If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC) NewsFlash Portion of campaign finance law declared unconstitutional   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 359
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

10405 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 May 2003 at 4:32 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

359 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2003-05-02 04:35:08 PM
No shiat.
 
2003-05-02 04:36:57 PM

I can't wait for us to install this type of democracy in Iraq.


"A vote for Muhammed Al-Sharif is a vote for TEXACO !"

 
2003-05-02 04:37:06 PM
Nuts.
 
2003-05-02 04:37:47 PM
woohoo special interests can now do campaign ads.

Bush to McCain - kiss my ass.
 
2003-05-02 04:37:52 PM
Damn, that pesky Constitution. If only the courts would give equal consideration to the other parts of the Constituion besides the first amendment.
 
2003-05-02 04:37:54 PM
"And in return I will teach you how to make one million dollar. You say WHAT!? I don't believe. So simple. no skill involved at all."


I'm w0nky.
 
2003-05-02 04:37:57 PM
I knew it was too good to be true. :(
 
2003-05-02 04:38:00 PM
Obvious.
 
2003-05-02 04:38:12 PM
Everyone head for the hills!
 
2003-05-02 04:38:24 PM
Good to see the courts standing up for the little guy....and by little guy I mean huge multinational corporations.
 
2003-05-02 04:38:59 PM
govern next year's high-stakes presidential election

When is the presidential race not high-stakes?!
 
2003-05-02 04:39:19 PM
$cientologists for Bush!
 
2003-05-02 04:39:20 PM
Thank goodness.....

The 2004 Election has been brought to you by Pepsi....


$ Grep 'sarcasm' post | more
 
2003-05-02 04:39:24 PM
Holy CRAPP!



This affects me in absolutely no WAY!

PS
I like steak.
 
2003-05-02 04:39:32 PM
Farking unions! Fark them. Fark. Farkers.
 
2003-05-02 04:39:51 PM
This is should get a "Obvious" tag

it was a total attack on the first amendment. Not limiting Political speech is what the first amendment is about
 
2003-05-02 04:39:54 PM
Ignore_This_Post:

You only listed corporations - you're forgetting union political contributions. So it would also be NEA-AFLCIO-America.
 
2003-05-02 04:40:12 PM
I'm gonna be lazy and just let you farkers tell me what to make of all this.
 
2003-05-02 04:40:38 PM
This court decision was b(r)ought to you by the good people of Halliburton
 
2003-05-02 04:41:23 PM
I can't wait to read the rational on this one once the Justices opinions are published.

If they are defending a corporations right to free speach I just may move to Cannada. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE AND WERE NEVER MEANT TO BE. THEY STARTED AS A LIABILITY SHEILD IN SHIPPING!!!!!!
 
2003-05-02 04:41:42 PM
*yawn*
 
2003-05-02 04:41:55 PM
Reaper-

Excellent impersonation of the voting public watching political ads.
 
2003-05-02 04:42:08 PM
The Incumbent Protection Act is dead!


WOOT!

/work surrenders today
 
2003-05-02 04:42:27 PM
I feel that somehow, someway, my third amendment rights are being violated here.

Get out of my house!

Back to politics as usual I guess. Down with the grassroots - as long as big business is happy, the country will be happy.

Just think kids, someday, you can have a corporation buy you an election. If that fails, of course, you can just have the Supreme Court give you one.
 
2003-05-02 04:42:54 PM
Placing a $1000 limit om political contributins violates the part of the Constituion that says, "Congress shall make NO law abidging freedom of speech"?

In other news...the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. And two plus two equals four.
 
2003-05-02 04:43:35 PM
The apathy regarding this irritates me, but I must admit that it's probably better for the circulation.
 
2003-05-02 04:43:38 PM
Onyx_Crown_knight

It's not JUST corporations' rights to free speech - it's any organization at all. The McCain-Feingold act as written would have prohibited non-profit groups as well, like the ACLU or the NRA.
 
2003-05-02 04:44:07 PM
Thanks to the Rebubs, you no longer matter, Y vote?
 
2003-05-02 04:44:17 PM
What a farking joke.

It's like I've always said "a government for the corporations, by (buy?) the corporations."

:(
 
2003-05-02 04:44:25 PM
Man I wish I knew what this all means. Oh well, back to the boobies.
 
2003-05-02 04:44:46 PM
MonkeyButler

Do you still belive in the boogie-man and the tooth fairy? They are imaginary entities too, just like a corporation. Imaginary individuals were really not what the founding fathers had in mind.
 
2003-05-02 04:45:40 PM


kim jong il can't believe it!
 
2003-05-02 04:45:47 PM
05-02-03 04:39:24 PM CatchrNdRy

Holy CRAPP!



This affects me in absolutely no WAY!

PS
I like steak.


Keep thinking that, moron. Your stupid opinion is whats wrong with the majority of Americans.
 
2003-05-02 04:46:33 PM
Onyx_Crown_Knight:
Unfortunately, corporations ARE people.
Kind of makes me wonder why corporate raiders were never charged with murder.
 
2003-05-02 04:46:40 PM
But they have to rule this way, since court precident declares that a corporation is legally pretty much the same as an individual.
 
2003-05-02 04:47:05 PM
Farkin simpletons...all of you.
 
2003-05-02 04:47:11 PM
And let me be surprised now at the ruling... OK, I lied. I'm not. Big businesses will always control the government and her policies, unless some Americans decide to start a revolution, nothing with change for the better, anymore.
 
2003-05-02 04:47:26 PM
Onyx--are you trying to repress the tooth fairy? bastard!
 
2003-05-02 04:47:52 PM
Legalized bribery remains legal because it benefits Republicans, and the courts are stackec with Republican judges. Welcome to fascism.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
 
2003-05-02 04:48:18 PM
As long as they keep the 'Government Issued Cheese' coming, I don't care.
 
2003-05-02 04:48:19 PM
While I might not like the results, these laws were clearly in violation of the First Amendment. They had to be declared unconstitutional.
 
2003-05-02 04:48:39 PM
Who challenged the ruling? Anyone know?
 
2003-05-02 04:48:45 PM
and yet, still no cure for the Patriot Act.

/new legal cliche?
 
2003-05-02 04:48:55 PM
corporations simply provide money. the real problem here is that too many americans vote what their tv tells them, making corporate money necessary to buy tv ads
WAKE UP AMERICA
 
2003-05-02 04:49:00 PM
Big Al
It wasn't me. i went away for a few minutes and my pug took over my computer. He likes steak.
 
2003-05-02 04:49:12 PM
Omar

mmm ... government cheese
 
2003-05-02 04:49:15 PM
Actually, it benefits democrats too.

Both sides get their take...and then they appoint federal judges. It's against the judges interests to rock the boat.
 
2003-05-02 04:49:45 PM
Republicans have farks us all, and the worst part is that most American are too stupid/inbread/drunk to even know that they've been screwed!
 
2003-05-02 04:50:03 PM
Confewshus

Special interest money and one issue voters are killing the entire democratic proccess anyway. What in the mane of Donkeysweat do i care if my mayor is pro choice or pro life?

Hell, I LIKE the ACLU and I still don't think they have a place contributing money enmasse to political parties. As a nation we need to take a serious look at how ORGANIZATIONS (Profit or non) are treated under the law. Every member of the ACLU has a right to free speach and the right to contribute to a campaign. The entity of "THE ACLU" is not real and "Rights" were never meant to be for make believe people.
 
2003-05-02 04:50:03 PM
Reality calling - the only reason this bill got passed was because the congresscritters knew the SCOTUS would shoot it down. Hell, Rush Limbaugh predicted this over a year ago.

Policiticians love to talk about campaign finance reform - it makes them sound less sleazy - but they sure as hell don't want it.
 
2003-05-02 04:50:12 PM
antimatter

the only cure for the Patriot Act is ... more cowbell!
 
2003-05-02 04:50:13 PM
05-02-03 04:39:24 PM CatchrNdRy



Inquisitive dog will fight you for the steak. Ho, ho !!!!
 
2003-05-02 04:50:14 PM
I hate your political party.
 
2003-05-02 04:50:17 PM
Bush defiles America YET AGAIN!

I wish I got a percentage of the bribe that made this happen.
 
2003-05-02 04:50:17 PM

05-02-03 04:39:24 PM CatchrNdRy

Holy CRAPP!



This affects me in absolutely no WAY!

PS
I like steak.


i guess you also like letting big business dictate law.
 
2003-05-02 04:50:23 PM
Soooooo.... the only way to fix this is to revoke corporate personhood? I'm down with that, corporate bankruptcy screws a lot of people.
 
2003-05-02 04:50:51 PM
Hey, if we overturned that "no alcohol" amendment, then we can by-God overturn the First amendment! If it was so dang cool in the first place, why did have to be an "amendment?" Why wouldn't them dudes have just wrote it right in there?
 
2003-05-02 04:51:31 PM
I think we can ALL agree that there is no such animal as "inquisitive dog."
 
2003-05-02 04:51:36 PM
MonkeyButler
This is should get a "Obvious" tag
it was a total attack on the first amendment. Not limiting Political speech is what the first amendment is about


Corporations and Unions need freedom of speech???

All it means is that what Corporations and Unions say has more influence than any one of us. Of course, it's always been that way, so why not make it official. Nice try, Senator McCain. Maybe you can run against Bush II so we don't have to put up with another 4 years of this kind of stuff.
 
2003-05-02 04:51:46 PM
can anyone explain to to me why we recognize coorperations as having the same rights as individuals? (i'm seriously asking btw, i dont know much about this legal precidence)
 
2003-05-02 04:51:47 PM
'cause noone would sign the constitution w/o it
 
2003-05-02 04:51:53 PM
Uncoveror: Democrats take legalized bribery, too, although they're mostly in the pockets of the entertainment industry. We have legalized bribery to the Democrats to thank for the DMCA.

In general I detest the Republicans more than the Democrats, but all slimy politicians make me sick. I love this country with all my heart and every day I see it destroyed by idiocy and greed.
 
2003-05-02 04:51:58 PM
Gee, I didn't know that massive amounts of money on certain political conditions amounted to "free speech."

I guess our definition of free speech has become increasingly fungible. Unless you're the Dixie Chicks.
 
2003-05-02 04:52:21 PM
Uhhh...LTG...a little close to home there
 
2003-05-02 04:52:24 PM
I finally did it, my moral outrage has been completely destroyed and I find this ruling just as (or not) infuriating as the vending machine at my work running out of Fun-Yuns. What a weight off my shoulders. Now I can devote all of my time to things that matter, like television and shopping.
 
2003-05-02 04:52:47 PM
But we can count on businesses to police their fundraising activities themselves, right?
 
2003-05-02 04:52:52 PM
good.

"The court also ruled unconstitutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by special interest groups and others"

The 'others' they speak about are people like you and me. According to this law it would be illegal for you or me to take out a radio/newspaper/magazine/television ad in support of a candidate within 6 months (or something) of an election - meaning the only information you hear about a candidate comes from the mass media, which is notoriously biased.
 
2003-05-02 04:52:54 PM
Shikko

I can understand the sentiment that corporations are made up of people, or that real people are hurt if bad things happen in a corporation. However I am reffering to proccess of law and how organizations of people are recognized under the law. I can't shake a corporations hand, and neither can you.
 
2003-05-02 04:53:15 PM
Brianna

I second that question. SOMEBODY answer quick! I am but a humble literary student. And, as Kurt Vonnegut says, literature students are the dumbest students on campus.
 
2003-05-02 04:53:19 PM
Ah. Good ol' useless 2-party system at work. No thanks, I'm not a sheep. =)
 
2003-05-02 04:53:25 PM
LawTalkingGuy:I think we can ALL agree that there is no such animal as "inquisitive dog."

But Cliche Kitty is real. I Believe.
 
2003-05-02 04:53:52 PM
Onyx_Crown_Knight

but the McCain-Feingold bill wasn't solely about campaign contributions; in fact, it limited those people who could spend money or speak out in reference to SPECIFIC POLITICIANS. If the bill had remained as is, the ACLU couldn't have taken out a television Ad referring to any specific candidate - It would be like "Racism is bad. Vote for someone who isn't racist. We can't tell you who that is, though. you'll have to guess."
 
