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.

(Think Progress)   I, for one, look forward to serving under President British Petroleum   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 141
    More: Scary, American Election, paper company, political committee  
•       •       •

4841 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jan 2012 at 4:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-11 12:49:34 PM
Carl's Jr. readies sponsorships.
 
2012-01-11 12:54:08 PM
The American People are going to be expelled from having a say in their own government in favor of direct ownership of politicians by big business.
 
2012-01-11 01:02:09 PM

Aarontology: The American People are going to be expelled from having a say in their own government in favor of direct ownership of politicians by big business.


Zombie Teddy Roosevelt in '16
 
2012-01-11 01:16:55 PM
In a brief filed yesterday in the Fourth Circuit, the RNC argues that the federal ban on corporate donations is unconstitutional in large part because it applies across the board to all corporations:

Most corporations are not large entities waiting to flood the political system with contributions to curry influence. Most corporations are small businesses. As the Court noted in Citizens United, "more than 75% of corporations whose income is taxed under federal law have less than $1 million in receipts per year," while "96% of the 3 million businesses that belong to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have fewer than 100 employees." While the concept of corporate contributions evokes images of organizations like Exxon or Halliburton, with large numbers of shareholders and large corporate treasuries, the reality is that most corporations in the United States are small businesses more akin to a neighborhood store. Yet § 441b does not distinguish between these different types of entities; under § 441b, a corporation is a corporation. As such, it is over-inclusive.


Meanwhile, in the Spockbeard universe:

In a brief filed yesterday in the Fourth Circuit, the RNC argues that the federal ban on corporate donations is unconstitutional in large part because it treats corporations differently based on arbitrary factors such as their size and net annual revenue:

"As the Court noted in Citizens United, corporations are juridical entities entitled to constitutional protections like any other person. Whether it is a large corporation like Exxon or Halliburton, or a small business akin to a neighborhood store, is irrelevant to the text of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. Yet § 441b unfairly distinguishes between these types of entities based on arbitrary distinctions. Under § 441b, a corporation is a corporation. As such, it is under-inclusive.
 
2012-01-11 01:21:15 PM
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-01-11 01:31:16 PM
Why does everything seem to be wrong?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-01-11 01:43:10 PM

Aarontology: The American People are going to be expelled from having a say in their own government in favor of direct ownership of politicians by big business.


Well, it's like that in many countries.

Come to think of it, corporations are immortal immaterial beings with power over man and nature then they are very similar to God. Maybe God IS a corporation! There is no God but JehovahCorp and I am it's Prophet Profit.
 
2012-01-11 02:02:46 PM
The United States Government*

* A leisure service of AT&T
 
2012-01-11 02:49:17 PM
This is a great idea! And instead of having elections, candidates could literally race each other-
winner gets the job.

i105.photobucket.com

I look forward to President Earnhardt.
 
2012-01-11 02:58:47 PM

FloydA: This is a great idea! And instead of having elections, candidates could literally race each other-
winner gets the job.

[i105.photobucket.com image 520x378]

I look forward to President Earnhardt.


I do think politicians should all have to wear NASCAR style fire suits that have the logos of their major corporate sponsors proudly displayed
 
2012-01-11 03:10:13 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk:
I do think politicians should all have to wear NASCAR style fire suits that have the logos of their major corporate sponsors proudly displayed


It's not a bad idea, when you think about it. Sure, it would be tacky, but at least we would know who we are actually voting for.

Plus Air Force 1 and Marine 1 would be much more colorful.
 
2012-01-11 03:16:06 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I do think politicians should all have to wear NASCAR style fire suits that have the logos of their major corporate sponsors proudly displayed


I read this, and immediately thought "wow, that's actually a great idea". Then I realized that Chris Christie would win every election because of his superior availability of advertising space.
 
2012-01-11 03:33:20 PM
Will corporations have to prove US citizenship?
 
2012-01-11 03:49:01 PM

Tarkus: Will corporations have to prove US citizenship?


I'd be satisfied that corporations are people if Texas executed one.
 
2012-01-11 04:05:14 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I do think politicians should all have to wear NASCAR style fire suits that have the logos of their major corporate sponsors proudly displayed


Yeah, if we are going to sell democracy, we at least deserve this.
 
rpm
2012-01-11 04:06:23 PM

WTF Indeed: Carl's Jr. readies sponsorships.


Carl's Jr. thinks you are an unfit voter.
 
2012-01-11 04:07:30 PM

DarnoKonrad: Why does everything seem to be wrong?


I keep having to ask this question of myself over, and over, and over. Moreso in the last several years than at any other time in my short life.
 
2012-01-11 04:07:45 PM
Next up... corporations can vote and their votes count eleventymillion times!!!
 
