Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections

[ItsTime]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-corporations22-2010jan22,0,4141508.story


latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-corporations22-2010jan22,0,4141508.story
latimes.com
Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections
In a 5-4 decision that strikes down a 1907 law, the justices say the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads for federal candidates.

By David G. Savage

9:28 AM PST, January 21, 2010

Reporting from Washington
Quantcast

The Supreme Court today overturned a century-old restriction on corporations using their money to sway federal elections and ruled that companies have a free-speech right to spend as much as they wish to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.

In a 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending freely to influence the outcome of federal elections.

The decision is probably the most sweeping and consequential handed down under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. And the outcome may well have an immediate impact on this year's mid-term elections to Congress.

Until now, corporations and unions have been barred from spending their own treasury funds on broadcast ads or billboards that urge the election or defeat of a federal candidate. This restriction dates back to 1907, when President Theodore Roosevelt called on Congress to forbid corporations, railroads and national banks from using their money in federal election campaigns. After World War II, Congress extended this ban to labor unions.

In today's decision, the high court struck down that restriction and said the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads.

"The 1st Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the court.

Two significant prohibitions on corporations were left standing. Corporations, and presumably unions, cannot give money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates. These "contribution" restrictions were not challenged in the case decided today. And secondly, the court affirmed current federal rules which require the sponsors of political ads to disclose who paid for them.

Most election-law expert have predicted a court decision freeing corporations will send millions of extra dollars flooding into this fall's contests for Congress. And they predict Republicans will be the main beneficiaries.

Today's decision was supported by five justices who were Republican nominees. They include Kennedy and Roberts along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The dissenters included the three Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. They joined a dissent written by 89-year old Justice John Paul Stevens. Speaking from the bench, he called today's decision "a radical change in the law ... that dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions -- and the narrow interests they represent -- in determining who will hold public office."

The decision today, though long forecast, displayed a deep division of opinion on the court about the meaning of the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech. The majority said the Constitution broadly protected discussion and debate on politics, regardless of who was paying for the speech. Roberts said he was not prepared to "embrace a theory of the 1st Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern."

But Stevens and the dissenters said the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments. "Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections. "Corporations are not human beings. They can't vote and can't run for office," Stevens said, and should be subject to restrictions under the election laws.

Today's opinion dealt only with corporations, but its logic would suggest that unions will also have the same right in the future to spend unions funds on ad campaigns for federal candidates.

david.savage@latimes.com

[MsDoodahs]

This is hugely important.

And eliminates all hope I had....

[Aratus]

potus Teddy R. is spinning in his grave as is his cousin franklin delano also sorta, mayhap!
and PRESIDENT william mckinley rules ALL from his lofty resting place in canton ohio...
even if she dissented, how did NY state's most recent addition to our court go?

[ItsTime]

This is hugely important.

And eliminates all hope I had....

I heard they still had limits like individuals do. Any truth to this?

[Aratus]

good Q! populists, progressives and new deal democrats
may have heart attacks over the shock of all this!!!!!

[sarahgop]

freedom won today. now lets continue to march together.

[Aratus]

or...

....if...

not

.......O!

my

gAWd


this is
a

true
paradigm
shift!!!

[tangent4ronpaul]

I heard they still had limits like individuals do. Any truth to this?

Corps and unions have no limits - that would limit their freedom of speech.

Limits are for us lowly subjects.

we are soooo.... screwed!

I don't see why they even bother having elections with this precident in place - why not just rotate the CEO's the the Fortune 50 through the office of the president and make him a dictator. The result is the same.

We might as well give up and start looking for another country to migrate to - This is GAME OVER!

-t

[ItsTime]

Corps and unions have no limits - that would limit their freedom of speech.

Limits are for us lowly subjects.


Source?

[Slutter McGee]

You guys and gals do realize that this is yet another issue with no black and white. A win for free speach and the consitution may also bring more corruption.

I say its a good ruling.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Chester Copperpot]

everybody just needs to incorporate themselves... Michael Mitrosky Inc. thats it... now you can donate all you want.. fuck em!

[ItsTime]

everybody just needs to incorporate themselves... Michael Mitrosky Inc. thats it... now you can donate all you want.. fuck em!

I was thinking that. Or if there are corp limits just make 1000000 corps.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Source?

See the original thread.

Corporations are artificial people. They have more rights than individuals and are not hed responsible to the extent individuals are. Their effect in politics is disastrous to the economy and freedom. This is legalizing and encouraging bribery. There is no way the donations from the vast majority of the population have a chance of compeating with a major corporation. They have absolutely NO business in politics.

-t

[MsDoodahs]

I'm disgusted.

[ItsTime]

See the original thread.

Corporations are artificial people. They have more rights than individuals and are not hed responsible to the extent individuals are. Their effect in politics is disastrous to the economy and freedom. This is legalizing and encouraging bribery. There is no way the donations from the vast majority of the population have a chance of compeating with a major corporation. They have absolutely NO business in politics.

-t

I did thats why Im questioning it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2504467&postcount=7

[HOLLYWOOD]

The focus should be on the PARTY donations/lobbying... huge amounts in that the candidates can't raise in their own district. The Wealth and Corporatism controls the puppets. It's the domination of a government by corporations of the politically connected/controlled, combined with bellicose nationalism.

SO I'm amused in the near future... at the new ending of political campaign commercials... We're AFSCME or SEIU or AFL-CIO, or UAW, EXXON, Goldman Sachs, or whatever.... and we approve of this political endorsement/message.

It's 110% a FASCIST STATE.
http://www.spectrumz.com/z/images/corporate_fascism.jpg

[Fox McCloud]

Aratus, knock the spam off.

Either way, this is a good thing; hopefully individual limits will be changed/altered as well.

[sratiug]

They still cannot donate to campaigns if I read that correctly. The MSM corporations have been giving away airtime to candidates for free anyway. Now they just don't have to pretend to be unbiased and other corps can join the fun.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I did thats why Im questioning it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2504467&postcount=7

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227555

post 9

-t

[ItsTime]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227555

post 9

-t

Thanks. Good news is I already own a few corps :D

[FunkBuddha]

They still cannot donate to campaigns if I read that correctly. The MSM corporations have been giving away airtime to candidates for free anyway. Now they just don't have to pretend to be unbiased and other corps can join the fun.

Yep. This could be a good thing. I mean, corporations are already buying off legislators via other means. At least this way it'll be out in the open which critters are owned by which corporations. Now where did I put that branding iron?

[Reason]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666&sc=nl&cc=nh-20100121

[Reason]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666&sc=nl&cc=nh-20100121

[NerveShocker]

Fascism is awesome. Don't you all think this is awesome? Everyone knows a corporation is an individual with rights, it's not made up of individuals who have rights, for in the new world they will have none anyways! Duh! I gotta go puke I'll be right back.

