

As far as the slander\libel issue, we have laws in place to cover those things. If it's simply limited to opinion ads\support, then they should have the right to do\say what they want.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
What do you think ACORN and SEIU sending people out to register voters (dead or alive, fictious or real) for a certain party is, Glass?

registering voters can be done by anybody that wants to. The form are available to anyone and you just go do it. How many are actually voting illegally? Acorn tends to register people that are unlikely to be bothered to register and they most likely don't bother to vote either. Lazy people are lazy.


quote:

If this bring all of this 'under the table' crap out into the light so that the people know exactly who's being supported by what groups I think that it will help the system be more honest, imo.

why would it bring out the under the table crap? Fact is? Corporations make it nearly impossible to find out who is actually the owner. That's the point, as individuals? People do have the right support candidates. Corporations are faceless and not people. It's not that uncommon to have several layers of corporate ownership spread across severl states. That makes it nearly impossible to determine who the owner really is.

quote:
As far as the slander\libel issue, we have laws in place to cover those things. If it's simply limited to opinion ads\support, then they should have the right to do\say what they want.

uh, you might want to look up the laws.

where exaclty in the Constitution do Corporations or labor Unions have rights? I have never seen them.

You seem to be avoiding my question about he Chinese Government.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Corporations enjoy all kinds special privileges and these will be taken advatage of to the hilt:

Successor Liability and Corporate Shell Games
Not so Fast-- Successor Liability and Corporate Shell Games
Posted on March 24, 2008 by Josh Knapp

Under Pennsylvania law, it is well established that “when one company sells or transfers all of its assets to another company, the purchasing or receiving company is not responsible for the debts and liabilities of the selling company simply because it acquired the seller’s property.” Continental Ins. Co. v. Schneider, Inc., 582 Pa. 591, 599, 873 A.2d 1286, 1291 (2005).


--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You seem to be avoiding my question about he Chinese Government.
Not avoiding, pondering...

I'm against them interfering with our body politic from a patriotic standpoint; but I know that as a country, we have messed in other's elections in the past. So, if it's wrong for them to come here and mess around, cash or not; we should be staying out of others' backyards. [Frown]

On another level, the Chinese already own us because of our debt dependency on them. It doesn't really matter which party is in power, they all go begging to Big Red when they need Green. [Frown]

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
we' haven't messed around in Chinese elections, they don't really even have them...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's another take on this ruling..

By BRADLEY A. SMITH

Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Court struck down a blanket government prohibition on corporate political speech, is a wonderful decision that restores political speech to the primacy it was intended to have under the First Amendment.

To truly appreciate the stakes in Citizens United, one must remember the government's legal position in the case. Implicit in its briefs but laid bare at oral argument, the government maintained that the Constitution allows the government to ban distribution of books over Amazon's Kindle; to prohibit a union from hiring a writer to author a book titled, "Why Working Americans Should Support the Obama Agenda"; and to prohibit Simon & Schuster from publishing, or Barnes & Noble from selling, a book containing even one line of advocacy for or against a candidate for public office. As David Barry would say, "I am not making this up."

The Court said "no," and the only shocking thing about the decision is that the four liberal justices said "yes."

Hopefully, this ruling marks an end to 20 years of jurisprudence in which the Court has provided less protection to core political speech than it has to Internet pornography, the transmission of stolen information, flag burning, commercial advertising, topless dancing, and burning a cross outside an African-American church.

Unfortunately, some in Congress are using this decision to push for a government takeover of political campaigns through the misnamed "Fair Elections Now Act," which has over 100 sponsors (all but three of them Democrats) in the House. This legislation would use tax dollars to fund congressional campaigns.

This "solution" to the alleged problem of moneyed interests dominating our politics, apart from other objections, is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand. Corporations will still be able to make independent expenditures, regardless of how the candidates fund their campaigns. Still others professing outrage at Citizens United, such as Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), talk of using securities regulation to hamstring corporations that dare to speak. Mr. Frank is pledging to hold hearings.

It is true that the Supreme Court's ruling will lead to more corporate (and union) political speech. But even if one thinks that is a bad thing, there is little empirical reason to believe the horror stories of corporate dominance of the democratic process.

Already, 28 states representing 60% of the nation's population allow corporate independent expenditures in state races. These states, including Virginia, Utah and Oregon, are hardly mismanaged. Rather, they are disproportionately among the fastest growing, best governed states in the country.


The dissenting justices in Citizens United see corporations as organizations in which people are trapped. They bemoan the allegedly lost rights of shareholders who may not personally support the candidates a corporation might choose to support. The justices who joined Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, on the other hand, regard this as no different than any other question of corporate governance.

Corporations frequently take action that some shareholders do not like, including, for example, making charitable contributions. Stockholders are free to leave the corporation if their disagreements become too strong. Meanwhile, why should the majority be prohibited from voicing their views as a corporate enterprise?

