Everyone here is confused about the SCOTUS ruling on campaign finance

[Thrashertm]

Those of you who support the ruling - would you also support direct campaign contributions to the candidates?

How far should we let "freedom" take it? Should corporations be allowed to send direct deposits of billions of dollars into the bank accounts of candidates? They already wine and dine them and give them high paying jobs once out of office. But hey - corporations should be allowed to do what they want with their money right?

This is not a free markets issue. This is a free elections issue.

Our political system was set up so that our politicians would represent the PEOPLE not corporations. Be HONEST - which do politicians today represent? Since we all know the answer is corporations - now ask yourself why? It's obviously because the corporations buy them off. It is corporate money that gets them re-elected and we ALL know it.

We must put an end to this. You can call me a marxist if you want to - I don't care. I'm sick of corporations controlling the money supply, our foreign policy, and pretty much everything else. I'm sick of our corporate owned congress giving untold billions in bailouts to the corporations.

Obviously, the only true solution is to sink the size of the federal government to as small a size as possible. But will we EVER be able to lower taxes and shrink the size of government so long as corporations own our politicians? HELL NO.

The OP and others claim that corporations are simply made up of a group of people - investors. As I wrote in my last response, this is not even close to being the truth. Shareholders aren't binding together (like we did on here for the blimp and other things) to take political action. The corporations have a few elites at the helm sending untold millions to the politicians. It's the banks that own a great deal of the shares to begin with. Get with the picture people!

Our founding fathers said we the PEOPLE. Not we the Goldman Sachs. Not we the Haliburton.

Yes, corps should be able to donate directly to candidates (they pretty much do that anyway). We just need to be more vigilant and use sites like opensecrets.org and vote in the marketplace with our wallets and stock.

 

[Met Income]

And so we should regulate individuals who associate with corporations?

No, we shouldn't give special status to abstract ideas. If individuals want to donate, go for it.

 

[Met Income]

Those of you who support the ruling - would you also support direct campaign contributions to the candidates?

How far should we let "freedom" take it? Should corporations be allowed to send direct deposits of billions of dollars into the bank accounts of candidates? They already wine and dine them and give them high paying jobs once out of office. But hey - corporations should be allowed to do what they want with their money right?

This is not a free markets issue. This is a free elections issue.

Our political system was set up so that our politicians would represent the PEOPLE not corporations. Be HONEST - which do politicians today represent? Since we all know the answer is corporations - now ask yourself why? It's obviously because the corporations buy them off. It is corporate money that gets them re-elected and we ALL know it.

We must put an end to this. You can call me a marxist if you want to - I don't care. I'm sick of corporations controlling the money supply, our foreign policy, and pretty much everything else. I'm sick of our corporate owned congress giving untold billions in bailouts to the corporations.

Obviously, the only true solution is to sink the size of the federal government to as small a size as possible. But will we EVER be able to lower taxes and shrink the size of government so long as corporations own our politicians? HELL NO.

The OP and others claim that corporations are simply made up of a group of people - investors. As I wrote in my last response, this is not even close to being the truth. Shareholders aren't binding together (like we did on here for the blimp and other things) to take political action. The corporations have a few elites at the helm sending untold millions to the politicians. It's the banks that own a great deal of the shares to begin with. Get with the picture people!

Our founding fathers said we the PEOPLE. Not we the Goldman Sachs. Not we the Haliburton.

Campaign contributions can cause corruption. No doubt. But it's still just a voluntary transaction, so it cannot be immoral. The problem is that is the State. Fix that and then campaign contributions don't matter.

 

[Thrashertm]

I would say no, but so much for "good government" reasons, but because those are Chinese taxpayer dollars. To accept them is like accepting stolen goods, making one an accessory to the crime. Therefore, it's an aggressive crime with victims (the Chinese taxpayers).

See, I don't see how under a consistent reading of the 1st amendment the federal government can ban foreign governments from donating. The 1st amendment is brief and clear - it restricts the govt from making any law to restrict speech.

That said, perhaps states could pass laws preventing their national politicians from accepting this kind of cash or that kind of cash.

 

[NYgs23]

No, we shouldn't give special status to abstract ideas. If individuals want to donate, go for it.

The funds in the corporate account used to purchase the ad would not be an abstract idea. Nor would the person who actually withdraws them in order to purchase it. The only question is: does that person have the right to withdraw those funds in order to purchase that ad. I say yes.

