The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 518

scaeagles · 01-21-2010, 10:52 AM

I've long thought them to be unconstitutional. I view it as restrictive of free speech. It specifically banned groups from run ads mentioning specific candidates within 60 days of an election. They could be corporations, advocacy groups, me and my freakin' neighbor pooling our money, whatever. I think that's wrong.

Alex · 01-21-2010, 12:01 PM

I too do not approve of McCain Feingold or any other limitations on my ability to participate in the political process by use of my own money.

I have no problem with saying that only human individuals are allowed to participate in the process and am fine with barring institutions from financial involvement. But if I want to put my entire salary and effort behind getting my convenience store clerk elected to the U.S. Senate I do believe that should be my right.

Haven't yet read the news to see what parts were overturned.

Ghoulish Delight · 01-21-2010, 06:17 PM

I'm with Alex. Haven't seen details, but from what I've been hearing from the people who are happy about this decision, I disagree that it's a free speech issue. The Constitution protects individuals, not collective entities. Is the fact that corporations and unions don't have a vote in elections restricting their constitutional rights? I doubt anyone would say so, but restricting their speech is?

No law prevents individuals that are part of the entities from exercising their right to free speech. If the CEO of Enron wants to spend their money to run ads for a write in campaign for Cheney in 2012, they are free too and rightly should not be restricted. But I do not believe the same rights extend beyond the individual to collective entities like unions and corporations. Totally different ball of wax.

But either way, I look forward to the outcries from conservative Republicans about this sweeping, irresponsible abuse of power by a bunch of activist judges.

JWBear · 01-21-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

But either way, I look forward to the outcries from conservative Republicans about this sweeping, irresponsible abuse of power by a bunch of activist judges.

You won't hear it.

€uroMeinke · 01-21-2010, 08:22 PM

Somehow when a collective is called a corporation its no longer communist

scaeagles · 01-22-2010, 06:46 AM

You won't find me ever saying overturning a law as unconstitutional is outside the purview of the SCOTUS. I think legislation from the bench comes in forms of a judge saying "yuou must rewrite the property tax distribution for schools in AZ because I don't think it's fair". That kind of crap.

Based on your interpratation of the first amendment, then GD, I suppose the government could ban churches. As long as people can worship within their own homes their rights aren't being infringed upon. As I read the first amendment, it says "Congress shall make NO law".

In all seriousness, though, would you view groups such as the NRA as different than a corporation?

Alex · 01-22-2010, 07:31 AM

I'll start to buy into that when corporations give up the legal benefits they have that individual people do not have (corporations exist solely to protect individuals from the possible negative consequences of their actions. They don't get to be a "person" only when it benefits would be my view.

Yes, corporations are essentially a collective of people (the shareholders) but the speech of a corporation is only secondarily a form of expression by those people as there is no requirement that the people speaking for the corporation be owners nor that they make any attempt to consult with the owners before making such expressions.

Heck, part of this suit (unsuccessful) was that corporations wanted to not have to report their involvement in the political process which would allow them to mask their speech from their owners.

Another consideration is that for most publicly traded corporations a significant portion of the "free speech" interest is held by non-Americans. Since when do they have a right to participation in our political process?

Mostly my objection (and I won't claim at this point it is based in constitutional reality, though the constitution has nothing to say about corporations, they are entirely legislative entities) is that when it comes to the "personhood" of corporations they seem to get to pick and choose how real that metaphor will be from situation to situation making for a form of "heads I win, tails you lose."

I do recognize that this creates a conflict. Why, for example, does the Tribune Company, a corporation, get to say whatever it wants about the political process at any time in the political process but Microsoft would not? It's a very valid point, but my gut feeling here is that this resolution to the question was in the wrong direction.

As for the NRA, since they are an incorporated organization I would say no, they're no different.

JWBear · 01-22-2010, 10:00 AM

Also... this ruling allows companies to contribute as much as they wish on an election, while you and I are still limited to $2400. How fair is that?

Alex · 01-22-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

Also... this ruling allows companies to contribute as much as they wish on an election, while you and I are still limited to $2400. How fair is that?

