PDA

View Full Version : Here’s 185 million reasons campaign finance reform hasn’t worked



Common
01-18-2014, 08:46 AM
The right whines incessanty about union money in politics. Just looky here Big Oil that gets billions in TAXPAYER subsidies uses that to BUY politicians and the GOP fights mightily to keep those billions going to their Daddy.

WHY SHOULD I VOTE REPUBLICAN: When most everything they are for is against anything for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/17/heres-185-million-reasons-campaign-finance-reform-hasnt-worked/

A new study by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/16/14107/top-us-corporations-funneled-185-million-political-nonprofits) reveals that corporations funneled more than $185 million to nonprofit and social welfare groups actively engaged in politics in just one year's time, a stunning testament to the virtual impossibility of keeping big money out of politics.

countryboy
01-18-2014, 08:54 AM
The right whines incessanty about union money in politics. Just looky here Big Oil that gets billions in TAXPAYER subsidies uses that to BUY politicians and the GOP fights mightily to keep those billions going to their Daddy.

WHY SHOULD I VOTE REPUBLICAN: When most everything they are for is against anything for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/17/heres-185-million-reasons-campaign-finance-reform-hasnt-worked/

A new study by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/16/14107/top-us-corporations-funneled-185-million-political-nonprofits) reveals that corporations funneled more than $185 million to nonprofit and social welfare groups actively engaged in politics in just one year's time, a stunning testament to the virtual impossibility of keeping big money out of politics.
And what exactly have the dims done to end subsidies?

patrickt
01-18-2014, 09:30 AM
Common: "WHY SHOULD I VOTE REPUBLICAN: When most everything they are for is against anything for me."

That's the leftists in a nutshell. What's in it for me? What's good for the country? Blah! What's good for the economy? Blah! What's good for the poor people? Blah! No, it's only, what's in it for me. Congratulations, Common. With leftists like you, MSNBC is doomed.

Agravan
01-18-2014, 09:41 AM
The right whines incessanty about union money in politics. Just looky here Big Oil that gets billions in TAXPAYER subsidies uses that to BUY politicians and the GOP fights mightily to keep those billions going to their Daddy.

WHY SHOULD I VOTE REPUBLICAN: When most everything they are for is against anything for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/17/heres-185-million-reasons-campaign-finance-reform-hasnt-worked/

A new study by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/16/14107/top-us-corporations-funneled-185-million-political-nonprofits) reveals that corporations funneled more than $185 million to nonprofit and social welfare groups actively engaged in politics in just one year's time, a stunning testament to the virtual impossibility of keeping big money out of politics.

So, Common, does the Govt write a check for theses "subsidies"? Is that money coming out of your pocket?
How is letting someone keep their own money somehow translated as the government "giving" them taxpayer subsidies?

countryboy
01-18-2014, 09:44 AM
So, Common, does the Govt write a check for theses "subsidies"? Is that money coming out of your pocket?
How is letting someone keep their own money somehow translated as the government "giving" them taxpayer subsidies?
Only in bizzaro dimocrat land is allowing people to keep their own money a "subsidy", or, "a giveaway".

BTW Common, still waiting for all of the proposed dimocrat "subsidy" ending legislation.

Peter1469
01-18-2014, 10:06 AM
I don't see any good reason to vote republican or democrat.

Common
01-18-2014, 10:37 AM
So, Common, does the Govt write a check for theses "subsidies"? Is that money coming out of your pocket?
How is letting someone keep their own money somehow translated as the government "giving" them taxpayer subsidies?


The subsidies to big oil and farms comes right out of our pocket and you know that already.

Is cutting food stamps more important than giving money to super rich corps
Is ending unemployment insurance more important than giving money to super rich corporations. ONLY if your a far righter does that equasion make any sense.

Common
01-18-2014, 10:39 AM
I don't see any good reason to vote republican or democrat.

Only common sense response in this thread so far

countryboy
01-18-2014, 10:39 AM
The subsidies to big oil and farms comes right out of our pocket and you know that already.

Is cutting food stamps more important than giving money to super rich corps
Is ending unemployment insurance more important than giving money to super rich corporations. ONLY if your a far righter does that equasion make any sense.
Again, where is the dimocrat legislation to end "subsidies" for big oil?

And again with the lies? Can't libs ever make their case without lying?

Common
01-18-2014, 10:39 AM
Only in bizzaro dimocrat land is allowing people to keep their own money a "subsidy", or, "a giveaway".

BTW @Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659), still waiting for all of the proposed dimocrat "subsidy" ending legislation.

You have absolutely no clue what youre talking about countryboy.

countryboy
01-18-2014, 10:42 AM
You have absolutely no clue what youre talking about countryboy.
In other words, you got nuthin'. Thanks.

Common
01-18-2014, 10:43 AM
Common: "WHY SHOULD I VOTE REPUBLICAN: When most everything they are for is against anything for me."

That's the leftists in a nutshell. What's in it for me? What's good for the country? Blah! What's good for the economy? Blah! What's good for the poor people? Blah! No, it's only, what's in it for me. Congratulations, Common. With leftists like you, MSNBC is doomed.

Again as usual patrickt you are clueless, what you say is whatever is swirling around inside your cranium.

First lets get this right ok, I dont NEED anything from the govt or you. I can afford to live in AMERICA, you should try that.

I live very well but I still understand the plight and feel for the plight of many, getting up and going to work and still having to get food stamps SUCKS and its just dead wrong and has no justification other than GREED by pigs

Cutting unemployment while fighiting for farm subsidies is BS, screw the teaparty. Most of them never fougth for this country never did a goddamn thing for this country but TAKE. Did I say SCREW the teaparty.

countryboy
01-18-2014, 10:46 AM
Again as usual patrickt you are clueless, what you say is whatever is swirling around inside your cranium.

First lets get this right ok, I dont NEED anything from the govt or you. I can afford to live in AMERICA, you should try that.

I live very well but I still understand the plight and feel for the plight of many, getting up and going to work and still having to get food stamps SUCKS and its just dead wrong and has no justification other than GREED by pigs

Cutting unemployment while fighiting for farm subsidies is BS, screw the teaparty. Most of them never fougth for this country never did a goddamn thing for this country but TAKE. Did I say SCREW the teaparty.
Please give us some verifiable examples of the tea party "fighting for farm subsidies", or quit the fucking lying.

Also, still waiting for all of that proposed dimocrat legislation to end subsidies. Anything? Can you at least gimme a "I'll get back to ya"?

patrickt
01-18-2014, 11:17 AM
Common, we're back to what's in it for you, personally. Well, consider. Big oil gives you gasoline and oil.Farms give you food. Unions give you extortion, arson, assault, higher costs, and corruption.

countryboy
01-18-2014, 11:22 AM
Common, we're back to what's in it for you, personally. Well, consider. Big oil gives you gasoline and oil.Farms give you food. Unions give you extortion, arson, assault, higher costs, and corruption.
Actually, it doesn't matter. We cannot afford actual subsidies, which are not the same thing as tax breaks. Taxpayers shouldn't be paying farmers to NOT grow stuff. It is ridiculous and needs to stop.

Butt, while our friend Common rails against only one side, his side is perpetuating the stuff he rails against.

And you'll notice, he ignores my repeated requests for evidence to the contrary.

hanger4
01-18-2014, 11:29 AM
Common you do realize that if all 'subsidies' were eliminated (which I'm in favor of) all goods and services these 'takers' provide will increase in price to the consumer. Especially food and fuel which will hurt the working poor harder than others.

pragmatic
01-18-2014, 11:52 AM
Again as usual patrickt you are clueless, what you say is whatever is swirling around inside your cranium.