2012-01-11 04:08:36 PM
While the concept of corporate contributions evokes images of organizations like Exxon or Halliburton, with large numbers of shareholders and large corporate treasuries, the reality is that most corporations in the United States are small businesses more akin to a neighborhood store

And here I thought these businesses didn't have two nickles to rub together due to the socialisms and such.

I honestly can't see how they can ban this given their "money doesn't corrupt" stance.
 
2012-01-11 04:09:29 PM
Brawndo has what voters crave!
 
2012-01-11 04:09:34 PM
If Unions can give to candidates, so should businesses.
 
2012-01-11 04:10:39 PM
So there are actually people arguing that Citizen's United didn't go far enough? Geez, they're not even trying to hide it anymore are they?
 
2012-01-11 04:11:09 PM

make me some tea: DarnoKonrad: Why does everything seem to be wrong?

I keep having to ask this question of myself over, and over, and over. Moreso in the last several years than at any other time in my short life.


Probably because you are on the fark politics tab.

this place ain't exactly representative of reality and context.
 
2012-01-11 04:11:19 PM

FloydA: This is a great idea! And instead of having elections, candidates could literally race each other-
winner gets the job.

[i105.photobucket.com image 520x378]

I look forward to President Earnhardt.


I am thinking of a sport similar to The Long Walk.
 
2012-01-11 04:11:25 PM
What, small businesses are prohibited from forming PAC's to already contribute unlimited funds towards a candidate in a de facto manner? Small business owners can't contribute as individuals? What, is the current system of patronage, lobbying and revolving-door appointments simply not enough to appease the corporate executive overlords?
 
2012-01-11 04:11:39 PM
Look forward to? Jesus, after Deepwater Horizon does anyone really think we aren't all represented by President BP already?
 
2012-01-11 04:11:55 PM
Most corporations are not large entities waiting to flood the political system with contributions to curry influence. Most corporations are small businesses.

Look, if you want to use your corporation's money to fund a political campaign, just don't go public and retain sole ownership. Then any profits/extra cash are your personal property and you can spend it how you like.

But you're not allowed to donate other people's money to a political campaign, that's a giant breach of ethics and an abuse of the corporate charter for any corp but a PAC, which is explicitly incorporated for the purpose of such donations. Honestly, I disagree with the citizens united ruling saying that, as the executor of a corporation, you can spend other people's money on political advertising, but I at least see the rationale that you should be allowed to advertise causes that promote the business. But letting executors directly give your money to politicians that you as a stockholder may or may not support seems like it would be a step too far even for this court.
 
2012-01-11 04:12:05 PM

theknuckler_33: Next up... corporations can vote and their votes count eleventymillion times!!!


Nah, they'll get one vote for each shareholder and 3/5 vote per employee.
 
2012-01-11 04:13:53 PM
Wait, you mean to tell me that asshole who said Iraq's oil would pay for our war over there wasn't President British Petroleum?!
 
2012-01-11 04:14:11 PM
It was pretty clear to me when I read Citizen United that the rationale that they used was so broad and sweeping that it would inevitably be extended to direct contributions. If you accept that rationale, it's also a free speeh violation to ban direct corporate contributions. Next up are contribution limits altogether.

It's like no one remembers the period in our history called the Gilded Age, when Congressmen and Senators were openly bribed right in the halls of Congress.
 
2012-01-11 04:14:38 PM

Jim_Callahan:
But you're not allowed to donate other people's money to a political campaign, that's a giant breach of ethics and an abuse of the corporate charter for any corp but a PAC, .


so based on that, you are also against Unions donating money to political campaigns, right? right???
 
2012-01-11 04:15:03 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: If Unions can give to candidates, so should businesses.


I thought unions and corporations were bound by the same laws?
 
2012-01-11 04:15:16 PM
I didn't even know Joe Barton was running for president.
 
2012-01-11 04:16:53 PM

theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: If Unions can give to candidates, so should businesses.

I thought unions and corporations were bound by the same laws?


nope.
 
2012-01-11 04:17:28 PM
Corporations are people. They are psychopaths, motivated solely by profit, with no ethical or moral grounding, and huge piles of cash. They are the sort of people that would normally be found in solitary confinement in maximum security prisons, but they are people, and they have rights.
 
2012-01-11 04:17:40 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: It was pretty clear to me when I read Citizen United that the rationale that they used was so broad and sweeping that it would inevitably be extended to direct contributions. If you accept that rationale, it's also a free speeh violation to ban direct corporate contributions. Next up are contribution limits altogether.

It's like no one remembers the period in our history called the Gilded Age, when Congressmen and Senators were openly bribed right in the halls of Congress.


Oh, they remember, all right, only they don't view it as a negative.
 
2012-01-11 04:18:06 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
"Rollerball" takes place in a world where corporations have replaced government. Rollerball teams, named after the cities in which they are based, are owned by the various global corporations. Energy Corporation sponsors the Houston team.
 
