2
   

Some of the After Effects of the SC Corporations Decision

 
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 08:54 pm
Courtesy of Public Citizen:

This Wasn't Legal a Few Months Ago: Texas Company Takes Out Ads to Defeat Candidate
A Texas real estate company seeking the defeat of a state representative running for re-election has done what it couldn't do before Jan. 21: It has taken out ads in local papers urging the candidate's defeat. Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, companies can spend as much as they want on elections.

The dominoes fall: Wisconsin's 105-year-old campaign finance law goes by the wayside, Colorado's law is declared invalid
The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has prompted Wisconsin to stop enforcing its 1905 law that banned corporate expenditures in state and local elections. In addition, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled invalid a state law that limits corporate ads and other involvement in elections.

More falling dominoes: States move to increase disclosure of campaign giving
They can no longer restrict corporate money in elections, but at least they can find which corporations are buying ads and how much they spend. That's the thinking of officials in nearly a dozen states, ranging from Alaska and Arizona to Maryland and Ohio.

Corporation hits snag in plans to run for office
Murray Hill, the Maryland corporation that has announced it plans to run for Congress, has hit a roadblock: Those who run for office must be registered to vote, and the state has said a company can't do that. The public relations firm is trying to get its name on the ballot to make the point that if corporations have the same First Amendment rights as people, as the Supreme Court has decided, they should be able to do other things things humans do.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 899 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 05:12 am
@plainoldme,
Quote:

Corporation hits snag in plans to run for office
Murray Hill, the Maryland corporation that has announced it plans to run for Congress, has hit a roadblock: Those who run for office must be registered to vote, and the state has said a company can't do that. The public relations firm is trying to get its name on the ballot to make the point that if corporations have the same First Amendment rights as people, as the Supreme Court has decided, they should be able to do other things things humans do.
This could be interesting , especially when a corporation needs to prove residency requirements. They will have to define residency as equivalent to "Incorporation". Whatabout LLC's and partnerships, do they also not have first amendment rights?


I like the disclosure requirements, that way the corporations involved may be able to be identified by the candidates.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 06:29 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Corporation hits snag in plans to run for office
Murray Hill, the Maryland corporation that has announced it plans to run for Congress, has hit a roadblock: Those who run for office must be registered to vote, and the state has said a company can't do that. The public relations firm is trying to get its name on the ballot to make the point that if corporations have the same First Amendment rights as people, as the Supreme Court has decided, they should be able to do other things things humans do.

Cool. In twenty years instead of Labor Unions, we could have Voting Unions; pseudo-corporations created for the sole purpose of running as a "collective" candidate. Maybe in a hundred years we won't have people as president or in congress any more, maybe it'll be just representatives for the board of directors at various Voting Unions.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:39 am
@farmerman,
You are absolutely right. Residency in the face of off-shore, shadow corporate headquarters will be interesting.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:40 am
@rosborne979,
That's a great starting point for a script.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 09:11 am
@rosborne979,
Wake up. For the last 60 years corporations and big money have governed this country. The SC decision is just iceing on the cake.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 10:08 am
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:
Wake up. For the last 60 years corporations and big money have governed this country. The SC decision is just iceing on the cake.

Sheesh, I was just trying to make an interesting comment on the topic, what the heck.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 04:45 pm
@rosborne979,
I understood where you were coming from and I said it would make a great script.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 06:26 pm
@rosborne979,
I wasent takeing a shot at you. It just irritates me that the fact that the rich and corporations run our government goes over so many of our citizens heads.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 08:15 pm
@rabel22,
Irritates me as well. . . just think of who disagrees with us!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Some of the After Effects of the SC Corporations Decision
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/27/2022 at 12:27:11