First lets get this right ok, I dont NEED anything from the govt or you. I can afford to live in AMERICA, you should try that.

I live very well but I still understand the plight and feel for the plight of many, getting up and going to work and still having to get food stamps SUCKS and its just dead wrong and has no justification other than GREED by pigs

Cutting unemployment while fighting for farm subsidies is BS, screw the teaparty. Most of them never fought for this country never did a goddamn thing for this country but TAKE. Did I say SCREW the teaparty.

Where in the name of sweet baby jeezus are coming up with these gems...??

pragmatic
01-18-2014, 11:59 AM
Common you do realize that if all 'subsidies' were eliminated (which I'm in favor of) all goods and services these 'takers' provide will increase in price to the consumer. Especially food and fuel which will hurt the working poor harder than others.

All things in moderation. Subsidies can have positives and negatives, so the benefits need to be weighed. Unfortunately, some have gotten (politically) out of control...example:Ethanol. And once in motion they can be difficult to reign back in.

patrickt
01-18-2014, 12:49 PM
Again as usual patrickt you are clueless, what you say is whatever is swirling around inside your cranium.

First lets get this right ok, I dont NEED anything from the govt or you. I can afford to live in AMERICA, you should try that.

I live very well but I still understand the plight and feel for the plight of many, getting up and going to work and still having to get food stamps SUCKS and its just dead wrong and has no justification other than GREED by pigs

Cutting unemployment while fighiting for farm subsidies is BS, screw the teaparty. Most of them never fougth for this country never did a goddamn thing for this country but TAKE. Did I say SCREW the teaparty.

At least, Common is consistent. What's in it for me is his mantra. Common, I can not only afford to live in the U.S., I can afford to live in Mexico and put young Zapotec Indians through college. I know that's totally foreign to someone as selfish as you are. Oh, I don't doubt you feel for the plight of others as long as it benefits you. Nothing else matters, does it? Did it really get so cold in the U.S. that you kept your hands in your own pockets? Probably not.

Common, you are the quintessential leftists. It begins and ends with, "What's in it for me?"

And, insults from a self-centered, totally selfish cretin are high praise indeed.

Max Rockatansky
01-18-2014, 01:02 PM
I don't see any good reason to vote republican or democrat.

True, but if good people like yourself don't vote, it will be all the dumbasses who choose your elected representatives.

In the end, it doesn't matter, per se, who is elected as much as what they do or don't do in office. All politicians are running for reelection. They'll do what the constituents want or face the results at election time. Still, it's a good idea to select to best candidate among the choices even if you don't agree with them very much.

patrickt
01-18-2014, 01:13 PM
If I have a choice between liberal and liberal-light, I'll hold my nose and go with liberal-light. If I have a choice between far-left liberal and anyone, I'll go with anyone.

The far-left hates America. I don't.

Max Rockatansky
01-18-2014, 01:17 PM
If I have a choice between liberal and liberal-light, I'll hold my nose and go with liberal-light. If I have a choice between far-left liberal and anyone, I'll go with anyone.

The far-left hates America. I don't.

Exactly. Voting is important even if voters have to hold their nose with one hand and vote with the other.

http://trendsupdates.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/go-out-and-vote-ad.jpg

donttread
01-18-2014, 01:59 PM
You shouldn't vote republican but why on earth would you vote for the other side of the same coin?



The right whines incessanty about union money in politics. Just looky here Big Oil that gets billions in TAXPAYER subsidies uses that to BUY politicians and the GOP fights mightily to keep those billions going to their Daddy.

WHY SHOULD I VOTE REPUBLICAN: When most everything they are for is against anything for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/17/heres-185-million-reasons-campaign-finance-reform-hasnt-worked/

A new study by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/16/14107/top-us-corporations-funneled-185-million-political-nonprofits) reveals that corporations funneled more than $185 million to nonprofit and social welfare groups actively engaged in politics in just one year's time, a stunning testament to the virtual impossibility of keeping big money out of politics.

zelmo1234
01-18-2014, 03:02 PM
The subsidies to big oil and farms comes right out of our pocket and you know that already.

Is cutting food stamps more important than giving money to super rich corps
Is ending unemployment insurance more important than giving money to super rich corporations. ONLY if your a far righter does that equasion make any sense.

Actually, big oils only remaining subsidies are an increase depreciation schedule! They get about 4,4 billion in tax credits, that they would get anyway, they just get to take in in one year.

Thus it really cost the country and the people nothing in the long run

But it is a great talking point for those that are fighting the class war

Big Farm actually still gets paid to not grow stuff for conservation!

NOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THE SUBSIDIES TO GREEN ENERGY????

Mini Me
01-18-2014, 04:29 PM
Only common sense response in this thread so far

Count me in!

The two party FARCE undermines govt. of the people with excessive corporate power drowning out our meek voices.

That's why I will vote for Jessie Ventura...no one owns him!

jillian
01-18-2014, 04:33 PM
I don't see any good reason to vote republican or democrat.

the courts…..

no democratic appointees would have pretended that corporations are people for 1st amendment purposes.

Mini Me
01-18-2014, 04:34 PM
Common, we're back to what's in it for you, personally. Well, consider. Big oil gives you gasoline and oil.Farms give you food. Unions give you extortion, arson, assault, higher costs, and corruption.

Jeez, man! Unions are only 7% of jobs now man! Nice straw man!

In the old prosperous days of a bygone America, they were like 35% of jobs, and the rich and corporate elite were taxed much higher then.

The Rethugs have beaten organized labor into a pulp, and that is bad news for working people!

Mini Me
01-18-2014, 04:46 PM
If I have a choice between liberal and liberal-light, I'll hold my nose and go with liberal-light. If I have a choice between far-left liberal and anyone, I'll go with anyone.

The far-left hates America. I don't.

Not at all true!

They hate endless wars where our soldiers died for nothing but big oil and despotic regimes
They hate injustice, inequality and the gross disparity of income
They fight racism, bigotry and government and corporate corruption
They want a prosperous middle class again, and an end to poverty and higher wages
They do not want a theocracy or a modern day religious Taliban in Govt.
They detest Wall Street crooks and CEO's who ruin America sending jobs over seas
They do not want gross polluters raping the land.

Yes, they are idealists, and maybe they are not realistic. But morally speaking, they take the high road.

Is wanting a better America wrong?

Mini Me
01-18-2014, 04:49 PM
You cannot have freedom of religion without having freedom from religion!

Our founding fathers realized this, as they escaped the oppressing religions of Europe, and the tyranny of the Crown!

Mini Me
01-18-2014, 04:56 PM
Common you do realize that if all 'subsidies' were eliminated (which I'm in favor of) all goods and services these 'takers' provide will increase in price to the consumer. Especially food and fuel which will hurt the working poor harder than others.

The farm program stabilizes prices to the consumer, and prevents farmers from getting wiped out during famine and droughts, etc.

But the problem is now that big corporate farmers take the lions share of the booty and run small farmers off. And many get paid to grow NOTHING, and have corrupted the program Corn gasahol is a shining example of such corruption, as prices skyrocketed, and took away livestock feed and boosted prices of beef, etc.

Guerilla
01-18-2014, 04:57 PM
How can you expect a government run by corporations, to regulate those same corporations?

