Everyone here is confused about the SCOTUS ruling on campaign finance

[NYgs23]

there are people on this site who would actually put corporate officers in prison for the crime of buying political advertising....all the while, the corporate media gets to give unlimited free advertising to its chosen candidates.

Quite a lot, unfortunately (or maybe their just very assertive). Everyone seems to have a pet aggression or two.

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

But we're not talking about the officers of a corporation "pooling their money". We're talking about them using corporate money, investor money - many of whom may not agree politically with the officers - and using that money - not their own - to influence politics. Their have always been free as individuals to use their own money to promote their political views and if they all happen to be promoting the same views you can call that pooling their money.

This

and...

Money the investors voluntarily give the executives to manage with the assumption that the executives would decide how to spend it. Just like how you might employ someone to manage and invest your funds. They can withdraw their investments when they like.

No, sorry, but no. When investors put money into a corporation it is with the intent of giving that corporation capital to grow so later they can get a larger return. It is not for the owners or corporate board or whoever to state their political opinions on television. If CEO's and other corporation owners feel the need to voice their opinions on TV then they can buy airtime with their own checking accounts, not the company's.

 

[Reason]

YouTube - A Non-Deranged, Law-Based Special Comment!

 

[aravoth]

A Corporation, cannot exist without the State, rather a Corporation is literally a creation of the state. Those of you defending Corporate rights, are defending massive intervention in the free market. It's that simple.

 

[NYgs23]

No, sorry, but no. When investors put money into a corporation it is with the intent of giving that corporation capital to grow so later they can get a larger return. It is not for the owners or corporate board or whoever to state their political opinions on television. If CEO's and other corporation owners feel the need to voice their opinions on TV then they can buy airtime with their own checking accounts, not the company's.

Any association of people can do whatever it wants with whatever it wants so long as it's not aggressing against others? Let me ask, if the executives use company money to purchase an ad, who are they aggressing against? The stockholders? Only if they already had a contract with the stockholders not to use their money for that purchase. Then they'd be in breach of contract. Otherwise, it's none of your business and it sure as hell isn't the state's business.

 

[NYgs23]

maybe no one else has noticed but pretty much every single one of the sheeple have a TV they are permanently glued to and if these corporations are going to dump millions, billions, etc into non stop sly and no doubt misleading ads the sheep will follow like mice to the cheese.

That already happens. Haven't you heard of the MSM. And in any case, it doesn't give you a right to put a gun to someone's head for spending their own money on something you don't want them to spend it on.

 

[NYgs23]

A Corporation, cannot exist without the State, rather a Corporation is literally a creation of the state. Those of you defending Corporate rights, are defending massive intervention in the free market. It's that simple.

I already addressed this in my OP and ten times again, but I guess that doesn't matter here on KarlMarxForumsForIlliterates.com.

 

[ARealConservative]

ding.

Nice thread NY! Thank you very much for the insight. I agree 100% w/ you on this.

I about fell out of my chair when he said that Businesses should have no rights.
If Businesses have no rights, their customers have no rights.
People are slipping.

only individuals have rights.

which frankly, makes this law moot to me.

I mean, sure, we can prohibit corporations from doing things because they have no rights, but we can't stop individuals from doing things, which makes enforcement pretty much impossible.

 

[revolutionary8]

only individuals have rights.

which frankly, makes this law moot to me.

I mean, sure, we can prohibit corporations from doing things because they have no rights, but we can't stop individuals from doing things, which makes enforcement pretty much impossible.

I see what you are saying, but as NY pointed out, the business is made up of businesspeople.
Depending upon what industry you work in, the business model and contracts drafted for those businesses must abide by the laws set through precedent in said industry. Those laws of course apply to the individuals w/in the industry, who constitute the business/coorporation. Individuals on both side- contractor/contractee have "rights".

 

[Reason]

YouTube - Court green-lights corporate election spending

 

[Dieseler]

Olbermann sure doesn't like this so it must not be a Hope and Change kind of thing. Maybe its more of a Hope Changing kind of thing.

 

[RonPaulCult]

NYgs23 - you are making a lot of good points. But....I still have an uneasy feeling about this ruling.

Could you(and anybody else reading) please answer a few questions I have:

1) How do you feel about foreigners, or foreign companies spending money on such ads? What about foreign governments? What if China or Saudi Arabia or Venezuela decided to spend billions in ads for or against a candidate during a US election? How about overseas corporations? How about corporations based in the United States which have heavy foreign investment?

