Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

And why aren't the tea partiers more vocal about this? After all, they claim that they want to take Washington back from the special interests.

The answer ought to be obvious, The Tea Party(s) are frauds whipped up by a corporation to begin with, promoted by its talking heads on its "news". Oh, at a certain level well down the food chain there are people that legitimately believe its a grass roots movement, but the reality is it's astroturf.

So, it's like Code Pink, MoveOn, etc etc?

Quote

The day this decision came down any organization that really wanted to "take back America" would have been storming the gates.

Except for those that realize that the decision was about SPEECH...unless you think it's good that SOME 'people' don't get that right?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Except for those that realize that the decision was about SPEECH...unless you think it's good that SOME 'people' don't get that right?

This wasn't a decision about freedom of speech. This was a decision about freedom of CORPORATE speech. Giving corporations more power than actual humans.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Except for those that realize that the decision was about SPEECH...unless you think it's good that SOME 'people' don't get that right?

This wasn't a decision about freedom of speech. This was a decision about freedom of CORPORATE speech. Giving corporations more power than actual humans.

You are wrong

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Except for those that realize that the decision was about SPEECH...unless you think it's good that SOME 'people' don't get that right?

This wasn't a decision about freedom of speech. This was a decision about freedom of CORPORATE speech. Giving corporations more power than actual humans.

No, it was about freedom of POLITICAL speech.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Except for those that realize that the decision was about SPEECH...unless you think it's good that SOME 'people' don't get that right?

This wasn't a decision about freedom of speech. This was a decision about freedom of CORPORATE speech. Giving corporations more power than actual humans.

No, it was about freedom of POLITICAL speech.

And the amount of it that can be purchased by those with the money to do it; namely corporations. That was the entire issue. There was a law restricting it for 130 years and the Supreme Court overturned it. That's the case was about.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How are orgs like the NRA, "corporate money?"

How is it not? The NRA is a corporation.

because only a liar would refer to something funded by millions of members as corporate money.

So, you're denying it's a corporation? Really?

I said referring to their lobbying as an example of corporate money is dishonest. I did not say it wasn't a corporation. And yes, it does promote the social welfare of the nation, protecting it from people like you.

Thanks to the court, (and citing Kallend's law of constitutionality), the millions that comprise the NRA will no longer be silenced by bad law. And all the "free speech" frauds can do little but whine about it. Just like the gun controllers have to dwell on Heller.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How are orgs like the NRA, "corporate money?"

How is it not? The NRA is a corporation.

because only a liar would refer to something funded by millions of members as corporate money.

So, you're denying it's a corporation? Really?

I said referring to their lobbying as an example of corporate money is dishonest. I did not say it wasn't a corporation. And yes, it does promote the social welfare of the nation, protecting it from people like you.

Thanks to the court, (and citing Kallend's law of constitutionality), the millions that comprise the NRA will no longer be silenced by bad law. And all the "free speech" frauds can do little but whine about it. Just like the gun controllers have to dwell on Heller.

Because the NRA is a 501(c)(4), they never were restricted any way. The decision doesn't actually change anything they already were doing. The "millions" of its members where never silenced to begin with. As I wrote before, that is one of the major advantages of being a 501(c)(4) corporation.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

McCain Feingold curtailed behavior in proximity to elections. The NRA was one target of that legislation.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Because the NRA is a 501(c)(4), they never were restricted any way. The decision doesn't actually change anything they already were doing. The "millions" of its members where never silenced to begin with. As I wrote before, that is one of the major advantages of being a 501(c)(4) corporation.

Really? Tell the NRA that. They have been screaming about McCain/Feingold since it passed. The restriction that only allowed media to report on candidates was one of their biggest complaints - They had a lot of stats that showed a strong "guns are bad" bias in major media reporting (yes, even on Fox). I know it is more of a "if it bleeds it leads" thing, but the numbers are a bit disturbing.

They told all the members that they were unable to run ads for or against candidates.

