Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barry's Billion; Our 4 Trillion

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Barry's Billion; Our 4 Trillion

    This 5-4 Supreme Court decision could backfire on the Conservative wing that voted for it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us.../22scotus.html

    Now that there is no limit to Corporate Campaign contributions and political advertising, the corporations that stand to gain the most from Barry's $4 trillion 2012 budget plan can spend as much as they want trying to get Barry in the White House for another 4 years, so there'll be a better chance of getting his bloated budget passed.

    Barry anticipates being able to outstrip his 2008 record $750 million by $250 million, so that he'll have a billion with which to saturate the media for 2012.

  • #2
    It sounds like a Constitutional ruling, what should prevent corporations from supporting a candidate? The unions certainly have no problem dumping whatever they want into a favorable candidate.

    I don't think it matters in '12 what they spend, I think it will all come down to the economy, it it's still down, Obama is out.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JasperST View Post
      It sounds like a Constitutional ruling, what should prevent corporations from supporting a candidate? The unions certainly have no problem dumping whatever they want into a favorable candidate.
      The ruling was also permissive of unions being allowed to dump money into campaigns. Unions are corporations. I don't see a fundamental reason why a corporation, which is an artificial person created by the state, should have to be endowed with the same rights as a natural person. If I exercise my freedom of speech, I'm the one who's said whatever I've said, but a non-majority stockholder of a publicly traded corporation can't be held accountable beyond the value of his stock for what the corporation says or does. If an individual chooses to pay another to speak for him, that's one thing, but if a corporation choose to create quid pro quo situations with a political candidate, that's another.

      I don't think it matters in '12 what they spend, I think it will all come down to the economy, it it's still down, Obama is out.
      I hope you're right about that.

      Comment


      • #4
        How can a individual stock holder be held liable for something someone, or a bunch of someone's says? I believe the reasoning for corporation's rights is that it's really a collection of people. If a collection of people choose to act in like manner and pool their resources for a common goal I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity.

        I don't know anything about corporate law but I thought that was basically the deal.

        Comment


        • #5
          One of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Forget about the hogties that are wrapped around Congress because of this decision and it's still horrendous.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JasperST View Post
            It sounds like a Constitutional ruling, what should prevent corporations from supporting a candidate? The unions certainly have no problem dumping whatever they want into a favorable candidate.

            I don't think it matters in '12 what they spend, I think it will all come down to the economy, it it's still down, Obama is out.
            Barry ( PRESIDENT OBAMA to all of you who feel your "liberties" have been taken away by our POTUS) is probably not gonna' be re-elected. The Left is mad cause he's leaned to the right to placate the SOB rightwingers, who could give a rat's butt what he does to please them, just as long as they can rant against him. and why not let a corporation PAY FOR A candidate in office. The GOP has no problem putting major companies and private concerns FIRST over the rights of the citizens who elected them- let it be that way forever. Damn shame the unions - of which represent ONLY 7-8% of the population, don't have the pull that ARCO, or WALMARTS have- maybe we;d be better off if they did i "buying candidates" like Big oil and big banking/wall street does......
            "we're americans ! We don't quit because we're wrong, we just keep doing it wrong UNTIL it turns out Right"...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DOAcop38 View Post
              The GOP has no problem putting major companies and private concerns FIRST over the rights of the citizens who elected them- let it be that way forever. Damn shame the unions - of which represent ONLY 7-8% of the population, don't have the pull that ARCO, or WALMARTS have- maybe we;d be better off if they did i "buying candidates" like Big oil and big banking/wall street does......
              What rights have people lost? I doubt very seriously that unions play only an 8% role in elections. Obama supposedly has a billion dollar piggybank for '12, I hope the other side raises 2 billion at least. One thing that I don't understand about the left is their anti-business philosophy, where do they think money comes from?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                What rights have people lost? I doubt very seriously that unions play only an 8% role in elections. Obama supposedly has a billion dollar piggybank for '12, I hope the other side raises 2 billion at least. One thing that I don't understand about the left is their anti-business philosophy, where do they think money comes from?
                Tooth fairy and Santa Clause...
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                  How can a individual stock holder be held liable for something someone, or a bunch of someone's says? I believe the reasoning for corporation's rights is that it's really a collection of people. If a collection of people choose to act in like manner and pool their resources for a common goal I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity.