2) Is it not true that corporations have a legal obligation to their shareholders to make as much money as possible? That is my understanding and please correct me if that is wrong. But if that's the case - wouldn't we have big corporations influencing elections out of legal responsibility to their shareholders? Wouldn't they BY LAW have to help elect the most fascist of candidates possible? If we are to champion freedom at all costs - and if this way could ONLY lead to a less free society (or at least a less free economy) how can we support it?

3) I think some are being a bit intellectually dishonest when they paint such a fuzzy warm picture of what corporations are. To say they are a collective of people doesn't begin to tell the whole story. First, have you considered just how many of the shares are controlled by - you guessed it - other corporations? Especially banks! To act like you as joe blow shareholder have any say in what the corporation does is silly. Even pulling your money out of the corporation - selling your shares as some have suggested really has nothing to do with it. For the most part, corporations get money from the sale of shares ONLY on the day they go public. They take that money and they use it to build up the company - but past that date those shares are bought and sold only between other people (or companies) not the ACTUAL corporation you are "investing" in. It's a dirty secret but - investing in stocks isn't REALLY investing in a company. It's speculation that the price of the stock will rise and that you can sell it to another person like yourself for a (hopefully) profit. Granted - a rise in stock price usually (but not always) occurs when the company makes profits. But it would be THAT money - the PROFITS made from sales of whatever product or service - that will be used for ads.

I think this is an important distinction. McDonalds won't be using the 63 dollars per share I parted with when I invested in McDonalds stock. They will be using money they made when Gina bought her cheeseburger today. Think about that for a second. How can it be said INVESTORS are pulling together their money and are collectively supporting a candidate with ads when it is NOT their decision to do this (rather the decision of a few people at the top) and it's not their money doing it either?

This is too much power in the hands of so few. And it will be done with the money of people who had no say in the matter. Some will say we as consumers have the choice not to shop from companies that do such things - and I will AGREE. However, some have no choice sometimes due to economic situations and monopolies and so on. There are a lot of people out there that simple have to shop at Wal-mart to get by. Wal-mart can take that money and buy an election or two if they so desire. Again - money from the sales of Chinese made crap - not the "pool of money" from investors.

4) Last but not least - what about government ownership of corporations? It's bad enough they stole our money and gave it away to the banks in bailouts - now they are going to use our own money to influence our elections. But to think the government owns GM and Citibank! Think of the infinite loop this creates when Obama runs for re-election! Take the money from the people - give it to the corporations he controls - have them spend money to re-elect him - wash - rinse - repeat.

No - this whole thing stinks to high hell. While you may be correct the SCOTUS could rule no other way due to the language of the constitution - we may need an amendment to protect the republic. I'm all for groups of Americans pooling their money together for the sole purpose of political activity. But we can't allow the giant, government backed corporations to use their profits against the American people - just so we can be their slaves and they can make even more money.

I hope I have raised some interesting points and I would appreciate the opportunity to learn how I am wrong.

 

[revolutionary8]

I've come to the conclusion that some people around here have lost their minds. Some think that "all of a sudden" since the Supreme Court made sometihng "legal", that the bad corps will start acting like the good corps-
edit- wait, I have that backwards.

 

[NYgs23]

How do you feel about foreigners, or foreign companies spending money on such ads? What about foreign governments? What if China or Saudi Arabia or Venezuela decided to spend billions in ads for or against a candidate during a US election? How about overseas corporations? How about corporations based in the United States which have heavy foreign investment?

I don't see that this applies to foreign governments. I don't even know if it applies to foreign corps; their may be other laws against that. Why would foreign corps advertising by worse than domestic corps anyway? In any case, this sort of thing already goes on; it's just more hidden. Campaign finance reform has never done anything but entrench the big parties and incumbent politicians. And, of course, the government decides where to enforce those laws and how. Why were they going after some obscure non-profit's video, when Obama had his coffers filled by Goldman-Sachs. That just shows you how phony campaign finance reform is. It just hides it all underground, while limiting freedom for those who really need it.

Is it not true that corporations have a legal obligation to their shareholders to make as much money as possible?

I haven't heard that there's a legal obligation. How would they enforce such a thing anyway. I guess there may be laws against deliberately wasting company money. If so, they should be abolished. It doesn't justify more statism though.

If we are to champion freedom at all costs - and if this way could ONLY lead to a less free society (or at least a less free economy) how can we support it?