No, that's not right. Corporations are still limited like everybody else on direct contributions to candidates.

This just means they can spend as much of their corporate money as they want on their own political advocacy during certain periods before an election. You and I could already do that, if I had a billion dollars no law would prevent me from running my own commercials saying "Vote for Bob" so long as they were produced independently of Bob.

01-21-2010, 10:32 AM	#1
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	Why? __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

01-21-2010, 10:52 AM	#2
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I've long thought them to be unconstitutional. I view it as restrictive of free speech. It specifically banned groups from run ads mentioning specific candidates within 60 days of an election. They could be corporations, advocacy groups, me and my freakin' neighbor pooling our money, whatever. I think that's wrong.
	Submit to Quotes

01-21-2010, 12:01 PM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I too do not approve of McCain Feingold or any other limitations on my ability to participate in the political process by use of my own money. I have no problem with saying that only human individuals are allowed to participate in the process and am fine with barring institutions from financial involvement. But if I want to put my entire salary and effort behind getting my convenience store clerk elected to the U.S. Senate I do believe that should be my right. Haven't yet read the news to see what parts were overturned.
	Submit to Quotes

01-21-2010, 06:17 PM	#4
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	I'm with Alex. Haven't seen details, but from what I've been hearing from the people who are happy about this decision, I disagree that it's a free speech issue. The Constitution protects individuals, not collective entities. Is the fact that corporations and unions don't have a vote in elections restricting their constitutional rights? I doubt anyone would say so, but restricting their speech is? No law prevents individuals that are part of the entities from exercising their right to free speech. If the CEO of Enron wants to spend their money to run ads for a write in campaign for Cheney in 2012, they are free too and rightly should not be restricted. But I do not believe the same rights extend beyond the individual to collective entities like unions and corporations. Totally different ball of wax. But either way, I look forward to the outcries from conservative Republicans about this sweeping, irresponsible abuse of power by a bunch of activist judges. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

01-21-2010, 08:22 PM	#6
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	Somehow when a collective is called a corporation its no longer communist __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

01-22-2010, 06:46 AM	#7
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	You won't find me ever saying overturning a law as unconstitutional is outside the purview of the SCOTUS. I think legislation from the bench comes in forms of a judge saying "yuou must rewrite the property tax distribution for schools in AZ because I don't think it's fair". That kind of crap. Based on your interpratation of the first amendment, then GD, I suppose the government could ban churches. As long as people can worship within their own homes their rights aren't being infringed upon. As I read the first amendment, it says "Congress shall make NO law". In all seriousness, though, would you view groups such as the NRA as different than a corporation?
	Submit to Quotes

01-22-2010, 07:31 AM	#8
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'll start to buy into that when corporations give up the legal benefits they have that individual people do not have (corporations exist solely to protect individuals from the possible negative consequences of their actions. They don't get to be a "person" only when it benefits would be my view. Yes, corporations are essentially a collective of people (the shareholders) but the speech of a corporation is only secondarily a form of expression by those people as there is no requirement that the people speaking for the corporation be owners nor that they make any attempt to consult with the owners before making such expressions. Heck, part of this suit (unsuccessful) was that corporations wanted to not have to report their involvement in the political process which would allow them to mask their speech from their owners. Another consideration is that for most publicly traded corporations a significant portion of the "free speech" interest is held by non-Americans. Since when do they have a right to participation in our political process? Mostly my objection (and I won't claim at this point it is based in constitutional reality, though the constitution has nothing to say about corporations, they are entirely legislative entities) is that when it comes to the "personhood" of corporations they seem to get to pick and choose how real that metaphor will be from situation to situation making for a form of "heads I win, tails you lose." I do recognize that this creates a conflict. Why, for example, does the Tribune Company, a corporation, get to say whatever it wants about the political process at any time in the political process but Microsoft would not? It's a very valid point, but my gut feeling here is that this resolution to the question was in the wrong direction. As for the NRA, since they are an incorporated organization I would say no, they're no different.
	Submit to Quotes

01-22-2010, 10:00 AM	#9
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	Also... this ruling allows companies to contribute as much as they wish on an election, while you and I are still limited to $2400. How fair is that? __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes