Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

[moe24]

Continue.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I'd like to see money out of politics. but there is that pesky free speech thing. for everybody, even business owners, unions, etc. And if money isn't available to "average" Joes, only the rich could run for office.

what to do, what to do???

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I'd like to see money out of politics. but there is that pesky free speech thing. for everybody, even business owners, unions, etc. And if money isn't available to "average" Joes, only the rich could run for office.

what to do, what to do???

Tough one. IMO a candidates wealth doesn't drive too many election results. And if a candidate who is terrible gets major corporate contributions due to his/her supporting massive polluting or subsidies...does that seem fair?

Free speech is more difficult. Yes its a foundational piece in the constitution. However, there are cases where there are multiple priorities in life. So while free speech is a top priority...there are times when it may run into other top priorities in the constitution. In this case, I'd say the US as a solid democracy is also a top priority that is also spelled out in the constitution. And when free speech interferes with the US' ability to have fair elections...it needs to be addressed. There are not many times when free speech should be limited...but intereference with the American democracy is one such time.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I'd like to see money out of politics. but there is that pesky free speech thing. for everybody, even business owners, unions, etc. And if money isn't available to "average" Joes, only the rich could run for office.

what to do, what to do???

Did you post this before or after hearing about the supreme court ruling?

This is one of the worst decision by the courts. Basically they are saying corporations are individuals and have freedom of speech, even though they were created by congress. I would have gone the other way and barred corporations from all PAC activity since they are using OPM for political influen ce.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9628743

The justices weighed two fundamental political forces — the power of the central government and the concentration of corporate wealth — and tilted decidedly in favor of the latter. The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy made a vigorous argument based on the Constitution for the right of the public to be exposed to a multitude of ideas and against the ability of government to limit political speech, even in the interest of fighting corruption.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Did you post this before or after hearing about the supreme court ruling?

This is one of the worst decision by the courts. Basically they are saying corporations are individuals and have freedom of speech, even though they were created by congress. I would have gone the other way and barred corporations from all PAC activity since they are using OPM for political influen ce.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9628743

it also frees up unions.

 

[moe24]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Did you post this before or after hearing about the supreme court ruling?

This is one of the worst decision by the courts. Basically they are saying corporations are individuals and have freedom of speech, even though they were created by congress. I would have gone the other way and barred corporations from all PAC activity since they are using OPM for political influen ce.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9628743

You should go back and read the last 20 or so posts of the last thread. There is a ton more to this ruling then just corporations.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Corporations and Unions shouldn't have free speech rights because they aren't people. It's utterly asinine and another step toward this oligarchy imploding anyway.

And the joy of each side having a billion to spend this fall and in 2012 since they can have unlimited taxpayer bailout money funneled back from the same *******s who can't run their businesses anyway sucks balls.

It's not a free speech violation for the parties to shovel people into a "free speech zone" far away from the cameras and their convention, but it's a violation that they can't have their corporate friends and masters give them piles of money. **** 'em.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

You should go back and read the last 20 or so posts of the last thread. There is a ton more to this ruling then just corporations.

I saw the arguments on cspan by both sides and I knew they would rule this way with some of the questions the justice asked and their comments.

Basically they were questioning the motive behind the 100year old ruling and arguing over freedom of speech and corporations. That was just one day so I'm sure there were more arguing over other details but it's one of the worse ruling evah.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Corporations and Unions shouldn't have free speech rights because they aren't people. It's utterly asinine and another step toward this oligarchy imploding anyway.

Explain that to me. What does that affect? Which individual person does not get the right of free speech? Why can't they do it? Why can't they say it?

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

And when free speech interferes with the US' ability to have fair elections...it needs to be addressed.

I remember when that happened... wait, no I don't.

The NRA should not be allowed to organize financial support...neither should unions. I have many liberatarian leanings myself...but I believe in clean democracy first (in the same way I believe in capitalism...but dislike monopolies).