Common, your talking about subsidies and how republicans benefit the businesses only, but you best believe the corporations are covered either way, Democrat or Republican. You may think you have a choice, but the corporations are your only real choice.


WHY SHOULD I VOTE REPUBLICAN: When most everything they are for is against anything for me.
That's the problem with politics, everyone voting for what they want instead of what's right! Instead of what makes the most sense for everyone, it's what makes the most sense for me, regardless of the rest of the nation. Common, do you not see how despicable that is?

That is the exact reason governments begin to break down, the people realize they can vote in favor of themselves, at the cost of others.

Guerilla
01-18-2014, 04:59 PM
Count me in!

The two party FARCE undermines govt. of the people with excessive corporate power drowning out our meek voices.

That's why I will vote for Jessie Ventura...no one owns him!

Jessie Ventura! He'll straighten some stuff out. (unless the other choice is no one, I'd rather have no one.)

texan
01-18-2014, 05:22 PM
Dear Campaign Finance Supporters,

The inmates are running the asylum nothing will ever change unless you stop voting for the same a**holes every election.

Sincerely,

Get A Clue

Common
01-18-2014, 05:29 PM
How can you expect a government run by corporations, to regulate those same corporations?

Common, your talking about subsidies and how republicans benefit the businesses only, but you best believe the corporations are covered either way, Democrat or Republican. You may think you have a choice, but the corporations are your only real choice.


That's the problem with politics, everyone voting for what they want instead of what's right! Instead of what makes the most sense for everyone, it's what makes the most sense for me, regardless of the rest of the nation. @Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659), do you not see how despicable that is?

That is the exact reason governments begin to break down, the people realize they can vote in favor of themselves, at the cost of others.

I could agree with you except, quite recently the democrats in a bill to stop subsidies to big oil and farms and the Republican house shot it down. This is not the first time the republicans have voted to continue subsidies, while in the same breath tell us we have to cut Military Pensions and Food stamps because we cant afford it.

I dont buy their BS Guerilla seems alot of people do though

lynn
01-18-2014, 05:36 PM
The right whines incessanty about union money in politics. Just looky here Big Oil that gets billions in TAXPAYER subsidies uses that to BUY politicians and the GOP fights mightily to keep those billions going to their Daddy.

WHY SHOULD I VOTE REPUBLICAN: When most everything they are for is against anything for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/17/heres-185-million-reasons-campaign-finance-reform-hasnt-worked/

A new study by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/16/14107/top-us-corporations-funneled-185-million-political-nonprofits) reveals that corporations funneled more than $185 million to nonprofit and social welfare groups actively engaged in politics in just one year's time, a stunning testament to the virtual impossibility of keeping big money out of politics.


It is this very reason why the U.S. no longer represents the people and is very corrupt.

Peter1469
01-18-2014, 06:07 PM
Take a look at the break down- some of the left and right justices were in the majority (and minority).




the courts…..

no democratic appointees would have pretended that corporations are people for 1st amendment purposes.

Newpublius
01-18-2014, 06:10 PM
the courts…..

no democratic appointees would have pretended that corporations are people for 1st amendment purposes.

So the NY Times isn't protected by the First Amendment then?

Newpublius
01-18-2014, 06:12 PM
Take a look at the break down- some of the left and right justices were in the majority (and minority).

they'll bleat 'corporations aren't people' like sheep since they fundamentally don't grasp the consequences or the nuance of the legal fiction of separate personhood for a corporate entity.

hanger4
01-18-2014, 06:27 PM
I could agree with you except, quite recently the democrats in a bill to stop subsidies to big oil and farms and the Republican house shot it down. This is not the first time the republicans have voted to continue subsidies, while in the same breath tell us we have to cut Military Pensions and Food stamps because we cant afford it. I dont buy their BS Guerilla seems alot of people do thoughNo subsidies mean higher food and fuel prices. Are you good woth that ??

Peter1469
01-18-2014, 06:30 PM
No subsidies mean higher food and fuel prices. Are you good woth that ??

Subsidies also create malinvestment. Look at the corn industry as an example.

hanger4
01-18-2014, 06:48 PM
Subsidies also create malinvestment. Look at the corn industry as an example.I'm aware Peter, just trying to figure out if common has a clue.

Max Rockatansky
01-18-2014, 10:45 PM
You cannot have freedom of religion without having freedom from religion!

Our founding fathers realized this, as they escaped the oppressing religions of Europe, and the tyranny of the Crown!

Hallelujah! I knew it was only an amount of time before we could find something to agree upon! Good job, Dr. Strangelove!

Mainecoons
01-19-2014, 07:26 AM
I'm aware Peter, just trying to figure out if common has a clue.

No. :grin:

jillian
01-19-2014, 07:28 AM
what campaign finance reform? citizens united made sure there can't be any.

Mainecoons
01-19-2014, 07:29 AM
Of course, Obama's campaign was a paragon of not being tainted by money, right genius?

Go back to bed, you're even sillier than usual this morning.

:rofl:

zelmo1234
01-19-2014, 07:35 AM
Actually I think that we could reform it by passing laws limiting the time that officials could actually campaign


For example they file to seek the party nomination and that is kept secret until March 1 Then we have a national primary election on May 15

Then they can actually start to seek office and begin advertising on labor day weekend and the election is the first Tuesday in November. and part of the deal to get a broadcast license is that you must cover 3 presidential debates. so that the people actually have to listen to what the future leaders have to say These debates will be 1 by there congressional, and one by the senate. and one by information on local issues on the ballot!

You want to change Washington, force the idiot voters to get educated.

jillian
01-19-2014, 07:45 AM
Actually I think that we could reform it by passing laws limiting the time that officials could actually campaign

the time it takes to campaign isn't the problem.

money is.



For example they file to seek the party nomination and that is kept secret until March 1 Then we have a national primary election on May 15

they can't do that. they need to raise money…. money… money… again, back to citizens united…


Then they can actually start to seek office and begin advertising on labor day weekend and the election is the first Tuesday in November. and part of the deal to get a broadcast license is that you must cover 3 presidential debates. so that the people actually have to listen to what the future leaders have to say These debates will be 1 by there congressional, and one by the senate. and one by information on local issues on the ballot

You want to change Washington, force the idiot voters to get educated.

except that voters CAN'T get informed in a few weeks. in fact, that isn't time to vet people. all you would get is carefully constructed fronts. you wouldn't see the slips caused by a real campaign. i know those slips have hurt your national candidates, but they're important.

time is what makes voters informed if they're interested in being informed.

but money needs to be out of the process so people do what's right and not what a few billionaires and organizations want.

Mainecoons
01-19-2014, 07:47 AM
Money has totally corrupted the political process, period, and in a totally bipartisan way. There is just nothing to rival the ridiculous sums spend on politics and politicians in the U.S.

hanger4
01-19-2014, 07:52 AM
How about free media time ?? All the canididates get the same amount air time. I'm sure air time is the largest expence in a campaign. Kinda funny watching all the talking-heads whine about money in political races yet their media hos love the money THEY make off campaigns.

patrickt
01-19-2014, 07:56 AM
what campaign finance reform? citizens united made sure there can't be any.

And President Obama honored finance reform by promising to use public funding if McCain would and then reneging when he learned that with the internet he could get funding from foreign countries. Fortunately, although his administration isn't transparent, President Obama is. Everyone except the enthusiasts can see through him.