2003-05-02 04:53:58 PM
What a bunch of whiny little @%&^#$* some of you are.

boo frickin hoo, they ruled it violates free spech you law professors know better then the supreme court.

You can't think its the gratest thing on earth ONLY when it rules for your side.

And don't try to peg me either, I scored a 19.
 
2003-05-02 04:54:16 PM
RedRobot -- Buckley v. Vallejo.
 
2003-05-02 04:54:45 PM
As much as this does suck - the Court is right. The ball is now back in the hands of congress. If America truly wants this reform, then the next step should be to make such a reform part of the constitution. Time to pass a new amendment - or - we could always just stop voting for people who take money from big business. Our vote is our voice, and if we want changes in the system, then we have to elect people who will make such changes.

The one thing about big business - they can't vote. Are you going to be fooled by biased advertising, or are you going to do research and and really make informed descisions in November. As long as we are dumb enough to let TV tell us who to vote for, then of course, big business and big money will drive elections. It almost seems like something we will never escape from.

Well, time to start drinking.

/cheers!
 
2003-05-02 04:54:54 PM
Crap, it's four more years of dumbya in the white house as the incompetent masses get swayed by huge advertising campaigns. "WAR IS PEACE!"
 
2003-05-02 04:54:54 PM
Corporations, corporations, corporations.

I can't wait for some pinhead to start posting about how corporations deserve complete personhood under federal law and should also never pay taxes. Hey, keep it up, guys. At this point, Bill Hicks would be making Satan noises and pretending to suck a cock.
 
2003-05-02 04:55:26 PM
Bush defiles America YET AGAIN!

I wish I got a percentage of the bribe that made this happen.


Does it even cross your mind that you write stupid shiat like this without a fact for miles? It's your opinion, true, but don't you get tired of being wrong. I guess if your attention span is only 30 minutes, you never realize it. It must suck to be so simple.
 
2003-05-02 04:56:10 PM
Remember, if you own any stock in a company, you can go to the stockholder's meetings and demand that they stop contributing to political parties. After all, since they contribute to all parties, there is very little chance that the contributions do any good.

The politicians all SAY they aren't influenced by the contributions, so why are the corporations making them? They SHOULD be giving that money back to the stockholders as dividends or at least reinvesting the money in R&D or equipment.
 
2003-05-02 04:56:20 PM
corporations are legal entities because they can be held liable for the damage they do as a collective even if no single member is responsible. They can also own property and bring lawsuits. The original purpose of a corp. was to limit the personal liability of the people that run them.
 
2003-05-02 04:56:30 PM
HM

yeah, delete it again.
 
2003-05-02 04:57:32 PM
It's pretty obvious to me that campaign finance reform is unconstitutional. Isn't the whole point of this government to have its officials be elected by the people? Are not corporations made of people?
 
2003-05-02 04:57:39 PM
besides allowing corrperatiosn to use thier big bucks to run america our current campaign finance system (ie give all you want and let the richest company dictate politics) also contributes to our lack of any viable third (or fourth or fifth or thirtieth) party.... it's hard to run as a viable party when you have 1/20th the capital of the democrat and republican canidates... and coorperatiosn are hardly motivated to grease the pockets of a unviable third party candidate.. vicious circle. i think limiting huge campaign donations by corperatiosn or special interest groups may serve to even the playing field.
 
2003-05-02 04:58:10 PM
GanGan

Does that explain why ken lay isn't being cornhold in federal "rape-me-in-the-ass" prison?

I'm genuinly curious, I honestly don't know much about this.
 
2003-05-02 04:58:16 PM
Ah. Good ol' useless 2-party system at work. No thanks, I'm not a sheep. =)

What you call sheep others call the majority.

You=loner, or 1% if you prefer.
 
2003-05-02 04:58:18 PM
LawTalkingGuy

I'm guessing you are a legal professional (I know, gold star for me).

I honestly don't think that the first amendment's validity was at question. The applicability of the first amendment to corporations and other legaly "Created" individuals IS at question.

If Corporations are PEOPLE and our Gov't is "For the People and By the People", then Government is for Corporations. If that does not terrify you then I really don't have much argument to make.
 
2003-05-02 04:59:15 PM
Brianna

I agree that limiting donations would probably be a good thing - unfortunately though, the McCain-Feingold bill went far beyond just limiting campaign donations.
 
2003-05-02 04:59:48 PM
1% of what? What exactly are you getting at?
 
2003-05-02 04:59:55 PM
ZipBeep: Would that apply to PACs, too? I think they run independent of the business, so the stockholders have no say over them. Honestly I don't know.
 
2003-05-02 05:00:18 PM
Great. Between this and other Southern states mimicking Florida's "cleansing" of voter roll lists by private database firms, we'll have another election as rigged and racist as the last one! Yipee!!!
 
2003-05-02 05:00:20 PM
man at least my typos are consistant -- my right hand index finger must be a little slow on the "n" draw
 
2003-05-02 05:00:20 PM
Regarding corporate personhood:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

Has an anti-corporate bias, but the information regarding the whys and hows looks solid to me.
 
2003-05-02 05:00:28 PM
OMGZERGRUSH corporations are made up of people, but they aren't people. If you limit corporate/group donations you wouldn't be preventing those individuals from donating money to politicians...just from the corporate heads from basically forcing all their employees and customers to donate to politicians.
 
2003-05-02 05:00:57 PM
Onyx you are right. I know a bit about the First Amendment, and a bit about corporations, but this stuff is way complex, and has nothing to do with what I practice, so I just posted for the sake of goofiness.
 
2003-05-02 05:01:16 PM
Let's see...

You liberals complain everytime you think (HAH! "Think" and "Liberal" in the same sentence) your rights under the constitution are being trampled on, but when a blatantly unconstitutional law is struck down protecting your free speech, you biatch and moan.

Having a problem figuring out what you stand for?
 
2003-05-02 05:01:23 PM
Clearly the courts cannot rule that a corporation cannot own property. Therefore they must rule that corporations are liable for damage from that property and entitled to damages done to that property. Therefore corporations can sue and be sued. Therefore corporations exist as "legal entities". Therefore they are entitled to protection under the law. This includes the first amendment.
 
soy
2003-05-02 05:01:42 PM
One step closer to franchised government, wheee snowcrash.... I guess it was inevitable..
 
2003-05-02 05:02:24 PM
SHUT......UP

That's nice trollboy. Go have another Mountain Due, the grown-ups were talking.
 
2003-05-02 05:02:29 PM
"Why is Mr. Brown telling his supporters to call Mr. Smith and asking him to ask his supporters to stop calling Mr. Brown and asking why he's not answering the question?

Come on, Mr. Smith. What are you hiding? Oh. I mean Mr. Brown."
 
2003-05-02 05:03:11 PM
This may seem a ridiculous question, but I am interested in finding peoples reactions...why don't we declare the US a corporation so that we can all become employees of a global 'brand'? I think this would take care of welfare (we are all employees, some perhaps inactive, but all employed) and we could see government positions as 'promotions' into a term limited executive branch. Our business would be the maintanence of our own Brand which would merely be a Trade Marked face for our GDP. Any thoughts?
 
2003-05-02 05:03:53 PM
Oh come on, now people, everyone in here seems to be acting shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that rich and powerful entities have sway with the government. All in all, I think it's actually gotten better with alot of the reforms. We have made some progress since the days of the Trusts when Government was openly bought; now, at least, they have to at least PRETEND to not be bought. hehe.
 
2003-05-02 05:04:00 PM
Gee, so much talk about those evil corporations, and so little about union influence on elections. Bias?

/not surprised
 
2003-05-02 05:04:08 PM
is my $3 i donated this year on my tax return not enough for these greedy bastards!!
 
2003-05-02 05:04:26 PM
Confewshus

but the McCain-Feingold bill wasn't solely about campaign contributions; in fact, it limited those people who could spend money or speak out in reference to SPECIFIC POLITICIANS. If the bill had remained as is, the ACLU couldn't have taken out a television Ad referring to any specific candidate - It would be like "Racism is bad. Vote for someone who isn't racist. We can't tell you who that is, though. you'll have to guess."
___________________________________________________________


Ok, You have me there. I still belive that Corporations and Non-profits should be examined, seperately, regarding how they are treated under the law.
 
2003-05-02 05:04:30 PM
Brianna

I'll be damn honest here. I can admit with full academic integrity that I have no idea on the long term effects of corporation and gov't. For all I know perhaps it will force truly democratic minded people to take more of a grass roots stand in lobbying organizations.

All I know is big corporations have helped my parents immigrate a long time ago, and is currently employing me a fresh college grad very comfortably. I don't think they are all bad.
 
2003-05-02 05:04:34 PM
Right, because we all know that the super wealthy elite have a constitutional right to buy and sell their politicians.

Someone give this article an Abyssimal tag.
 
2003-05-02 05:04:37 PM
offtopic, buut..

has anyone noticeed this banner ad on fark?

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/film/matrix50.html

uhhh..
 
2003-05-02 05:04:38 PM
i think NOT limiting the amount of money corporations spend is limiting the speech of some people. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect every citizen to have equal access to their politicians.
 
2003-05-02 05:05:32 PM
Yes! A strike for free speech!
 
2003-05-02 05:05:39 PM
TyroneSlothrop

"AT & Love has been bought out.."
"Oh! I bet it was the japanse."
"No, the japanese, it turns out, are not a company, they're a nation."
"Oh, well then it must have been the americans..."
"You're Right! Turns out the american's are a company, they bought us out and they think AT & Love is a stupid name so they're shuttin us down!"
 
2003-05-02 05:05:47 PM
C'mon, people, we all knew that law was bogus and unconstitutional. It only got through because the politians knew it would be struck down, but they could claim they were doing something.
 
2003-05-02 05:05:48 PM
This is cool. Rich people can spend more on ads if you'll hurry up and give them that capital gains tax break. See how it works? It's like priming the pump to get our economy rolling again.
 
2003-05-02 05:05:50 PM
Flame On!!
Rush Limbaugh
February 12, 2002

The former treasurer of the state of California, Jesse Unruh, now deceased, is credited with the following statement: "Money is the mother's milk of politics." This is so true.

Do you know that before Watergate there was no such thing as soft money? Do you know that after Watergate, with campaign finance reform, there was no such thing as soft money? Soft money was invented by creative souls as a way around the current campaign finance structure. So whatever we come up with, the same thing will happen again. There will be routes found for money to get to politicians and parties, despite the existence of whatever new laws there are banning certain kinds of money in certain situations. It's going to happen, folks. Just wait and see."


I think we all can agree with this - well, the 2 of you that were able to see past the Limbaugh name.

How do you blame Bush for this? The Supreme Court voted down a law he SIGNED!
 
2003-05-02 05:06:19 PM
Korovyov

I am not a law professor, but I'm cursorily familiar with Buckley v. Vallejo, and i think that a) the ruling was flawed, and b) the particulars were quite different.
It was a highly conservative ruling, favoring a kind of idiotic deregulation which didn't work for airlines, didn't work for power companies, didn't work for railroads, didn't work for phone companies, and won't work for politics.
One of the primary rationales for Buckley v. Vallejo was the concept that an entrenched financial system combined with contribution limits would keep the poorer voices permanently stifled. Doesn't it seem equally likely that an entrenched financial system combined with a complete lack of limits would increase, rather than eliminate, the disparity between rich and poor candidates?
 
2003-05-02 05:06:55 PM
"i think NOT limiting the amount of money corporations spend is limiting the speech of some people. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect every citizen to have equal access to their politicians."

well said. I agree completely.
 
2003-05-02 05:07:07 PM
ReaperCow

Kids in the Hall?
 
2003-05-02 05:07:20 PM
I'm here. And as long as the Republicans are in charge we'll be ok.

No I'm serious.

Really, stop laughing.

It was FDR who proposed "freedom from fear" which of course is ludicrous and can only be used as a pretext to take away liberty to make people "secure".