                  I don't know anything about corporate law but I thought that was basically the deal.
                  A political party is a free association of persons, and its political speech is protected under the 1st Amendment more strongly than other kinds of Speech. Commercial speech has long been considered the least protected kind of speech. Most corporations are primarily engaged in commerce. When they are allowed to fund political organizations the distinction between commercial speech and political speech becomes blurred. Corporations are not simply free associations of persons. They are entities created for commercial purposes, participating in industries that must be regulated by the Government, and as such they must not be allowed unbridled capability to influence elections.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DOAcop38 View Post
                    Barry
                    I call him Barry because he changed his name too many times. He started out as Barry Dunham. Then he changed his first name and surname twice each.

                    ( PRESIDENT OBAMA
                    Please don't use all caps reproachfully. It makes you look like a windbag. To me Barry is a Kenyan-born guy who was able to pretend that he was actually born in HA.

                    to all of you who feel your "liberties" have been taken away
                    I don't feel that way about my liberties so I presume you don't mean me.

                    by our POTUS)
                    I think that acronym is even ruder than SCOTUS.

                    is probably not gonna' be re-elected.
                    Oh goody. Maybe our great-grandchildren won't have to ask Mao's successors for a mortgage after all.

                    The Left is mad cause he's leaned to the right to placate the SOB rightwingers, who could give a rat's butt what he does to please them, just as long as they can rant against him. and why not let a corporation PAY FOR A candidate in office. The GOP has no problem putting major companies and private concerns FIRST over the rights of the citizens who elected them- let it be that way forever. Damn shame the unions - of which represent ONLY 7-8% of the population, don't have the pull that ARCO, or WALMARTS have- maybe we;d be better off if they did i "buying candidates" like Big oil and big banking/wall street does......
                    So you disagree with the Supreme Court decision to lift limits on corporate contributions to political campaigns. I agree with you on that. I think it might enable Barry to not have to pull all those shenanigans with huge numbers of small offshore laundered contributions like he did last time. I don't think offshore contributions other than such as are authenticably from citizens should be allowed at all. A non-citizen should not be allowed to do any financing of a US election from outside the country.
                    Last edited by Monty Ealerman; 04-21-2011, 10:45 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
                      A political party is a free association of persons, and its political speech is protected under the 1st Amendment more strongly than other kinds of Speech. Commercial speech has long been considered the least protected kind of speech. Most corporations are primarily engaged in commerce. When they are allowed to fund political organizations the distinction between commercial speech and political speech becomes blurred. Corporations are not simply free associations of persons. They are entities created for commercial purposes, participating in industries that must be regulated by the Government, and as such they must not be allowed unbridled capability to influence elections.
                      Which part of the Constitution are you referring to? The 1st Amendment doesn't have that limitation. I don't really see the big difference between one large company and thousands of law firms backing a candidate, for example.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                        Which part of the Constitution are you referring to? The 1st Amendment doesn't have that limitation. I don't really see the big difference between one large company and thousands of law firms backing a candidate, for example.
                        Corporations are not natural persons and consequently have in themselves no rights. Restricting campaign contributions by corporations is not a violation of any 1st Amendment provision. As for the difference between a large company and thousands of law firms backing a candidate, presumably the law firms are acting independently of one another, while the large company is acting monolithically.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
                          Corporations are not natural persons and consequently have in themselves no rights. Restricting campaign contributions by corporations is not a violation of any 1st Amendment provision. As for the difference between a large company and thousands of law firms backing a candidate, presumably the law firms are acting independently of one another, while the large company is acting monolithically.
                          Corporations are groups of people who do have 1st amendment rights. I'm guessing that's the Supremes' rationale. I don't think that we should have laws just because the government can pass them. Unions and groups of businesses and special interests do act monolithically so I'm still not seeing the difference.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JasperST View Post
                            Corporations are groups of people who do have 1st amendment rights. I'm guessing that's the Supremes' rationale. I don't think that we should have laws just because the government can pass them. Unions and groups of businesses and special interests do act monolithically so I'm still not seeing the difference.
                            Unions are not excluded from the new permissiveness. The internal constraints on their political contributions are different from those of ordinary for-profit corporations. Neither should be accorded all the rights of a natural person.

                            Comment

                            MR300x250 Tablet

                            Collapse

                            What's Going On

                            Collapse

                            There are currently 6244 users online. 346 members and 5898 guests.

                            Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                            Welcome Ad

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X