APP - Defend Citizens United

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

you haven't read my arguments then. i've been arguing for it, but if they want to be against it, then against all. see post 43.

I've read every one of your arguments, and have been in complete agreement with you until your last post, which seems to completely contradict everything you've argued for the past three days. Perhaps I misunderstood what you posted, but when you say: "we don't need to disband them, rather, not allow them to give any money to politicians or advertisements about politics." It sounds like you have abandoned your argument and joined the liberals. What we NEED to do, is ensure that every American has freedom of speech, regardless of what "group" or "corporation" they happen to belong to.

It's fine to make the point, that if we travel down this road of denying free speech to "corporations" we end up with a society where only individual voices have "freedom to speak" ...and we are one small step away from "Goodspeak" as articulated in Orwell's 1984. I can't imagine you'e be okay with that, but then.. you are an enigma.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I've read every one of your arguments, and have been in complete agreement with you until your last post, which seems to completely contradict everything you've argued for the past three days. Perhaps I misunderstood what you posted, but when you say: "we don't need to disband them, rather, not allow them to give any money to politicians or advertisements about politics." It sounds like you have abandoned your argument and joined the liberals. What we NEED to do, is ensure that every American has freedom of speech, regardless of what "group" or "corporation" they happen to belong to.

It's fine to make the point, that if we travel down this road of denying free speech to "corporations" we end up with a society where only individual voices have "freedom to speak" ...and we are one small step away from "Goodspeak" as articulated in Orwell's 1984. I can't imagine you'e be okay with that, but then.. you are an enigma.

let me clarify. i was referring to IF they disallow any and all organizations from spending money on political speech. that is what you were talking about, or so i thought. the organizations do not need to be disbanded, rather, merely not allowed to spend. you seem to think the DNC and RNC would require disbandment, when in reality, no such requirement exists.

as i said previously, organizations (which a corporation is) can seek redress, peacefully assemble and so forth. so it makes no sense to punish an organization simply because they have more wealth than others.

the whole argument is just silly liberal whining. you never hear them complain about union spending millions on elections.

 

[Litmus]

What do you mean by "now," Asshate? This whole case law history in the US is nearly 200 years olde.

Consult your dictionary on the meaning of "now".

 

[Rune]

Asshat, good to have you back. Would love to see you posting on a regular basis again.

 

[Minister of Truth]

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.

Fair enough. Just as I told Rana, I have always thought corporate personhood to be silly, so I won't be shedding any tears on the day someone convinces the SCOTUS to reverse itself on that doctrine.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Fair enough. Just as I told Rana, I have always thought corporate personhood to be silly, so I won't be shedding any tears on the day someone convinces the SCOTUS to reverse itself on that doctrine.

without the concept of corporate personhood....how would you sue them in court? how would corps seek redress?

people misunderstand the concept of corporate personhood. it does not grant corps the same rights as you and i. it merely grants them certain rights and recognizes a certain "personhood" so they can create contracts, be sued and seek redress. without those rights, corporations would be meaningless.

 

[Litmus]

without the concept of corporate personhood....how would you sue them in court? how would corps seek redress?

people misunderstand the concept of corporate personhood. it does not grant corps the same rights as you and i. it merely grants them certain rights and recognizes a certain "personhood" so they can create contracts, be sued and seek redress. without those rights, corporations would be meaningless.

Right. its a certain set of rights. Actual people have more rights than corporations. calling it personhood is a fascist overreach.

The purpose of corporations to provide a protection for their owners personal assets.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Right. its a certain set of rights. Actual people have more rights than corporations. calling it personhood is a fascist overreach.

The purpose of corporations to provide a protection for their owners personal assets.

fair enough.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Right. its a certain set of rights. Actual people have more rights than corporations. calling it personhood is a fascist overreach.

The purpose of corporations to provide a protection for their owners personal assets.

This is why Yurt is completely inadequate as a spokesperson for this. He kinda has the right idea, but his liberal side wants to gravitate toward the liberal terminology. There is no such word as "personhood." It's a made-up term, introduced by pro-abortion liberals, to justify killing unborn humans. It doesn't apply here anymore than it does there. No such thing as "corporate personhood." A corporation is comprised of people. They are all persons. They all have constitutional rights.

