Supreme Court Provides For Corporate Takeover of Nation

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

That for profit corporations do not differ from not-for-profit corporations in terms of free speech rights.

Having looked at the Court's reasoning, I see nothing that would disqualify a distinction between for-profits and non-profits. Do you?

Also, I'm sorry for editing my previous post on you. I do that a lot lately.

0 Replies

Here is an interesting piece that speaks to our corporate plutocracy, and the absolute failure of the Democrats in attacking the nation's problems. It argues that progressives should just give up on the party.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Time-To-Abandon-The-Sinkin-by-Jon-Faulkner-100125-145.html

0 Replies

I just don't see how anyone can think it's constitutional to allow the government to pick and choose...saying one group is allowed to speak and others not so much.

Before this Court's decision, I could write a 1,000 page book or make a movie but if either had even one line of candidate political advocacy, the government would not allow its sale or distribution (although it would allow the New York Times [a corporation] to advocate politically).

"Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. ... It is therefore important"vitally important"that all channels of communications be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community." ~ Justices Earl Warren, Hugo Black and William O. Douglas.

2 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

I just don't see how anyone can think it's constitutional to allow the government to pick and choose...saying one group is allowed to speak and others not so much.

Before this Court's decision, I could write a 1,000 page book or make a movie but if either had even one line of candidate political advocacy, the government would not allow its sale or distribution (although it would allow the New York Times [a corporation] to advocate politically).

"Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. ... It is therefore important"vitally important"that all channels of communications be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community." ~ Justices Earl Warren, Hugo Black and William O. Douglas.

They wouldn't bar your from publishing it! Only if you did so within a certain period right before an election, they would delay it.

And it makes sense why. You basically could fill up a book full of scurrilous lies about someone and force them to spend tons of money defending against the charges. You could strategically time this book to come out during a period in which the candidate had very little time or money left to do so.

It's essentially a form of cheating - of sidestepping the limits that one can contribute to a campaign. I don't think that's fair at all.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

You say that I and others are hysterical over the decision, but don't really explain why. I gather that you cannot.

Bullshit. I explained exactly why you are being hysterical, and don't see why your stupidity here should force me to repeat myself.

Quote:

Wealthy corporations, through a number of means, already wield great power . . .

I've already taken note of that power--it was part of the explanation about which you lied when you said i'd not provided one.

Quote:

. . . to affect law and regulations.

Without an explanation (something you falsely accused me of), this is a meaningless claim.

Quote:

The decision will add to this power in a big way.

Once again, you give no justification for such a claim.

It is precisely because you make a wild claim about the scope of this decision that i call this political hysteria.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

They wouldn't bar your from publishing it! Only if you did so within a certain period right before an election, they would delay it.

Did that 'delay' apply accross the board, or only to certain groups? Free speech for thee but not for me?

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Quote:
They wouldn't bar your from publishing it! Only if you did so within a certain period right before an election, they would delay it.

Did that 'delay' apply accross the board, or only to certain groups? Free speech for thee but not for me?

It pertains to 'corporations,' because they are not comparable to you or I.

Imagine playing a game of Risk, but one player of the game had basically the same amount of resources as ALL the other players combined and could at the last second play these huge resources against you in whatever way they liked with no restrictions. Would you think that's fair? It basically allows one class of player - corporations - to run the entire show.

Is this honestly how you want to see elections ran?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes, because speech doesn't scare me. Restricting speech does scare me, regardless if it's 'only for a specified period of time'.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Yes, because speech doesn't scare me. Restricting speech does scare me, regardless if it's 'only for a specified period of time'.

So, you do want a situation in which very rich people control the entire system - explicitly, legally and as if this was morally correct?

Just want to be sure we're clear here.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

-- C. Little

This is an exercise in political hysteria. Corporations have long been considered legal persons, or juristic persons, for a variety of purposes. That this was an unwise decision, and probably an unjustified decision, i would not argue with. But to suggest that this will lead to a corporate takeover is simple hysteria. To the extent that the power which derives from the control of huge amounts of money can be seen to trump individual rights, corporations have already taken over, just as wealthy individuals are able to use that wealth and its attendant power to control others.

