APP - should corporations have the same rights as citizens

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

All conservatives deserve to die. Hopefully one day you'll all be murdered, like you deserve, in the most gruesome way possible. There's no way to inflict enough pain on a conservative for them to get what they deserve, so we just have to kill as many of you cockroaches as possible.

Why haven't you started killing us then? Are you too chicken shit? I say you should go for it if you really mean this, otherwise you are just a cowardly simpering crybaby who needs his diaper changed. I'll even volunteer to be your first victim, if you want to come to Alabama. Come kill me gruesomely like I deserve, waterhead... I'm waiting!

 

[Minister of Truth]

He can't, the Village lynched his idiot ass.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Did you hear Obama's criticism of SCOTUS for this decision? Ole Sam Alito winced like Obama had bitch slapped him. It was hillareous. Best part of his whole speech!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, and they say the Constitution disagrees with you as well. Using money to buy airtime is free speech, and Congress shall make no law to restrict it!

YOU PHAIL!

So Dixie, would that apply to British Petroleum? Do they have Free Speech in this country? As a Foriegn Corporation do they have the right to influence our elections or influence important domestic policy issues such as energy independence? God Knows BP doesn't want the US to be energy independant.

 

[Litmus]

Mott just jizzed all over dixie's face.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Mott just jizzed all over dixie's face.

It was a premature jizz.

So Dixie, would that apply to British Petroleum? Do they have Free Speech in this country? As a Foriegn Corporation do they have the right to influence our elections or influence important domestic policy issues such as energy independence? God Knows BP doesn't want the US to be energy independant.

You act like I made this ruling, and I am responsible for applying it or deciding how it is applied in law. I didn't make the ruling, the Supreme Court did... you know? Those 9 judges in black robes who decide what is constitutional and what isn't? Anyway, the decision was theirs, not mine. I suppose you could take a case to them and ask whether BP gets Constitutional rights as a foreign entity, I have no idea what they would rule on that, it would be interesting to see, and if they determined foreign individuals do not have constitutional rights, we will settle several other issues currently facing us, like illegal immigrants using our services, and terrorists getting criminal trials in US courts.

SCOTUS decisions always have ramifications!

 

[Good Luck]

So Dixie, would that apply to British Petroleum? Do they have Free Speech in this country? As a Foriegn Corporation do they have the right to influence our elections or influence important domestic policy issues such as energy independence? God Knows BP doesn't want the US to be energy independent.

Does any group of British citizens, legally residing in the United States, have the right to speak out on U.S. elections?

Yes.

The question is how much attention do U.S. citizens pay to the yammering of a bunch of limeys?

The biggest problem with the objections to this decision is that the money corporations put into politics only has as much effect the people allow it to. To demonstrate, how much would any of you be swayed, personally, by a commercial about wind power paid for by a major coal mining company? And in anticipation of most answers, why do you think everyone else is that much different?

Ultimately the power still actually resides in those who actually cast votes, (which, as has been pointed out, pretty much negates the claim of giving human rights to corporations) not in those who try to sway them. As such, the problem lies not with a decision which is ultimately in support of maximum liberty and rights, but rather with the phenomenon of people willing to allow themselves to be led by the nose instead of think for themselves. The power of money comes from the people abdicating their authority. How much influence would money have if the people actually paid attention to the issues and voted based on performance instead of empty broken promises? That applies to those at both ends of the corporatism/anti-corporatism philosophy.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the problem lies not with a decision which is ultimately in support of maximum liberty and rights, but rather with the phenomenon of people willing to allow themselves to be led by the nose instead of think for themselves. The power of money comes from the people abdicating their authority. How much influence would money have if the people actually paid attention to the issues and voted based on performance instead of empty broken promises?

THIS!

 

[Don Quixote]

Does any group of British citizens, legally residing in the United States, have the right to speak out on U.S. elections?

Yes.

The question is how much attention do U.S. citizens pay to the yammering of a bunch of limeys?

The biggest problem with the objections to this decision is that the money corporations put into politics only has as much effect the people allow it to. To demonstrate, how much would any of you be swayed, personally, by a commercial about wind power paid for by a major coal mining company? And in anticipation of most answers, why do you think everyone else is that much different?

Ultimately the power still actually resides in those who actually cast votes, (which, as has been pointed out, pretty much negates the claim of giving human rights to corporations) not in those who try to sway them. As such, the problem lies not with a decision which is ultimately in support of maximum liberty and rights, but rather with the phenomenon of people willing to allow themselves to be led by the nose instead of think for themselves. The power of money comes from the people abdicating their authority. How much influence would money have if the people actually paid attention to the issues and voted based on performance instead of empty broken promises? That applies to those at both ends of the corporatism/anti-corporatism philosophy.

perhaps, but what about a group called 'citizens against/for wind power' where donors hide behind some committee or at least until after the time limit has passed requiring posting of 'major' contributors (currently about one week before an election)

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Does any group of British citizens, legally residing in the United States, have the right to speak out on U.S. elections?

Yes.

The question is how much attention do U.S. citizens pay to the yammering of a bunch of limeys?

