APP - should corporations have the same rights as citizens

should corporations have the same rights as citizens

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Yurt said:
it is a distinction in fact. corps will have to disclose that it is not paid for by the candidate, just as when political parties make ads. are you claiming that political parties bankroll candidates?

as i said, the issue was about speech, not donations. donations can be restricted without having a 1st amendment violation.

did you have a problem with obama's half hour prime time speech? do you have a problem that political parties can run political ads?
Click to expand...


First, so what. Who cares about a meaningless disclosure requirement? For a few hundred dollars and a little bit of paperwork anyone, including foreign corporations, could easily set up a corporation that hides where the money is actually coming from. And yes, to an extent, political parties do bankroll candidates.

Second, for first amendment purposes, money talks. Right now, donations can be restricted without a first amendment violation because under previous Supreme Court decisions that the Court overruled yesterday, the identity of the speaker mattered. Now it doesn't. Once the RNC case gets the Supreme Court, unless they intend to overturn Buckley v. Valeo (which they aren't) the soft-money ban will be struck down.

You just want to ignore the obvious harmful implications of yesterday's decision.
 
Yurt said:
strawman...i never said it did...i responded to a statement that was a should/i would like to see this statement, i agreed

do keep up
Click to expand...
you said:
absolutely, if there is a parent corp or the corp is funded/created by another corp, all corporation involvement must be disclosed...that leads to a more informed populace
Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'must' here? must according to what authority.
 
NigelTufnel said:
First, so what. Who cares about a meaningless disclosure requirement? For a few hundred dollars and a little bit of paperwork anyone, including foreign corporations, could easily set up a corporation that hides where the money is actually coming from. And yes, to an extent, political parties do bankroll candidates.

Second, for first amendment purposes, money talks. Right now, donations can be restricted without a first amendment violation because under previous Supreme Court decisions that the Court overruled yesterday, the identity of the speaker mattered. Now it doesn't. Once the RNC case gets the Supreme Court, unless they intend to overturn Buckley v. Valeo (which they aren't) the soft-money ban will be struck down.

You just want to ignore the obvious harmful implications of yesterday's decision.
Click to expand...

and you keep ignoring obama's half hour of prime time and the fact political parties, despite the DNC labeling themselves a corporation, can raise funds for candidates and air political ads

if you want to not allow corps the ability to air ads, then you should be against any and all organizations, groups etc airing ads...

donating to a candidate is different. that is a fact. your theory that this case changes that is without merit as scotus reaffirmed that that law is still valid....you should really read the case, it is clear you are incredible ignorant about what the case actually says
 
Yurt said:
and you keep ignoring obama's half hour of prime time and the fact political parties, despite the DNC labeling themselves a corporation, can raise funds for candidates and air political ads

if you want to not allow corps the ability to air ads, then you should be against any and all organizations, groups etc airing ads...

donating to a candidate is different. that is a fact. your theory that this case changes that is without merit as scotus reaffirmed that that law is still valid....you should really read the case, it is clear you are incredible ignorant about what the case actually says
Click to expand...

corporate cash will dwarf these expenditures and you know it.
 
AssHatZombie said:
corporate cash will dwarf these expenditures and you know it.
Click to expand...

no, i don't know it....how much money did the dnc raise? are you actually claiming corps will spend more than obama's 600 million dollars?

look, if the issue is that ads are harmful to the democratic process, then create a law that applies everyone or every entity that covers speech. its silly to think that only corps are going to wreak havoc on the already polluted campaigns that are shoved down our throat. by the time elections come around, i'm sick of politicians....

like i said, if the issue is money causing harm to our political process, then we need to ban all orgs, groups from political ads. IMO, that is the spirit of the first amendment, free speech is not absolute.
 
Yurt said:
no, i don't know it....how much money did the dnc raise? are you actually claiming corps will spend more than obama's 600 million dollars?

look, if the issue is that ads are harmful to the democratic process, then create a law that applies everyone or every entity that covers speech. its silly to think that only corps are going to wreak havoc on the already polluted campaigns that are shoved down our throat. by the time elections come around, i'm sick of politicians....

like i said, if the issue is money causing harm to our political process, then we need to ban all orgs, groups from political ads. IMO, that is the spirit of the first amendment, free speech is not absolute.
Click to expand...

Then you're just a foolish idiot. OF course they will spend more than that.
 
Yurt said:
and you keep ignoring obama's half hour of prime time and the fact political parties, despite the DNC labeling themselves a corporation, can raise funds for candidates and air political ads

if you want to not allow corps the ability to air ads, then you should be against any and all organizations, groups etc airing ads...

donating to a candidate is different. that is a fact. your theory that this case changes that is without merit as scotus reaffirmed that that law is still valid....you should really read the case, it is clear you are incredible ignorant about what the case actually says
Click to expand...


I realize that donating to a candidate is different. The Court may have reaffirmed that the law is still valid but the question of donations was not presented by the case. When the question is presented by the RNC lawsuit I don't see how the ban on soft-money donations holds up.

And Obama was a candidate. He can do whatever the fuck he wants.

As for the DNC, I don't think it is a corporation. Additionally, I don't think that all business organizations have to be treated the same for purposes of campaign finance laws. There are myriad reasons for treating for-profit corporations differently from non-profits, etc . . .
 
NigelTufnel said:
I realize that donating to a candidate is different. The Court may have reaffirmed that the law is still valid but the question of donations was not presented by the case. When the question is presented by the RNC lawsuit I don't see how the ban on soft-money donations holds up.

And Obama was a candidate. He can do whatever the fuck he wants.

As for the DNC, I don't think it is a corporation. Additionally, I don't think that all business organizations have to be treated the same for purposes of campaign finance laws. There are myriad reasons for treating for-profit corporations differently from non-profits, etc . . .
Click to expand...

Copyright © 1995-2009 DNC Services Corporation
 
Yurt said:
it aint going to happen, it is conspiracy, tin foil hat stuff, 80's movies stuff...but, i'm open to the possibility if you can convince
Click to expand...

No. It;s obviously happening right before our eyes. Considering the constant neocon drumbeat of 'corporations good, government bad', combined with globalization zealotry, and the openly globalist goals of THe UN, CFR and other unseemly organizations, where we are headed is indisputable.

The only way you ignore it is by keeping your head in your ass.

How's that air there, fartsniff?
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. It;s obviously happening right before our eyes. Considering the constant neocon drumbeat of 'corporations good, government bad', combined with globalization zealotry, and the openly globalist goals of THe UN, CFR and other unseemly organizations, where we are headed is indisputable.

The only way you ignore it is by keeping your head in your ass.

How's that air there, fartsniff?
Click to expand...

please stop sniffing my farts, it makes me uncomfortable

neocons may drum that beat, however, it is the same beat as the left or far left drums that corps bad, government good.

in the middle, are most people who believe corps should have some regulations regulated by a government that is also "regulated" or limited if you will.
 
Yurt said:
please stop sniffing my farts, it makes me uncomfortable

neocons may drum that beat, however, it is the same beat as the left or far left drums that corps bad, government good.

in the middle, are most people who believe corps should have some regulations regulated by a government that is also "regulated" or limited if you will.
Click to expand...

But corporations are now ruining the american standard of living for short term profit by outsourcing all the jobs so now libs see that business can be used to destroy the american way of life over the long term, one of their goals too. So now we have these extremist ideologies colluding to, yes, in fact, destroy america.

THe things both parties agree on are the most dangerous of all. Globalization and globalist insanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top