[Todd]

freedom won today. now lets continue to march together.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe ;)

[devil21]

We're gonna have to kick the moneybombs up a notch! We gotta compete with Goldman Sachs PAC now.

It's very telling when a law thats OVER 100 YEARS OLD is struck down. The days of the republic are almost done.

[qwerty]

YouTube - Supreme Court Gives U.S. Government to Corporations! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMiKAXypDIs)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/asj97/supreme_court_gives_us_government_to_corporations/

[NYgs23]

Like it or not, this was the pro-freedom decision. Corporations are not "people," but they are groups of people, and even the biggest and richest group of people has the right to put up whatever ad or billboard it wants. Sorry, folks.

Of course, it's not pro-democracy, but that just shows the whole problem with democracy. No matter what you do, it democracy devolves into oligarchy. And even if it didn't, it would just be tyranny of the majority; how is that better than tyranny by businesses or anything else?

Besides it's not like political ads aren't already funded by big business through PAC contributions. Might as well bring it more out in the open. Prohibitions don't help. They just drive it all underground. If the people really gave a damn, they'd vote for politicians who demonstrated that they didn't have big corporate backing.

[NerveShocker]

Like it or not, this was the pro-freedom decision. Corporations are not "people," but they are groups of people, and even the biggest and richest group of people has the right to put up whatever ad or billboard it wants. Sorry, folks.

Of course, it's not pro-democracy, but that just shows the whole problem with democracy. No matter what you do, it democracy devolves into oligarchy. And even if it didn't, it would just be tyranny of the majority; how is that better than tyranny by businesses or anything else?

Besides it's not like political ads aren't already funded by big business through PAC contributions. Might as well bring it more out in the open. Prohibitions don't help. They just drive it all underground. If the people really gave a damn, they'd vote for politicians who demonstrated that they didn't have big corporate backing.


I see this as Individualism vs Collectivism.. this is the biggest freedom issue right now and right now you're siding with the collectivists. Moving rights towards the group and away from the individual is dangerous business in my book which is what I am seeing in this country widespread.

[FrankRep]

Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain-Feingold Act!

[qwerty]

This is bad.... :mad:

[coyote_sprit]

Implying that it didn't already belong to them?

[Toureg89]

corperations represent a group of individuals.

i dont see how if corperations have the right to advertise, they dont have the right to donate money to a candidate.

that being said, we all just need to become heads of the top richest 1,000 corperations, and donate the legal max to RP/

[LittleLightShining]

Implying that it didn't already belong to them?

My thoughts exactly. Might as well have some transparency about it.

[Scofield]

corperations represent a group of individuals.

i dont see how if corperations have the right to advertise, they dont have the right to donate money to a candidate.

that being said, we all just need to become heads of the top richest 1,000 corperations, and donate the legal max to RP/

I am a shareholder of a few corporations.

Am I going to have the right to vote to determine whether or not the corporation(s) should donate to a campaign?

If I don't have a vote, does the corporation have the right to spend money from the treasury in which I have a stake?

[specsaregood]

The focus should be on the PARTY donations/lobbying... huge amounts in that the candidates can't raise in their own district.
Don't be silly. They already plan on the opposite: getting rid of candidates completely so it is all about the party. They laid it out for us over 30 years ago.



The Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS) a group created for the bicentennial and of which more than 1/3 of the directors were CFR members proposed drastic changes to the Constitution. These changes were outlined in the book: "Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System."
Here are some of the changes they proposed:
1. No longer allow Americans to vote for individual candidates. You can only vote for a party/slate of candidates. This includes eliminating Independent candidates.
2. Expand congress, The party who's nominee became president would be able to designate 1/6 of congress members and 1/3 of all Senators.
3. Lower the requirement for Senate ratification of treaties.
4. Extend Representatives terms' from 2 to 4 years.
5. Extend Senators terms' from 6 to 8 years.
6. Allow congressman to serve in the executive branch at the same time as holding their congressional seat.
From: "Shadows of Power", pg 200

[qwerty]

RIP. "We The People"....

Now. "We The Corporations"...

[coyote_sprit]

RIP. "We The People"....

Bit late to mourn.

[devil21]

I see this as Individualism vs Collectivism.. this is the biggest freedom issue right now and right now you're siding with the collectivists.

+1

People, whether individual or part of a group/corporation, have always been free to donate to political candidates. It crosses a new threshold when the corporation itself can donate vast sums directly from its coffers into campaigns. Add in the fact that more and more corporations are living off the tit of the taxpayers in the form of subsidies and bailouts from a collapsing system and you essentially end up with the taxpayers paying for their own enslavement.

Did anyone see if there are limits on corporate contributions? If SCOTUS didn't address it then as of right now, there's nothing preventing GS from donating $500 million to whoever it wants, thus practically guaranteeing the candidate of their choice will win.

I wonder if this ruling wasn't handed down to put the squash on Liberty candidates that are actually doing well with private donations only. RP's $35million haul from small donors probably put the fear of god into some corporate hacks.

[Kotin]

Does this really change anything? We all know these rule were more than likely easily sidestepped anyways? Am I wrong?

[NYgs23]

I am a shareholder of a few corporations.

Am I going to have the right to vote to determine whether or not the corporation(s) should donate to a campaign?

If I don't have a vote, does the corporation have the right to spend money from the treasury in which I have a stake?

Yes, if you freely choose to still give it to them. If you don't want your money be used that way, don't invest in that company.

[NYgs23]

I see this as Individualism vs Collectivism.. this is the biggest freedom issue right now and right now you're siding with the collectivists. Moving rights towards the group and away from the individual is dangerous business in my book which is what I am seeing in this country widespread.

Corporations are still voluntary associations of individuals. Perhaps married couples shouldn't have any rights because they're a "collective," hm?

[itshappening]

is this good for us or not? Imagine the banks running ads against Ron Paul or Rand!?!

[FrankRep]

What is Ron Paul's opinion on the McCain-Feingold Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act)?

[MsDoodahs]

My personal take on it is that it is bad for us, because the big corps can outdo any fundraising we can manage.

But I have no idea if this is right or not.

[NYgs23]

I don't see the great harm in making the fact that politicians are already backed by corporations more transparent. Frankly, I think a lot of people on this forum are too focused on winning elections. Freedom will not come by winning some elections. It will only come by changing the hearts and minds of the people. Even where we use the political means, it should primarily be about education. That was why Ron Paul entered politics in the first place, not to pass some bills, and that's why he's been so successful at retaining his principles. It's wasted energy, trying to grab hold of the state apparatus to try to impose freedom from the top down.