Yes, the purpose of a corporation is liability. However, one can not adequately protect personal assets if they have no political voice (think slaves). The Supreme Court ruled (appropriately, I believe) that corporations are comprised of individuals, and their rights are still inalienable, even though they are described collectively as a "corporation." The corporate entity is not capable of expression, it isn't human, it has no rights and can't be denied rights. It's also incapable of action, it is an inanimate legal entity which is intrinsically tied to the people who operate it. Those people, are people, and they have the same rights as every other person, regardless of the fact they operate this corporate entity.

To better understand this, perhaps you need to look at it from the perspective of what corporations are NOT? For instance, they are not autonomous entities operating of their own volition, devoid of human interaction and control. They are not capable of making decisions or choices, or advocating political viewpoints, and they do not get to vote. They do not think or feel things, they have no emotions, and are incapable of 'doing' anything, disassociated from the people who operate them. Corporations can't give money or speak, they are completely dependent on the people who control them.

 

[Litmus]

The old monarchs invented coporations so they could anonymously influence society and make money without their identities being revealed.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public...deral_Election_Commission_130_S_Ct_876_175_L_

which is exactly what i said.

without the concept of corporate personhood....how would you sue them in court? how would corps seek redress?

people misunderstand the concept of corporate personhood. it does not grant corps the same rights as you and i. it merely grants them certain rights and recognizes a certain "personhood" so they can create contracts, be sued and seek redress. without those rights, corporations would be meaningless.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

let me clarify. i was referring to IF they disallow any and all organizations from spending money on political speech. that is what you were talking about, or so i thought. the organizations do not need to be disbanded, rather, merely not allowed to spend. you seem to think the DNC and RNC would require disbandment, when in reality, no such requirement exists.

as i said previously, organizations (which a corporation is) can seek redress, peacefully assemble and so forth. so it makes no sense to punish an organization simply because they have more wealth than others.

the whole argument is just silly liberal whining. you never hear them complain about union spending millions on elections.

Yes, I agree it is silly liberal whining and they don't view unions as being the same as a corporation, because they are hypocrites.

As for my DNC and RNC disbanding argument, fine... they wouldn't HAVE to disband, but tell me... what would be their purpose or function, if they were denied any political voice or expression whatsoever? If they can't endorse, back or support any particular candidate, or give any monetary contributions... what would be their reason to exist? My point was, these are groups, just like a corporation... if we establish that 'corporations' aren't protected under the constitution, it's just one small legislative step for that to include other like 'groups' of individuals. That's a dangerous territory, and one you shouldn't toss around lightly.

Dissolving our individual constitutional rights begins by dissolving our right to assemble and associate. Once we are confined to individual expression, the rest is history.... or a chapter out of George Orwell. We can't allow that to happen. Every American has the right to free political expression and speech, and they also have the right to assemble as a union, 527, PAC, or CORPORATION... it doesn't matter! As much as I wish I could say I don't support MoveOn.org's right to support and endorse policies and candidates, and spend money in that effort, I can't say that, because this is a fundamental right we ALL have, and should ALL protect! The same principle applies for Corporations, and regardless of WHO they support or WHAT they back, in terms of policy. They are comprised of PEOPLE, and ALL PEOPLE have inalienable rights to free political expression, regardless of how you pigeon-hole them.

This has been a purely POLITICAL effort by the Left and Democrats, to disassociate corporate influence while maintaining union influence, and tilt the tables in their favor. There is no argument to be made, the constitutional challenge was made and the court ruled appropriately. Now, they want to ignore the constitution and the court, and press on with their efforts by making up ridiculous memes, like "corporations ain't people!" You are apparently not keen enough to realize this, because you play right in to their rhetorical hyperbole with "corporate personhood." It's quite disturbing to me, because I know we're on the same side, but I am trying to bring you along. What you have to do, is completely reject this sort of hyperbolic rhetoric they use, because it has no place in reasoned and sound argument. One of our most fundamental constitutional rights is in play here, let's not mess around with their semantics games, now is not the time.

