Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rolls Back Corporate Campaign Spending Limits
lorenlal writes "The Supreme Court of the United States must have figured that restrictions on corporate support of candidates was a violation of free speech, or something like that." From the AP story linked above:
"By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states."
The U(F)SA is now a de facto fascist state.
Ah. And your rights to donate campaign money (which is, to the penny, open to all public scrutiny and reporting), or the ability of you and your business partner to do the same - you think that's "corporatism?"
Regardless, here's an actual definition of Fascism (rather than a comment from a brutal dictator, which you seem to prefer):
Fasicm: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
So, if a labor union wants to donate - in a publicly viewable way - money to Obama's campaign, or a plumbing company wants to donate to his opponent's, that plugs into the actual definition of that word how? I see. You'd prefer that speach were suppressed, in the name of freedom. Thank you, Mr. Orwell.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yes, it's much better if we let the earlier poster continue to propogate the notion that we have no rights unless we get them from Nancy Pelosi. That's a much better idea.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So your argument basically is, "If some groups that I don't like get greater influence, they will convince people to vote ways I don't like."
Sorry, buddy! You can't complain about people disagreeing with you if you buy into the democratic premise to begin with! Trying to silence groups that don't match your agenda is actually undemocratic, anyway, because it makes a farce out of the idea of people voting their mind.
He's just way ahead of you and understands your argument even better than you do, and has thought it out far futher. Don't worry, you'll catch up, and when you do you'll be happy to know that full proper refutation has already been provided in advance -- so no waiting for you!
everything in moderation
Actually your having helped earn the profits is irrelevant, the profits are not yours... The profits belong to the stockholders(or owners in a non-public company) and the corporation represents their interests NOT your interests.
Does anyone who has seen corporate executive pay structures truly believe this? The "corporation" represents the interests of the executives and the board. The laws governing corporations are set up to minimize the effect shareholders have on the makeup of the board or its decisions.
When financial services corporations are paying their executives 50% of revenues (that right, revenues, not profits) it's hard to believe that the interests of shareholders enter into the picture anywhere, other than as another creditor to dump when you declare bankruptcy.
Support SETI@home
No. Making a profit "qualifies" a corporation for exactly jack shit.
Very specifically, corporations lack some very basic properties of "persons" such as conscience. This alone completely disqualifies them from any civil rights.
Especially transnational corporations, who have absolutely no allegiance to any individual nation or government or society. Why in the world would you want a Saudi corporation or Chinese corporation or Iranian corporation to have a "say" about our society? So why would you want a completely amoral transnational to have any say?
How about this: A corporation can have a say in our society until you move one job off shore or one dollar into a foreign bank or sell one product overseas. Then, you get absolutely no say because your allegiance is no longer to our society.
How about this?: People can spend their money any way they want regarding political speech. Corporations can not. If those skeevs at "Americans United for Mom, Families and Mercury in the Water Supply" want to support a candidate, then each one of them can write a check individually. They are still free to assemble as the first amendment says. They are free to say anything they want. They are not free to buy government.
Speech is something that all people can participate in equally. Money is not.
When the founders wrote the Declaration and the Constitution, believe it or not, money had already been invented. Corporations had already been invented. They left money and corporations out of the First Amendment because they wanted it that way.
It's amusing that people who would think of themselves as "Constitutional originalists" when it comes to fictions like the "right to carry handguns" and "the right to have the US military wear bible verses on their hats" all of a sudden believe that they have to "fill in the blanks" in the First Amendment.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You elect your union leaders, whether you choose to vote or not.
Your corporate leaders are chosen by the board (rich shareholders)...and that's only in the case of a publicly traded company. Otherwise, it varies from Nepotism to Bobs-your-uncle.
I see very little problem in elected leaders representing people. But hey, that's why I like democracy.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
This is why I love right-to-work states, where no one can make me join a union.
As an employer I love them too. I can pay those idiots substantially less to do the same work.