NRA Website

And yes, the NRA is a corporation, and a lobbying organization. Although one of it's biggest operations is training.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[quade 4]

Quote

They told all the members that they were unable to run ads for or against candidates.
NRA Website

And the issue he's talking about in that 2007 missive isn't really what the recent Supreme Court decision was about either.

I wish you guys would stop looking at this from a very narrow (and pretty much irrelevant) NRA perspective and see the much, MUCH bigger picture here.

We live in a global economy. Huge overseas companies, some of which are actually hostile to US interests, can now monopolize and flood the media market with ads supporting their candidates.

I want you to think about that very carefully.

As the ruling currently stands, the government of the United States is no longer "of the People, by the People, for the People" but instead . . . "bought by the Corporations".

THAT is the issue.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,994]

>I wish you guys would stop looking at this from a very narrow (and pretty
>much irrelevant) NRA perspective . . .

Paul, for many people here, that is the only perspective they have or understand. They have a single issue.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

They told all the members that they were unable to run ads for or against candidates.
NRA Website

And the issue he's talking about in that 2007 missive isn't really what the recent Supreme Court decision was about either.

I wish you guys would stop looking at this from a very narrow (and pretty much irrelevant) NRA perspective and see the much, MUCH bigger picture here.

We live in a global economy. Huge overseas companies, some of which are actually hostile to US interests, can now monopolize and flood the media market with ads supporting their candidates.

I want you to think about that very carefully.

As the ruling currently stands, the government of the United States is no longer "of the People, by the People, for the People" but instead . . . "bought by the Corporations".

THAT is the issue.

All the major media is corps too quade. They could thought op eds and news stories say nearly anything they wanted up to and including the day of the election.



Then,

Who decides what is acceptable and what is not? YOU? and what happens when you or some one dioes not agree with the FEC ? They are not elected


The pdf of the oral arguments is 213 pages long. It is eye opening reading (yes, I have read about 75% of it now)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I wish you guys would stop looking at this from a very narrow (and pretty
>much irrelevant) NRA perspective . . .

Paul, for many people here, that is the only perspective they have or understand. They have a single issue.

Sort of like the 'evil corporatism' perspective, then?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

I wish you guys would stop looking at this from a very narrow (and pretty much irrelevant) NRA perspective and see the much, MUCH bigger picture here.

We live in a global economy. Huge overseas companies, some of which are actually hostile to US interests, can now monopolize and flood the media market with ads supporting their candidates.

I want you to think about that very carefully.

As the ruling currently stands, the government of the United States is no longer "of the People, by the People, for the People" but instead . . . "bought by the Corporations".

THAT is the issue.

Yes, THAT is the issue.

I was specifically addressing a specific point you made.
And I don't see it as either narrow or irrelevant.

But to address your larger point, it will soon be a corporations vs lobbying organization vs grassroots battle. Kind of like the insurance companies vs AARP vs (whatever grassroots oganization is lobbying on healthcare). And throw in corp vs corp (insurance vs doctors).

It will change the dynamic of some of the debates, but Rupert Murdoch and George Soros already have a big say in US politics.

And won't the "equal access" rules prevent monopolization? Not that it will be equal or even fair, but opposing voices will speak (whether or not anyone will listen is a good question)

And competing candidates will (hopefully) be able to say "My candidate is being supported by XXX corp. They are controlled by YYY, who has an agenda of ZZZ" (just off the top of my head throw in Citgo and Hugo Chavez for X and Y).

Lobbying groups such as AARP, NRA, Sierra Club ect. will be able to challenge any claims made by the corporations.

While it will have it's problems, I see the openness of the free speech outweighing the problems of who is doing the speaking as long as the ones doing the speaking have to admit who they are.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[mnealtx 0]

I mentioned the 'equal access' stuff above - nobody seems to have a response.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

I mentioned the 'equal access' stuff above - nobody seems to have a response.

Equal acces means they have to be allowed to air ads. Whether or not they can afford to is a whole different question.

