Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

[CountDeMoney]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this big wet shit on the democratic process hasn't made more news, or that Languishites aren't making a bigger deal of it.

[Neil]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this big wet shit on the democratic process hasn't made more news, or that Languishites aren't making a bigger deal of it.

It's hard to get excited about something that isn't really important.

[CountDeMoney]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this big wet shit on the democratic process hasn't made more news, or that Languishites aren't making a bigger deal of it.

It's hard to get excited about something that isn't really important.

Destroying what is left of the electoral process by granting corporations carte blanche for political contributions? No, not at all.

[The Brain]

You're such a fucking Communist.

[CountDeMoney]

You're such a fucking Communist.

[boris]
Government of the pipples, by the pipples, for the pipples and moose and squirrel.
[/boris]

[Neil]

Destroying what is left of the electoral process by granting corporations carte blanche for political contributions? No, not at all.

Are political contributions bad for the electoral process?

[Hansmeister]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this big wet shit on the democratic process hasn't made more news, or that Languishites aren't making a bigger deal of it.

So you believe the gov't should have the power to ban books and movies it finds objectionable?  The FEC's affirmative response whether they have the power to ban books in libraries is what prettty much doomed the gov't's case.

[grumbler]

Destroying what is left of the electoral process by granting corporations carte blanche for political contributions? No, not at all.

Are political contributions bad for the electoral process?

Political contributions from entities not allowed to vote (foreigners, foreign governments, all corporations, all labor unions, all Boy Scout Troops, and the Secret Order of the Illuminati) are bad for the electoral process, just as is the limit on individual contributions from those who are allowed to vote.

[Hansmeister]

OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. 

It was always a retarded law aimed at restricting political speech outside of the duopoly of the established political parties.

[grumbler]

OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. 

Why would we want to have banned the publication of a newspaper? 

[Hansmeister]

OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. 

Why would we want to have banned the publication of a newspaper? 

Because it is corporate political speech.

[Razgovory]

OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. 

Why would we want to have banned the publication of a newspaper? 

Because it is corporate political speech.

Why are you still banging that drum?  Speech and money aren't the same thing, otherwise employers could just bitch at their employees all day and call it compensation.  I dislike giving rights to things that aren't people.  A corporation can't be called up for jury duty, tossed in a jail, etc, why should it be able to have the rights of a citizen.

[Sheilbh]

Why are you still banging that drum?  Speech and money aren't the same thing, otherwise employers could just bitch at their employees all day and call it compensation.  I dislike giving rights to things that aren't people.  A corporation can't be called up for jury duty, tossed in a jail, etc, why should it be able to have the rights of a citizen.

By my reading of it the First Amendment doesn't give rights from people - that would be presumptuous - it bans from Congress the ability to make laws that restrict speech.

[Razgovory]

Why are you still banging that drum?  Speech and money aren't the same thing, otherwise employers could just bitch at their employees all day and call it compensation.  I dislike giving rights to things that aren't people.  A corporation can't be called up for jury duty, tossed in a jail, etc, why should it be able to have the rights of a citizen.

By my reading of it the First Amendment doesn't give rights from people - that would be presumptuous - it bans from Congress the ability to make laws that restrict speech.
[/quote

This is true, but corporation aren't people.  They aren't born with rights.  They aren't born at all.  The only way they could have rights is that someone gives them to them.

[grumbler]

Why are you still banging that drum?  Speech and money aren't the same thing, otherwise employers could just bitch at their employees all day and call it compensation.  I dislike giving rights to things that aren't people.  A corporation can't be called up for jury duty, tossed in a jail, etc, why should it be able to have the rights of a citizen.

By my reading of it the First Amendment doesn't give rights from people - that would be presumptuous - it bans from Congress the ability to make laws that restrict speech.

You are correct.  The Bill of Rights as a whole merely recognizes certain pre-existing rights in the form of banning government interference in them.

Having said that, I have never heard a corporation speak, so government restrictions on them isn't restricting "speech" in the sense that we understand the word.  People in corporations should be free to speak, of course, but the extension of things like the concept of 'speech" to non-persons needs to be done in a very careful manner.

Having said that, I am in favor of the minimum possible government regulations (and, in fact, am in favor of forcing government to remove an existing restriction for each new one they emplace) so this ruling, per se, doesn't bother me much.  What bothers me is the ease with which the bureaucratic charlatans in the unions and corporations can get to spend the money of their "constituents" pursuing the political interests of the charlatan.