I don't see how campaign finance reform has led to more freedom anywhere. We've had more and more of it over a hundred years. Have we had more and more freedom. Even if that were true, the ends don't justify the means.

I think some are being a bit intellectually dishonest when they paint such a fuzzy warm picture of what corporations are.

Corporations aren't fuzzy and warm, but they're not the heart of darkness either. Leftists think they are, but that's because of they're anti-business bias. One corporation isn't the same as the next. Peter Schiff's company is a corporation.

It's just a business model. Why is it any better worse than proprietorships or partnerships? I can't figure this out. They receive certain benefits, like limited liability, from the state, yes, but so to other groups, and limited liability could be mimicked by contract anyway.

McDonalds won't be using the 63 dollars per share I parted with when I invested in McDonalds stock. They will be using money they made when Gina bought her cheeseburger today. Think about that for a second. How can it be said INVESTORS are pulling together their money and are collectively supporting a candidate with ads when it is NOT their decision to do this (rather the decision of a few people at the top) and it's not their money doing it either?

It's really beside the point. The point is that there's no act of aggression being committed. This is all voluntary. No force. No fraud.

However, some have no choice sometimes due to economic situations and monopolies and so on. There are a lot of people out there that simple have to shop at Wal-mart to get by.

That argument is used to justify virtually every economic intervention known to man.

what about government ownership of corporations?

That should be abolished, but one aggression doesn't justify another. Should welfare recipients, social security recipients, and government employees be banned from voting, donating, or paying for political ads?

While you may be correct the SCOTUS could rule no other way due to the language of the constitution - we may need an amendment to protect the republic.

Why would you even trust Congress do pass amendments or make laws in any way that would decrease its own power? If they passed such an amendment, 95% it would be structured in a way to increase govt power and 99% it would be enforced in a manner that increased govt power. Same thing with all campaign finance reform and most of the other apparatus of good govt. The only way to fix it by limiting govt power. You can't limit govt power by giving it more power.

 

[revolutionary8]

It's just a business model. Why is it any better worse than proprietorships or partnerships? I can't figure this out. They receive certain benefits, like limited liability, from the state, yes, but so to other groups, and limited liability could be mimicked by contract anyway.

exactly. And depending upon where you live and the stupid laws that each state spew forth, it is something to consider... it's just a LABEL. A COLLECTIVE LABEL, usually intentionaly (but somewhat co-ercively) adopted depending up certain state laws. In oreder to beat the system, you gotta know the system. Unfortunately, those who actually run the system already know the underground tunnels. That is why I am stoked on this SC decision.

 

[nayjevin]

Campaign finance would be a non-issue if political opinions weren't influenced by sound-byte commercials.

More articles by libertarians on the statist aggression called campaign finance reform:

Ron Paul, "Campaign Finance Reform” Muzzles Political Dissent
Lew Rockwell, Corruption in Government?
Anthony Gregory, Campaign Finance Reform, Censorship and Michael Moore
Stephan Kinsella, What's Wrong with Campaign Finance Regulations?
Jude Blanchette, The Corruption of Reform
Tibor Machan, Corruption and Campaign Finance
Richard Pilon, Constitutional Issues Related to Campaign Finance Reform
Robert Levy, Money, Politics and the Supreme Court
Patrick Basham, Campaign Finance Fantasyland
Bradley Smith, Campaign Finance Regulation: Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences
Lillian BeVier, Campaign Finance "Reform" Proposals: A First Amendment Analysis
Penn Jilette, Campaign Finance's Funny Loophole
Jonathan Rauch, McCain-Feingold at Rest
Brian Doherty, The Big Money Boys of Campaign Finance Reform
Bradley Smith, John McCain's War on Political Speech
Jacob Sullum, Another Provision of the Incumbent Protection Act Falls
Sheldon Richmond, Did Business Want Campaign-Finance “Reform”?
Jacob Hornberger, Real Campaign-Finance Reform
Russell Roberts, Will Campaign Finance Reform Enhance the Power of the People?
John Wenders, Campaign Finance: The Symptom, Not the Problem
Robert Higgs, The Futility of Campaign Finance Reform
Jeffrey Milyo, Do Campaign Contributions Corrupt Politics?

Now, what more do I have to do? Beat (some) people over the head with a non-aggression club?

lol... good post

 

[Dieseler]

Check this out.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/0...rest-of-5-supreme-court-justices-for-treason/

CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR TREASON

Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.