2012-01-11 04:18:13 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: If Unions can give to candidates, so should businesses.


I fail to see the correlation. Those two entities have completely different purposes, goals, and motivations.
 
2012-01-11 04:18:17 PM

red5ish: They are psychopaths, motivated solely by profit, with no ethical or moral grounding, and huge piles of cash.


So, Newt Gingrich?
 
2012-01-11 04:19:22 PM

make me some tea: DarnoKonrad: Why does everything seem to be wrong?

I keep having to ask this question of myself over, and over, and over. Moreso in the last several years than at any other time in my short life.


It's farking sad when the Reagan administration -- you know, whose best hits included under-the-table dealing with the IRA, trading arms to Iran for hostages, propping up human rights-abusing tinpot dictators and drug lords in banana republics, violently suppressing popular revolutions against said tinpot dictators, supporting third-world kleptocracy, selling addictive drugs on American streets to fund previously-mentioned activities, pouring trillions of dollars into the military-industrial complex with no oversight or accountability and with little if anything to show for it, dismantling our country's mental health services industry at a time when our own veterans needed it more than ever and leaving said veterans on the streets with jack shiat to show for their service, bailing out family and party cabal members with taxpayer money to keep them from being indicted and convicted of federal crimes, I can go on but I think I made my point -- actually is a shining beacon of government transparency and accountability, and honest poltics, compared to the utterly incompetent clusterfark we have now.
 
2012-01-11 04:19:37 PM

theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: If Unions can give to candidates, so should businesses.

I thought unions and corporations were bound by the same laws?


They are, and Citizen's United applied the same way to both, and all the people who oppose CU would be perfectly happy to apply the same restrictions to both. tenpoundsoflyingbullshiat is just pushing far right disinformation, as per usual.
 
2012-01-11 04:19:37 PM

Tarkus: Will corporations have to prove US citizenship?


UPS will in Arizona
 
2012-01-11 04:19:41 PM

Jim_Callahan:

But you're not allowed to donate other people's money to a political campaign, that's a giant breach of ethics and an abuse of the corporate charter for any corp


That is nonsense.
The corporate charter is generally to do things to promote the benefit of the company.
If the company deems that donating to a political campaign, perhaps to get to lower corporate taxes as an example, or reduce regulations on the business, that is in line with the charter and not even close to an abuse.
 
2012-01-11 04:19:52 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: It was pretty clear to me when I read Citizen United that the rationale that they used was so broad and sweeping that it would inevitably be extended to direct contributions. If you accept that rationale, it's also a free speeh violation to ban direct corporate contributions. Next up are contribution limits altogether.

It's like no one remembers the period in our history called the Gilded Age, when Congressmen and Senators were openly bribed right in the halls of Congress.


We watched Boner do it. Cutting checks right there on the spot. Nobody seemed to care, I can't really understand why it's not more common.
 
2012-01-11 04:19:59 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: It's like no one remembers the period in our history called the Gilded Age, when Congressmen and Senators were openly bribed right in the halls of Congress.


Or, 1995, when Rep. John "Santa" Boehner handed out tobacco lobbyists' checks to fellow bought-and-paid-for congressmen on the House floor.
 
2012-01-11 04:20:55 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: If Unions can give to candidates, so should businesses.

I thought unions and corporations were bound by the same laws?

They are, and Citizen's United applied the same way to both, and all the people who oppose CU would be perfectly happy to apply the same restrictions to both. tenpoundsoflyingbullshiat is just pushing far right disinformation, as per usual.


are you saying that prior to CU, that Unions were not able to donate money to campaigns? Really? That is what you believe?
 
2012-01-11 04:21:55 PM

Aarontology: The American People are going to be expelled from having a say in their own government in favor of direct ownership of politicians by big business.


Pffft!

A 4 or at most 8 year lease, then you junk'em.
 
2012-01-11 04:22:06 PM

Cagey B: Then I realized that Chris Christie would win every election because of his superior availability of advertising space.


This isn't a problem. Congressional aides can carry some sort of standard which shows the sponsorship.
 
2012-01-11 04:22:59 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: If Unions can give to candidates, so should businesses.

I thought unions and corporations were bound by the same laws?

nope.


I realize it isn't the best reference in the world, but Wikipedia has the following statement:

"At the federal level, the primary source of campaign funds is individuals; political action committees are a distant second. Contributions from both are limited, and direct contributions from corporations and labor unions are prohibited."
 
2012-01-11 04:23:12 PM

birchman: tenpoundsofcheese: If Unions can give to candidates, so should businesses.

I fail to see the correlation. Those two entities have completely different purposes, goals, and motivations.


Made of people, meant to maximize profit for their shareholders....
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report