I do realize free speech still upsets the leftists.

jillian
01-19-2014, 08:03 AM
Money has totally corrupted the political process, period, and in a totally bipartisan way. There is just nothing to rival the ridiculous sums spend on politics and politicians in the U.S.

i agree. which is why citizens united was the worst decision since dred scott.

Max Rockatansky
01-19-2014, 08:08 AM
It's up to Congress to pass laws that pass the Constitutional smell test. It's not the Supreme Court's fault to make rulings which are IAW the present laws.

jillian
01-19-2014, 08:10 AM
It's up to Congress to pass laws that pass the Constitutional smell test. It's not the Supreme Court's fault to make rulings which are IAW the present laws.

the supreme court is what acts as the check on congress. there is no determination of what IS constitutional absent the court. there is only the "majority" or worse… and that isn't determinative.

Mainecoons
01-19-2014, 08:15 AM
Patrick, this isn't free speech. It is bought and paid for speech by unions and big business. All of it is bad for the political process. Although Jillian in her usual partisan manner complains about Citizens United while ignoring the huge sums spent by the left controlled unions to elect Democrats, the truth is that all of it is wrecking the political process.

There is simply no way in this environment that someone can run for office and win without selling out to one interest group or another.

No way.

jillian
01-19-2014, 08:23 AM
Patrick, this isn't free speech. It is bought and paid for speech by unions and big business. All of it is bad for the political process. Although Jillian in her usual partisan manner complains about Citizens United while ignoring the huge sums spent by the left controlled unions to elect Democrats, the truth is that all of it is wrecking the political process.

There is simply no way in this environment that someone can run for office and win without selling out to one interest group or another.

No way.

i talk about citizens united because it was a partisan DECISION and it destroyed our electoral system. i didn't say a word about who was donating money.

read what i say and not what your own biases tell you.

there was NOTHING partisan in what i said.

corporations are not people. people are people. and there needs to be the ability to get the money OUT of the system.

citizens united makes that IMPOSSIBLE until a better court comes along or there is a constitutional amendment. (and given that a goodly number of congress members have benefitted from that ruling, it's highly unlikely they'd ever do the right thing).

you're welcome.

Max Rockatansky
01-19-2014, 08:25 AM
the supreme court is what acts as the check on congress. there is no determination of what IS constitutional absent the court. there is only the "majority" or worse… and that isn't determinative.

Yes, SCOTUS checks Congress to keep their legislation within the boundaries of the Constitution. They don't legislate from the bench. That's Congress's job.

Mainecoons
01-19-2014, 08:31 AM
i talk about citizens united because it was a partisan DECISION and it destroyed our electoral system. i didn't say a word about who was donating money.

read what i say and not what your own biases tell you.

there was NOTHING partisan in what i said.

corporations are not people. people are people. and there needs to be the ability to get the money OUT of the system.

citizens united makes that IMPOSSIBLE until a better court comes along or there is a constitutional amendment. (and given that a goodly number of congress members have benefitted from that ruling, it's highly unlikely they'd ever do the right thing).

you're welcome.

It's only a partisan decision in your mind. The actual decision simply stopped the discrimination in a law that blocked one kind of political spending while other types continued unabated. Unions aren't anymore individual people than corporations are. Both take OPM and spend it on political ends which their members/customers may not agree with at all. Neither should be permitted.

You are an extreme partisan, Jillian. You see everything through that warped perspective. You would be perfectly happy for leftist political contributors to have free reign while others are not allowed, which was the situation before this decision.

Sorry dear, you've made your image here as a one-sided partisan extremist and you'll just have to live with it. :grin:

zelmo1234
01-19-2014, 08:42 AM
the time it takes to campaign isn't the problem.

money is.




they can't do that. they need to raise money…. money… money… again, back to citizens united…



except that voters CAN'T get informed in a few weeks. in fact, that isn't time to vet people. all you would get is carefully constructed fronts. you wouldn't see the slips caused by a real campaign. i know those slips have hurt your national candidates, but they're important.

time is what makes voters informed if they're interested in being informed.

but money needs to be out of the process so people do what's right and not what a few billionaires and organizations want.

You just said that money is the problem????? And then you said that would not give them time to raise Money?????

By shortening the time period, you cut down on the money needed, and thus you take the dollars out of it.

The Press will know well in advance just like now who the front runners are and will have them vetted properly if the are a Republican, Democrats will still get a pass!

And if you make all Americans listen to the debates, or not listen to anything at all. No HBO to get a broadcast license you have to broadcast the debates? They would be better informed than they are now.

Those that are going to pop in a movie or catch up on there shows????? You are not going to ever inform them they are idiots and you can't fix that!

You can't prevent people from buying advertisement that restricts there right to free speech! but you can limit the time that they are allowed to advertise that free speech by keeping it short and sweet

zelmo1234
01-19-2014, 08:45 AM
If you took away the Unions right to donate and advertise and promote the Democrats they would have a shit fit!

But let the employers try and get out there side of the story? and that is not speech that democrats are going to want supported

Max Rockatansky
01-19-2014, 08:55 AM
If you took away the Unions right to donate and advertise and promote the Democrats they would have a shit fit!

But let the employers try and get out there side of the story? and that is not speech that democrats are going to want supported
Correct about Democrats. OTOH, Republicans would bitch up a storm is the right to donate and advertise were stripped from Corporations yet they have no problem trying to muzzle unions. Go figure, eh?

Best to just limit all of them across the board.

zelmo1234
01-19-2014, 08:57 AM
Correct about Democrats. OTOH, Republicans would bitch up a storm is the right to donate and advertise were stripped from Corporations yet they have no problem trying to muzzle unions. Go figure, eh?

Best to just limit all of them across the board.

It would be hard to do because it has to deal with 1st amendment speech rights?

So I think that time is the only answer!

Max Rockatansky
01-19-2014, 09:08 AM
It would be hard to do because it has to deal with 1st amendment speech rights?

So I think that time is the only answer!

Agreed on First Amendment rights, but there should be limitations on how money, especially big money regardless of the source, is allowed to unduly influence both elected officials and legislation. That means campaign finance reform.

Mainecoons
01-19-2014, 09:09 AM
Sorry, but I don't think that big corporation chiefs taking customers and shareholder's money and spending it on politics is any more a free speech issue than big unions taking members money and doing same. Not to mention the fact that the results of them doing it is pretty plain these days--broken, corrupt government. What better example than ObamaCare, written by insurance lobbyists for deluded corporate heads thinking they were going to get a whole bunch of new customers?

And you'll notice that they made sure that if this didn't happen, they would be bailed out by government. Even funnier are the leftists who viewed ObamaCare as their superhighway to single payer and instead have created a growing backlash against their big government.

The money, ALL of the money from ALL of the interest groups, has created a system where there is no real free speech and no real accountability to the people.

zelmo1234
01-19-2014, 09:10 AM
Agreed on First Amendment rights, but there should be limitations on how money, especially big money regardless of the source, is allowed to unduly influence both elected officials and legislation. That means campaign finance reform.

That was the way that they got around it. They did not give it to the candidate, they spent it themselves and you can't stop that !

But if you can only run political adds between point A or point B or you candidate is punished with fines against his funds? Then you can cut down on the need for that money!

Max Rockatansky
01-19-2014, 09:31 AM
That was the way that they got around it. They did not give it to the candidate, they spent it themselves and you can't stop that !

But if you can only run political adds between point A or point B or you candidate is punished with fines against his funds? Then you can cut down on the need for that money!