 

[MichelleHeart]

The funds in the corporate account used to purchase the ad would not be an abstract idea. Nor would the person who actually withdraws them in order to purchase it. The only question is: does that person have the right to withdraw those funds in order to purchase that ad. I say yes.

You go, girl!

 

[NYgs23]

See, I don't see how under a consistent reading of the 1st amendment the federal government can ban foreign governments from donating. The 1st amendment is brief and clear - it restricts the govt from making any law to restrict speech.

That said, perhaps states could pass laws preventing their national politicians from accepting this kind of cash or that kind of cash.

Well, I was thinking in terms of the natural law. I don't know about the constitutional legality. I thought maybe it could be considered treason but I see the Constitution states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I wouldn't have a problem with a constitutional amendment to that effect. States are aggressive institutions. Morally speaking, they do not have the right to spend their forcibly acquired money, any more than pirates do.

 

[NYgs23]

You go, girl!

Thanks, but I'm a man.

 

[MichelleHeart]

Thanks, but I'm a man.

I know. I was just being encouraging. Keep preaching, dude!

 

[denison]

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?

America meddles in the politics of foreign countries all the time, i.e. assassinating democratically elected leaders(Iran/South America etc...) , you're afraid that they'll give you a little taste of your own medicine?


Tough cookie.

 

[zade]

While it may be true that by the principles of a perfect libertarian world, corporations should be able to air whatever they want whenever they want, we don't have that ideal world, we should be realistic, and so this ruling is not a step I view as wise at this time.

It is part of an ongoing trend of increasing the power, influence, and "rights" of the corporations while the trend of individual rights is that they are being trampled upon.

Much like many of us would say we should make our priority getting rid of corporate welfare rather than targeting poor people on welfare, we should not be focusing on how we can expand a "corporation's right" to free speech, while violations of individual free speech still exist.

The influence of this is that candidates are now going to benefit more than ever by selling themselves to corporate interests and special interests. Since that's already a problem, I am content with restrictions on the "free speech of corporations" (those poor corporations!) They'll survive.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I guess what I am most worried about is the corruption that spawns from allowing corporations to make political ads in favor of their stooges. After all not many corporations favor lassiez-faire, they favor any form of anti-free market interventionism that favors them at the expense of others. But the root of this problem comes from the corruption and infeasibility of democracy itself however.

Its good to see the Supreme Court stick up for liberty when it matters the most. /sarcasm

 

[RonPaulCult]

When did this site become NoamChomskyForums.com? I care more about politicians holding power over businessmen than businessmen holding power over politicians. What do you think the problem is? The power of the state? Or only the power of the state wielded by private businesses? If it's the latter, you're just another leftist. That's what they worry about. They're perfectly fine with the all-powerful state, so long as it's not influenced by those eeevil businesses.

When did this site become MakeTheSameUnfunnyJokeOverAndOverForums.com?

All you want to do is call people who slightly disagree with you leftists or other such slurs.

Let me make it clear for you NewYorkGoldmanSachs23 - I am NOT down with an all-powerful state. Although, I probably PREFER it to an all-powerful state in the hands of corporations which is what we have now and which we will probably always have thanks to things like this recent ruling.

Maybe it isn't free-market or libertarian of me - but I don't like putting my country up for sale on ebay every election cycle.

Nobody here wants to limit freedom of speech or even the freedom of business to do as it pleases. But remember our FIRST priority should always be limiting the power of the government. When our politicians are allowed to be bribed by ultra powerful corporations we are giving them too much power. Our politicians belong to us and not wall street. Why are some afraid to hold power over our government?

 

[NYgs23]

Nobody here wants to limit freedom of speech or even the freedom of business to do as it pleases.

You do indeed. You want to have politicians pass decrees to send men in blue costumes to break down the door of a businessman's home, put a gun to his head, and throw him in a cage, if he spends money that was voluntarily placed under his management and control to purchase an ad of a sort you don't like. That's the reality of it, no matter how much you argue otherwise.

But remember our FIRST priority should always be limiting the power of the government.

Which you somehow want to do by given the state even more power.

Our politicians belong to us and not wall street.

No, our politicians don't belong to us; they are our slavemasters and always will be. The state will always be controlled by the powerful few, no matter what laws you pass or how many times you pull the lever in the booth.