But then Bush referenced the FDR's 4 freedoms last night. Sh*t. That means we can't trust either of 'em. Damn't. Oh well, Democracy leads to tyranny anyways -- just not in my lifetime I can guarantee that I tell ya what. Live free or fark!
 
2003-05-02 05:07:51 PM
monkeybutler
so do we give up trying to regulate campaign contributions?
 
2003-05-02 05:08:03 PM
05-02-03 05:01:16 PM
ShutUpHippies

Let's see...

You liberals complain everytime you think (HAH! "Think" and "Liberal" in the same sentence) your rights under the constitution are being trampled on, but when a blatantly unconstitutional law is struck down protecting your free speech, you biatch and moan.

Having a problem figuring out what you stand for?


i don't think most people who are upset about this bill being thrown out are claiming it's not unconsitutional just that it's unfortunate that we as a nation are having such a hard time limiting the weight that coorperations currently pull in the public sector. are you trying to suggest that coorperations do not currently have too much influence on both democratic and republican politicians and thus policy? it seems to me that that would be a hard sell -- most liberals and conservatives arn't in disagreement over this fact, just over which coorperations/special interest groups should be aloud to bribe politicians (stereotypically one woudl suspect that the democrats don't wnat to limit the entertainment industry and the republicans don't wnat to let go of all the oil money) -- people are greedy, libral or conservative.
 
2003-05-02 05:08:11 PM
TyroneSlothrop

You win!
 
2003-05-02 05:08:17 PM
Billionaires for Bush ride again! Yeeehaaaaw.

Reportedly, dumbya already has $200 million in contributions ready to spend on the primaries. God only knows how much money he'll get for the main event.

On sale now! G Dumbya: Your 'quid pro quo' candidate.
 
2003-05-02 05:09:09 PM
Great. Another Bush presidency appointed by the Supreme Court.
 
2003-05-02 05:09:10 PM
MonkeyBulter

Rush prodicted with accurate cyncisim that this would get shot down, and that things have "ever been thus."

So what. How does that help, or provide for future debate. I don't have so much of a problem with his polotics as with his "Prediction of the obvious equals action" stance.

It lacks seriousness and Gravitas. We are running out of time for people on ANY side of ANY issue to act this way.
 
2003-05-02 05:09:34 PM
Onyx_Crown_Knight

It's really a tough issue. On the one hand, corporations and non-profit organizations have a whole lot of resources with which to lobby government, but on the other hand (especially in the case of non-profits) the reason they have so much money is that a bunch of people got together to pool their money to be more effective. Take the NRA, for example, which has over 4 million members and the average contribution is something like $50. On the one hand, as an organization they have a lot of power and money to influence politicians, but on the other, it could also be seen as 4 million people trying to influence politicians.
 
2003-05-02 05:09:36 PM
The worst court decision ever was to give Corporations the rights of "people" but then make it so they had none of the accountability.

Corporations are not citizens.
 
2003-05-02 05:09:55 PM
Onyx_Crown_Knight:

Sounds like you're a Simone Weil fan.

I understand what you're saying, but it's irrelevant. A judge ruled that corporations were people, and that's that.
 
2003-05-02 05:10:32 PM
Farkers,

Please practice rational ignorance and DON'T VOTE. Its for you own good.

-BD
 
2003-05-02 05:10:52 PM
Redrobot -- No. For instance, consider the extreme: no campaign contributions at all. How many poor people do you think could afford to run for a prominent office?
 
2003-05-02 05:11:12 PM
All laws limiting the spending of money during elections are bullshiat.
 
2003-05-02 05:11:17 PM
Shikko precident can be changed...it has happened before. It's very difficult to do however, unless there is a lot of force behind the movement.
 
2003-05-02 05:12:19 PM
Is it only me who HONESTLY thinks we are all screwed and the best course of action is to privately hope for an earthquake/flood/fire/ice age/locust swarm to make it all go away?
 
2003-05-02 05:12:37 PM
BlueDog

Farkers,

Please practice rational ignorance and DON'T VOTE. Its for you own good.


Don't you mean vote for the one that spends the most money? Because we all know that we must. Free will and judgment not allowed.
 
2003-05-02 05:13:11 PM
Shikko
I understand what you're saying, but it's irrelevant. A judge ruled that corporations were people, and that's that.

________________________________________________

Spare me. Defeatist retoric and excuse making. Have a pont other than rolling over becasue a man with a title said to.

Galleleo called, he want's to confernce with you and Darwin about ideas and authority.
 
2003-05-02 05:13:12 PM
I don't agree with corporations being considered citizens. How is a group of citizens (already counted as such) able to group together and create an uber-citizen? This uber-citizen has WAY more pull in politics than do the ACTUAL citizens. How the hell is that right? But, then again, corporations don't really have the accountablity that normal citizens have. Just the pull. Sounds fair to me.
 
2003-05-02 05:13:31 PM
I think from now on we should just have a reality show to determine who gets elected. We could have some washed-up, B-list celebrity be the host, and all of the candidates would have to do demeaning things in order to win. It could be like "Who wants to be a President..umm,...Presidentaire!"
 
2003-05-02 05:13:37 PM
Oh, and a bit that seems to have escaped a few posters: this was not done by SCOTUS, but by a three-judge panel -- Karen LeCraft Henderson, Colleen Kotar-Kotelly and Richard Leon.
 
2003-05-02 05:14:03 PM
brazil
free will and judgement are allowed they just don't seem to come around much. If you know nothing else about an election bet on the guy who spent the most money.
 
2003-05-02 05:14:25 PM
Does this include contributions to Fark?
 
2003-05-02 05:15:03 PM
So let's look at the logical extension of this:

If limiting donations is akin to limiting freedom of expression, then one must conclude that the expression counts more when accompanied by more $$$.

I think that sets a frightening precedent. Your freedom of speech should not be valued in degrees corresponding to money.

[/incurable idealist]
 
2003-05-02 05:15:11 PM
Zeletsrevenge:
THANK YOU!

No knees jerking over here, ye rabid. I realize that a corporation is merely a tool, not an embodiment of evil in the same way that, i dunno, a secretary of defense can be.

Unfortunately, the basic legal structure regarding corporate accountability, nonprofit formation, etc., is heavily in favor of the wrong kind of criminal capitalism.

Case in point; What is the purpose of a legal system in which the man I see at the gas station has been in and out of prison three times for possessing $30 of marijuana, but Richard Nixon was never within a mile of a correctional facility? What the hell does it mean when a man runs out of money for his family, robs a liquor store without hurting anybody, and gets twenty-five years, and it's unlikely that Andrew Fastow will celebrate five birthdays behind bars?
 
2003-05-02 05:15:35 PM
Brazil

Not at all. I mean just don't vote. Your vote has a zero percent probability of deciding the presidential election. All resources expended on voting or becoming knowledgeable about the candidates are wasted resources.
 
2003-05-02 05:15:51 PM
did anyone see the ad the hitler administration made targeted at that voinright dude? shrubya doesnt even want other republicans to have their say, either.

i too, am waiting for these "locusts".
 
2003-05-02 05:16:01 PM
hehe - I love how the Supreme Court is now "SCOTUS". This is ironic due to the fact that we get the word "Dunce" from Jons Duns Scotus, some guy who lived in england a while back and was actually really smart, but then people started using his name ironically in reference to really stupid people. Sort of like "Oh, good one, EINSTEIN!"
 
2003-05-02 05:16:52 PM
This should be easy.
The voters list = the eligible donors list.

Government of/by/for the people.
End of discussion.
 
2003-05-02 05:17:04 PM
Onyx_Crown_Knight "SHUT......UP That's nice trollboy. Go have another Mountain Due, the grown-ups were talking."

"I can't wait for us to install this type of democracy in Iraq"
"Good to see the courts standing up for the little guy....and by little guy I mean huge multinational corporations."
"This court decision was b(r)ought to you by the good people of Halliburton"
"Big businesses will always control the government and her policies"

ect.

Highly mature. You "grown ups" are really raising the bar on this one.
 
2003-05-02 05:17:14 PM
Yeah, but did you see the racecar made of cheese?
 
2003-05-02 05:17:21 PM
So, is there a statute of limitations concerning contributions to Drew's Beer Fund?
 
2003-05-02 05:17:22 PM
Diogenes
what they were saying is that you have the right to say ANYTHING be it $4 or $4000000, they never said the higher dollar amount was a more potent expression
 
2003-05-02 05:17:37 PM
it's all so silly to begin with - and always was. A candidate can raise money from every single employee of a corporation but the corporation can't give HIM money, it can only give money to the party to use on the candidate's behalf, which he is perfectly legal to ask for provided he doesn't do it from government property though it's perfectly legal for him to make the exact same phone call from a phone booth across the street or from his campaign headquarters.

Now, the corporations wouldn't have been able to give directly to the party, so the parties were busy setting up "shadow" party operations that COULD accept the cash, but now appearantly it's back to being ok if they give it to the party, but still not the candidate himself even though the candidate asks for it and it is spent on his behalf.

The only way to do it is to say any entity can give any amount to whoever they farkin please but it has to be reported immediately (which, with the internet isn't difficult) and it should be an issue in the campaigns and media. If Candidate X is bought and paid for by the widget makers and Candidate Y is bought and paid for by the anti widget makers, so be it, but let voters take that into account when they vote.

As it is and as it was both are just plain rediculious.
 
2003-05-02 05:19:03 PM
alas, the country continues to march down the road that will lead to more people wanting to blow it up.
 
2003-05-02 05:19:03 PM
bluedog, by not voting at all, youre just a prole. i agree it doesnt make a difference if you just vote, but you gotta let other people know where you stand to make any impact. democracy is just a made up word like freedom, but yo, if ive learned anything from the douchebags in charge, its that you gotta manipulate things that get said to affect others' opinions. im just not well-spoken enough to convince anyone of anything yet.
if you give up hope, then hope is lost.
 
2003-05-02 05:19:33 PM
"If it ain't SCOTUS, it's Craaaaaaaap"
 
2003-05-02 05:19:44 PM
ShutUpHippies says...

You liberals complain everytime you think (HAH! "Think" and "Liberal" in the same sentence) your rights under the constitution are being trampled on, but when a blatantly unconstitutional law is struck down protecting your free speech, you biatch and moan.

Having a problem figuring out what you stand for?


Dude, you took the words right out of my mouth. BTW, don't try to slap a tag on me either. I scored a 16.
 
2003-05-02 05:20:03 PM
Korovyov
I'd be happy to consider the extreme, buddy. But with the possible exception of frothy little Brazil over there, nobody out here in Corporeal-Realityville is seriously thinking about the extreme.
Of course us scary "informed" people don't believe in zero corporate donations, just like we don't believe in zero public religion, zero war, zero guns, or baby-eating.
Philosophy and logical extensions are all well and good (Diogenes pointed out an illuminating one)
but in the end, we need a realistic form of control over campaign finance, including facilities for free airtime and press coverage in the interest of the democratic process. Does that mean I hate freedom?
 
2003-05-02 05:20:13 PM
- I love how the Supreme Court is now "SCOTUS". This is ironic due to the fact that we get the word "Dunce" from Jons
Duns Scotus, some guy who lived in england a while back and was actually really smart, but then people started using his
name ironically in reference to really stupid people. Sort of like "Oh, good one, EINSTEIN!"


Good one Confewshus, I learn something every day.
 
2003-05-02 05:20:19 PM
my vote is negated by the electoral college. My state will go republican on a year texas goes democrat
 
2003-05-02 05:21:21 PM
You mean the electrical college?
 
2003-05-02 05:21:39 PM
No SCOTUS No POTUS. Period.
 
2003-05-02 05:21:43 PM
well kids time to buy your president!
 
2003-05-02 05:21:52 PM
no but that would be cool
 
2003-05-02 05:22:09 PM
GanGan: I understand. What I'm saying is that one's advocacy of a candidate should not be worth more when accompanied by more money. Ergo, putting a cap on donations should not be considered limiting the expression of that advocacy. You and I probably have different salaries, but our votes will count just the same come election day.