Again, it's a matter of legislation. That's the job of Congress IF they want to fix the problem. The problem isn't big money. The problem is Congress doesn't want to fix it. It's up to "We, the People" to make them fix it.

Newpublius
01-19-2014, 11:20 AM
what campaign finance reform? citizens united made sure there can't be any.

Case says one doesn't need the government's permission to tell them they suck. You know, if the roles were reversed and Bush had been facing a primary challenge and Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 were blocked and the case were known as Dog Eat Dog Films, inc v FEC you'd be singing a different tune.

Newpublius
01-19-2014, 11:26 AM
i agree. which is why citizens united was the worst decision since dred scott.

You clearly don't understand the decision. Citizens United, the group, spent less than 10mn to make a movie which basically said Hillary Clinton sucks, no different in purpose than Fahrenheit 9/11 and frankly no different than the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars major media corporations spend to put on the news, print newspapers, etc. All of those entities would've had no legal impediment releasing Hillary, the Movie, it would've been perfectly legal.

Newpublius
01-19-2014, 11:43 AM
Again, it's a matter of legislation. That's the job of Congress IF they want to fix the problem. The problem isn't big money. The problem is Congress doesn't want to fix it. It's up to "We, the People" to make them fix it.

Its not a matter of legislation, that's the point of the case. Under McCain-Feingold, Citizens United wouldn't have been permitted to criticize Hillary Clinton. Under the legislation, GE and Microsoft through MSNBC or Fox could have because they had the 'press exception' from the statute which meant the government, through FEC was going to determine who would be permitted and who wouldn't be permitted to criticize the government. The government doesn't get to determine who is, and who isn't 'in the press'

I don't need the government's permission to tell them they suck, even if I do it through my LLC or S Corp.

pragmatic
01-19-2014, 11:54 AM
Patrick, this isn't free speech. It is bought and paid for speech by unions and big business. All of it is bad for the political process. Although Jillian in her usual partisan manner complains about Citizens United while ignoring the huge sums spent by the left controlled unions to elect Democrats, the truth is that all of it is wrecking the political process.

There is simply no way in this environment that someone can run for office and win without selling out to one interest group or another.

No way.


Sad reality.

With little or no hope of resolving. The only one's who could change the law are the ones who most benefit from the status quo. Incumbents rake in the cash and seldom lose re-election.

Peter1469
01-19-2014, 12:38 PM
You clearly don't understand the decision. Citizens United, the group, spent less than 10mn to make a movie which basically said Hillary Clinton sucks, no different in purpose than Fahrenheit 9/11 and frankly no different than the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars major media corporations spend to put on the news, print newspapers, etc. All of those entities would've had no legal impediment releasing Hillary, the Movie, it would've been perfectly legal.

Citizens United was also a corporation incorporated for the sole purpose of advocating a political position. That is fine with me. What isn't fine with me, is then saying it is acceptable for a corporation incorporated to, for example, make automobiles to legally do the same thing.

patrickt
01-19-2014, 01:16 PM
How about free media time ?? All the canididates get the same amount air time. I'm sure air time is the largest expence in a campaign. Kinda funny watching all the talking-heads whine about money in political races yet their media hos love the money THEY make off campaigns.

Would it be possible to match the free time the Democrats get now on MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, and NPR?

Newpublius
01-19-2014, 01:24 PM
Citizens United was also a corporation incorporated for the sole purpose of advocating a political position. That is fine with me. What isn't fine with me, is then saying it is acceptable for a corporation incorporated to, for example, make automobiles to legally do the same thing.

...but that is what GE is.....why does GE get to? (through NBC). If one stops a C Corporation from doing something they'll just setup a subsidiary corporation whose sole purpose is that. Also just to illuminate the topic further, Citizens United was a 501(c)(4). Whose to say that General Motors can't be in the press just because they make automobiles? Really? The NY Times, when printing the NY Times, employs a heavily industrialized printing press that produces the physical newspaper in a process that is nearly as industrialized. Nobody says the NY Times can't sell advertising in the Newspaper, or own real estate.....or even to further vertically integrate and to own the natural resources that go into its newspapers (I honestly don't know if the NY Times does that, but they do the rest).....

And ultimately the rub is very simple, Peter, if the government says, "Well, GM, you make cars, THEREFORE, you can't be in the press"

You have then established a doctrine where the government gets to decide who is and who isn't in the press.

hanger4
01-19-2014, 01:47 PM
Would it be possible to match the free time the Democrats get now on MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, and NPR?No it wouldn't, I know my idea is just fantasy. It just irks me to watch the MSM complain about money in elections when they profit the most. IMO there shouldn't be amount limits at all just a public record which all can access at any time and see who's giving to whom and how much.

Peter1469
01-19-2014, 02:00 PM
GE is owned by its shareholders. If give spends $10M on a pro-candidate political ad, I have a fundamental problem with that.


...but that is what GE is.....why does GE get to? (through NBC). If one stops a C Corporation from doing something they'll just setup a subsidiary corporation whose sole purpose is that. Also just to illuminate the topic further, Citizens United was a 501(c)(4). Whose to say that General Motors can't be in the press just because they make automobiles? Really? The NY Times, when printing the NY Times, employs a heavily industrialized printing press that produces the physical newspaper in a process that is nearly as industrialized. Nobody says the NY Times can't sell advertising in the Newspaper, or own real estate.....or even to further vertically integrate and to own the natural resources that go into its newspapers (I honestly don't know if the NY Times does that, but they do the rest).....

And ultimately the rub is very simple, Peter, if the government says, "Well, GM, you make cars, THEREFORE, you can't be in the press"

You have then established a doctrine where the government gets to decide who is and who isn't in the press.

monty1
01-19-2014, 02:21 PM
If the US media is biased then Americans need to ask themselves why that is. Most of it is biased toward the left from my experience and I don't know that any other network stands with Fox on the right. Although it's pretty evident that talk radio has a right bias.

There is a reason why the media is biased against the right but the supporters of the right are not going to be able to understand the reason. They just aren't going to come to terms with the fact that most of the right is supporting an extremist agenda that would be very harmful to the majority of the people.

I'm offering help to understand this from abroad. Are any of you Americans smart enough to begin to understand it?

Newpublius
01-19-2014, 03:05 PM
GE is owned by its shareholders. If give spends $10M on a pro-candidate political ad, I have a fundamental problem with that.

Well, they do, they spend millions of dollars, and actually in the aggregate if you include all programming of course, billions, to have Chris Matthews on the air isn't free for GE and its subsidiaries.

The statute regulated 'electioneering communcations' -- know what the definition was:

"The term ‘electioneering communication’ means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which—
‘‘(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;"

No political "ad" required. The statutory definition was THAT broad. The statute then carved out the windows, the timing of course, when those press corporations not privileged by the government could utter those names. Of course those windows were subject to statutory modification, they could've been any time the government chose.

And then they had exceptions and those exceptions permitted the current media corporations, like GE, to obviously do that which we consider to be in the normal course of the media (Hold debates, have news stories, have editorials).....

And that's the government saying, "Citizens United, you may not be in the media, but GE, you may be"

And so you have a case where the content was restricted based solely on the agency of the speaker. And that's wrong.

People, specifically liberals, think of Citizens United as empowering corporations or as some bizarre modification of existing caselaw. Its not, the case was decided squarely on precedent (First National Bank of Boston v Belotti back in 1978) on top of which its a constitutional case and constitutional cases aren't about the corporation itself, its about the government and what the GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO.

A decision against Citizens United would've meant the government could've quashed Fahrenheit 9/11, it means the existing media corporations may only exist so long as the government lets them; after all their 'right' to free speech is now merely a statutory privilege. It would've made a mockery of 'freedom of the press' with implications that no liberal would dare concede. They don't understand that the second they can muzzle Citizens United (guy who owns it by the way is John Bossie) I'm going to turn around when the political pendulum swings the other way and I'm going to muzzle Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher because all of their speech is attributed to a corporation as well.

Max Rockatansky
01-19-2014, 06:07 PM
Its not a matter of legislation, that's the point of the case. Under McCain-Feingold, Citizens United wouldn't have been permitted to criticize Hillary Clinton. Under the legislation, GE and Microsoft through MSNBC or Fox could have because they had the 'press exception' from the statute which meant the government, through FEC was going to determine who would be permitted and who wouldn't be permitted to criticize the government. The government doesn't get to determine who is, and who isn't 'in the press'

I don't need the government's permission to tell them they suck, even if I do it through my LLC or S Corp.

Disagreed "Its not a matter of legislation". It is a matter of legislation. The fact the legislation in the ruling didn't pass muster under the Constitution isn't the fault of SCOTUS. They were just making a rule of law. If Congress wants to change legislation by changing the Constitution, they have to go through the proper procedure.

Tell me why Congress and the 50 States, or at least 38 of them, cannot change the Citizens United ruling by changing the Constitution? Why cannot Article V change legislation?


http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b........A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

Newpublius
01-19-2014, 06:09 PM
Legislation is typically distinguished from an amendment. The unqualified use of legislation refers to statutes.

zelmo1234
01-19-2014, 06:16 PM
If the US media is biased then Americans need to ask themselves why that is. Most of it is biased toward the left from my experience and I don't know that any other network stands with Fox on the right. Although it's pretty evident that talk radio has a right bias.

There is a reason why the media is biased against the right but the supporters of the right are not going to be able to understand the reason. They just aren't going to come to terms with the fact that most of the right is supporting an extremist agenda that would be very harmful to the majority of the people.

I'm offering help to understand this from abroad. Are any of you Americans smart enough to begin to understand it?

Yes the policies of lower taxations, seeking each and every cost savings in government, reducing ineffective regulations and personal responsibility is killing your country!

And the policies of wealth distribution, higher taxations and meaningless regulations, as well as, the spending spree that we are on has the USA on a roll?????

Or maybe it is just the opposite!

So tell me just what is it that is so extreme that the Press can't even cover it?

Max Rockatansky
01-19-2014, 06:29 PM
Legislation is typically distinguished from an amendment. The unqualified use of legislation refers to statutes.

Awesome. So what are your qualifications, Newpublius?

lynn
01-19-2014, 06:43 PM
No it wouldn't, I know my idea is just fantasy. It just irks me to watch the MSM complain about money in elections when they profit the most. IMO there shouldn't be amount limits at all just a public record which all can access at any time and see who's giving to whom and how much.

They passed a rule recently that they do not have to publish who is exactly funding their campaign. How convenient is that?

hanger4
01-19-2014, 07:01 PM
They passed a rule recently that they do not have to publish who is exactly funding their campaign. How convenient is that?Ones wonders what they have to hide.

Newpublius
01-19-2014, 07:38 PM
Awesome. So what are your qualifications, @Newpublius (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=685)?

Well, my qualification is: GIVEN the current constitution.

Peter1469
01-19-2014, 08:12 PM
Well, they do, they spend millions of dollars, and actually in the aggregate if you include all programming of course, billions, to have Chris Matthews on the air isn't free for GE and its subsidiaries.

The statute regulated 'electioneering communcations' -- know what the definition was:

"The term ‘electioneering communication’ means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which—
‘‘(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;"

No political "ad" required. The statutory definition was THAT broad. The statute then carved out the windows, the timing of course, when those press corporations not privileged by the government could utter those names. Of course those windows were subject to statutory modification, they could've been any time the government chose.

And then they had exceptions and those exceptions permitted the current media corporations, like GE, to obviously do that which we consider to be in the normal course of the media (Hold debates, have news stories, have editorials).....

And that's the government saying, "Citizens United, you may not be in the media, but GE, you may be"

And so you have a case where the content was restricted based solely on the agency of the speaker. And that's wrong.

People, specifically liberals, think of Citizens United as empowering corporations or as some bizarre modification of existing caselaw. Its not, the case was decided squarely on precedent (First National Bank of Boston v Belotti back in 1978) on top of which its a constitutional case and constitutional cases aren't about the corporation itself, its about the government and what the GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO.

A decision against Citizens United would've meant the government could've quashed Fahrenheit 9/11, it means the existing media corporations may only exist so long as the government lets them; after all their 'right' to free speech is now merely a statutory privilege. It would've made a mockery of 'freedom of the press' with implications that no liberal would dare concede. They don't understand that the second they can muzzle Citizens United (guy who owns it by the way is John Bossie) I'm going to turn around when the political pendulum swings the other way and I'm going to muzzle Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher because all of their speech is attributed to a corporation as well.

I think that you are looking at it backwards.

From the beginning, the root:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unbodled religion to get it out of the way since it isn't at issue here.

We are talking about the People's right to free speech; and the right to have a free press; and the right of the People to assemble and petition the government....

Query: for the purposes of the 1st Amendment, are corporations the People? (Caveat- I do not ascribe to the living Constitution theory- that changes everything I am about to say).


Forgive me as I digress into history. During colonization and then statehood under a constitution (both the Articles and the Constitution) corporations were very different creatures than they are today- see Adam Smith. They existed only under a charter (approved at the state not federal level) that dictated their purpose; they could not deviate from that purpose; and they were chartered for a limited time frame (25 years if I remember correctly).

With that in mind, did our Founders treat corporations as People in the Constitution’s sense of the word (for the purposes of the 1st Amendment)? No, of course not; corporations were limited to their charter. In fact our Founders feared the power of corporations to corrupt government. This was a reaction to the abuses under English Common law where corporations drove the expansion of the British Empire to the detriment of local populations such as the American colonies. Without the likes of the East Indian Company, et. al, there never would have been a British Empire upon which the sun never set. (In fact many British “armies” were really nothing more than corporate mercenaries.) More specifically it is extremely probable that there never would have been a rebellion in the American colonies had King George not been beholden to the East Indian Company- they convinced the King to impose the Tea Tax, among other indignities. [But then we would be too much like Canada, the horror…, now back on topic.]

To recap, history teaches us that corporations were not People, insofar as the First Amendment is concerned. They were highly regulated and controlled. Fast forward about 100 years. There were a couple of Supreme Court cases that concerned the power of corporations. We can discuss those if necessary, but for my purposes they amounted to an evolution in the Founder’s intent.

OK, back to today. I understand current campaign finance laws. I am not arguing those laws. I am arguing the practical results of Citizens United under the historical background that I laid out above. All of your points were predicated on what happened between my last paragraph and today.

Citizens United is a corporation under the laws of the District of Columbia (so far as I can tell, although it isn’t that relevant). It was created for the sole purpose of political advocacy. The vast majority of corporations in the US are not created for the purposes of political advocacy.

Under our Founder’s conception of the First Amendment, that makes a clear difference. The holding of Citizens United ought not apply to the normal corporate entity.