Let the corps and the unions run their ads, and we'll see how they stand. Personally, I'd like it if Company A runs ads supporting neocons and Company B runs ads supporting Peter Schiff or Rand Paul. Then I can boycott the one and patronize the other.

[NerveShocker]

Corporations are still voluntary associations of individuals. Perhaps married couples shouldn't have any rights because they're a "collective," hm?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. They have rights, of course, as free individuals but one shouldn't force the other to donate how they wish(which I suspect happens all the time in corporations). If you think corporations which many are entirely in bed with our government to the tune of taking billions of taxpayer money should have the same rights as individuals then feel free, as long as that last. ;) At least they won't be needing diebold anymore.

[Scofield]

Let the corps and the unions run their ads, and we'll see how they stand. Personally, I'd like it if Company A runs ads supporting neocons and Company B runs ads supporting Peter Schiff or Rand Paul. Then I can boycott the one and patronize the other.

What ads are you talking about? They will use this ability to buy our Congressmen. This will make it leaps and bounds easier for Corporations to get their dirty little hands into government. They aren't going to be putting ads on television, they are going to directly hand over money to your congressmen in turn for votes that favor their corporation. Subsidies, bailouts, tax breaks, and on and on.

You thought bailouts were bad in the past? You haven't seen shit yet.

I don't think people truly grasp the magnitude of shit the United States of America is in. This country is falling apart. It is only a matter of time before shit truly hits the fans.

[NYgs23]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. They have rights, of course, as free individuals but one shouldn't force the other to donate how they wish(which I suspect happens all the time in corporations). If you think corporations which many are entirely in bed with our government to the tune of taking billions of taxpayer money should have the same rights as individuals then feel free, as long as that last. ;) At least they won't be needing diebold anymore.

Corporations are VOLUNTARY organizations. They can't force anyone in them to donate to anything because anyone with in them can opt out of the corporation. Employees can quit, shareholders can remove their investments, customers can boycott them. Come on, people on this forum of all people should understand this fundamental distinction between an organization with forced membership and an organization with voluntary membership!

Yes, some corporations are in bed with the state. So are some individuals. The solution isn't to limit their rights, but to limit the state. Duh.

[NYgs23]

What ads are you talking about? They will use this ability to buy our Congressmen. This will make it leaps and bounds easier for Corporations to get their dirty little hands into government. They aren't going to be putting ads on television, they are going to directly hand over money to your congressmen in turn for votes that favor their corporation. Subsidies, bailouts, tax breaks, and on and on.

You thought bailouts were bad in the past? You haven't seen shit yet.

I don't think people truly grasp the magnitude of shit the United States of America is in. This country is falling apart. It is only a matter of time before shit truly hits the fans.

Um, the court decision didn't cover campaign donations, only ads. Dur! You think that doesn't go on already?? The solution isn't grabbing hold to the gun of the state to commit more aggression in our favor. Ridiculous! A lot of you have become way to worshipful of the Goddess of Democracy. She's a whore. She'll always be a whore. Sorry to surprise you. Fuck democracy, fuck elections, and fuck the state.

[NerveShocker]

Corporations are VOLUNTARY organizations. They can't force anyone in them to donate to anything because anyone with in them can opt out of the corporation. Employees can quit, shareholders can remove their investments, customers can boycott them. Come on, people on this forum of all people should understand this fundamental distinction between an organization with forced membership and an organization with voluntary membership!

Yes, some corporations are in bed with the state. So are some individuals. The solution isn't to limit their rights, but to limit the state. Duh.

Sigh. When you're losing a debate being obnoxious isn't the answer. I'm done talking to you.. your idealism vs realism ratio is too much for me to handle. The reality is this will hurt liberty and practical thinkers can see that but your so stuck in ideology you wouldn't know good from bad. In reality your shooting yourself in the foot but your too stubborn to admit it so I don't expect it. Good day -.^

I can't wait to hear Ron Paul speak on this ruling.. he never has been big on Fascism.

[constituent]

Why shouldn't people be allowed to donate?

[qwerty]

Why corporations need this kind of rights, when every individual have allready those rights as individuals...

[NYgs23]

Sigh. When you're losing a debate being obnoxious isn't the answer. I'm done talking to you.. your idealism vs realism ratio is too much for me to handle. The reality is this will hurt liberty and practical thinkers can see that but your so stuck in ideology you wouldn't know good from bad. In reality your shooting yourself in the foot but your too stubborn to admit it so I don't expect it. Good day -.^

Oh no, more "pragmatism." Somehow, it's "pragmatic" for liberty to give the state more power to enforce laws opposing free speech, as long as it's "only" those eeeevil corporations (it always starts with that one hated group, doesn't it?). Statism is liberty. Aggression is freedom. Black is white. That's practical!

And since when is some private group purchasing an ad with its own money fascism? There's no aggression there. Sorry.

[NerveShocker]

Why shouldn't people be allowed to donate?

Everyone is allowed to donate. The question is why when every free individual in a corporation or not has the right to donate do huge corporations need the right as well?

Answer: They don't.


Why corporations need this kind of rights, when every individual have allready those rights as individuals...

Thank You!

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul on the McCain-Feingold ( Campaign Reform Act )

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227633

[NYgs23]

Everyone is allowed to donate. The question is why when every free individual in a corporation or not has the right to donate do huge corporations need the right as well?

It's a group of people in contractual agreement who have pooled their capital. Certain executives make these decisions over this pool of capital because each individual owner of the capital (shareholder) has chosen to allow.

P.S. It's not about whether or not they "need" the right, but whether they have the right. They either have or they don't, and they have it.

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul on the McCain-Feingold ( Campaign Reform Act )

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227633

[NYgs23]

Free speech is bad!

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul on the McCain-Feingold ( Campaign Reform Act )

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227633

[MsDoodahs]

Corporations are VOLUNTARY organizations. They can't force anyone in them to donate to anything because anyone with in them can opt out of the corporation. Employees can quit, shareholders can remove their investments, customers can boycott them. Come on, people on this forum of all people should understand this fundamental distinction between an organization with forced membership and an organization with voluntary membership!

Yes, some corporations are in bed with the state. So are some individuals. The solution isn't to limit their rights, but to limit the state. Duh.

:o

okay okay okay.

[catdd]

implying that it didn't already belong to them?

+1000

[MsDoodahs]

+1

People, whether individual or part of a group/corporation, have always been free to donate to political candidates. It crosses a new threshold when the corporation itself can donate vast sums directly from its coffers into campaigns. Add in the fact that more and more corporations are living off the tit of the taxpayers in the form of subsidies and bailouts from a collapsing system and you essentially end up with the taxpayers paying for their own enslavement.

Did anyone see if there are limits on corporate contributions? If SCOTUS didn't address it then as of right now, there's nothing preventing GS from donating $500 million to whoever it wants, thus practically guaranteeing the candidate of their choice will win.