 

[Litmus]

Yes, I agree it is silly liberal whining and they don't view unions as being the same as a corporation, because they are hypocrites.

As for my DNC and RNC disbanding argument, fine... they wouldn't HAVE to disband, but tell me... what would be their purpose or function, if they were denied any political voice or expression whatsoever? If they can't endorse, back or support any particular candidate, or give any monetary contributions... what would be their reason to exist? My point was, these are groups, just like a corporation... if we establish that 'corporations' aren't protected under the constitution, it's just one small legislative step for that to include other like 'groups' of individuals. That's a dangerous territory, and one you shouldn't toss around lightly.

Dissolving our individual constitutional rights begins by dissolving our right to assemble and associate. Once we are confined to individual expression, the rest is history.... or a chapter out of George Orwell. We can't allow that to happen. Every American has the right to free political expression and speech, and they also have the right to assemble as a union, 527, PAC, or CORPORATION... it doesn't matter! As much as I wish I could say I don't support MoveOn.org's right to support and endorse policies and candidates, and spend money in that effort, I can't say that, because this is a fundamental right we ALL have, and should ALL protect! The same principle applies for Corporations, and regardless of WHO they support or WHAT they back, in terms of policy. They are comprised of PEOPLE, and ALL PEOPLE have inalienable rights to free political expression, regardless of how you pigeon-hole them.

This has been a purely POLITICAL effort by the Left and Democrats, to disassociate corporate influence while maintaining union influence, and tilt the tables in their favor. There is no argument to be made, the constitutional challenge was made and the court ruled appropriately. Now, they want to ignore the constitution and the court, and press on with their efforts by making up ridiculous memes, like "corporations ain't people!" You are apparently not keen enough to realize this, because you play right in to their rhetorical hyperbole with "corporate personhood." It's quite disturbing to me, because I know we're on the same side, but I am trying to bring you along. What you have to do, is completely reject this sort of hyperbolic rhetoric they use, because it has no place in reasoned and sound argument. One of our most fundamental constitutional rights is in play here, let's not mess around with their semantics games, now is not the time.

All groups of individuals should be denied personhood. There shouldn't be corporations at all. That's fine with me. All abstractions should be denied legal rights. People can still assemble and associate without that association becoming a level 1 entity with rights.

 

[Phantasmal]

All groups of individuals should be denied personhood. There shouldn't be corporations at all. That's fine with me. All abstractions should be denied legal rights.

I am glad to see you back.

 

[Phantasmal]

Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S.

It's already the law, so I guess you can shut up now, huh?

They do it anyway, where there is a will, there is a way.

 

[Phantasmal]

[edit]

Oh, thanks

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

All groups of individuals should be denied personhood. There shouldn't be corporations at all. That's fine with me. All abstractions should be denied legal rights. People can still assemble and associate without that association becoming a level 1 entity with rights.

there goes the nation.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

TE=Dixie;1022937]Yes, I agree it is silly liberal whining and they don't view unions as being the same as a corporation, because they are hypocrites.

As for my DNC and RNC disbanding argument, fine... they wouldn't HAVE to disband, but tell me... what would be their purpose or function, if they were denied any political voice or expression whatsoever? If they can't endorse, back or support any particular candidate, or give any monetary contributions... what would be their reason to exist? My point was, these are groups, just like a corporation... if we establish that 'corporations' aren't protected under the constitution, it's just one small legislative step for that to include other like 'groups' of individuals. That's a dangerous territory, and one you shouldn't toss around lightly.

they could still endorse a candidate. they could still choose a candidate. the only thing they would not be allowed to do is spend money to voice support for a candidate or opposition to a candidate.

Dissolving our individual constitutional rights begins by dissolving our right to assemble and associate. Once we are confined to individual expression, the rest is history.... or a chapter out of George Orwell. We can't allow that to happen. Every American has the right to free political expression and speech, and they also have the right to assemble as a union, 527, PAC, or CORPORATION... it doesn't matter! As much as I wish I could say I don't support MoveOn.org's right to support and endorse policies and candidates, and spend money in that effort, I can't say that, because this is a fundamental right we ALL have, and should ALL protect! The same principle applies for Corporations, and regardless of WHO they support or WHAT they back, in terms of policy. They are comprised of PEOPLE, and ALL PEOPLE have inalienable rights to free political expression, regardless of how you pigeon-hole them.

i agree and that is why citizens is a sound ruling.

many people don't understand this simple aspect of the ruling because they FEAR corporations. corporations are the bogeymen hiding under their bed. they can't rationally think about corporations.