As I said upfront, advocates of the living Constitution doctrine will just say that case law can alter the Constitution without regard to the two methods provided to alter the Constitution by the Founders. The amendment process, which is initiated by Congress; and the Convention process which is initiated by the States.

Even under a case law centric legal system, it is easy to distinguish Citizens United from other non-political corporate entities that try to influence our elections to include unions and most corporations chartered under the various state laws.

Max Rockatansky
01-19-2014, 08:33 PM
Well, my qualification is: GIVEN the current constitution.

Meaning you are no qualified than anyone else on this forum. Agreed.

Newpublius
01-19-2014, 09:22 PM
Meaning you are no qualified than anyone else on this forum. Agreed.

Yeah, whatever....you're debating into the blogosphere's netherland. "Again, it's a matter of legislation. That's the job of Congress IF they want to fix the problem." -- and to that comment its clear that the case stands for the proposition that it can't simply be a function of the legislation. Your response that a constitutional restriction can be remedied by an amendment is specious.

And actually I'm quite qualified on the topic actually......

Max Rockatansky
01-19-2014, 09:47 PM
Yeah, whatever....you're debating into the blogosphere's netherland. "Again, it's a matter of legislation. That's the job of Congress IF they want to fix the problem." -- and to that comment its clear that the case stands for the proposition that it can't simply be a function of the legislation. Your response that a constitutional restriction can be remedied by an amendment is specious.

It is a matter of legislation. The problem is the legislator's are not inclined to legislate for what should be obvious reasons. They need to be motivated to do so. The naysayers are just the type of people they love; "It can't be done. It's too hard. We just have to be satisfied with the status quo. Baaaaaaaaaa!"

A nation of sheep is great for peace. Not so great in war.

http://nicholsoncartoons.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012-11-07-Live-sheep-export-Pakistan-slaughter-610.jpg

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/images/features/500-sheep_slaughter.jpg

Newpublius
01-19-2014, 10:22 PM
Unbodled religion to get it out of the way since it isn't at issue here.
Well the Establishment Clause isn't applicable of course, but free exercise is applicable and while we're still discussing corporations, the right at issue for both remains the fundamental right to associate (although obviously you can practice religion on your own, but obviously people do so as members of churches, synagogues, congregations, mosques, etc). That right is not dependent on any Federal or state statute.


We are talking about the People's right to free speech; and the right to have a free press; and the right of the People to assemble and petition the government.... .

Well, neither do I, but the I Amendment is the I Amendment, but the XIV Amendment still came thereafter. Initially upon ratification the Bill of Rights simply did not apply to the states. It was simply a restriction on Federal power. After the XIV Amendment the Bill of Rights slowly began to be incorporated against the states.


Query: for the purposes of the 1st Amendment, are corporations the People? (Caveat- I do not ascribe to the living Constitution theory- that changes everything I am about to say).

On a visceral level, when one hears that ‘corporations are people’ it just feels wrong, doesn’t it?

However, there is a very simple consequence of answering this question “NO” and that would mean the NY Times could be shut down by the government.

The word “For Purposes Of” is extremely important in the legal arena. It is an important qualifier for any given proposition. So when we say that corporations aren’t people, most people tend to agree with that proposition on a linguistic level. So, for purposes of linguistics and to discuss the meaning of the term corporation, for purposes of the English language generally, most people clearly can see a distinction between a natural person and a corporation. Hardly worth debating.

But therein lies the rub because nobody is debating the common meaning of the term ‘corporation’ – what is at stake though is the application of the Due Process Clauses within the US Constitution. There are actually two of them. One is within the V Amendment which applies to Federal action and the other is in the XIV Amendment which applies to state action. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “ [N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” while its XIV Amendment companion in Section One of that Amendment reads: “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

Now of course the issue should become clearer because constitutional issues hinge on government power. So, when we ask: “Are corporations people?” What we’re really asking is this:

Are corporations people for purposes of the XIV Amendment (V Amendment); such that the state government (Federal government) must provide Due Process to the corporation before depriving the corporation of life (corporate existence), liberty (the ability to engage in business) and property?

This should illuminate how the emotional appeal of “corporations aren’t people” clouds the actual issue.


Forgive me as I digress into history. During colonization and then statehood under a constitution (both the Articles and the Constitution) corporations were very different creatures than they are today- see Adam Smith. They existed only under a charter (approved at the state not federal level) that dictated their purpose; they could not deviate from that purpose; and they were chartered for a limited time frame (25 years if I remember correctly).

This is the constitutive theory of corporations and its wrong for a very simple reason. Its wrong because your fundamental right to associate is a natural right. The government then qualifies and classifies your association for the benefit of the state so that they can tax you (or not) accordingly. You and I can get together and we can make cars and we can get together and make a church and get together and make a newspaper. Our ability to cooperate and collaborate in these ways isn’t a function of statutes that classify these organizations into sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLC’s, S Corps, or at the Federal Level the 501(c) organizations (there’s over 20 of those).


With that in mind, did our Founders treat corporations as People in the Constitution’s sense of the word (for the purposes of the 1st Amendment)? No, of course not; corporations were limited to their charter.

Well, the whole point of Dartmouth College v Woodward is that the charter was a PRIVATE contract which couldn’t be invalidated by the state. Chief Justice Marshall (a Founder and a Framer) rules later: “The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men.” -- Providence Bank v. Billings (1830) – In Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet (1823), a foreign corporation (English no less) dedicated to missionary work, with land in the Vermont, protected its rights to land against an effort by the state of Vermont to revoke the grants. Justice Joseph Story explicitly extended the same protections to corporate-owned property as it would have to property owned by natural persons.

Ultimately a corporation is made up of shareholders. The connection between the shareholders and the corporation is obvious, the separate personhood of the corporation is a legal fiction.


In fact our Founders feared the power of corporations to corrupt government.

And yet the Federalist Papers themselves get published by a corporate entity, the Independent Journal. Imagine if the then governor of NY, George Clinton, quite appropro I might add since he’s thought to be the Cato of the Anti-Federalist papers, had simply determined that the Independent Journal is a corporation, its not entitled to the then existing I Amendment protections of the State of New York (or the Articles of Confederation) and simply the shut the newspaper down. Muzzling the competition would surely have had a negative impact on the Constitution’s chances in New York.


Citizens United is a corporation under the laws of the District of Columbia (so far as I can tell, although it isn’t that relevant). It was created for the sole purpose of political advocacy. The vast majority of corporations in the US are not created for the purposes of political advocacy.

Well, it’s a 501(c)(4) and frankly I don’t really care what it is. I mean, at the end of the day if all you’re looking for is an entity set up for the sole purpose of political advocacy or whatever, so long as there’s no restriction on making such organizations, frankly I wouldn’t care, it’d be a semantic rule at best.


Under our Founder’s conception of the First Amendment, that makes a clear difference. The holding of Citizens United ought not apply to the normal corporate entity.

Many assertions not being back up by historical evidence, case law, or anything other than genuine belief. So, ultimately what you’re stuck with here is a legal doctrine where Citizens United is ‘ok’ because it exists for purposes of political advocacy, but what about Dog Eat Dogs, Inc., the Fahrenheit 9/11 movie? They’re a ‘normal’ corporate entity, aren’t they? What’s normal by the way? Who gets to determine who’s normal? The government.


Even under a case law centric legal system, it is easy to distinguish Citizens United from other non-political corporate entities that try to influence our elections to include unions and most corporations chartered under the various state laws.