Much of the opposition to Citizens United is simply the opposition of the political left to what they perceive corporations will say. Consider campaign finance "reform" organizations that have long been supported by corporations. New York University's Brennan Center for Justice has received support, for example, from a rogue's gallery of corporate America, including Enron and Bear Stearns. Never has the public heard a peep from this organization about whether all shareholders in these corporations actually support the center's agenda.

Or, for that matter, consider John McCain's Reform Institute, founded to promote campaign finance reform after his 2000 presidential run. It has received funding from AIG. Did all AIG's shareholders approve?

Similarly, much of the criticism focuses on the perception that Republicans will be the winners if corporations and unions are unshackled. President Barack Obama, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez all announced that they would be looking for ways to limit corporate expenditures.

But the First Amendment is all about distrusting government to make those decisions about who has spoken too much. That's why Thursday's decision is such a breath of fresh air.

The next time you download a book on Kindle, buy a Michael Moore screed at Barnes & Noble, or order up a political movie from video on demand, remember that it is the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United that guarantees you the right to do so.


Mr. Smith is professor of law at Capital University Law School and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics. He served as a commissioner of the Federal Election Commission from 2000-2005. [

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
we' haven't messed around in Chinese elections, they don't really even have them...

No, but we've played in or 'backed candidates' in other countries. That's the point of my dilemma. I don't think I'd appreciate Chinese money funding a candidates campaign here, from either party. But if they did, I see that backfiring pretty quickly. (shrug)
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anybody that is for this decision by the Supreme Court is not and American or thinking in terms of an American how could anybody be for this what an outrage.

You can flower this up anyway you like but the constitution only refers to people and that is the way it swhould stay.All of you know this

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We need 2 constitutional amendments in the wake of this ruling .

1 corporations are not persons covered under the first amendment .

2.No lifetime terms for Supreme Court Justices because it’s both anti democratic and a danger to the welfare of the society as a whole.

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It won't be long until you see our senate and house on craigslist

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by raybond:
We need 2 constitutional amendments in the wake of this ruling .

1 corporations are not persons covered under the first amendment .

2.No lifetime terms for Supreme Court Justices because it’s both anti democratic and a danger to the welfare of the society as a whole.

ROFLMAO

You think getting 60 votes for healthcare was hard?

Try getting 66 for an amendment.

[Big Grin]

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
we' haven't messed around in Chinese elections, they don't really even have them...

No, but we've played in or 'backed candidates' in other countries. That's the point of my dilemma. I don't think I'd appreciate Chinese money funding a candidates campaign here, from either party. But if they did, I see that backfiring pretty quickly. (shrug)
if i was running a campaign and the Chinese Govt (legally) approached me to back my candidate? I'd say back the candidate i'm running against quietly and a week before the election publicly announce it [Wink]

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Bigfoot
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Bigfoot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really don't see this as a free speech issue at heart. I understand it is part of it and why it has been framed that way but I think that is a secondary issue.

It isn't as if the gov is saying a corporation or labor union can't have an in-house rally or go door to door and say the same thing their commercials say...it is that they can't buy the commercials to say it to the watching public.

i.e. Their cash is no good for certain consumables during certain parts of the year.

Is there any precedent for the government to enforce such a position? I don't know that there is and I think that is why this was defeated.

--------------------
No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.

Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And therein lies our agreement on this Big.

Big Gov does not have the right to tell private citizens (whether they are using their personal assests or those that have been entrusted to them via a corporation) what they can or can't say, publish or campaign for\against.

The nature of the bank account holdling the money is not a basis for denying the free use of the money within.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Bigfoot
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Bigfoot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol Now don't put words in my mouth.

I think some stricter rules on making sure that what is said by these groups has more than a passing flirtation with the truth would be a very good thing.

I just don't think the gov can tell em you can't buy a commercial because there is an election in 60 days. Nor can they tell them yours is the wrong kind of money to buy this.

--------------------
No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.

Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
And therein lies our agreement on this Big.

Big Gov does not have the right to tell private citizens (whether they are using their personal assests or those that have been entrusted to them via a corporation) what they can or can't say, publish or campaign for\against.

The nature of the bank account holdling the money is not a basis for denying the free use of the money within.

in a corporation or a union? whose money is it?
the nature of the bank account is in fact a basis for deciding the free use thereof.
if you are union member you are being forced to contribute to a campaign that you may not wish to. quitting the union or your job in a company/corp is not usually an option. Being a shareholder is optional, but are they going to vote the shares to decide how to spend the money?

same with being a shareholder in Corporation.

corporations have no rights in the constitution= individuals do. this is not a freedom of speech issue at all, it is a question of what a corporate entity or a labor union is is. it does nothing to stop individuals from expressing their views. Corporations and Unions make decisions in avery different way

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Bigfoot
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Bigfoot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why does it matter whose money it is as long as it is verifiable as legally obtained legal tender?