I wonder if this ruling wasn't handed down to put the squash on Liberty candidates that are actually doing well with private donations only. RP's $35million haul from small donors probably put the fear of god into some corporate hacks.

Unlimited sums can be spent by the corp up to the day of the election - no donations directly to the candidate by the corp, if I understand it correctly.

[constituent]

Unlimited sums can be spent by the corp up to the day of the election - no donations directly to the candidate by the corp, if I understand it correctly.

Awesome, so now we just start corporations to do our bidding.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's a group of people in contractual agreement who have pooled their capital. Certain executives make these decisions over this pool of capital because each individual owner of the capital (shareholder) has chosen to allow.


Executives of corporations take the opinion of shareholders into account just a little less than elected government officials. Shareholders (and regular employees) have zero say in how the executives spend the corporations money.

[georgiaboy]

Does the ruling also include those corporations who receive revenue directly from the federal government?

[NYgs23]

Executives of corporations take the opinion of shareholders into account just a little less than elected government officials. Shareholders (and regular employees) have zero say in how the executives spend the corporations money.

Totally, completely, absolutely irrelevant. The point is that the shareholder freely and voluntarily handed their money over to the executives with the understanding the executives will choose how to spend it. If they don't like the arrangement they can leave the arrangement. Otherwise, the executives can flush their shareholders down the toilet if they want or light on fire. Just so long as it's voluntary. You do understand the difference between voluntary interaction and aggression, don't you?

I can't believe I'm having these debates on RonPaulForums. Apparently, when Ron Paul supporters hear the word "corporation," they have the same reaction as neocons when they hear the word "terrorist." The rights of those people to do what they want with their property just doesn't count, I guess.

[AdamT]

is this good for us or not? Imagine the banks running ads against Ron Paul or Rand!?!

Good point. With endless funds created out of thin air :eek::eek:

[Promontorium]

I am not knowledgeable on this subject.

But if this ruling, in any way, removes limits from corporations while keeping limits on individuals, I do not support it.

If a man has $1 million to throw away, and a company has $1 million to throw away, the government shouldn't be telling either where they can't toss it. But if the man can only spend a fraction, while the corporation can spend the full amount, then we have a continuing problem.

There should not be limits on how much any person can spend on a campaign. I know there are, and I don't agree with that.

The threat is that the wealthy will buy elections. This is a theory that presumes the average voter is an idiot.

If the average voter is an idiot, then there are much bigger problems, and a campaign finance law will not save the ship.

I presume there is an equillibrium (assuming the laws of this Republic are honored) where more money will not produce more votes, or even more awareness of a candidate.

If this nation allows the kickbacks and favors and corporatism, then political seats will be seen as profit generators, and the amount of money a company would be willing to spend and expect a positive result will be substantial.


Idealy money going towards a campaign should be with hopes for a specific candidate's overall performance, not personal tributes to donors. If this were the case, then corporate donations would never be seen as objectively evil.

[devil21]

Unlimited sums can be spent by the corp up to the day of the election - no donations directly to the candidate by the corp, if I understand it correctly.

OK, so reading closer there's no limit on how much corporations can spend on advertising and other assorted campaign items but corps can not donate directly to a candidate. On the surface that sounds a little better than a bank just handing money directly to a candidate, however what I see happening is corps will start paying for rallies and other traditional political events while calling it advertising for the candidate, thus saving the candidate from having to pay out of the candidate's campaign fund. It would be the same as just giving money directly to the candidate to use for the same rallies. It won't stop at just radio/tv/internet ads. Not a good ruling for the People either way.



But if this ruling, in any way, removes limits from corporations while keeping limits on individuals, I do not support it.

That's a good point. I don't think individuals are prevented from spending as much as they want to advertise a candidate though. Remember Larry Lepard spent $100K of his own money for the US Today ads for Ron Paul. Surely that would have broken any existing limit. Anybody know for sure?

[low preference guy]

The Supreme court did the right thing.

Which enumerated power of the Constitution allows the Federal Government to restrict political donations of corporations?

[NYgs23]

The Supreme court did the right thing.

Which enumerated power of the Constitution allows the Federal Government to restrict political donations of corporations?

There are none, but apparently that doesn't matter when if it supposedly hinders our quest to impose freedom from the top down.

[Angel]

Free speech is bad!

Pretending that corporations are people is bad.

The forest is not the tree.

A corporation is an abstract concept, and does not truly exist, like people. Therefore, they do not have constitutional rights.

YouTube - Individualism vs. Collectivism Part 2 of 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMMmCNjsH2o&feature=related)

[FrankRep]

The Supreme court did the right thing.

Which enumerated power of the Constitution allows the Federal Government to restrict political donations of corporations?

Yes, they did.

Ron Paul is also against McCain-Feingold. UnConstitutional.

Ron Paul on the McCain-Feingold ( Campaign Reform Act )
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227633

[UK4Paul]

Solution: Go out... set up corporations... practice your entrepeneurial skills... make money... then donate to your libertarian candidate of choice. Win-win.

[MsDoodahs]

Solution: Go out... set up corporations... practice your entrepeneurial skills... make money... then donate to your libertarian candidate of choice. Win-win.

Yes, I realized (thanks to NYgs23) that my initial sense of a blow to the gut was based on my financial limitations more than anything else. :o

I need to read up on Corporate Personhood....

[NYgs23]

Pretending that corporations are people is bad.
A corporation is an abstract concept, and does not truly exist, like people. Therefore, they do not have constitutional rights.

So what your saying is that all the property supposedly owned by corporations (i.e. by the individual shareholders) is actually not actually owned by anyone, and we can just grab it for ourselves? Let the looting begin!

[devil21]

The Supreme court did the right thing.

Which enumerated power of the Constitution allows the Federal Government to restrict political donations of corporations?

Funny how the SCOTUS tends to rule in a constitutional manner when it benefits the corps, existing government and the status quo, instead of the people. I think you are technically correct but the problem is that it would be more widely accepted and praised as the "right ruling" if SCOTUS didn't rule so contrarily to the Constitution in all manner of things that would benefit the people. Can't have it both ways, and that's where the uproar comes from. SCOTUS is bought and paid for just like the rest of DC.

[Southron]

So what your saying is that all the property supposedly owned by corporations (i.e. by the individual shareholders) is actually not actually owned by anyone, and we can just grab it for ourselves? Let the looting begin!

Technically, that property is owned by "someone". Corporations are people too!

[low preference guy]

For those claiming that the ruling treats corporations as people: Stop making things up. Scalia writes (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/antonin-scalia-vs-john-paul-st?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+ Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29)for the majority:


The [First] Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals--and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is "speech" covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.