Although, I may be wrong on that last point: I live in Florida. My vote actually might be worth more!
 
2003-05-02 05:22:18 PM
GanGan
If you know nothing else about an election bet on the guy who spent the most money.


That is usually true. But this is because of the mild similar message that most of them toss out.

Also, I know that the squeaky wheel usually gets the oil. Maybe we should limit how much anyone can say.
 
2003-05-02 05:22:21 PM
Redrobot -- Yes, if you go as far as compelling or restricting speech merely for some notion of outcome-based equality.
 
2003-05-02 05:22:33 PM
It's just their way of saying "Thanks for keeping us here and proffering more right-wing judges."
 
2003-05-02 05:23:21 PM
Private parties should be allowed to give however much money they want to whomever they want. Campaign finance laws are ridiculous.

The problem is not that rich people and big corporations can give tons of cash in order to get preferred treatment from politicians. The problem is that politicians have sufficient power to provide these favors in the first place! Limit the power of government to its valid roles (police, military, courts), and this problem--along with countless others--will disappear.
 
2003-05-02 05:23:37 PM
Look at all the Evil corporations who fought it!
"Dozens of groups joined their effort to overturn parts of the law, including the Republican National Committee, the Democratic and Republican parties of California, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Libertarian National Committee, the National Right to Life Committee and the National Association of Broadcasters." - From the article if you read it

GanGan - I never said that. But we dont need laws that prohibit free speech in any form.
 
2003-05-02 05:24:08 PM
i see, Diogenes, i missed the point of what you were saying compleatly, you must think me a right puddin' head
 
2003-05-02 05:24:12 PM
Rearden

now THATS a good idea
 
2003-05-02 05:24:12 PM

Kim Jong Il say "Flip on the juice, kill me now!"
 
2003-05-02 05:24:34 PM
Omar

hehe. And here I was, thinking that that little UBI would never be relevant in any way, shape, or form. Of course, now that I've told everyone, it is no longer my very own little piece of special knowledge. sigh.

/ is no longer special
 
2003-05-02 05:24:38 PM
Peace out, folks! Goin' home an' gettin' dee-runk.
 
2003-05-02 05:25:12 PM
Rearden:

That's WAY too logical. Support one or the other or get off of fark and out of America. There are only 2 ways to do things and if yuo don't like it, then the government doesn't care what you think.
 
2003-05-02 05:25:30 PM
What does 'free speech' have to do with a corporations ability to give millions to politicians for their election campaigns in return for the enacting of laws which are biased towards themselves? What has that got to do with DEMOCRACY, where a majority is supposed to rule?
That is all I want to know. Doesn't sound very FREE to me.
 
2003-05-02 05:26:49 PM
and just how long has money==speech been true?

I think we ought to change the writing on our bills from "In God we trust" to "This god we trust"
 
2003-05-02 05:26:50 PM
A point of interest: We would not need campaign finance reform to solve our political woes if the media would get off their sensationalist asses and do their farking jobs....
 
2003-05-02 05:26:52 PM
Today is once again a 'booby-less' friday. Kittens rejoice....
 
2003-05-02 05:27:00 PM
I'm out for the day as well.

"So long, and thanks for all the fish"
 
2003-05-02 05:27:08 PM
is it me, or are the libertarians getting more converts everyday? 3 of my friends recently went libertarian (2 were repubs one was a demo)

Rearden's post made me think of this
 
2003-05-02 05:27:29 PM
Don't worry Confewshus you're still spe.............

yeah right, it's over pal.
 
2003-05-02 05:28:27 PM
Kim Jong Il say "Oh shiiittaa, that wasn't cut."
 
2003-05-02 05:28:30 PM
hehe. yeah, i guess it's true. oh well, at least work is done and I can go drink beer!

/ is going to drink til he's special again
 
2003-05-02 05:29:33 PM
Im off myself, have a good weekend all.

mmmmmmmm beer.
 
2003-05-02 05:29:34 PM
Redrobot
But with the possible exception of frothy little Brazil over there, nobody out here in Corporeal-Realityville is seriously thinking about the extreme.

Philosophy and logical extensions are all well and good
but in the end, we need a realistic form of control over campaign finance, including facilities for free airtime and press coverage in the interest of the democratic process. Does that mean I hate freedom?


I'm frothy! Who's the 'we' that is exercising control? You and your pragmatic friends that don't understand Liberty and Rights? Oh.. I see... Liberty and Rights are all well and good philosophical concepts... but they need to be realistically controlled.
 
2003-05-02 05:30:17 PM
I am really disappointed to see that the laws weren't upheld whereby the only people who could do political ads were going to be Rainbow Coalition, Answer, Now and Peta. I am truly heartbroken.

Jam it McCool.
 
2003-05-02 05:31:03 PM
Korovyov, I see you've got brickwallitis.

Restricting money=!restricting speech.
Responsibility=!curtailment of freedom.
Just like cross-burning=!flag-burning, although I'm sure some of you more insensitive creeps will want to discuss that at length.

First amendment=!license to perpetuate an UNfree, IRResponsible, UNdemocratic system.

And don't you righties claim any kind of consistency about your feelings for the first amemdment. Perhaps I make assumptions, but I'm sure you were pretty gung-ho about military censorship. I have a feeling you didn't mind Rudy Giuliani's censorship of the NEA-sponsored art he found offensive. And I bet you just can't stand war protesters, those treacherous freakazoids.
Everybody has a different set of restrictions on their personal interpretation of the first amendment.
I don't know what yours are about. Mine are about democracy.
 
2003-05-02 05:31:39 PM
Democracy is a sham! It's probably the most corrupt government system out there. The voting is rigged, politicians are bought, corporations make the laws, the president abuses his power in order to make more money for his campaign contributors, and all under the guise of being a government "for the people, of the people, by the people".

It seems that if a government doesn't exercise totalitarian oppression, it becomes corrupted by the corporations' freedom to use their money to bribe politicians. In that case, I accept hardcore pure Evil over sissy boy poser Greed anyday. Better to have a government where the strong and powerful survive rather than the yuppies with the most money. DARWINISM RULZ!
 
2003-05-02 05:31:43 PM
GanGan:

I hear that. I went Libertarian a few months ago, and my friends (after seriously considering what the party stands for) are switching as well. It's just that after a while, you realize that by voting for one of the 2 major parties nothing important will ever change. There are fundamental things that should be looked at (like Rearden's post pointed out) that NEITHER party are willing to look at.
 
2003-05-02 05:31:55 PM
MonkeyButler</b so the AFL-CIO fought it twice? Oh, and the article does not mention those specific groups. Nice try.
 
2003-05-02 05:31:57 PM
is there any cantidate out there that would take rainbow coalition, answer, or peta money? If so they better keep quiet about it.
 
2003-05-02 05:32:16 PM
of course they declared it unconstitutional... the person who appointed these judges was elected by those corporations and just are just as much in their pocket as the president himself...
 
ACF
2003-05-02 05:32:23 PM
Should have gotten the
 
2003-05-02 05:32:36 PM
Pjbreeze -- You are free to organize people to donate money towards causes you prefer, if you so choose. You are not free to restrict somebody else's efforts.
 
2003-05-02 05:33:06 PM
Let's see, if this was upheld, no ads could be purchased within 60 days of the electiion. Then the only coverage would be media coverage, which they get to slect. So, they could in effect broadcast all the photos ops of their candidate, and none of the opposing candidate, and it would be legal. This would have allowed the media to select winners. Anyone could see the weakness in this.
 
2003-05-02 05:33:08 PM
I have to admit to myself that I'd rather have terrorists do their thing to me rather than have corporations slowly sap my life away.
 
2003-05-02 05:33:32 PM
If corporations control everything... Why are there so many regulations?
 
2003-05-02 05:33:35 PM
Onyx_Crown_Knight:
[snip]
Spare me. Defeatist retoric and excuse making. Have a pont other than rolling over becasue a man with a title said to.
[/snip]

Defeatist rhetoric and excuse-making? Actually, it was a statement of fact. It may suck, but it's a law. If this particular law pisses you off, try to change it instead of rattling the bars of your cage that were placed around you by "a man with a title."

[snip]
Galleleo called, he want's to confernce with you and Darwin about ideas and authority.
[/snip]

Sorry, I'm on the other line with Ghandi and Dr King, discussing the relative merits of reaching for another plate of tacos instead of getting off you ass and DOING SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT PISSES YOU OFF.

You want to change the world? Fine, but I'll bet you it won't happen from account 65480.
 
2003-05-02 05:34:06 PM
Boy, that was an awkward post.
 
2003-05-02 05:34:14 PM
Redrobot -- Don't pretend to know my opinions. It might even astonish you to know that I belong to no party, never attend rallies or protests, and have no American flags.
 
2003-05-02 05:34:16 PM
I told you this would happen!

The election ads, and when you can run them is a smack in the face of the constitutions free speech.


Im off to drink to freedom!
 
2003-05-02 05:34:52 PM
That's right, Brazil, my pet, they do. Like all good philosophical concepts.
Just like, you know, war.
And obscenity.
And freeways.
And tempers.

I know you'll be tempted to shout "Heretic" at me, my friend. I ask that you use that impulse to call into question your own "perfectly rational" philosophies. Unlimited Liberty and Rights, my big black ass.
 
2003-05-02 05:35:19 PM
GanGan, Moonman:
I was libertarian when libertarian wasn't cool. Wait a minute, it still isn't cool.
 
2003-05-02 05:35:29 PM
Ionozacuzo
I have to admit to myself that I'd rather have terrorists do their thing to me rather than have corporations slowly sap my life away.


I think you're thinking of the Matrix. And they were the perfect government. No? They tried to give us all a perfect paradise... we refused it.
 
2003-05-02 05:36:58 PM
hey prof, are you gonna move to the libertarian state?
 
2003-05-02 05:36:59 PM
Bush should never have signed this piece of crap in the first place, even knowing that it would be struck down. Telling people they can't even buy an ad out of their own pocket that mentions or shows a candidate 90 days before an election is a blatent violation of the first amendment. For an interesting mind experiment, what would you think if it had also applied to newspapers and not just television?
 
2003-05-02 05:37:30 PM
Hahahaha... I never saw that movie, Brazil. Please explain what is its significance.
 
2003-05-02 05:37:52 PM
Corporations afford a society for people to biatch about corporations. without the wealth they provide, you would have to spend the time you biatch working to feed yourself.
 
2003-05-02 05:37:58 PM
No, Korovyov, it does not astonish me. I'm sure you're a maverick, iconoclastic free spirit with allegiances to nuthin' and nobody.

I was careful in that last post (unlike in the bush v. bush thread, hee hee) to generalize about those opinions in order to prove a point. I have no idea what your preference is, Korovyov, but I bet a TRULY loose interpretation of the First Amendment might lead to consequences you would find...inconvenient. It really is a matter of perspective.
 
2003-05-02 05:38:05 PM
Hey, look at this way. When we vote for Coke or Pepsi now it will actually mean something. Take the Pepsi Challenge in November!

What happens when the drug companies get in on this and start throwing the real money around? After the election do you think Bayer will have commercials like 125 million voters agree Bayer is better?

How about when the movie studios jump in? Do you think in exchange for campaign funds one of the candidates will be asked to run as "The Terminator?" or "Spiderman?"

There's a lot of possibilities here and some of them are fairly funny.

But in the end, this ruling "don't change a thang." It's the same as it always was.
 
2003-05-02 05:38:18 PM
Sidi
"MonkeyButlerDozens of groups joined their effort to overturn parts of the law, including the Republican National Committee, the Democratic and Republican parties of California, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Libertarian National Committee, the National Right to Life Committee and the National Association of Broadcasters.
 
2003-05-02 05:38:35 PM
Thereisnospoon

I didn't say campaigning was a waste of time, just voting. If you are going to campaign, its a different bag, and go ahead and find out what issues the politicians are lying to you about, its important.
 