Because a person appointed a figurehead to speak for them there should be limitations put upon the figurehead beyond what is in their own legally binding charter to make sure the individual doesn't have to hear the figurehead he appointed to speak for him say something he doesn't like?

Sorry Glass...its a losing argument.

I'd prefer lawmakers let this one go and start working on other hedges that have more grounding in legal precedent.

--------------------
No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.

Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have to disagree, Glass. (I know...you're surprised, right?)

A labor union or a corporation has elected, selected, or whatever other method used for choosing, people to run the affairs of the company. This is similar in many regards to how we as a people choose our elected representatives. We choose them, empower them to make decisions on our behalf, and then let them do so.

If the CEO, CFO, or whoever is tasked with the business of managing the company business\funds chooses to spend the money on campaign messages, and they are empowered to do so by the process that put them in that position, then it isn't necessary for anyone else to have a say in it.

Again, if they are empowered to spend the corporate money and are entrusted to look out for the corporate good, then they are within their rights and duty to contribute to campaigns if they feel it is in the best interest of the company.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Lol Now don't put words in my mouth.
Sorry, Big, if something in my statement didn't convey what you meant. That was merely what I understood your point to be. So, if I was off, I apologize.

quote:
I think some stricter rules on making sure that what is said by these groups has more than a passing flirtation with the truth would be a very good thing.
No doubt. Some kind of objective basis for slander\libel has to be applied to ALL political ads, imo.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL. you are describing fascism to a "T".

show me where a union or corporation has rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

this is pure activism on the Judges part.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A labor union or a corporation has elected, selected, or whatever other method used for choosing, people to run the affairs of the company. This is similar in many regards to how we as a people choose our elected representatives. We choose them, empower them to make decisions on our behalf, and then let them do so.

i'm amazed that someone complaining about "big government" could say this.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why is that Glass? I fully support, well, supporting elected figures that are acting in the best interests of their constituency.

True representatives would act, legislatively, in a manner that would bring about the most good for the most people. As long as they are acting in such a manner they have my whole-hearted support. This is why we have a democratic republic. We pick them, they govern (please note I do not say rule) in our behalf.

It is the same principal that I described above. We pick people we feel we can trust with our affairs. They, supposedly, serve our interests through their actions.

When their actions no longer serve our interests, we have two choices. Apathy, which allows them to continue to act against our wishes; or change, to remove them and replace them with someone that does serve us better.

How is this inconsistent with either my previous post or my long standing position against 'big government'?

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Why is that Glass? I fully support, well, supporting elected figures that are acting in the best interests of their constituency.

True representatives would act, legislatively, in a manner that would bring about the most good for the most people. As long as they are acting in such a manner they have my whole-hearted support. This is why we have a democratic republic. We pick them, they govern (please note I do not say rule) in our behalf.

It is the same principal that I described above. We pick people we feel we can trust with our affairs. They, supposedly, serve our interests through their actions.

When their actions no longer serve our interests, we have two choices. Apathy, which allows them to continue to act against our wishes; or change, to remove them and replace them with someone that does serve us better.

How is this inconsistent with either my previous post or my long standing position against 'big government'?

huh?

and replace them with someone that does serve us better? You still don't get it do you?


you are not 16 anymore, right? They don't serve us at all, they serve themselves and work hard at making us serve them.


show me in the cosntitution where corporate entitities and unions are granted the same rights by God that individuals are.

this country was founded on religious freedom because they were escaping the overwhelming powers of the State Church in Europe. We are replacing the state church with the Corporation.

Individual Freedom is what we are about. Individual freedom is tossed when you join the military or Corporation or a Union. I am truly disappointed in your approach to actually seeking freedom on this point.

as far as i'm concerned? the "Conservative movement" has been taken over by Judas Goats leading the middle class to economic slaughter. Standing by and saying nothing is just as bad as being the Goat.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
huh?

and replace them with someone that does serve us better? You still don't get it do you?


you are not 16 anymore, right? They don't serve us at all, they serve themselves and work hard at making us serve them.

There are two choices here, Glass. Only two.

One, try to work within the system to elect people that will get us back to the constitutional values that mean that public service actually means serving the public interest.

or

Two: Violent revolution.

That's it. There is no middle ground on this point. Either you use the system in place or replace it...and it will not go peacefully if that's your choice.

I choose to believe that there are people out there that are willing to seek political office not just for personal gain, but to make this country a better place for ALL of us. When\if that belief is ever extinguished in the bulk of the nation...better make sure you have your food and guns in plentiful supply.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share