Citizens United v. FEC

[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

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Riot

That a foreign-owned corporation is equal to an American voter?

That a foreign-owned corporation can now place millions and millions and millions of dollars worth of ads - more than any candidate or party - trying to directly influence the outcome of our elections by addressing voters?

With no brakes?



You are one of the most ultra-conservative, Libertarian people on this list - you are in favor of judicial activism?

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.

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.

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?

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Danzig]

I am on my phone so I can't post a link. But. I suggest reading the wsj op piece on the ruling

[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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I am on my phone so I can't post a link. But. I suggest reading the wsj op piece on the ruling

I suggest in addition reading something, anything, aside from the WSJ op ed piece on the ruling (which I have read)

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

They didn't grant corporations the right to vote.
Excluding opinions of voters, town hall meetings and emails? what in the world are you talking about?
Still one vote per person.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

if I'm invested with them I trust and in fact am betting on them to utilize their assets to raise profits and increase stock price. The ruling increases their ability to put out a position that is positive for the corporate interests. So instead of being afraid of corporate waste of profit I am pleased government control has been removed. I trust many more of the Idol watching masses will be exposed to the fraud known as Cap and Trade and a welfare like, socialistic health care plan in the next election.

Obama's bank regulation announcement did wonders this week for the stock market. The guy doesn't have a clue!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

They didn't grant corporations the right to vote.
Excluding opinions of voters, town hall meetings and emails? what in the world are you talking about?
Still one vote per person.

You're right, they didn't grant corporations the right to vote. But they just allowed them to overpower, to the -nith degree, your and my vote.

I'm in favor of Tea Parties, Independents - anything that keeps the flux in a rather strict two-party system.

My fear is that this has just rendered all of us useless, a small voice, crushed under now-unregulated corporate influence.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

if I'm invested with them I trust and in fact am betting on them to utilize their assets to raise profits and increase stock price. The ruling increases their ability to put out a position that is positive for the corporate interests. So instead of being afraid of corporate waste of profit I am pleased government control has been removed. I trust many more of the Idol watching masses will be exposed to the fraud known as Cap and Trade and a welfare like, socialistic health care plan in the next election.

Obama's bank regulation announcement did wonders this week for the stock market. The guy doesn't have a clue!

Government control over your corporations profits has not been changed. What I meant was, corporate accountability to their stockholders, regarding the corporation political expenditures of profit, was just REMOVED.

Right now, when the stock market falls a bit due to politics? It's due to fear their free-for-all party has been busted. Keep that in mind It's generally a good thing.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

You're right, they didn't grant corporations the right to vote. But they just allowed them to overpower, to the -nith degree, your and my vote.
.

How exactly are they going to overpower your vote?

[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 dellinger63

How exactly are they going to overpower your vote?

Well, look at Scott Brown's campaign finances, the guy from Mass who was just elected Senator. There's a chart in this article.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/15/wallst-scott-brown/

Less than half his money came from people who want to elect him, those "grass-roots" people who supported his "I drive a truck" campaign and gave him money to help get elected.

But when he came out and said he wouldn't support the tax on bonuses for the banks that put our country into recession and economic freefall (that borrowed money but still are giving record bonuses), Wall Street came out in force to support his election.

Well, of course! He's voting against taxpayers and our deficit reduction, and in favor of banks that took our bailout money not having to be responsible for putting our country into the financial toilet

But that was certainly fair under campaign law as of last Tuesday. Corporations had the first amendment right to free speech, to support financially and vocally any candidate they want to. And they did.

But there was a limit to what Corps could do: how much they could give, and they had a responsibility to have campaign PAC's, to account for what money went there.

That left the "people" with contributing almost half his campaign finances.

For example, see who one of the "Tea Party" organizations (FreedomWorks) - really is. It's not a group of citizens, it's a Wall Street bank lobbying organization.

But, we get to know that money from "FreedomWorks" is corporate money, due to disclosure requirements.

– The Wall Street front group FreedomWorks is mobilizing get out the vote efforts for Brown this weekend. FreedomWorks organized the very first tea party protests, and has used its extensive staff and resources to mobilize rallies and advocacy campaigns on behalf of corporate interests. Dick Armey, who as a corporate lobbyist represented AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch during the bailouit, is the leader of FreedomWorks. FreedomWorks is also funded and chaired by Steve Forbes and Frank Sands of Sands Capital Management.

The Wall Street front group Club for Growth is strongly “boosting” Brown and is expected to run ads in support for him. According to recent disclosures, the Club for Growth is funded by a $1.4 million dollar donation from investor Stephen Jacksons of Stephens Groups Inc, a $1.4 million dollar donation from broker Richard Gilder, and $210,000-$630,000 donations from at least 10 other investors and financial industry professionals.

So half Brown's money came from people who will vote for him, the other half is from Wall Street wanting to elect candidates that serve their special interests.

What the Supreme Court ruling has done is just eliminated limits on what those corporations can contribute, and the accountability.

Thus, any corporation (who has far more money than individual investors -see the individuals in the "Club for Growth" above) can literally just squash a candidate.

First, this renders all the little $5 and $50 contributions people make useless - it's like donating pennies now.

Second, it renders groups like "Club for Growth", above, useless, as even their donations are like donating pennies now.

The largest, richest corporations can literally give a billion dollars to squash or support a candidate now.

It renders you and I pretty useless, especially regarding candidate support in primaries.

Oh, yeah, we still are the ones that technically vote - but corporate money now has unlimited ability to determine what we see and hear about a candidate, what ads we see, and pretty much who will get on the primary ballot (who we will even hear about, who will be able to afford to get on the ballot)

So a movement of "average citizens" wanted to vote for Scott Brown, but any opposing corporation could have just squashed all those TV ads about him and his truck, by running three times the ad numbers showing his Playgirl centerfold.

Of course, then the Wall Street interests - or foreign corporations - could have paid for a billion in pro- Brown ads - but the point is, that you and I voters, the groundswell of people who got interested in this candidate and supported him - no longer matter at all.

The overwhelming number of people in this country say they are not happy with the way the country is going, and they are not happy with Wall Street, the banks, and their lack of responsibility for putting our country (and others) in a deep recession, the mortage and derivative crisis, etc.

And these same "anti-Wall Street" people who are so unhappy with the recession, where our country is financially, think the above Supreme Court decision giving corporations virtually unlimited involvement in American elections is a good thing for the average voter?

[Cannon Shell]

For those who choose to be informed by a source other than our own Ellie Light (Riot)

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw...es.php?ID=7047