2003-05-02 05:38:46 PM
Redrobot
I ask that you use that impulse to call into question your own "perfectly rational" philosophies. Unlimited Liberty and Rights, my big black ass.


You simply do not understand Liberty and Rights. Philosophies are only as useful as they adhere to reality. You should try it some time.
 
2003-05-02 05:39:53 PM
05-02-03 05:36:58 PM GanGan
Like that will ever happen. The biggest problem with the libertarian state project: 98% of the people who sign are college stoners who will forget about it when the pizza guy shows up.

But even if it did, I'd be reluctant to leave my job and move my family...
 
2003-05-02 05:39:54 PM
Democracy is overrated. The people still have no power. They just get to vote for the candidate they hate the least, who then goes on to do whatever he/she chooses. And just because someone says they will do something in a campaign doesn't mean they will do it. Their only motivation is their own greed and lust for power.

Elections are retarded.
ps - I still vote
 
2003-05-02 05:40:56 PM
i had a teacher who spent a lot of time on the idea of corporate democracy. That is a corporation run from the ground up by electing managers, vp's, ceo. His thinking was that we would never allow a dictator to rule our country and our company actually controls more aspects of our lives than the government.
 
2003-05-02 05:41:23 PM
Brazil

Okay.

"You simply do not understand" is an incomplete and insufficient argument. It is evidence of a shallow understanding of one's own precepts, and an unwillingness to reevaluate them. I would hope that we could converse more about this and maybe teach some humility, but you know what? I'm tired, and I have been reading your posts for a long time. I don't see any evidence that you're capable of that kind of breakthrough. As of now, our exchange is over.
 
2003-05-02 05:41:27 PM
MonkeyButler where are you getting that? It's certainly not in the article that comes up when I click the link...which is, in its entirety:

A federal court Friday struck down most of a ban on the use of large corporate and union political contributions by political parties, casting into doubt the future of the campaign finance law that was supposed to govern next year's high-stakes presidential election.

The court also ruled unconstitutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by special interest groups and others. It barred the federal government from enforcing them and all other parts of the law it struck down.

The ruling clears the way for an immediate appeal by the losing parties to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court's decision will lay the ground rules for the 2004 presidential election and beyond.
 
2003-05-02 05:41:36 PM
05-02-03 05:31:55 PM Sidi
"MonkeyButler so the AFL-CIO fought it twice? Oh, and the article does not mention those specific groups. Nice try."

read the damn article - 3rd paragraph from teh bottom

Dozens of groups joined their effort to overturn parts of the law, including the Republican National Committee, the Democratic and Republican parties of California, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Libertarian National Committee, the National Right to Life Committee and the National Association of Broadcasters.

and thanks for showing how most people don't read - just a bunch of knee jerk reactions
 
2003-05-02 05:42:04 PM
RedRobot -- One of the principles I do happen to value is a that a legal system should be internally consistent. Campaign contributions have been ruled as speech before, and it was made quite clear that restrictions on such needed to be strongly justified. Whether or not such limits would be nice is irrelevant if such limits are illegal.
 
2003-05-02 05:42:06 PM
Who is driving car?
OH-NO!! Giant Corporations are driving car!!
How can this BE???!!!!!!
 
2003-05-02 05:42:57 PM
 
2003-05-02 05:43:03 PM
Needs a dumbass tag, methinks.
 
2003-05-02 05:43:13 PM
MonkeyButler perhaps they've changed the article, because that is not in there now. Try refreshing. I read it, multiple times, to ensure that those portions weren't in there.

Notice the AFL-CIO is mentioned twice? Probably they noticed they farked up and just removed the paragraph.
 
2003-05-02 05:43:21 PM
We need to be able to vote directly on the placing of Federal Judges. Then maybe they won't be so scared to buck the farking system a little bit.
 
2003-05-02 05:43:30 PM
dr.omega, you just got me the dirtiest look ever from my boss. (i'm supposed to be working)
 
2003-05-02 05:43:47 PM
Ionozacuzo

Hahahaha... I never saw that movie, Brazil. Please explain what is its significance.


You own a computer and use the internet and never saw the Matrix???

/at a complete loss

In the Matrix all humans were in containers of nutritive fluid. A simulation was feed directly into their minds so they thought they were living in a normal human world. Their body heat was being harvested as energy for the machines that had taken over the world.

In the first Matrix a perfect paradise was created for humans to experience. They couldn't take it, so a new Matrix was created that was just as challenging as the world humans developed in.
 
2003-05-02 05:43:53 PM
Sidi

My bad, I'm reading from the Washington Post off of Drudge
 
2003-05-02 05:44:01 PM
Our problem is not that Big$$ can buy a politician off, the problem is that they sell their vote off too cheap.

What we need are some stingy mofos in office.
 
2003-05-02 05:44:26 PM
So what part got struck down? the part that tries to prevent companies and rich people from buying candidates? *sigh* I guess some things will never change.
 
2003-05-02 05:44:53 PM
MonkeyButler Ok, you're citing an article from the WASHINGTON POST while the link is from ABC and trying to berate me for not reading the damn article? What the fark are you on?
 
2003-05-02 05:45:13 PM
Potbreath -- Then you'd get mob-driven jurisprudence. Unfortunately, large parts of the mobs neither know nor care about whether or not the resulting hodgepodge of rulings would be remotely workable.
 
2003-05-02 05:45:41 PM
MonkeyButler ok, sorry for getting angry. I was just getting frustrated about that paragraph seeming to come out of the middle of nowhere.
 
2003-05-02 05:45:51 PM
Ack! Who is going to protect us from making stupid decisions when we vote?

At least we still have lots of term limits to provide some limit to the damage an uninformed public inflicts, right?
 
2003-05-02 05:46:15 PM
Sidi
I made my own great example of a "knee jerk reaction"

and to make up for it, Sorta Safe for work Boobies!
 
2003-05-02 05:47:24 PM
Stoke: How about when the movie studios jump in? Do you think in exchange for campaign funds one of the candidates will be asked to run as "The Terminator?" or "Spiderman?"

Something tells me the Democrat's candidate will run as "The Jerk."
 
2003-05-02 05:48:19 PM
TBB -- Well, if you REALLY want to know in detail, the rulings seem to be online.
 
2003-05-02 05:48:39 PM
Redrobot
"You simply do not understand" is an incomplete and insufficient argument. It is evidence of a shallow understanding of one's own precepts, and an unwillingness to reevaluate them. I would hope that we could converse more about this and maybe teach some humility, but you know what? I'm tired, and I have been reading your posts for a long time. I don't see any evidence that you're capable of that kind of breakthrough. As of now, our exchange is over.


Hummm... so I won't come around to your way of thinking... so you'll take your marbles and go home.
 
2003-05-02 05:49:03 PM
OccamsWhiskers--
"Ack! Who is going to protect us from making stupid decisions when we vote?"

Your Democratic Floridian Poll booth bouncer?

sorry folks, couldn't resist.

Nothing to see here, move along.
 
2003-05-02 05:49:22 PM
MonkeyButler and you're right that the unions and political parties definately don't want this to go through. Basically, anyone who has political clout right now doesn't want to rock the boat.
 
2003-05-02 05:50:06 PM
The now infamous michael moore did a thing a while back on tv nation where he went to washington with 2000 dollars and a lobbyist to see how much of the american ppls time he could buy. He got the holiday "tv nation day" declared
 
2003-05-02 05:50:09 PM
That's allowable, Korovyov.
Not being a lawman, i don't think i'm qualified to analyze the legality of the McCain-Feingold bill in detail. But hell, we're on Fark. Let's debate the ethics and the meaning of it! I do think that the bill is in the best interests of the electoral process.

I agree that if parts of the law is unconstitutional according to today's guidelines, then they shouldn't pass right now. But in a more macroscopic sense, something needs to pass. And i'm not talking about Grandma's dinner.

As for the internally-consistent legal system comment, me too. I'm reminded of Gandhi's remark about Western civilization:
"It would be nice."
 
2003-05-02 05:52:30 PM
GEAH--
"Something tells me the Democrat's candidate will run as "The Jerk.""

Hehe, I loved that movie. I would actually be torn on voting for him just from the need to pay homage to that movie.
 
2003-05-02 05:52:42 PM
Good to see that everyone has figured out who to blame and why if your side doesn't make it.
 
2003-05-02 05:54:00 PM
Redrobot -- What I /would/ like to see would be a better disclosure system. For instance, it would be rather interesting if, say, someday touchscreen voting machines were used that could report the top individual and PAC donors to each candidate.
 
2003-05-02 05:55:50 PM
I couldn't even read the article. This advertisement made me want to puke my guts out. This whole "patriotism/support our soldiers" thing is making me seriously ill.
 
2003-05-02 05:56:21 PM
Korovyov

That's a brilliant idea!


and the day it happens will be the day my testicles sing kumbaya while playing the ukelele
 
2003-05-02 05:58:30 PM
ManRay--
"Our problem is not that Big$$ can buy a politician off, the problem is that they sell their vote off too cheap.
What we need are some stingy mofos in office."

All politicians are cheap whores until you marry them at which point they become stingy whores and, of course, by then it's too late.
 
2003-05-02 05:58:44 PM
Why do you think they agreed to pass it?
 
2003-05-02 06:00:19 PM
Somebody please dig Woody Guthrie up and put him on tour now. Or sooner, if at all possible.

"Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen."
 
2003-05-02 06:02:10 PM
Korovyov--
"What I /would/ like to see would be a better disclosure system. For instance, it would be rather interesting if, say, someday touchscreen voting machines were used that could report the top individual and PAC donors to each candidate."

That would be nice but judging by the performance of voters using touchscreen voting machines isn't too good as observed in the last election. Had something like this been in place, Enron would now be President and not Gore or Bush.
 
2003-05-02 06:03:13 PM
 
2003-05-02 06:04:18 PM
"05-02-03 05:37:52 PM SpeedBuggy

Corporations afford a society for people to biatch about corporations. without the wealth they provide, you would have to spend the time you biatch working to feed yourself."

I happen to see it as:
The people who have worked so hard to build this country and its infrascructure and and the society have been so tireless that now we have free time.
Geat civilizations are built by hard work, and that leads to alot of storytelling and yapping from the Greeks and Homers epics which were originally oral poems, the Norse and their sagas, and all the rest.
 
2003-05-02 06:05:23 PM
i think we need a SUPER NEWS FLASH icon, so that when something really farked happens we can distinguish from this kind of stuff.
 
2003-05-02 06:05:43 PM
Epoophoron: This whole "patriotism/support our soldiers" thing is making me seriously ill.

Thanks okay, I'm disgusted with the left's anti-patriotism and lack of support for our troops.

Hope you don't recover.
 
2003-05-02 06:06:07 PM
Glad to see that it's going to be business as usual in the United Corporations of America.

All hail our corporate saviors! Infringing on individual rights since the late 1700's!
 
2003-05-02 06:07:41 PM
campaign finance laws are a difficult thing
you allow corporations to endorse candidates with their incredible wealth, you end up with the corrupt politicians who only serve the rich
you strike that down, you end up with only uberwealthy politicians who serve themselves and their rich buddies or are extremely out of touch with mainstream america

now you see the problem with being a republic
BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE UNITED STATES
can this DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC BS
 
2003-05-02 06:07:41 PM
MinnesotaJack:

im not so sure i understand the homer rant.
 
2003-05-02 06:07:52 PM
GEAH Here you go...

 
2003-05-02 06:08:36 PM
Regarding campaign financing, I feel that the political information campaigns should ber publicly funded, since it is for a purpose of creating a climate where the public is best informed to choose a candidate for public office.

The parties should ahve petitions to get on the tax forms, taxpayers can make an annual tax-deductible contribution of their choice.

You may say you do not want to pay, but lets face it you already are paying with higher prices on goods and services because of private contributions.

The present system allows too much corruption by the unscrupulous gifts and money.
 
2003-05-02 06:10:07 PM
Stoke -- Yeah, a large part of the problem comes down to voters and the media. If, for instance, voters were more involved in gathering information about candidates, or media sources -- and ones that many voters pay attention to -- paid more attention, the system would probably be improved. If, for instance, Dan Rather presented a list of senators who received money from pharmaceutical companies along with how they appeared to be aligned on prescription drug coverage, the results might be... amusing.
 