Their ruling has made it legal for foreign controlled corporations to flush unlimited money into our bloated political system to further corrupt something none of us trust and most of us fear. The “corporation/person” that the 5 judges, the “neocon” purists, have turned the United States over to isn’t even American. Our corporations, especially since our economic meltdown are owned by China, Russia and the oil sheiks along with a few foreign banks. They don’t vote, pay taxes, fight in wars, need dental care, breathe air, drive cars or send children to school. Anyone who thinks these things are people is insane. Anyone who would sell our government to them is a criminal and belongs in prison. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this “gang of five” bribe sucking clowns above the law. There is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions corporations much less gives them status equal to or greater than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

More at link...
Shit, I'll just paste the rest

The Supreme Court of the United States has no right to breathe human life into investment groups owned by terrorist sympathizers, foreign arms dealers or groups working for the downfall of the United States and everything we believe in, but 5 “justices” have done just that. We now have a new government above our government, above our people, one above any law. Five judges have created institutionalized gangsterism as the new form of government for the United States.

No American soldier can ever go to war fighting for a Chinese hedge fund, a German bank or a Saudi Arabian fertilizer company. Will our new debates in Congress be between members representing the opium warlords against the Columbian cartels? Their cash, which long ago has infiltrated one major corporation or bank after another is now heading for your local representative. How important do you think secure borders for America are for these new policial “influencers?”

For years we complained about AIPAC, the Sierra Club, the NRA, trial lawyers, trade unions, NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) and the churches that got involved in politics. Behind all of these were people, American citizens, and, on some occasions, Americans who fought for their country, raised kids here and were invested in the survival of America although they didn’t always act that way. This was an American problem. Now we aren’t even sure we have an America anymore.

Anyone who believes that a massive flood of corporate money into politics won’t throw control of both houses of Congress into the hands of the wealthy nations that are also our primary strategic enemies, you know the ones, the ones loaded with oil cash, the ones with 10 cent an hour labor and legal systems that shoot first and ask questions later. They just were told they can buy the United States, not just our government, but our military, and the lives of our soldiers. They can now make our laws, raise our taxes, decide on our civil rights, where we can live, if we can own guns, how late we stay up, where and what we drive and, eventually, how we think. The Supreme Court has given foreign owned corporations the eventual power to silence us all.

When a corporation commits a crime, nobody goes to jail. When wars come, they don’t fight, they simply rake in cash. When children are poisoned or workers are killed, they seldom even pay a fine. However, when they want something, billions in tax money for “bail outs” or fat contracts or special laws, they have always gotten it. It has been a battle to control corporations for 140 years. Sometimes the American people have lost, sometimes they have won. Our greatest presidents are the ones who reined in corporate power and kept the influence of money over humanity in check. Think of Theordore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy.

Without them we would be living in work camps, stuck at machines all day, our children at our sides. We would be paid in beans and salt pork, dying at 40 in filth like people around the world who live in countries controlled by corporations.

Based on the justices that we want prosecuted being Reagan/Bush “conservatives” you would think this is a liberal/conservative issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing less “conservative” has ever been done by a branch of our government. There is nothing “conservative” about our Supreme Court going insane and abandoning our Constitution and making medical decisions, not to give life to a fetus, but to a bank account.

This is nothing but an extremely unAmerican and unpatriotic group of thieves believing that Americans had given up so many of their civil liberties in silence during the Global War on Terror scam that opening the “Pandora’s Box” of class conflict could now be done with nobody saying a word. Their “corporate person” is now a Baron or Duke, the great landlords of the medieval period. Americans are now destined for serfdom. Their political and economic theories, what are they? Is it conservatism or feudalism?

We are already burdened with a representative government that has tied itself to the money spigot because of the incredible cost of media exposure in campaigns. People running for office in ancient Rome would purchase thousands of animals for slaughter in the arena. Mass executions were staged as media events for political campaigns. In fact, the arenas in every Roman city were built for that purpose, today replaced by television and the internet. We thought we had changed since that time. We were wrong.

The framers of the Constitution created the Supreme Court, the Electoral College and originally had Senators appointed, not elected, to protect the wealthy from having their money and land seized by the masses who would otherwise have controlled the government. This was the 1780s. The only “democracy” we knew about was ancient Athens, where the majority of the people living there were slaves. 27 Amendments later, including the Bill of Rights, we have worked to define justice and decency. Generations have fought and died to keep life in our imperfect system from 1780. Who would have thought that 5 people could destroy it all?