[NYgs23]

Funny how the SCOTUS tends to rule in a constitutional manner when it benefits the corps...

Perhaps, but that still doesn't make this ruling unconstitutional.

Corporations are indeed abstractions, but behind them are individuals. The actual owners of all the property belonging to the "corporation" are the shareholders who have voluntary pooled their money to form this entity. The Board of Directors are their selected representatives, and the Board hires the executives (CEO, CFO, etc.) Thus, the executives are really just employees of the shareholders, managing the shareholders' property on their behalf. So when the CEO and the others decide to spend company money on advertising, political or otherwise, the spending the shareholders' money on the behalf of the shareholders, who are their employers. If their employers--the shareholders--don't like the job they're doing, they can terminate the agreement by withdrawing their money from the company. If a large enough proportion of shareholders are unhappy, they can fire their employees outright through their representatives on the Board. Isn't that "democratic"? It also means that almost anyone, rich or poor, can become an "owner of the means of production," just like the Left supposedly wants, by buying stock. Sounds awfully left-wing to me, almost like a democratic workers' co-op. :rolleyes:

[NYgs23]

Corporations are people too!

Shareholders and their employees are people. But I guess according to some, they're not.

[Agorism]

Too bad they didn't expand individual donations too.

[MurrayMe]

See the original thread.

Corporations are artificial people. They have more rights than individuals and are not hed responsible to the extent individuals are. Their effect in politics is disastrous to the economy and freedom. This is legalizing and encouraging bribery. There is no way the donations from the vast majority of the population have a chance of compeating with a major corporation. They have absolutely NO business in politics.

-t

I agree.

[Mini-Me]

This was the correct decision according to the Constitution and the ideals of liberty, but I seriously question why THIS particular law was struck down NOW, while other restrictions are being left in place. Do you see what I'm saying? The problem I see is this:
When you "legalize freedom" in the wrong order, you can end up with a more tyrannical system on the whole. For instance, we have cable monopolies that operate under exclusive monopoly contracts with local governments. If you remove all other regulations from them first - without stripping them of their monopoly contracts and enabling competition - the end result of this "extra freedom" will be greater subjugation of people.

In my opinion, this ruling was being looked at specifically because of our success in leveraging individual donors in 2007/2008. As devil21 said, it adds insult to injury that we know bailout whores are going to use our own tax money against us. That said, on second thought, I don't think this will hurt us all that much. There are two reasons for this:
First, we can use this to our advantage. This ruling enables us to start up our own corporation to funnel unlimited "donations" to, where donations are contractual business agreements that the corporation spends the money in a certain way on promoting pro-liberty candidates (i.e. as opposed to taking it and running with it ;)). The big advantage to donating directly to candidates has always been pooling the money of supporters for buying power...now, we can do this without spending limits. (Then again, not too many people are able to max out as it is anyway...)
Second, while the establishment's fundraising ability helps them, the truth is, they have much stronger weapons anyway that we've already been dealing with. The establishment hand-picks candidates to run. The establishment media gives constant, free media coverage to these candidates that ours do not receive, and the establishment media tells people which candidates are viable. That free coverage is priceless. Nothing's changing there, and extra establishment fundraising ability isn't all that threatening in comparison to what we've been facing all along. Finally, do you really think the law ever truly limited the establishment itself in terms of campaign spending? Shit, the Federal Reserve and government can't account for hundreds of billions of dollars, and we're told to accept this, yet we're expected to think Goldman Sachs, etc. has always played by the rules during elections? LOL.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Shareholders and their employees are people. But I guess according to some, they're not.

An individual is limited in how much they can donate.
An individual gets one vote. Granted, a corp can't vote, but they can influence votes.
This is basically buying owed favors - things like laws and regulations that will put their competition out of business, or send sole source contracts their way. It's legalizing bribery - plain and simple. It's legalizing theft from taxpayers, through government intervention and directing the proceeds to a corporation. If the government wasn't the middleman, you would go to jail for this. It's criminal.

-t

[LibForestPaul]

1.This is not DONATING to a candidate, too many people not reading the ruling.

2. This IS about a corporation using its own money to pay for speech endorsing or rejecting a particular candidate/group/idea.


Q: Does the government have the authority to
1)Restrict the speech of a public corporation
2)Restrict the speech of a private corporation
3)Restrict the speech of a private citizen who has incorporated?

I would say Y,N,N at best. Likely N,N,N.

Secondly, why is speech during an election different than that same speech after an election?

[Southron]

1.This is not DONATING to a candidate, too many people not reading the ruling.

2. This IS about a corporation using its own money to pay for speech endorsing or rejecting a particular candidate/group/idea.


Q: Does the government have the authority to
1)Restrict the speech of a public corporation
2)Restrict the speech of a private corporation
3)Restrict the speech of a private citizen who has incorporated?

I would say Y,N,N at best. Likely N,N,N.

Secondly, why is speech during an election different than that same speech after an election?

I would ask does the government have the authority to grant immunity from liability to people who control corporations?

[UK4Paul]

Yes, I realized (thanks to NYgs23) that my initial sense of a blow to the gut was based on my financial limitations more than anything else. :o

I need to read up on Corporate Personhood....

If I recall, the Rich Dad Poor Dad series by Guy Kawasaki is pretty good for understanding money and corporations on a personal level... I think he has a book in this brand which deals with setting up and running a corporation as an individual.

Just think, soon we could know you as MsDoodahs, Inc. :D

[NYgs23]

An individual is limited in how much they can donate.
An individual gets one vote. Granted, a corp can't vote, but they can influence votes.
This is basically buying owed favors - things like laws and regulations that will put their competition out of business, or send sole source contracts their way.

For the second time, this is about corporations buying ads not donating to candidates.

[MsDoodahs]

If I recall, the Rich Dad Poor Dad series by Guy Kawasaki is pretty good for understanding money and corporations on a personal level... I think he has a book in this brand which deals with setting up and running a corporation as an individual.

Just think, soon we could know you as MsDoodahs, Inc. :D

lol....

[ChaosControl]

I oppose this ruling. If anything I say the SC needs to overturn their prior ruling on corporate personhood. Corporations are not people and should not be legal persons.

[akforme]

I oppose this ruling. If anything I say the SC needs to overturn their prior ruling on corporate personhood. Corporations are not people and should not be legal persons.

You'd need to re-write the 14th and anyone who touches it will be labeled a racists.

But I'm on the fence about this. MF only dealt with for what I understand soft money and interest advertising. The law protected the ruling class because you and I couldn't afford the paper work to do anything, or regulations so to speak. However, GS or JP had lawyers on top of lawyers who could do it in a heart beat.

[CUnknown]

I think that corporations should not have any right to give to politicians at all. The individuals that make up the corporations should have unlimited rights to give, just like all individuals should have.