2003-05-02 06:10:09 PM
MinnesotaJack:

why cant people spend there money the way they see fit? it is there money. they earned it.
 
2003-05-02 06:10:30 PM
Yeah, you guys are real patriots.

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."
--Mark Twain, 1904

"We can easily defeat the armies of Mexico, slaughter them by thousands, and pursue them perhaps to their capital; we can conquer and "annex" their territory, but what then? Have the histories of the ruin of Greek and Roman liberty consequent on such extensions of empire by the sword no lesson for us? Who believes that a score of victories over Mexico, the "annexation" of half her provinces, will give us more Liberty, a purer Morality, a more prosperous Industry, than we now have?...Is not Life miserable enough, comes not Death soon enough, without resort to the hideous enginery of War?
People of the United States! Your Rulers are precipitating you into a fathomless abyss of crime and calamity! Why sleep you thoughtless on its verge, as though this was not your business, or Murder could be hid from the sight of God by a few flimsy rags called banner? Awake and arrest the work of butchery ere it shall be too late to preserve your souls from the guilt of wholesale slaughter!"
--Horace Greeley, 1846
 
2003-05-02 06:11:36 PM
Yeah for all you who think giving money to influence people is free speech, why don't you try it the next time you're part of a lawsuit? Just give a little cash to the judge and/or jury, and report back to me on how well your constitutionally protected freedom was upheld.

You f*cking dipsh*ts.
 
2003-05-02 06:14:16 PM
Dungmuffin
now you see the problem with being a republic
BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE UNITED STATES
can this DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC BS


As the ancient Greeks found out, the people's passions can be swayed by demagoguery. This complicated by the fact that a majority of the people will not educate themselves about an issue before desiring to take action. Just take a look at the "debates" that take place on Fark.

In an effort to be pragmatic most people will give up their Liberty for the desire to achieve some perceived short term gain.

In short order the rights of the individual would be swept away. Eventually you would end up with a dictator.
 
2003-05-02 06:15:06 PM
Crayz -- Gosh, what a reasonable argument. You do know that courts regularly restrict your speech, no? Outbursts in a courtroom are good for earning punishment, and in certain cases gag orders can even be applied that cover out-of-courtroom speech.
 
2003-05-02 06:15:08 PM
The court also ruled unconstitutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by special interest groups and others.

Everyone has been talking about the large contributions. The part that bothers me the most is the above.

It has become fashionable for a candidates supporters to form quasi-independent groups that then run ads to slam the opponent. Since these groups are not directly linked to the candidate, he/she can shrug and say Not my bad when the opponent complains about the mud slinging.

I understand that these groups should have free speech. However, it still irks me that a politicians supporters can libel an opponent during an election but the politician escapes any accountability.
 
2003-05-02 06:18:59 PM
Heh. The way Brazil capitalizes Liberty.

It's like he's walking around in a purple cloak, chanting.

Drink the Kool-Aid!
 
2003-05-02 06:20:10 PM
Crayz: It's a little early to be that drunk, isn't it?
 
2003-05-02 06:21:13 PM
Gator8387 sucks donkey cock
 
2003-05-02 06:21:23 PM
Redrobot--

mmmm... wholesale slaughter mmmmm....
 
2003-05-02 06:23:54 PM
There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

President James Madison (1751-1836).

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.


Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950).

I remind you, sir, that extreme patriotism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice no virtue.
-Marcus Tullius Cicero
 
2003-05-02 06:24:46 PM
MinnesotaJack: Regarding campaign financing, I feel that the political information campaigns should ber publicly funded, since it is for a purpose of creating a climate where the public is best informed to choose a candidate for public office.

Sounds great. How's about we add a current events test at the polls so that the ill-informed and mentally-deficient don't contaminate the vote?
 
2003-05-02 06:26:01 PM
Redrobot--

Actually, Redrobot, after serious consideration of both quotes. If I were to walk out into the streets and recite either of those or both I would soon mind find myself carted away and locked into a mental instution. So, I must respectfully treat Samuel Clemens and Horace Greeley in much the same fashion regarding those statements.

That is, freaking nuts and way too far over the top.
 
2003-05-02 06:27:32 PM
Stoke

College was great. You should go.
 
2003-05-02 06:33:19 PM
Freedom of speech? More like freedom to buy favorable legislation.
 
2003-05-02 06:33:52 PM
Redrobot--

I did. I found a lot of it boring and irrevelant. Particualry southern literature and most of Mark Twain's writings. I was never much for American literature at all. Just found it drab and uninteresting.

The only thing I ever found interesting about early American history was the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and the early political debates. I was there for engineering though.
 
2003-05-02 06:35:02 PM
here are the legal arguments pro and con from an article in dec 02. at least know what your arguing about.
 
2003-05-02 06:36:51 PM
Redrobot--

My ramblings, incorrect grammar, missing words, and casual nonchalance about what would be otherwise important topics today are a result of staying up all night debating with Tadlette in another thread.
 
2003-05-02 06:41:36 PM
Well its about damn time. Campaign finance reform is definitely needed, but that sack of shiat was specifically designed to shut out everyone but the liberal newspapers and television stations. I'm tired of republicans and democrats. But mostly democrats.

/libertarian
 
2003-05-02 06:43:20 PM
All right, all right, Stoke, I'm sorry, that was needlessly cruel of me.

Trouble is, your average high-school dittohead on this board will often fail to acknowledge the historical background of what's going on here. I spend most of my goddamn life in college and around college students, so perhaps I err too far in the other direction.

But I figure you should at least know that the Mark Twain quote is from "War Prayer" and is meant to be facetious and sorrowful, and the Greeley quote is from his Tribune, paper of record in the United States for well night forty years. These are eerily relevant quotes from reasonable men. That's all.

Again, sorry about that comment. You let your hackles rise, and the next thing you know...
 
2003-05-02 06:43:40 PM
Isn't the PATRIOT Act, which passed with no problems at all, much, much, much, more dangerous and unconstitutional than this campaign reform bill?

/rhetorical question
 
2003-05-02 06:44:03 PM
Campaign Finance Reform is all about keeping the Ins in and the Outs out. If you don't understand this, you probably have an "R" on one of your shoes and think of "Connect the Dots" as a puzzle.
 
2003-05-02 06:46:01 PM
if they want to limit money that's fine. This tried to limit what you could say in ads and when ads could run.
 
2003-05-02 06:49:27 PM
WORST.FLAMEWAR.EVER
 
2003-05-02 06:52:17 PM
Of course they shot it down! Who do you think pays for their summer cottages in the Hamptons?
 
2003-05-02 06:53:36 PM
maybe the judges should read the constitution. You know, the thing that comes before the first ammendment.

Aritcle II, section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
 
2003-05-02 06:53:59 PM
Since when does the Constitution have anything to do with the bills passed in Washington?

"Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act several times. It would require each act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that act or else the bill could not go forward. Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act (HR 175) went down to three crushing defeats. "

Walter Williams
Jewish World Review April 2, 2003 / 29 Adar II, 5763
 
2003-05-02 06:56:33 PM
Aw, fark this shiat. This country sucks.

I can't wait to get to my south pacific island, and laugh at all you stupid mother farkers.
 
2003-05-02 06:58:37 PM
Redrobot--

No problem, college was awhile back and you don't deal with literature much in the Engineering field to keep your mind fresh. When you get out in the real world philosophical writings take a back seat to the daily grind and I find my relaxation in other areas than literature I didn't find interesting back then. If you don't use it you lose it.

I recognized Twain's tirade, and I never paid him much attention because I always found him far too cynical for my liking. Greely, I remember next to nothing about, but I did recognize the quote as being one I had seen before back in school. My literature these days consists of newspapers and internet because I don't have to pick the damn things apart and research the times from which they came so I can fully understand the significance and the purpose for which they were originally written nor pick through the damn poetic style they thought themselves cute for writing it in. These guys had far too much time back then.

I passed the damn classes and it's enough for me now to slap a Homer Simpson quote on it and move on. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through all that again. I have to make money now, figure out how present politicians are trying to bend me over and still find time for peace and relaxation.

"Again, sorry about that comment. You let your hackles rise, and the next thing you know..."

Yes, hence, my jovial lack of caring attitude at the moment. Tomorrow I'll be back to caring. For the moment, you guys can care and I'll have a little fun ;>
 
2003-05-02 07:00:48 PM
Ok, I may not be aware of all the intricasies of the law as it applies to this case, but there is a definite seperation in meaning that can be wedged between monetary contributions and speeches given. When a person speaks, that is one person, one voice. Not less than one person, not more than one person. That person is one vote, and will influence the votes of those he is individually able to.

When a person gives money, his contribution is not unitary. It is not equivalent to one vote. It is equal to the amount he gives divided by the average amount given by each person. This amount can be less than or greater than one. In short, monitary contributions make one's campaign contribution proportional to one's wealth.

Allowing monetary contributions to political campaigns rests on the fundamental assumption that one's influence on the political system should be proportional to one's wealth. Most would reject that assumption, and that's why campaign reform seems like such a natural law to implement. It takes some twisted thinking to equate money with speech.
 
2003-05-02 07:02:40 PM
Axis_of_Oil--
"Of course they shot it down! Who do you think pays for their summer cottages in the Hamptons?"

Those religious Fellowship cult bastards?
 
2003-05-02 07:02:56 PM
Well, folks, now ya got even less say in an election, that is, unless you're an oil tycoon or a famous tort lawyer. Unfortunately, some folks think this is a Republican issue, but it's far from it. Campaign finance totals are not that much different among Democrats and Republicans.

What it basically boils down to is that Daddy Warbucks gives the big cash for favors once his man is elected, and you and I just sit here in pointless flamewars on Fark gettin' jack squat.

Backdoor Politics (shameless plug for project I worked on)
 
2003-05-02 07:04:14 PM
What's wrong with corporations?

They pay my salary, which I in turn use to pay for food, housing, car, fun and taxes, which help support those who don't. They pay for my healthcare, dental, vision, contribute to insurance, retirement, vacation, etc. I'm hardly a burden on society. In fact my contributions are a net benefit to society.

My corporation employs thousands of others in a similar fashion. Productive, tax paying, nation-advancing folks.

There are corporations I don't like. There are areas in my life where I choose to deal with non-corporate entities... I'd rather eat at a locally owned restaurant than a chain, for example. But it's really getting to the point where the word corporation is synonymous with 'evil.'

The only legitimate anti-corporate biatchers are those who live off the land in small cabins and keep to themselves. Hell, even the Unibomber used FedEx.

And I type this from a corporate-bought computer connected over a corporate-owned network so you can read it on your corporate-built computer.
 
2003-05-02 07:09:54 PM
LesPhilky--
"Well, folks, now ya got even less say in an election, that is, unless you're an oil tycoon or a famous tort lawyer."

Use my philosophy...

When you really care and you're not rich nor a lawyer, blackmail is the answer.

And if I see that turn up on a Hallmark card somewhere I'm suing all of you.
 
2003-05-02 07:11:09 PM
I thought campaign contributions were given solely because the pre-existing ideology/political philosophy of the person running for office either coincided with, or would help the person/group/corporation donating the money, rather than the money being donated would make the political philosophy and ideology of the person running conform to that of those donating the money.

/incoherent ignorance
 
2003-05-02 07:11:26 PM
Just because corporations aren't inherently evil, doesn't mean we should tolerate them in government.
 
2003-05-02 07:12:07 PM
Well, if Sen. Edwards gets the Dem nod, then you have Big Oil Guy versus Ambulance Chaser (Edwards used to run "have you been injured?" ads before he ran for Senate). Enjoy!
 
2003-05-02 07:13:09 PM
Here's one...

Bill McMinn - $265,000
The chairman of Texas Petrochemicals LP and director of Lexicon Genetics Incorporated. He is also a member of the Vanderbilt University Board of Trust and Administration. McMinn was a top contributor to President George W. Bushs gubernatorial campaigns and is affiliated with Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a tort-law group that advocates limits on legal liability. He donated to the Associated Republicans of Texas Campaign Fund.