Political debate in America is sometimes extreme, often bordering on violence. Feelings are high. How many times have you heard people threaten to leave the country because “their America” no longer exists. We know that few really mean it. When faced with a real threat, no people on earth are to be feared like Americans. When help is needed, no people on earth are to be trusted and relied on like Americans. This is the pride we have in our country and ourselves. We never agree on anything. We aren’t supposed to, we are Americans.

Everything we built has been based on a balance, race, religion, ethnicity, social standing, political beliefs, regional interests, all striving and compromising to build something we are all secretly very proud of, something all of us are willing to fight for and many are. Americans all agree on one thing, that our government in Washington is out of control and has been for some time. We all have different ideas on this but agree on the fact itself. We wonder where the politicians come from, men too often “less great” than those of the past, in fact, less great than average. Decisions are continually made that most find puzzling and, in fact, are driven by a rotten underbelly of corruption and self interest.

Now, 5 members of the Supreme Court, people none of us voted for, a group that is answerable to no authority and, seemingly, no law or moral code, a group famous for immoderation, poor judgement and low personal integrity has, either through blindness, avarice or insanity clearly done something so malicious, so unjust and so utterly inconsistent with our Constitution that they, themselves, have become an “enemy of the people.”

What is their power? What they have done is not within the scope of the authority given through the Constitution. Their acts are outside the law, their acts are those of a conspiracy, their acts are meant to diminish our freedoms, our sacred institutions and even endanger our lives. Typically, such acts are called crimes and those who commit them are criminals.

What could drive judges, albeit judges appointed with little thought as part of a cheap political ploy, to abandon any American consitutency? Corporations have no religion. They care nothing for the unborn. They have no allegiance to a flag, a family or any moral ethic. They serve no person, owe no loyalty other that to stockholders, shadowy groups of Russian oligarchs, Chinese banks, corrupt dictators grown fat on the spoils of their people or the international consortiums of bond and currency speculators who have, for decades, abandoned any economic law to build the etherial “house of cards” we call the “world economy.”

The control of the American electoral process has been given to them. No serving politican can survive now standing against them. Years ago “they” bought our newspapers and our television networks. Fact and truth became whatever they wanted us to believe. “They” gained control of what many thought and what almost all of us see and hear. That wasn’t enough. They wanted it all. As their control has grown, so has terrorism, continual war, economic poverty for millions Americans and insensitivity to justice and humanity. Who would expect anything else from a corporation with no blood, no heart and no face?

The Founding Fathers led America on the path to freedom and eventual democracy. The Federalists limited the ability of an impetuous electorate to seize power and “reform” America into chaos and anarchy. This system of government was predicated on the belief that love of country would always burn brightly in America and with progress, freedom and bounty was the ineviable reward of our industry. It is only now too obvious that so much has happened that was unforseen. It is not a denial of our traditions to correct wrongs when we find them. This was how America was created. We are drowning in wrongs, we all finally agree on this.

The time is now. Party politics have failed. Political theories are little more than empty rhetoric meant to mislead and misinform. State has become church and church has become state. State is less just and church less godly. All we have left is “we, the People.” This is how we began and it is now all we have to move forward. It is time for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention to establish, not just a Republic, but a Democracy, by and for the people, the American people, rich and poor, a nation loyal to itself, not tied to corporations, a vast military industrial complex or endless foreign alliances.

If it is to be a genuinely conservative nation, one with individual freedoms, a small government, fewer taxes and more opportunity, a nation as intended, then we will all have to live with it. The bloated corpse we are creating in Washington is emitting a stench we can no longer abide. We will be saying goodbye to our Supreme Court, our seniority system in Congress and our political machines pretending to be “parties” and hello to paper ballots, a free press, term limits and the ability to yank a scoundrel out of office when we catch one.

That old boy is just a little aggravated I reckon, ain't he.

 

[MichelleHeart]

My argument is that corporations should not be treated as individuals therefore should not get the same protections from the Constitution that we do. The right to free speech should not apply to a business.

What the hell is wrong with you people? Go become a member of Democratic Underground if you're going to spew that nonsense! You sound like a bunch of commies.

 

[Met Income]

What the hell is wrong with you people? Go become a member of Democratic Underground if you're going to spew that nonsense! You sound like a bunch of commies.

Corporations don't actually exist. Individuals do.

 

[MichelleHeart]

Corporations don't actually exist. Individuals do.

And so we should regulate individuals who associate with corporations?