This is a horrible decision with potentially disastrous consequences.

[Angel]

So what your saying is that all the property supposedly owned by corporations (i.e. by the individual shareholders) is actually not actually owned by anyone, and we can just grab it for ourselves? Let the looting begin!

No. Where in my statements did you get that idea? That's a bit of a stretch. Please explain what logic you used to come to that conclusion.

If you OWN a corporation, then IT is property.

If a corporation is the same as a person, and it has rights, and someone owns it, isn't that slavery? Shouldn't they die at some point? If they break the law, can a corporation be sent to prison instead of it's CEO or owner? If one corporation takes over another and dissolves it's assets, isn't that murder?

The shareholders are people, the CEO is a person. They have the same rights as John Q. Public down the street. What they don't have the right to do is create a legal non-entity (i.e., a corporation) and give it human rights. It isn't Pinocchio.

[NYgs23]

No. Where in my statements did you get that idea? That's a bit of a stretch. Please explain what logic you used to come to that conclusion.

That's where you ideas lead. When we talk about a "corporation" funding an advertisement, which is what this is about, we're actually talking about a group of shareholders funding an advertisement through their employees, who act as proxies. What's the difference? Thus, when you say that a corporation isn't allowed to fund an advertisement what you're really saying is that this association of individuals isn't allowed to fund an advertisement with their own pool of resources.


If a corporation is the same as a person, and it has rights, and someone owns it, isn't that slavery? Shouldn't they die at some point? If they break the law, can a corporation be sent to prison instead of it's CEO or owner? If one corporation takes over another and dissolves it's assets, isn't that murder?

The shareholders are people, the CEO is a person. They have the same rights as John Q. Public down the street. What they don't have the right to do is create a legal non-entity (i.e., a corporation) and give it human rights. It isn't Pinocchio.

Ralph Nader, is that you? Legal personhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juristic_person) means that the individuals are treated as one unit for certain purposes, like lawsuits. It applies not just to businesses but to governments, political parties, non-profits, and other groups. You can disagree with the concept, but there's no need to caricature it.

In any case, it has nothing to do with this. A corporation could purchase an advertisement just as easily without legal personhood. This really is about what a group of individuals are allowed to do with their own property. Are individuals not allowed to pool their resources to fund an ad? That's all that's going on here.

[Angel]

In any case, it has nothing to do with this. A corporation could purchase an advertisement just as easily without legal personhood. This really is about what a group of individuals are allowed to do with their own property. Are individuals not allowed to pool their resources to fund an ad? That's all that's going on here.

OK, I am going to presume that everyone here agrees with most of Ron Paul's stances. A major one is the elimination of the Federal reserve. Let's say Paul or a candidate who is in favor of ending the Fed gets the the nomination. This past election cycle, both Obama and McCain spent a combined 1 billion dollars. Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, paid out tens of billions of dollars in bonuses to their employees.

Now, maybe Goldman Sachs decides, hey, we love the Fed, and we could lose a ton of money from its elimination. Without breaking a sweat, they could throw a billion into ads, PACs, basically anything short of handing his opponent a check for the money, now thanks to this court case (yes, it does deal with more than just ads because it effectively overturns a 100-year-old law banning corporate donations to candidates, not to mention Taft Hartley). When they're done with their political ad campaign, the Paul candidate will be made out to be Satan himself to the voters.

In short, any candidate that is NOT willing to serve corporate interests over American citizens will never make it to office, period.

Oh, and most corporations that do business in America are foreign owned with foreign employees. So our fate will be decided by people who do not live in the US.

You think that this is extending rights to people, but what it really is doing is further eliminating the ability of the people as a whole to run their own country.

[NYgs23]

OK, I am going to presume that everyone here agrees with most of Ron Paul's stances. A major one is the elimination of the Federal reserve. Let's say Paul or a candidate who is in favor of ending the Fed gets the the nomination. This past election cycle, both Obama and McCain spent a combined 1 billion dollars. Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, paid out tens of billions of dollars in bonuses to their employees.

Now, maybe Goldman Sachs decides, hey, we love the Fed, and we could lose a ton of money from its elimination. Without breaking a sweat, they could throw a billion into ads, PACs, basically anything short of handing his opponent a check for the money, now thanks to this court case (yes, it does deal with more than just ads because it effectively overturns a 100-year-old law banning corporate donations to candidates, not to mention Taft Hartley). When they're done with their political ad campaign, the Paul candidate will be made out to be Satan himself to the voters.

In short, any candidate that is NOT willing to serve corporate interests over American citizens will never make it to office, period.

Oh, and most corporations that do business in America are foreign owned with foreign employees. So our fate will be decided by people who do not live in the US.

Even if everything you said is true, it doesn't justify the use of aggression. If you're willing to use aggression to achieve your political goals, you're advocating evil. The ends don't justify the means. If the state has the power to use force to prevent corporations from engaging in political activism, it also has the power to prevent you from engaging in political activism.


You think that this is extending rights to people, but what it really is doing is further eliminating the ability of the people as a whole to run their own country.

What's "The People"? I oppose democracy. I support individual liberty, and it will never, never, never, never come because you were fortunate enough to vote the right guy into office and pass the right bill. Never, never, never, not in a million years. Sorry.

[akforme]

OK, I am going to presume that everyone here agrees with most of Ron Paul's stances. A major one is the elimination of the Federal reserve. Let's say Paul or a candidate who is in favor of ending the Fed gets the the nomination. This past election cycle, both Obama and McCain spent a combined 1 billion dollars. Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, paid out tens of billions of dollars in bonuses to their employees.

Now, maybe Goldman Sachs decides, hey, we love the Fed, and we could lose a ton of money from its elimination. Without breaking a sweat, they could throw a billion into ads, PACs, basically anything short of handing his opponent a check for the money, now thanks to this court case (yes, it does deal with more than just ads because it effectively overturns a 100-year-old law banning corporate donations to candidates, not to mention Taft Hartley). When they're done with their political ad campaign, the Paul candidate will be made out to be Satan himself to the voters.

In short, any candidate that is NOT willing to serve corporate interests over American citizens will never make it to office, period.

Oh, and most corporations that do business in America are foreign owned with foreign employees. So our fate will be decided by people who do not live in the US.

You think that this is extending rights to people, but what it really is doing is further eliminating the ability of the people as a whole to run their own country.


I'm pretty sure that's the case now. I'm on the fence, what does make me wonder is how the MSM is selling this.

They had a loophole with the 527 ads for what I understand so it basically made a monopoly for the corps that knew the loophole.

I'm not saying that's right, just what my take is on it at this point. I'm still researching it.

[KAYA]

freedom won today. now lets continue to march together.

Freedom lost big.