What the report left out is that this guy's company was responsible for a chemical leak in 1994 that affected 40,000 people in the Houston area, many of whom had to be hospitalized or receive some sort of medical attention.
He's a big supporter of tort reform (i.e., stopping those folks from suing him).

He's also a financial supporter of Bush.

He's just one of many.
 
2003-05-02 07:14:26 PM
Sirjonnyinla: Your argument is a non-sequitor. I can complain of the control exerted by corporations but still partake of their fruits. Just because someone wants the system changed doesn't mean they want it overthrown. Your argument is similar to those that say people who do not like some law or other should move to a different country.

And I guess if my child is misbehaving I should give it up for adoption. And if my finger hurts I should just chop it off. And if I have a co-worker who isn't my favorite, I should just change jobs. All of these are true, because small problems demand the most drastic responses, according to your argument.
 
2003-05-02 07:14:53 PM
"this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations"

-Rutherford B. Hayes, 1884

Of course this law is unconstitutional! Do you think anybody would set up a system of government that didn't 'lawfully' protect those already in power and ensure that they stayed as such?
 
2003-05-02 07:15:34 PM
Sorry. Here's the tag I missed after the quote </i>
 
2003-05-02 07:16:46 PM
Dorks_--

Hypothetical situation.

Bill Gates gives a Senator two billion dollars. Who is Bill Gates' new googley-eyed butt kissing monkey?

Real world and paper two very different things. Very different. It's also the difference between success and failure for Communism.
 
2003-05-02 07:19:30 PM
Just to be fair, here's a Democratic one:

This guy gave the most to state political parties in 2000 for the "backdoor" in campaign finance. He's was also one of the most outspoken people against campaign finance... until this report came out.

Steven T. Kirsch* - $2.1 million
Kirsch founded Mouse Systems in 1982 and Frame Technology in 1986 before launching Infoseek, an Internet navigation service. After selling the company to Disney in 1999, Kirsch started a new e-commerce company called Propel. He and his wife Michele, a law school student, have set records for charitable giving: they are but a handful of donors younger than 50 who rank among the nation's 100 most generous philanthropists, as measured by lifetime giving. Kirsch divided his contributions among Democratic party committees in 10 states.
 
2003-05-02 07:20:12 PM
"He's was also one of the most..."

Pardon my asshatian grammar.
 
2003-05-02 07:24:32 PM
LesPhilky

Yeah, none of them are untainted it seems.

One big problem with that quote too. Giving to a political party makes one a philanthropist? I thought it made one a favor seeker. What do political parties do to help anyone really? Are they implying that giving to the Dems or Repubs is akin to giving to UNICEF/Nature Conservancy/church charities/disease research/etc etc etc? That's stupid.
 
2003-05-02 07:26:53 PM
I used philanthropist in this case meaning "generous donor."
 
2003-05-02 07:29:32 PM
One last one, another Democrat:

Peter G. Angelos $208,000
A Baltimore attorney and owner of the Baltimore Orioles professional baseball team. He is a significant contributor to the Democratic Party who made a fortune off of asbestos and tobacco class-action lawsuits. He contributed to Democratic state party committees in six states.


Again, the negative stuff is left out. Angelos is buddies with Fidel Castro and funnels his money through North Dakota, Nevada and Vermont... three states with some of the worst campaign finance disclosure laws in the nation. In fact, if you give to North Dakota, they are not required to report where your money went.

Peter Angelos has never been to North Dakota, has never met the North Dakota Democratic Party officials, yet he pumps in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in contributions.

If campaign finance is so okay, why is it so secretive?
 
2003-05-02 07:35:53 PM
It seems to me that in 300+ posts someone would have refuted the primary assumption of all campaign finance restrictions: That politicians are craven whores who sell their votes for contributions. The fact that many candidates actually receive contributions from advocates of both sides of an issue refutes that bad logic.
 
2003-05-02 07:40:18 PM
Stoke:

communism fails on paper if it is drawn correctly. It only works on paper, if the human element is left out.
 
2003-05-02 07:43:01 PM
SpeedBuggy--

Yes, I know.
 
2003-05-02 07:45:11 PM
It seems to me that in 300+ posts someone would have refuted the primary assumption of all campaign finance restrictions: That politicians are craven whores who sell their votes for contributions. The fact that many candidates actually receive contributions from advocates of both sides of an issue refutes that bad logic.

Um, you just stated it was an assumption. That isn't logic. Bad logic would be stating that some politicians accept money for both sides of the issue so therefore no politician's votes are affected by contributions.
 
2003-05-02 07:46:07 PM
HighHardOne
I'm sure that happens, but you'll have to back it up with facts if you want me to believe it's more common than the craven whores premise. I think on a local level, when one actually has more physical access to the politicians instead of having to trek across the country, that you can get some people really working for the people that they represent. I think they burn out before they get beyond state level, though, and either quit in disgust of all the corruption and games or they give in and become one of the players so they can 'go all the way'.

Besides, just because both sides give you some money doesn't mean they aren't trying to buy your vote or that your vote can't be bought. It just means there's a bidding war and maybe one will get more generous or more creative to win the politician's support.
 
2003-05-02 07:59:34 PM
Impaler

Substitute "premise" for "assumption." Also, I didn't say contributions had no effect, just that there seemed to me that the thread had an over-riding "corporations buy and sell politicians" theme.

Urbn

I think the contribution lists are on Common Cause's site and, sure, local/state politicians are more likely to respond to my needs, which is one of the reasons I'm a libertarian.
 
2003-05-02 08:01:16 PM
GEAH
Thanks okay, I'm disgusted with the left's anti-patriotism and lack of support for our troops.

Hope you don't recover.


Ah yes... I hate those soldiers so much, I actually wanted them to stay home and live.

I hate my country so much, I actually want us to solve our problems on our own soil before we go trying to police the rest of the world.

I'm so damn unpatriotic, so far LEFT and LIBERAL, so UNSPEAKABLY CRAVEN, that it actually annoys me to see images of the American flag and the American military used in shameless advertising for a TV network.
 
2003-05-02 08:01:38 PM
HighHard:

Check out this site... I have a feeling you'll apperciate it.

State Secrets (yes, another shameless plug, but Jesus, it's informative)
 
2003-05-02 08:12:46 PM
I can't say that I see what soft money has to do with free speech. In fact, I'd say soft money is antithetical to the democratic process. It gives people with money a much louder voice than those without it. But isn't that in opposition to one of the founding principles of "one person, one vote?"
 
2003-05-02 08:15:34 PM
LesP

Thanks, I will when the Pilsner Urquell wears off.
 
2003-05-02 08:18:59 PM
I love how the article says that it's a win for the Republicans even though Democrats were fighting it also and actually under the campaign finance law, the Republicans got a better deal than the Democrats.

The Democrats were poised to have a much harder time under the new rules since they get a considerably larger percentage of their campaign donations as soft money.
 
2003-05-02 08:24:15 PM
Damn_Conservative_Media

In 1781, the founding principle was "one-white-adult-property-owning-male-who-can-pass-a-literacy-test-and-pay-the -poll-tax, one vote.

/Ah, good times....
 
2003-05-02 08:27:22 PM
Stoke

Hypothetical situation.

Bill Gates gives a Senator two billion dollars. Who is Bill Gates' new googley-eyed butt kissing monkey?



I do understand what happens with many things in the world, and I like to think that at least in that manner I am not ignorant, but for some reason, the why of many things like that don't come to me. Perhaps it is just me being ignorant of information that is out there, or maybe I just don't have access to that kind of information yet. Whatever it is, perhaps as I age, and grow in mentally, societal, and physical manner in this world, things like that will became more clear to me, rather than more mudled. I do try.
 
2003-05-02 08:32:55 PM
Oops, in 1781 they passed the Articles of Confederation....

/dopeslap
 
2003-05-02 08:33:20 PM
Damn_Conservative_Media, Joe Sixpack doesn't have equal access to the editorial page of the Washington Post, either, but he still has free speech. The loudness of his voice is purely a function of genetics and training.

I can see your point though, because the American Association of Retired Persons has a lot more money and power per capita that young voters, and receive a disproportionate number of tax dollars back in benefits.
 
2003-05-02 08:47:18 PM
Epoophoron
Ah yes... I hate those soldiers so much, I actually wanted them to stay home and live.

I hate my country so much, I actually want us to solve our problems on our own soil before we go trying to police the rest of the world.


brilliantly spoken.
I'm always amazed that this rational philosophy can not be understood by the 'right'.
I guess a more accurate assesment would be "how can you support the troops when you send them to die, not for democracy, or world safety, but for cheap gas?"
 
2003-05-02 08:55:15 PM
CatchrNdRy

Holy CRAPP!

[pitcher o' smiling poochie here]

This affects me in absolutely no WAY!

PS
I like steak.


I really liked that post. It has a certain je ne sais quoi.
 
Ade
2003-05-02 08:57:08 PM
While I see that this was to protect free speach, I just don't believe that that was the underlining intent. Once again Republicans have found a way to protect special interests. Yes, Democrats can benefit from this..

But as is seen with the current Iraqi contracts, good friends of Bush are doing quite well. And of course, this will help him a great deal come election. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

So, in conclusion.. Free Speech = good. Special Interests and Ulterior Motives = bad. What solution there is, I know not. I rather liked the Campaign finance reform bill. It was a good leveler.

I ask you, What about the Green party??
 
2003-05-02 08:57:19 PM
Wooo!! Hopefully they'll eventually get rid of that entire damned bill.
 
2003-05-02 08:57:47 PM
Dorks_

My aplogies, Dorks_

I just looked at your profile and yes I do need to explain a little better. What's the best way to put it?

Hrmmm....

The older you become, the less idealistic you become as well. Another thing that comes with age; the older you become and the more assets you gain, the more protective you become.

You're a freshman. You really don't have a whole heck of a lot to lose right now. You can afford to be idealistic and go out on limbs and fight the good fights because even if you lose the fight, it's going to cost you relatively nothing but some time.

Now take a typical Senator, we'll say around late 30's. After he graduated college, he started working on his political career. He's put a lot of effort into it and done a lot of crap jobs and worked his way through town councils or whatever. He's managed to buy himself a house, probably has a wife and a kid by the time he's elected senator. Now all of a sudden, if makes a slip of the tongue he could easily lose all that in the blink of an eye. Everything he's worked so hard to build up is actually kind of fragile.

He starts looking for ways to cement his position and in case he does make that screw up he's also looking for a safety net. The constituents are pretty fickle and a total pain in the butt to deal with. Their minds could possibly change with the wind and next election he might be out of office if they changed their mind about him.

Well, what's going to ensure that he can keep the things he's earned up to that point and keep his wife happy and giving his kids everything they want/need? Money.

Now, bill Gates comes along and offers him a ton of cash up front and all he has to do throw a bill out on the floor and make a couple calls. The cash is his to keep (as long as no one really finds out about it.) Gates knows the bill might not go through immediately and isn't going to really hold him accountable if it doesn't make it through right away. The bill fails and and life goes on.

The guy spends a chunk of that cash or his plans and aspirations got a whole lot bigger and there Gates is next year with a little more cash to push that bill some more. By this time, Gates has a few more Senators in his pocket who are going to vote for it too. It might not pass again. In the end, it's going to pass and by the time it does, Gates has enough Senators in his pocket voting how he wants them that he can really push a lot of obscure little things through as riders on major bills that made to appease society at large.

That's basically the simplified version but it's close enough to reality for the sake of this argument.
 
2003-05-02 09:02:26 PM
www.realcampaignreform.com is where you will find... REAL campaign reform.
 
2003-05-02 09:05:36 PM
Real Campaign Reform

Tpahl is right. Check the site out if you are actually interested in campaign reform that may accomplish something positive.
 
2003-05-02 09:35:17 PM
Stoke

So, Gates can buy a senator for a couple million?
At those rates, he can buy the Senate, House and Presidency for a small portion of his net worth. He must be using the rest of his fortune to keep that secret.
 