So what is affected by either the NRA or unions running adverts... why does that make democracy unclean? Saying that people aren't allowed to organize together to advocate positions seems antithetical of both freedom and libertarianism.

edit: the only thing I'm reading here is that you are telling me EITHER 1) you can't think for yourself, 2) you can't trust others to do the same. Both of which is a moot point because we still saw issue adverts and all the rest in the last couple of elections and lets remember that Obama broke the funding record by leaps and bounds. I can understand people wanting transparency in those who create the message... but restricting the speech of those who want to create a message is filthy... worse its restricting freedom of the press.

I thought freedom of the press was absolute... does that only depend on who owns the press?

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

So what is affected by either the NRA or unions running adverts... why does that make democracy unclean? Saying that people aren't allowed to organize together to advocate positions seems antithetical of both freedom and libertarianism.

Nobody's saying that.

What people are saying is that money is not speech. The NRA and unions have plenty of avenues to freely express themselves.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Nobody's saying that.

What people are saying is that money is not speech. The NRA and unions have plenty of avenues to freely express themselves.

But it seems to me that some think that some of these actions must be restricted, yes? Why are they doing that? For our own good? Why? How so? What's the assumption? Is the assumption even relevant?

Literally here we're saying that the right to press in exchange for money is subject to the law... that's explicitly forbidden by the first amendment.

edit: actually, 5mn_major did say just that... the words "I believe in clean democracy" is an implication that otherwise democracy is unclean or there is some taint to it.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Another wasted year.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

But it seems to me that some think that some of these actions must be restricted, yes? Why are they doing that? For our own good? Why? How so? What's the assumption? Is the assumption even relevant?

Literally here we're saying that the right to press in exchange for money is subject to the law... that's explicitly forbidden by the first amendment.

Why? To ensure that nobody's speech is 'freer' than anyone elses.

The problem is that this ruling treats individuals and corporations/unions as exactly the same. We're not talking about PACs or anything else, but treating corporations as individuals.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Why? To ensure that nobody's speech is 'freer' than anyone elses.

So you have to restrict the speech of others to make sure that there's an equal amount of freeness? So, when do I get to start removing voice boxes? How do I know if I have an adequate quantity of free spread amongst all persons in our country?

The problem is that this ruling treats individuals and corporations/unions as exactly the same. We're not talking about PACs or anything else, but treating corporations as individuals.

OK... so there might some literal problems there... but why does it matter. Corporations are composed of people with all rights an entitlements. The problem here is that you don't like amorphous targets since you can't personalize an impersonal entity.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

RIP Air America at 6 years of age. It's all Fox News fault...

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

edit: actually, 5mn_major did say just that... the words "I believe in clean democracy" is an implication that otherwise democracy is unclean or there is some taint to it.

What I said...very simply so just about everyone can understand...is that there will always be times when there are competing foundational issues this country stands for.

That doesn't mean that free speech trumps everything all the time. As you disagree with my point...you feel that US democracy takes a backseat to free speech.

Unlimited free speech includes obscenity on primetime TV, stealing of content and a proliferation of companies named Microsoft.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Ok maybe it was a warning 100 years ago about corporate influence.
I doubt it'll have too much impact since corporate influence is already at all time high, and they never had problem funding mouth pieces. So it's gone from shadow to light and made all "legal". It's going in the wrong direction. And linking 1st amendment to created entity like corporations is a bad idea.

Another warning 50 years ago
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

* and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

The corporations will be very happy (to paraphrase The Dead Kennedys) ... however, instead of actually pouring money into a given candidate's campaign, we'll still use PACs, associations, trade groups, single-interest lobbies, etc. Anyone who thinks McCain-Feingold was actually effective wasn't paying attention.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

The corporations will be very happy (to paraphrase The Dead Kennedys) ... however, instead of actually pouring money into a given candidate's campaign, we'll still use PACs, associations, trade groups, single-interest lobbies, etc. Anyone who thinks McCain-Feingold was actually effective wasn't paying attention.

McCain-Feingold wasn't the issue here, as the Court's ruling completely repudiated the very concept of limiting corporate spending (not speech, spending).

I don't want to hear anyone supporting this ruling coming around later and complaining about the influence of special interests...