The biggest problem with the objections to this decision is that the money corporations put into politics only has as much effect the people allow it to. To demonstrate, how much would any of you be swayed, personally, by a commercial about wind power paid for by a major coal mining company? And in anticipation of most answers, why do you think everyone else is that much different?

Ultimately the power still actually resides in those who actually cast votes, (which, as has been pointed out, pretty much negates the claim of giving human rights to corporations) not in those who try to sway them. As such, the problem lies not with a decision which is ultimately in support of maximum liberty and rights, but rather with the phenomenon of people willing to allow themselves to be led by the nose instead of think for themselves. The power of money comes from the people abdicating their authority. How much influence would money have if the people actually paid attention to the issues and voted based on performance instead of empty broken promises? That applies to those at both ends of the corporatism/anti-corporatism philosophy.

and according to US law, there is a difference between speaking solely as an individual and an organization and donating and advertising or having any influence in american elections.....

 

[Litmus]

Ultimately the power still actually resides in those who actually cast votes, (which, as has been pointed out, pretty much negates the claim of giving human rights to corporations) not in those who try to sway them. As such, the problem lies not with a decision which is ultimately in support of maximum liberty and rights, but rather with the phenomenon of people willing to allow themselves to be led by the nose instead of think for themselves. The power of money comes from the people abdicating their authority. How much influence would money have if the people actually paid attention to the issues and voted based on performance instead of empty broken promises? That applies to those at both ends of the corporatism/anti-corporatism philosophy.

This is nice in theory, but it's wrong. You have merely developed an excuse to blame the victims of the corporatist state you crave so much.

 

[Good Luck]

This is nice in theory, but it's wrong. You have merely developed an excuse to blame the victims of the corporatist state you crave so much.

Wrong? "Theory"?

Since there is nothing in the recent SCOTUS decision that gives corporations the right to select the membership of our governing bodies, then the actual authority in our government still resides with the people IF they choose to exercise that power. There is nothing "wrong" with that statement, nor is there anything theoretical about it. If people CHOOSE to abrogate their authority, choosing to listen only to whatever rhetoric supports their preconceptions, or choosing to simply vote for party name, that in no way negates the FACT that the people are still in authority over who governs - they just are choosing to use lazy, unthinking methods to exercise their authority.

You are trying to make "victims" out of the phenomenon of people not thinking for themselves. Victimization requires force. Without force, there is no victimization. Where is the force in rhetoric? There is none, and rhetoric is all the corporations have in determining who is selected to govern.

Of course, there is also the factor of corruption, which gives corporations and other big money undue influence over those selected to govern. But corruption is not affected one way or the other by applying to all corporations the same constitutional protections as we provide to our media services. Corruption takes place AFTER the selection process is done and over with, and the rhetoric put away until the next election cycle. So regulating the rhetoric will have no effect on the genuine harmful manner big money is operating in government. In fact corruption will never be affected in any way by government regulations of any kind because corruption, by definition, occurs outside of and in spite of any regulations.

As for "wanting" a corporatist state - you are now stooping to the typical demonization of any opinion that does not conform to your totalitarian belief system. (See, two can play at that game.) The corruption of the republican system of government by big money interests is a serious problem. However, crapping on our first amendment is not going to solve it; all that will do is set a precedent for the control of any type of speech or press that is determined to be "harmful" to our system of government. Limiting "harmful" speech or press sounds all rosy - until it is yours that is the next to be defined as harmful.

 

[Litmus]

Wrong? "Theory"?

Since there is nothing in the recent SCOTUS decision that gives corporations the right to select the membership of our governing bodies, then the actual authority in our government still resides with the people IF they choose to exercise that power. There is nothing "wrong" with that statement, nor is there anything theoretical about it. If people CHOOSE to abrogate their authority, choosing to listen only to whatever rhetoric supports their preconceptions, or choosing to simply vote for party name, that in no way negates the FACT that the people are still in authority over who governs - they just are choosing to use lazy, unthinking methods to exercise their authority.

You are trying to make "victims" out of the phenomenon of people not thinking for themselves. Victimization requires force. Without force, there is no victimization. Where is the force in rhetoric? There is none, and rhetoric is all the corporations have in determining who is selected to govern.

Of course, there is also the factor of corruption, which gives corporations and other big money undue influence over those selected to govern. But corruption is not affected one way or the other by applying to all corporations the same constitutional protections as we provide to our media services. Corruption takes place AFTER the selection process is done and over with, and the rhetoric put away until the next election cycle. So regulating the rhetoric will have no effect on the genuine harmful manner big money is operating in government. In fact corruption will never be affected in any way by government regulations of any kind because corruption, by definition, occurs outside of and in spite of any regulations.

As for "wanting" a corporatist state - you are now stooping to the typical demonization of any opinion that does not conform to your totalitarian belief system. (See, two can play at that game.) The corruption of the republican system of government by big money interests is a serious problem. However, crapping on our first amendment is not going to solve it; all that will do is set a precedent for the control of any type of speech or press that is determined to be "harmful" to our system of government. Limiting "harmful" speech or press sounds all rosy - until it is yours that is the next to be defined as harmful.

Wrong. The right to unlimited expenditure on political messaging IS the de facto right to select our leadership.