APP - Defend Citizens United

Dixie said:
Since I am applying YOUR standard of "one right per person, no double rights" ...it would seem it is in fact, YOU who is being ridiculous.

For the record, I completely agree with you, it is a ridiculous position to have.
Click to expand...

No, you are the one still being ridiculous.
 
Dixie said:
Care to explain this allegation? Keeping in mind which board you are on?
Click to expand...

No, I respectfully decline to answer you in any other fashion, and because I forgot this is APP, I will now leave this thread, because it is the only answer you deserve.
 
Money is the way to purchase the means to "speak"... Saying that you are free to say something but denying the means (make buying paper illegal for instance) is a violation of the first amendment. People have a right of association, that is what a corporation is. Those people have a right to free speech just like you or I would if we formed an organization (also built of people) to promote naked hippie camps and spent the organizations money to get people elected that were like-minded....

Is a brick house a brick? Is it a whole bunch of bricks? A corporation is simply an organized group of people saying that because it is an "entity" and ignoring what it is comprised of is a contradiction. People have a right to organize, those organizations have the right to free speech because of the fact that people are what they are made of, and they have rights...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
we get the government we elect. if we listen to expensive campaign commercials because most of us are too fat and lazy to get off our asses and learn about who is running, we deserve it. CU is pure first amendment that is easily countered by educating ourselves. something liberals tend to avoid.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything besides blaming the victim?
 
Damocles said:
Money is the way to purchase the means to "speak"... Saying that you are free to say something but denying the means (make buying paper illegal for instance) is a violation of the first amendment. People have a right of association, that is what a corporation is. Those people have a right to free speech just like you or I would if we formed an organization (also built of people) to promote naked hippie camps and spent the organizations money to get people elected that were like-minded....

Is a brick house a brick? Is it a whole bunch of bricks? A corporation is simply an organized group of people saying that because it is an "entity" and ignoring what it is comprised of is a contradiction. People have a right to organize, those organizations have the right to free speech because of the fact that people are what they are made of, and they have rights...
Click to expand...

The corporate entity was created so they could specifically NOT be treated like individuals, the corporate veil to protect their assets. Now they want to have it both ways. Sorry, it's fascist, hypocritical and wrong. The nature of the collective is substantively different from it's parts, by design.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The corporate entity was created so they could specifically NOT be treated like individuals, the corporate veil to protect their assets. Now they want to have it both ways. Sorry, it's fascist, hypocritical and wrong. The nature of the collective is substantively different from it's parts, by design.
Click to expand...

Where have you been hiding?? :good4u:
 
Rune said:
Explain how money is speech.
Show how government by the highest bidder is appropriate.
Tell why a coporation is a person.
Pretend you are on a debate forum, where facts are proven by proof, not your say so alone.

Show why the first ammendment protects the spending of multi-national companies, and why centuries of limited campaign donations was wrong.

Finaly, explain how representative democracy is enhanced by billions of dollars of untrackable donations.
Click to expand...


It's indefensible. :mad:
 
It should come as no surprise that the trigger for foreign contributions possibly finding an inroad into US elections is none other than the Citizens United decision. Here’s why. By lifting the prohibitions on corporations’ ability to make direct expenditures influencing federal elections, Citizens United allows 501(c)(4) nonprofits to fund independent expenditures and electioneering communications without disclosing where the money came from. Citizens United created an environment in which it is perfectly legal for a shell non-profit corporation to engage in election-related spending on behalf of a hidden interest. And there is nothing to ensure that the hidden interest is not a foreign national, a foreign company or a foreign government.

It’s ironic that while allowing for the very real possibility of foreign money to secretly infect our elections, the Supreme Court recently affirmed that foreign nationals are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in connection with U.S. elections.

How can the court have it both ways? How, too, can the party that so vigorously investigated foreign fundraising by the Clinton White House blithely refuse to take any action that would remedy the situation? (Full disclosure, I worked on the Senate investigation for the minority party. Allegations of secret foreign money lining party coffers came from both sides.)

One tool to ensure that illegal foreign contributions do not influence US elections is the DISCLOSE Act. That bill, which was blocked by Republicans in 2010 and is likely to suffer the same fate again this year, would impose disclosure requirements on nonprofits that make political expenditures, thereby uncovering or even preventing the laundering of foreign money.
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/...o-foreign-interests-influencing-us-elections/


so no matter what I say or post I'm sure the 'conservatives' here won't believe a word of it so here's one of your heroes saying the same thing I am...



If you 'conservatives' love America, why do you want the Chinese Communists influencing our elections? Because you think it will be good for your party is my thought.
 
Threedee said:
Yes, but political contributions are, which is what free speech was specifically created to protect. But you ignored the latter part of the sentence, because you are a hack.
Click to expand...
No. Political contributions by PERSONS are free speech. Corporations are not people. Only a complete moron or someone with a large vested interest in a corporation would argue that.
 
By lifting the prohibitions on corporations’ ability to make direct expenditures influencing federal elections, Citizens United allows 501(c)(4) nonprofits to fund independent expenditures and electioneering communications without disclosing where the money came from. Citizens United created an environment in which it is perfectly legal for a shell non-profit corporation to engage in election-related spending on behalf of a hidden interest.
Click to expand...

Spot.Fucking.On.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top