Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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 News) NewsFlash Portion of campaign finance law declared unconstitutional   (abcnews.go.com ) divider line
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

10415 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 May 2003 at 4:32 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

359 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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

[image from pageaday.com too old to be available]

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?
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report