 

[akforme]

Here's 3 things that I see

1. They did not decide corporations are people, they decided that a long time ago.

2. Because of that ruling we can either lets corps have the 1st and all of us, or take it from all of us.

3. Ok, lets take the assumption they made the mistake and gave corps too much power. But are you willing to give up your rights to fix it? Then why are you against the patriot act? It's a fix to our mistake of being in the middle east for so long. And doesn't this encourage the government to make more mistakes that can result in us giving up our rights?

 

[FrankRep]

Veterans Today: Call For Immediate Arrest of 5 Supreme Court Justices for Treason

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227976

 

[NYgs23]

Veterans Today: Call For Immediate Arrest of 5 Supreme Court Justices for Treason

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227976

Those articles are total bunk. First of all, SCOTUS did not say and has never said that corporations are people. The law doesn't say that. It's never said that. That's paranoid hysterical socialist garbage. A "legal person" is just a convenient construct used in specific circumstances for the sake of efficiency that could be imitated through a series of contracts. And it has nothing to do with this ruling, which is about real, live, flesh-and-blood human beings spending actual money that they just happen to have pooled inside a corporate structure. So this crap about "corporate people" running for president is just a cartoon reality, where when the sun "smiles" upon you, it actually has a face. I'm sick and tired of this anti-business propaganda.

 

[robert9712000]

I think your looking at the issue from just one perspective,when it applies to many that need there proper consideration.

First off ,is the deal with foreign companies being allowed to donate to our candidates.The issue with that is that it creates a conflict of interest,because some corporations are run completely by there governments and that would open the backdoor to allow other governments to try to influence our government through a third party.

This is the same concept of why the office of presidency must be by a natural born citizen as to hinder other countries from trying to have influence on our government

The second issue is the fear of corporations representing there interests not the individual.A libertarians biggest fight is individual rights,not collective rights.The collective rights is what says we should all be garuteed health insurance.

another real life example of a possible situation of conflict of interests is say that corporation A wants to build a new plant on farmer B's property but cant get the land because the farmer B doesn't want to sell and the current law wouldn't allow them to take it ,so they find a congressman in there district who would change the law so that the corporation A could take farmer B's land.So to help get him elected they flood his campaign with money.

You then need to ask yourself whose rights are more important to protect when there's a conflict of interests the farmer B as a individual or the corporation A as a collective interest

The final issue is if you want to be fair,either let the individual be able to donate as much as they want to a candidate or limit the amount a corporation can donate just like the individual is limited

 

[teacherone]

Originally Posted by NYgs23
When did this site become NoamChomskyForums.com? I care more about politicians holding power over businessmen than businessmen holding power over politicians. What do you think the problem is? The power of the state? Or only the power of the state wielded by private businesses? If it's the latter, you're just another leftist. That's what they worry about. They're perfectly fine with the all-powerful state, so long as it's not influenced by those eeevil businesses.

you're either trolling or you're a gleeful ignorant.

the reason i fear business controlling our politicians is because politicians control MY, YOUR, EVERYONE's money.

you know as well as i do the corporations only donate to political candidates to get a chance to dig their fingers into the public trough.

as long as government has the power to TAX, and use public money to contract the services of corporations, give them favorable tax breaks and subsidies WITH MY MONEY, then i would rather not have businesses controlling said politicians.

if the day comes when government a) stops taxing the public, or b) stops contracting corporations and subsidizing them... then great, corporations can give all they want to any politician they wish.

perhaps a happy medium would be a bill which forced any politician who received money from a corporation to recuse himself from any legislation which affected that corporation in any way. this would not LIMIT your beloved businesses in any way, but rather LIMIT government...something we all want to do.

then the corps could donate away. and i couldn't care less if they did.

 

[low preference guy]

Glenn Greenwald writes:

So I'll ask again -- of you and anyone who claims that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights under the Constitution:

Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?

Do they have the right to do that to the offices of labor unions?

How about your local business on the corner which is incorporated?

The only thing stopping them from doing this is the Fourth Amendment. If you believe that corporations have no constitutional rights because they're not persons, what possible objections could you voice if Congress empowered the FBI to do these things?

Can they seize the property (the buildings and cars and bank accounts) of those entities without due process or just compensation? If you believe that corporations have no Constitutional rights, what possible constitutional objections could you have to such laws and actions?

Could Congress pass a law tomorrow providing that any corporation - including non-profit advocacy groups -- which criticize American wars shall be fined $100,000 for each criticism? What possible constitutional objection could you have to that?