The consequences of this ruling will kill the liberty movement if we don't fight back. Don't believe me? Just take Rand Paul's run in KY; he is out raising the establishment candidate because of the individual contributions of liberty loving patriots but now Greyson can go out and sell his campaign to the highest bidder. And I'm sorry but we just can't compete against the Goldman Sachs and Exons of the world.

While this ruling may have been constitutional, the consequences will be devastating. I'm afraid it may take a constitutional amendment if the people hope to have any chance of taking the government back.

[dgr]

Has anyone in the Supreme Court read the Johnson Amendment, so tax exempt groups are denied free speech but tax evading corporations are entitled to it.

[Angel]

Even if everything you said is true, it doesn't justify the use of aggression. If you're willing to use aggression to achieve your political goals, you're advocating evil. The ends don't justify the means.

Sorry, you just described the founding of this nation. Our country exists because a group of Colonialists used aggression to achieve their political goals and I'm pretty certain they felt justified in using it against the British. I see corporations, especially international corporations with no allegiance to the US, a BIG form of aggression to my individual liberty and to this country as it was founded.

You seem so eager to sell this country off to the highest bidder. I wonder why.


If the state has the power to use force to prevent corporations from engaging in political activism, it also has the power to prevent you from engaging in political activism.

No, it is the Constitution that does not permit the State from preventing me from engaging in political activism. If we individuals do not reclaim our power to choose a government that protects our right to self-govern, we lose everything. Why trade an oppressive State, of which we still have some influence over, for a corporation that cares nothing for individual freedom, only profit? Do you REALLY believe that these corporations really give a flying F about my or your individual freedom. Please! Their only interest is their bottom line, which, frankly is how it should be. Which brings us right back to the heart of the matter:

The Constitution is for individual living, breathing humans, not for some intangible abstract concept invented by law for the purpose of commerce.

I don't know how much clearer I can put it.

[NYgs23]

Sorry, you just described the founding of this nation. Our country exists because a group of Colonialists used aggression to achieve their political goals and I'm pretty certain they felt justified in using it against the British. I see corporations, especially international corporations with no allegiance to the US, a BIG form of aggression to my individual liberty and to this country as it was founded.

You seem so eager to sell this country off to the highest bidder. I wonder why.

No, it is the Constitution that does not permit the State from preventing me from engaging in political activism. If we individuals do not reclaim our power to choose a government that protects our right to self-govern, we lose everything. Why trade an oppressive State, of which we still have some influence over, for a corporation that cares nothing for individual freedom, only profit? Do you REALLY believe that these corporations really give a flying F about my or your individual freedom. Please! Their only interest is their bottom line, which, frankly is how it should be. Which brings us right back to the heart of the matter:

The Constitution is for individual living, breathing humans, not for some intangible abstract concept invented by law for the purpose of commerce.

I don't know how much clearer I can put it.

I don't know where to begin with your absurd rhetoric. For the umpteenth time, corporations are associations of individuals. Cut the wild-eyed populist rhetoric about "corporate people who don't eat and breathe." That's not what this is about. This is about the rights of the individuals within the corporations to do what they want with their own money.


I see corporations, especially international corporations with no allegiance to the US, a BIG form of aggression to my individual liberty and to this country as it was founded.

Nationalistic nonsense. 6.2 billion people have no loyalty to this country. Is that aggression against you? You don't know what aggression is. Aggression is when you send some guys with guns to haul off some people who spent money on an advertisement because you don't like the structure of their association and think its insufficiently nationalistic.


Why trade an oppressive State, of which we still have some influence over, for a corporation that cares nothing for individual freedom, only profit? Do you REALLY believe that these corporations really give a flying F about my or your individual freedom. Please! Their only interest is their bottom line...

I mean, I could go to Democratic Underground for this...Businesses don't generally behave aggressively towards you. States do. That's the difference. The fact that you vote every few years has nothing to do with it. The fact that businessmen are "greedy" (and politicians aren't???) has nothing to do with it either.

I'm sure some individuals within some corporations care about liberty and some don't. Likewise with individuals who aren't in corporations. What does that have to do with anything? People have an absolutely right do to what they want with their own property; the fact that they've pooled it into an organization they called a corporation doesn't negate that.

I think you care more about democracy (majoritarianism) than liberty and more about the sovereign United States than the sovereign individual.

[dr. hfn]

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Corporations are not individuals! They do not deserve the rights of individuals!

[NerveShocker]

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Corporations are not individuals! They do not deserve the rights of individuals!

D00d they're made up of individuals bro so they are the same thing only as a collective. ;) Muahaha

[Alawn]

In a free market corporations do not exist.

[Stary Hickory]

Well this is a good thing if corporations would not get fascist unconstitutional favors from government. The problem is they do get these things, and so in essence they are renting the guns and goon squads of the government to quash competition.

This is where the real issue is. If we followed the constitution it would not matter if corporations gave trillions to candidates....in fact it would make them less competitive because of all the overhead donating to politicians.

Who initiated this in the Supreme Court? Why now this decision? Who is behind it and what do they expect to gain?

[Angel]

I mean, I could go to Democratic Underground for this...Businesses don't generally behave aggressively towards you. States do. That's the difference. The fact that you vote every few years has nothing to do with it. .

Sigh. You just don't get it. Fine. Hear it straight from Ron Paul then:

YouTube - Ron Paul: Freedom to Fascism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F67ZFpuZwl4)

A longer version of the interview:

YouTube - Ron Paul on NBC: U.S. Moving Toward "Soft Fascism" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvl_hQ80ZNQ)

The Supreme Court judges who were appointed by the same people who brought you the Patriot Act have just made a huge shift to "soft fascism".

But, hey, at least you'll be able to freely give your money to corporations for political activism.

Oh, and I could go to Red State to have this argument as well.

[UtahApocalypse]

Lets use this to our advantage.

I create a corp. called "Ron Paul Stuff inc." I then put up bumper stickers for $100 each. Now since in reality the total cost including shipping is maybe $3 I have $97 profit that my Corporation may decide to give to a certain campaign.

now some math......

Joe gives: $2300.00 to RP2012 Campaign
Joe Buys 200 "Ron Paul Stuff" Bumper Stickers: $2000.00
Ron Paul Stuff inc ships them in bulk for $10, and cost of product totals $100.00

So now Ron Paul Stuff can take that $1890.00 profit and donate to a campaign.

Joe now now has 200 Bumper Stickers to put up around town.

The campaign has Joe's Donation of $2300.00
The campaign now has "Ron Paul Stuff inc" donation of $1890.00
For a total of $4190.00

Now think if 1000 people bought stickers? what is someone decided to buy 10,000 Bumper Stickers?

We can make this work for us :)

[devil21]

^^^
Its not direct campaign contributions, just the unlimited ability to "advertise" for or against a candidate.