This decision, however unfortunate, does not open some imagined floodgate of tyranny. However, i'm not surprised that the author of this thread would like to suggest that this is the case.

In your usual nasty way, you charge it is hysteria to fear a corporate takeover. However, you fail to explain why it is hysteria. I guess this is because you cannot. You also don't explain why no floodgate of tyranny would be open. It is pretty easy for a poster, like yourself, to throw out unsupported statements and cheap shots. Being an obnoxious prick, this is so typical of you.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I want a system where the law is applied equally, where the government doesn't get to pick and choose whose speech should be protected and whose shouldn't.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

I want a system where the law is applied equally, where the government doesn't get to pick and choose whose speech should be protected and whose shouldn't.

You can't answer my question, can you?

Yes or no: do you want a system in which the rich and corporations explicitly run our elections?

Your inability to answer that question shows the problem with your position.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Ok, add "regardless of the consequences" to the end of my last statement. There are plenty of instances where I don't agree with certain groups when they exercise their right to free speech, but the alternative is abhorrent to me. JMHO.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

IrishK wrote:

Before this Court's decision, I could write a 1,000 page book or make a movie but if either had even one line of candidate political advocacy, the government would not allow its sale or distribution (although it would allow the New York Times [a corporation] to advocate politically).

That's simply false. The truth is that the government would allow you all those things. After all, you are not a corporation, and have not received money from any.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes or no: do you want a system in which the rich and corporations explicitly run our elections?

Whether or not IrishK will answer your question, there are two problems with its premise.

1) Speaking out for or against a candidate for public office doesn't constitute "explicitly running" the election.

2) The Supreme Court didn't say the government can't curb the power of moneyed interests. The Court merely said it can't curb it on the basis that the money is organized as a corporation rather than some other legal entity. Congress has to find a better basis.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It pertains to 'corporations,' because they are not comparable to you or I.

It would appear that at least a generation's worth of Supreme Court precedents disagrees with you. The Supreme Court's opinion cites a line of 23 cases affirming the principle that corporations have free speech rights under the constitution. (See page 26 of the Court's opinion -- it's page 33 in the PDF file.)

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I think that you have to read the dissenting opinion to say that without being countered Thomas. The dissenting opinion similarly quotes precedent and , in its dissent, specifically comcentrates on HOW the candidates are supported by industrial tithes. Seems that Thomas was in partial dissent also.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

I didn't call anyone any names, but since you think that is appropriate, i'll follow your lead.

I pointed out that corporations have long been considered legal persons, you dimwitted dipshit. And i pointed out that i consider this an unwise decision, but that that is no good reason to assume that this will lead to a corporate takeover of the nation, and that i therefore consider this hysteria.

Clown

Idiot

Brainless twit

If you ever grow up, let us hope you develop some reading comprehension skills in the process.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Setanta wrote:

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

-- C. Little

This is an exercise in political hysteria. Corporations have long been considered legal persons, or juristic persons, for a variety of purposes. .......

This decision, however unfortunate, does not open some imagined floodgate of tyranny. However, i'm not surprised that the author of this thread would like to suggest that this is the case.

In your usual nasty way, you charge it is hysteria to fear a corporate takeover. However, you fail to explain why it is hysteria. I guess this is because you cannot. You also don't explain why no floodgate of tyranny would be open. It is pretty easy for a poster, like yourself, to throw out unsupported statements and cheap shots. Being an obnoxious prick, this is so typical of you.

Remarkable to see Advocate, the A2K master of unsupported statements and assertions , criticizing others for this,.. and, in this case, with so little to base it on.

Remarkable also to see him style Setanta as "an obnoxious prick". I'll concede that ole Set can occasionally be obnoxious, ... perhaps also even with occasional prick tendencies. However this, coming from Advocate - our chief obnoxious little prick - , is a bit much.

1 Reply

Well I hadn't seen Setanta's last post. Clearly, rising to his defense was unnecessary.

0 Replies

Supreme Court Provides For Corporate Takeover of Nation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know