Exxon/Mobil could afford a whole lot more ads than the Sierra Club for example.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I mentioned the 'equal access' stuff above - nobody seems to have a response.

Ya

And in the end this is why the law was struck down. And reading the oral arguments seems to indicate that the justices (some of them anyway) thought McCain Feingold gave an advantage to the incumbents

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

In case anyone needs something to read

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/02-1674.pdf

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>I wish you guys would stop looking at this from a very narrow (and pretty
>much irrelevant) NRA perspective . . .

Paul, for many people here, that is the only perspective they have or understand. They have a single issue.

the single issue here is freedom of speech. I thought you were on the side of good in this matter.

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

The Tea Party(s) are frauds whipped up by a corporation to begin with

What corporation started all of it?

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The Tea Party(s) are frauds whipped up by a corporation to begin with

What corporation started all of it?

GE/MSNBC, of course... oh, wait, no...that's for Olbermann...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

The Tea Party(s) are frauds whipped up by a corporation to begin with

What corporation started all of it?

Corporations really; Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity as well as other conservative "think tanks" (really lobbying groups).

Also, how about the one that pushed it and promoted it; FoxNews and specifically Glenn Beck?

I think if you do even the smallest amount of research you'll see that not only did FoxNews cover the Tea Party movement, but they were instrumental in its creation and promotion.

I don't think they necessarily have complete control of any of the factions now nor do they care. The Tea Party served its purposes, screwing with Omaba and healthcare.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Tea Party(s) are frauds whipped up by a corporation to begin with

What corporation started all of it?

Corporations really; Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity as well as other conservative "think tanks" (really lobbying groups).

Also, how about the one that pushed it and promoted it; FoxNews and specifically Glenn Beck?

I think if you do even the smallest amount of research you'll see that not only did FoxNews cover the Tea Party movement, but they were instrumental in its creation and promotion.

I don't think they necessarily have complete control of any of the factions now nor do they care. The Tea Party served its purposes, screwing with Omaba and healthcare.

I guess MSNBC and the rest started Code Pink, MoveOn, and others, then.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Tea Party(s) are frauds whipped up by a corporation to begin with

What corporation started all of it?

Corporations really; Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity as well as other conservative "think tanks" (really lobbying groups).

Also, how about the one that pushed it and promoted it; FoxNews and specifically Glenn Beck?

I think if you do even the smallest amount of research you'll see that not only did FoxNews cover the Tea Party movement, but they were instrumental in its creation and promotion.

I don't think they necessarily have complete control of any of the factions now nor do they care. The Tea Party served its purposes, screwing with Omaba and healthcare.

Your funny! Glenn Is a very big supporter of the Tea party movement and everybody knows if you support something then you must have started it!

Fox did not start it. They are just one of the only ones that shed the light on it at first. The other media ignored the movement. And when the other started to give coverage to the Tea party's, then called us crazy right wing people. Fox is just the one telling the truth about the movement. Hell you think that it was all about H/C and Obama You dont have a clue! Maybe now that Air American is gone you can get some real coverage on current events!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I mentioned the 'equal access' stuff above - nobody seems to have a response.

You're ignoring the responses then.

I'll use the superbowl example again. You are not denied access to the ad time. Could you take advantage of that access in order to voice an opinion or advertise a product?

I have access to my Congressman and Senators. Do you think my letter complaining about the health care bill will be noticed when "my" representative's attention is being diverted by the $300 million/wk that PhARMA has been throwing at Congress? The health care industry has (I think) about 6 lobbyists PER congressman. Pharmaceutical companies spend about $13 Billion/year pushing their products. Even though opposing voices have access they will never have the actual access that the wealthiest entities do. Money controls our government, not the constituency. I mean look at Obama. He's the President of the United States and he had to cut a deal with PhARMA and the insurance industry before he could even bring his reform ideas to the table. If that doesn't show where the power lies then I just don't know what else to say.