But I like how you're thinking. They WILL find and use a loophole. We can too.

[NYgs23]

The Supreme Court judges who were appointed by the same people who brought you the Patriot Act have just made a huge shift to "soft fascism".

But, hey, at least you'll be able to freely give your money to corporations for political activism.


Just because something involves a corporation doesn't make it fascism. A corporation is just a business model.

Congress has zero authority to muzzle anybody from purchasing an advertisement, and I think you know it, and are just thinking like a political animal, more worried about winning elections than anything else.

I've started I new thread about this here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227830) that lays out my position in more detail.

[Angel]

Just because something involves a corporation doesn't make it fascism. A corporation is just a business model.

Until it injects itself into government and seeks to control it. Then it is Fascism.

[NYgs23]

Until it injects itself into government and seeks to control it. Then it is Fascism.

Spending money on an advertisement isn't "injecting itself into govt." In any case, the problem isn't the corporations and the dastardly influence they wield, it's the govt itself. Would I rather have a state controlled by for-profit businesses, a state controlled by bureaucrats and technocrats, a state controlled by a hereditary aristocracy, or a state controlled by a majoritarian mob? Frankly, I don't care all that much. They're all bad, because they're all states!!!!

[low preference guy]

Well done NYgs23. I don't have the patience to explain, but it's a good thing that you do.

[Angel]

Spending money on an advertisement isn't "injecting itself into govt." In any case, the problem isn't the corporations and the dastardly influence they wield, it's the govt itself. Would I rather have a state controlled by for-profit businesses, a state controlled by bureaucrats and technocrats, a state controlled by a hereditary aristocracy, or a state controlled by a majoritarian mob? Frankly, I don't care all that much. They're all bad, because they're all states!!!!

Ah I see. You are against all forms of States, including a Republic. My bad. I did not realize I was debating with an advocate of anarchism. Thanks for clarifying.

[dantheman]

So we're going to let Hugo Chavez in on our elections now? Petróleos de Venezuela owns Citgo. So are we going to let Chavez buy air time on TV to advertise for or against whichever candidate he likes best? Is this what the Founding Fathers intended by our democratic republican form of government?!

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - A Non-Deranged, Law-Based Special Comment! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFGpoxnbfeI&feature=player_embedded)

[romacox]

Chavez and:

"Uderstand also that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and as such would also be allowed to wage advertising campaigns for or against candidates on local, state and federal levels. If allowed unlimited spending, the Fed obviously has an unlimited supply of money. They can create it at will and spend it - as they have - with no oversight or direction by the people. They are a private corporation!"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2509474#post2509474

[Pauls' Revere]

Shareholders and their employees are people. But I guess according to some, they're not.

they are but a corporation is not, yet has rights as though they are. Sounds like a circular arguement to me...can this dog chase it's tail any faster?

[Pauls' Revere]

The propoganda that will come from the ads will have a huge impact on our pysch as a people. Wow, cant wait for the religous corporations, eco, guns, toxic waste, gay rights corp, etc...to jump outta the wood work.

Propoganda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

techniques of propoganda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques

[Pauls' Revere]

Chavez and:

"Uderstand also that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and as such would also be allowed to wage advertising campaigns for or against candidates on local, state and federal levels. If allowed unlimited spending, the Fed obviously has an unlimited supply of money. They can create it at will and spend it - as they have - with no oversight or direction by the people. They are a private corporation!"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2509474#post2509474

Do we have oversight as shareholders?

[angelatc]

The propoganda that will come from the ads will have a huge impact on our pysch as a people. Wow, cant wait for the religous corporations, eco, guns, toxic waste, gay rights corp, etc...to jump outta the wood work.

Propoganda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

techniques of propoganda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques

Why do you think they're not doing this already?

And should we only support the constitution when we think it will benefit us? I thought we believed in small government, but maybe I'm confused.

[low preference guy]

Pauls' Revere. Take a look at the questions below.

Glenn Greenwald writes (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/permalink/4516d48dcb324ddf1abb5ca09235aea1.html):


So I'll ask again -- of you and anyone who claims that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights under the Constitution:

Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?

Do they have the right to do that to the offices of labor unions?

How about your local business on the corner which is incorporated?

The only thing stopping them from doing this is the Fourth Amendment. If you believe that corporations have no constitutional rights because they're not persons, what possible objections could you voice if Congress empowered the FBI to do these things?

Can they seize the property (the buildings and cars and bank accounts) of those entities without due process or just compensation? If you believe that corporations have no Constitutional rights, what possible constitutional objections could you have to such laws and actions?

Could Congress pass a law tomorrow providing that any corporation - including non-profit advocacy groups -- which criticize American wars shall be fined $100,000 for each criticism? What possible constitutional objection could you have to that?

[angelatc]

In any case, it has nothing to do with this. A corporation could purchase an advertisement just as easily without legal personhood. This really is about what a group of individuals are allowed to do with their own property. Are individuals not allowed to pool their resources to fund an ad? That's all that's going on here.

And when they're allowed to do it. Again, the case that brought this on was a documentary that was critical of Hillary Clinton. The government made it illegal for the people that made the movie to show the movie during a certain period of time before an election.

If we had made a movie critical of McCain or Obama, we'd be furious if the government made it illegal for us to show it.

[NYgs23]

they are but a corporation is not, yet has rights as though they are. Sounds like a circular arguement to me...can this dog chase it's tail any faster?

A corporation only has "rights" as a composite of its constituent individuals, just like a married couples has "rights" as a composite of its constituent individuals. It has no rights rights above or beyond or apart from the rights of it's individuals. That's a myth made up by left-wing anti-business types.

Campaign Finance Reform Is Bad. Corporations Are Good. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228047)

[NYgs23]

If we had made a movie critical of McCain or Obama, we'd be furious if the government made it illegal for us to show it.

Unless we were incorporated. Then we'd be eeeeeeeeevillllll.

[CUnknown]

NYgs23 said:

That's not what this is about. This is about the rights of the individuals within the corporations to do what they want with their own money.

These individuals were always allowed to spend their money as they wanted, within the limits that affect everyone (I believe it is $2400?). The problem lies, not with the individuals that make up the corporations, but with the corporations themselves -- they are allowed to spend unlimited sums of money now! Why should they have the right to free speech, or any rights at all that the people do not wish for them to have? They are not people. They have no right to interfere in our democracy.


I think you care more about democracy (majoritarianism) than liberty and more about the sovereign United States than the sovereign individual.

It seems to me that you care more about the sovereign corporation than the sovereign individual. Corporations should have no rights at all that the people do not wish for them to have. I can't imagine anyone actually wanting them to hijack our democracy. Please tell me you stand for freedom over fascism? Being a Ron Paul supporter (I assume)?