Its easy to distinguish them for purposes of taxation, its not easy to distinguish them for constitutional purposes and for purposes of the I Amendment at all. Either non-political entities have every right to make politically active entities or you’re left with a system where non-political entities forfeit their political rights because they engage in certain economic activity. Its wrong on many levels. Its funny that you previously mentioned automobiles because General Motors used to own DirectTV. GE owns NBC, Microsoft had large investment in MSNBC, and its not unusual for conglomerates to own media and non-media components. So I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this.

Even something as simple as the NY Times, not quite so simple because the New York Times Company actually exists in a place and time. And when you look at their presence in NYC, its no small potatoes. They own the New York Times Building (its like the 4th largest building in Manhattan right now), their new location (actually an ugly building), but it is worth a billion dollars and that was a joint venture and they lease back offices in that building and turn around and act in concert with their partner to lease the building to other tenants. Adding up the numbers, the New York Times is more of a real estate development company than a newspaper at this point. And yet you'd likely let them print a newspaper editorializing on politics, but the likes of Vornado you wouldn't?

Peter1469
01-20-2014, 12:03 AM
IBM makes computers. Lots of people own IBM stock. Can the IBM board pick a political side that the majority of the stockholders disagree with? Why?


Well the Establishment Clause isn't applicable of course, but free exercise is applicable and while we're still discussing corporations, the right at issue for both remains the fundamental right to associate (although obviously you can practice religion on your own, but obviously people do so as members of churches, synagogues, congregations, mosques, etc). That right is not dependent on any Federal or state statute.



Well, neither do I, but the I Amendment is the I Amendment, but the XIV Amendment still came thereafter. Initially upon ratification the Bill of Rights simply did not apply to the states. It was simply a restriction on Federal power. After the XIV Amendment the Bill of Rights slowly began to be incorporated against the states.



On a visceral level, when one hears that ‘corporations are people’ it just feels wrong, doesn’t it?

However, there is a very simple consequence of answering this question “NO” and that would mean the NY Times could be shut down by the government.

The word “For Purposes Of” is extremely important in the legal arena. It is an important qualifier for any given proposition. So when we say that corporations aren’t people, most people tend to agree with that proposition on a linguistic level. So, for purposes of linguistics and to discuss the meaning of the term corporation, for purposes of the English language generally, most people clearly can see a distinction between a natural person and a corporation. Hardly worth debating.

But therein lies the rub because nobody is debating the common meaning of the term ‘corporation’ – what is at stake though is the application of the Due Process Clauses within the US Constitution. There are actually two of them. One is within the V Amendment which applies to Federal action and the other is in the XIV Amendment which applies to state action. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “ [N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” while its XIV Amendment companion in Section One of that Amendment reads: “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

Now of course the issue should become clearer because constitutional issues hinge on government power. So, when we ask: “Are corporations people?” What we’re really asking is this:

Are corporations people for purposes of the XIV Amendment (V Amendment); such that the state government (Federal government) must provide Due Process to the corporation before depriving the corporation of life (corporate existence), liberty (the ability to engage in business) and property?

This should illuminate how the emotional appeal of “corporations aren’t people” clouds the actual issue.



This is the constitutive theory of corporations and its wrong for a very simple reason. Its wrong because your fundamental right to associate is a natural right. The government then qualifies and classifies your association for the benefit of the state so that they can tax you (or not) accordingly. You and I can get together and we can make cars and we can get together and make a church and get together and make a newspaper. Our ability to cooperate and collaborate in these ways isn’t a function of statutes that classify these organizations into sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLC’s, S Corps, or at the Federal Level the 501(c) organizations (there’s over 20 of those).



Well, the whole point of Dartmouth College v Woodward is that the charter was a PRIVATE contract which couldn’t be invalidated by the state. Chief Justice Marshall (a Founder and a Framer) rules later: “The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men.” -- Providence Bank v. Billings (1830) – In Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet (1823), a foreign corporation (English no less) dedicated to missionary work, with land in the Vermont, protected its rights to land against an effort by the state of Vermont to revoke the grants. Justice Joseph Story explicitly extended the same protections to corporate-owned property as it would have to property owned by natural persons.

Ultimately a corporation is made up of shareholders. The connection between the shareholders and the corporation is obvious, the separate personhood of the corporation is a legal fiction.



And yet the Federalist Papers themselves get published by a corporate entity, the Independent Journal. Imagine if the then governor of NY, George Clinton, quite appropro I might add since he’s thought to be the Cato of the Anti-Federalist papers, had simply determined that the Independent Journal is a corporation, its not entitled to the then existing I Amendment protections of the State of New York (or the Articles of Confederation) and simply the shut the newspaper down. Muzzling the competition would surely have had a negative impact on the Constitution’s chances in New York.



Well, it’s a 501(c)(4) and frankly I don’t really care what it is. I mean, at the end of the day if all you’re looking for is an entity set up for the sole purpose of political advocacy or whatever, so long as there’s no restriction on making such organizations, frankly I wouldn’t care, it’d be a semantic rule at best.



Many assertions not being back up by historical evidence, case law, or anything other than genuine belief. So, ultimately what you’re stuck with here is a legal doctrine where Citizens United is ‘ok’ because it exists for purposes of political advocacy, but what about Dog Eat Dogs, Inc., the Fahrenheit 9/11 movie? They’re a ‘normal’ corporate entity, aren’t they? What’s normal by the way? Who gets to determine who’s normal? The government.



Its easy to distinguish them for purposes of taxation, its not easy to distinguish them for constitutional purposes and for purposes of the I Amendment at all. Either non-political entities have every right to make politically active entities or you’re left with a system where non-political entities forfeit their political rights because they engage in certain economic activity. Its wrong on many levels. Its funny that you previously mentioned automobiles because General Motors used to own DirectTV. GE owns NBC, Microsoft had large investment in MSNBC, and its not unusual for conglomerates to own media and non-media components. So I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this.

Even something as simple as the NY Times, not quite so simple because the New York Times Company actually exists in a place and time. And when you look at their presence in NYC, its no small potatoes. They own the New York Times Building (its like the 4th largest building in Manhattan right now), their new location (actually an ugly building), but it is worth a billion dollars and that was a joint venture and they lease back offices in that building and turn around and act in concert with their partner to lease the building to other tenants. Adding up the numbers, the New York Times is more of a real estate development company than a newspaper at this point. And yet you'd likely let them print a newspaper editorializing on politics, but the likes of Vornado you wouldn't?

patrickt
01-20-2014, 03:33 AM
Does the taxpayer supported NPR/PBS campaign for liberals?

Max Rockatansky
01-20-2014, 07:13 AM
Does the taxpayer supported NPR/PBS campaign for liberals?

By definition anything left of right is left. However, that doesn't make it leftist nor liberally biased.

Captain Obvious
01-20-2014, 10:25 AM
"Campaign finance reform"?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPuccvF_p3o

Newpublius
01-20-2014, 10:42 AM
IBM makes computers. Lots of people own IBM stock. Can the IBM board pick a political side that the majority of the stockholders disagree with? Why?

GE likely does. Majority shareholder or majority of shareholders. They vote for the Board, no different from any indirect rule, whether Congress or otherwise, the subsequent decisions aren't necessarily representative of the majority. If, as a member of that association, in this case as a shareholder, if you don't like it, sell, or vote for a Board that will change the bylaws.

Do we ask the NY Times if a recent editorial is consistent with the opinions of their shareholders? But for which the government won't let them print the article?

Any association has this issue of being, at best, only a statistical approximation of the will of its members.