This has been a purely POLITICAL effort by the Left and Democrats, to disassociate corporate influence while maintaining union influence, and tilt the tables in their favor. There is no argument to be made, the constitutional challenge was made and the court ruled appropriately. Now, they want to ignore the constitution and the court, and press on with their efforts by making up ridiculous memes, like "corporations ain't people!" You are apparently not keen enough to realize this, because you play right in to their rhetorical hyperbole with "corporate personhood." It's quite disturbing to me, because I know we're on the same side, but I am trying to bring you along. What you have to do, is completely reject this sort of hyperbolic rhetoric they use, because it has no place in reasoned and sound argument. One of our most fundamental constitutional rights is in play here, let's not mess around with their semantics games, now is not the time.

you're right. most dems want to lessen corporate influence while maintaining union influence. not all dems though. i'm not really not sure where you going with the "You are apparently not keen enough to realize this, because you play right in to their rhetorical hyperbole with "corporate personhood." you, again, have misread my posts. i suggest you read post 131 and recognize your error.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Consult your dictionary on the meaning of "now".

So, 200 years ago equals now. Got it!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

they could still endorse a candidate. they could still choose a candidate. the only thing they would not be allowed to do is spend money to voice support for a candidate or opposition to a candidate.

Well how are they going to 'endorse' someone, if they can't spend money? Some guy is going to go out front of the RNC building and stand on a soapbox? Because anything more than that, like buying airtime, refreshments or a microphone, costs money. Printing a flyer or brochure to articulate their support, costs money. So how are they going to endorse or support anyone, without spending money? ...and talk about a really BORING convention... what with no MONEY!

Now we spent the better part of a day, several pages back, addressing the liberal meme, "money is not speech!" Do you remember that today? Because it sounds like you want to kind of abandon that point for some odd reason, and I can't figure out why... surely you aren't being sarcastic, are you? Citizens United was voicing opposition to a candidate in the release of a video about Hillary Clinton... that's what the case was about, whether they had the constitutional right to do so. The court found Citizens could "spend money" in producing and releasing a commercial product with a political message, because they have the fundamental 1st amendment right to do so. The argument against Citizens, was against them "spending money" to oppose a political candidate.

You seem to want to try and have a McCain-like attitude about this "spending money" thing, and this may be an appropriate time to point out... Citizens United, and the entire case, including this very thread, are mostly the fault of John McCain. It was passage of CFR which led to the action taken against Citizens, which led to the lawsuit filed by Citizens. It was precisely because of the wrong-headed mindset, that we can somehow limit money without limiting free speech.

i agree and that is why citizens is a sound ruling. ...many people don't understand this simple aspect of the ruling because they FEAR corporations. corporations are the bogeymen hiding under their bed. they can't rationally think about corporations. ...you're right. most dems want to lessen corporate influence while maintaining union influence. not all dems though. i'm not really not sure where you going with the "You are apparently not keen enough to realize this, because you play right in to their rhetorical hyperbole with "corporate personhood." you, again, have misread my posts. i suggest you read post 131 and recognize your error.

I have read 131, and I think you are missing a big chunk of the point here. There is no need to argue their "corporate personhood" nonsense, or posit explanations for "useful legal devices" or anything other than just complete rejection of their silliness and hyperbole. You are getting down in the mud with the pigs. Corporations are GROUPS of individual people. How we define our collective groups, has no relevance in the discussion of the individual's rights, and shouldn't hamper those rights in any way. It doesn't matter if it's a corporation, a union, an organization, a dotcom, a party, or a klan! We all have free speech rights in America, whether people agree with our speech or not. As such, we have the right to spend money as a group, to express those views, and to support political candidates or oppose others.