2003-05-02 09:37:06 PM
Public policy should be dictated by the greenbacks, so sayeth the Constitution
 
2003-05-02 09:48:16 PM
HighHardOne--

I didn't say he was doing it. I was giving an example of how a senator can be corrupted.


But I did find it strange that Microsoft keeps dodging pretty some certain bullets with the monopoly trials. The Bells were nowhere the revenue size of Microsoft and it didn't take long to smash with them with a hammer. Not saying they should be broken up... just seems they're getting awful lucky that whenever breakup is brought up it gets quietly calmed back down again.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of OS's really gaining any real market share since those rulings. The personal market, by and large, is still Windows. But there could be a lot of reasons for that but that's a threadjacking debate.
 
2003-05-02 09:55:50 PM
05-02-03 08:24:15 PM HighHardOne
Damn_Conservative_Media

In 1781, the founding principle was "one-white-adult-property-owning-male-who-can-pass-a-literacy-test-and-pay-the -poll-tax, one vote.


I know. I was going for the neutral modern interpretation.

05-02-03 08:33:20 PM Young_Fart
Damn_Conservative_Media, Joe Sixpack doesn't have equal access to the editorial page of the Washington Post, either, but he still has free speech. The loudness of his voice is purely a function of genetics and training.

I don't think that excuses so called soft money contributions. That may be similar to buying a commercial endorsing a candidate... but handing money to a political party committee to do with as it will, seems rather different.
 
2003-05-02 09:58:23 PM
300 odd posts and not one solution. Instead of biatching I offer this.

A Bill for campaign finance reform.

Only citizens of the United States that are elligible to vote may contribute money to a cadidate or his party. No elected official or candidate shall take any money or any other compensation or donation from any source other than a legal, voting citizen and all such monies shall be reported to election officials immediately.

Any elected representative or candidate that takes monies from any non-elligible person or organization, in an attempt to circumvent this law, or by accident shall spend not less than 10 years in maximum security federal prison and shall forfeit any government pension or benefits and be fined 100 times the amount donated.
 
2003-05-02 10:01:53 PM
Oh cool. so now the fat rich white men can get back to figuring out how much money they're going to give back to other fat rich white men in the form of tax cuts. what a joke. anyone who believes these pigs represent them needs to have their head examined.
 
2003-05-02 10:15:50 PM
05-02-03 08:01:16 PM Epoophoron

Ah yes... I hate those soldiers so much, I actually wanted them to stay home and live.


I've noticed a trend. The majority of right wing war mongerers would NEVER think about joining the military, but they have no problem sending out these middle/lower class kids to die, just as long as it isn't his a$$ on the line.

Maybe I have to get out the chickenhawk website which lists the majority of right wingers who are pro-war always find excuses when draft day/enlist day comes.
 
2003-05-02 10:17:47 PM
I think you would have to actually read the law before you can make an informed, intelligent opinion on the courts decision.
 
2003-05-02 10:30:14 PM
"but they have no problem sending out these middle/lower class kids to die, just as long as it isn't his a$$ on the line."

Guess we need to do away with forced enlistment.
 
2003-05-02 10:32:14 PM
abc, ap and cnn have it WRONG! the conservertive court up held the law!
 
2003-05-02 10:33:29 PM
Diogenes
ZipBeep: Would that apply to PACs, too? I think they run independent of the business, so the stockholders have no say over them. Honestly I don't know.


If it's company money, the stockholders ARE the company.

But, having said that, I'm sure there is a loophole so the CEO/Board of Directors can contribute as much of the company's money that they want to whomever they want without any input from the stockholders.

But, if you go to the stockholders' meeting and raise a stink, at least the other stockholders will know what the company is doing with THEIR money.
 
2003-05-02 10:43:44 PM
05-02-03 10:30:14 PM Shut........UP

Guess we need to do away with forced enlistment.


Remind me of all the conservatives in the government who entered service because of the draft.

And that doesn't matter about regular citizens, most are so vocal about war because they know theres almost zero chance of actually having a draft now
 
2003-05-02 10:49:10 PM
"And that doesn't matter about regular citizens, most are so vocal about war because they know theres almost zero chance of actually having a draft now"

Then someone needs to tell these kids that if they join the military there is the off chance they may actually have to go to war.

They must not state it clearly in the brochure.
 
2003-05-02 10:49:57 PM
Of course it's unconstitutional...it puts limits on speech!!!

Glad to see the courts recognize the obvious.
 
2003-05-03 12:35:09 AM
What crap.
 
2003-05-03 01:16:56 AM
okay, i'm about as far to the left as you can get, but farkin a, enough about republicans being the only ones who get kickbacks! the reason i'm not a democrat is for just that reason. the door swings through both parties on this one. well...i guess more technically, republican ~= democrat on capital hill...they both end up farking things up the same, so why bother...oh yeah, and i'm in texas, so my vote for anyone but a staunch republican is already filtered and burned at the voting booth...
 
2003-05-03 01:48:52 AM
(not reading entire thread so please forgive any duplicate comment)
I am all about free speech.
Citizens of the United States are protected from having their govt. limit their speech.
However, a corporation is not a citizen. It is not a person.
It can't be charged with treason, and it's not subject to the death penalty (or incarceration for that matter), as it is a legal concept, not an actual human being.
So, explain to me why it gets free speech? Seems to me that corps. are getting all the benefits of personhood, without (many of) the liabilities. Somehow I don't think that this is what our founding fathers intended.
 
2003-05-03 02:03:52 AM
05-02-03 05:54:00 PM Korovyov

Redrobot -- What I /would/ like to see would be a better disclosure system. For instance, it would be rather interesting if, say, someday touchscreen voting machines were used that could report the top individual and PAC donors to each candidate.

I've been saying this for years. Just give me the information, then I can make an informed choice as to whether I want to vote for General Motors or General Dynamics. Sadly, it seems that this is the best we can hope for.
 
2003-05-03 02:07:58 AM
How in the fark do you apply "Free Speech" to donating money to your congressman/woman?
 
2003-05-03 02:11:30 AM
And is this irony or what? The damn webpage has an ad for "The Small Business Center" LOL! After this bill was shot down, what small businesses will be left to be able to afford something like that?
 
2003-05-03 05:52:34 AM
You know, the beauty of the American capitalist system is that an organization can do whatever the hell it wants with it's money. Lord knows that if it wasn't like that, we wouldn't have a Bush, we'd have a Stalin. When the government controls everything, even what people are allowed to say and support, that is when we need to start reexamining our social ideals. That's why I don't trust Russians to this day. Whether we like that organization, corporation or legal entity is our own choice. Yet why biatch and moan about it if we aren't going to do anything about it? We all know the old saying "1% of the Population owns 99% of the Wealth." Well, sooner or later, that other 99% of the population is gonna get pissed as hell. I think we're ever-nearing that point of political critial mass. People forget that, if we band together, anything is possible. The government cannot turn a blind eye to brutality, political oppression and general dickheadedness... i.e. the civil rights and women's sufferage movements. What makes those times any better than these? The Guilded Age of American has come and gone, and we all know that Rockefeller was a dick with too much political power. Point is, money can only get you so far. You can only buy so many positions in congress. I don't wanan get into the old Democrat v. Republican debate because, as we all know, 99% of all of them are crooked. That includes all the presidents in recent years. Hell, if Gore had been elected, we'd be biatching about the fact that he ran off of tobacco money. Since it was Bush, it's the oil. I don't wanna get into that either.

I don't give a damn what party you are. If there is enough of a reason to complain, that's enough of a reason to fight the system. Sooner or later, enough people will realize that and fight back... I'm just itching for 6 or so years from now when it finally sets into the general populus that things such as the DMAC are corrupt. The other thing is that, we all know the media is corrupt and they don't cover what should be. That's why Fark exists...

I'll crawl back into my hole and prepare to get destroyed by all the legal geeks... cause I know everybody will know I'm wrong.
 
2003-05-03 07:30:31 AM
If the corporations control everything to the extent some folks in here want to believe, why did campaign finance reform ever pass in the first place?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2003-05-03 07:42:34 AM
There's a newsletter, Ballot Access News, that reports on how the system helps and hurts minor parties.
 
2003-05-03 09:57:55 AM
Soy

One step closer to franchised government, wheee snowcrash.... I guess it was inevitable..

In the last 'corporations are making the country into a fascists paradise' thread someone posted a link to Nation States, and the book that gave it birth - Jennifer Government.

The book descrines a future where corporations hold all the property and never sell it back to individuals. Consequently you can't live in a house, own a car (corporations run the roads), etc if you don't have a job, and employees take the last name of their employer. Crimes don't get investigated unless the Police Corporation can bill someone for the time, etc.

The cool part of Nation States is you get to start your own small nation and vote on the issues that are brought to your attention as the government each day. The decisions shape the country and how it grows.

Heres the blurb for my new little country:

"The Republic of Trogdor Lite is a very large, environmentally stunning nation, notable for its devotion to social welfare. Its compassionate population of 79 million are fiercely patriotic and enjoy great social equality; they tend to view other, more capitalist countries as somewhat immoral and corrupt."

Heh - how very amusing that after only a few weeks my country reflects exactly what I believe.
 
2003-05-03 10:17:58 AM
If anyone comes back to this thread, this article is very much worth a read. It seems to me that what James Madison described as come to pass, and nobody seems to be saying much about it. From the article:

James Madison, a wartime president who thought harder about the U.S. Constitution than anyone who ever lived, said In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.

Mr. Madison had no use for technical disputes. Writing in 1793, he warned about those who make the niggling case we read today: The power of the legislature to declare war, and judge of the causes for declaring it, is one of the most express and explicit parts of the constitution. To endeavour to abridge or affect it by strained inferences, and by hypothetical or singular occurrences, naturally warns the reader of some lurking fallacy.

Mr. Madison makes two main arguments. First, he wrote, Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.

In addition to the separation of powers argument, Mr. Madison said that war is too great a power to entrust to one man. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement, he wrote. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

He warned against expanded doctrines of executive power, and public acquiescence in them. [E]very power that can be deduced from them, will be deduced, and exercised sooner or later by those who may have an interest in so doing, he wrote. The character of human nature gives this salutary warning to every sober and reflecting mind. And the history of government in all its forms and in every period of time, ratifies the danger.

You had people who know this, who make the laws of the country specifically to prevent this, and yet it happened anyway. And people cheer about what a 'strong' president you have.

Strong in his wish to rape the world for corporate interests and pour taxpayers dollars into their pockets perhaps.
 
2003-05-03 11:51:08 AM
Tadlette
You had people who know this, who make the laws of the country specifically to prevent this, and yet it happened anyway. And people cheer about what a 'strong' president you have.

Strong in his wish to rape the world for corporate interests and pour taxpayers dollars into their pockets perhaps.


Well, as long as you Aussies keep in line, you won't be next.
 
2003-05-03 11:55:45 AM
Unconstitutional!?

In AMERICA!?

Whodathunkit!?

- Matt
 
2003-05-03 12:30:31 PM
Good reading, Tadlette. Thx
 
2003-05-03 08:54:56 PM
Nothing like a discussion where everybody contributes their knee-jerk, no-thought, parroting reaction. Has anyone here even looked at the actual bill that was struck down?

I guess well-thought discussion has gone the way of well-thougt voting.
 
2003-05-03 09:49:07 PM
To all of you who complain about how this is "Republicans selling the country to Big Business", explain how this can be, please?

Note, for example, the fact that of the twenty biggest contributors to the 2000 election, the 20 who'd be most affected, most hurt, by this...

Fourteen - FOURTEEN - are not corporations, but UNIONS.

Who's doing the buying, now?
 
2003-05-04 01:00:57 PM
This is a good example of how politically clueless people are. I
get the feeling no one actually read the thing, or it would have been
clear that it violates Constitutional rights. The anti-corporation
nonsense is also hysterical when essentially all the bad things in the
world are done by governments. Wake up people!
 
Displayed 359 of 359 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report