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.

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

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.

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.

The United States Government*

* A leisure service of AT&T

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



I look forward to President Earnhardt.

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

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.

Tarkus: Will corporations have to prove US citizenship?

I'd be satisfied that corporations are people if Texas executed one.

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.

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

Saiga410: 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....

Wow. Really? I mean, you're an idiot and an alt-troll, but really? That's the best you can do?

Corporate employee == working union member?

Working member of a union == shareholder of a company?

This won't stop until the citizenry starts shooting.

Quagdingo: I don't believe corporations to be so bad. That whole idea of limited liability (up to the amount you invested in the corporation) has really worked wonders for our country and economy. The issue with bad corporations is the people managing them, not the corporation (or its form) itself.

Even if you believe that, how does it follow from that that corporations should be given endlessly expanded "rights" greater than actual people?

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.

Yep, that was pretty much the point -- to knock down the ~25 years of precedent between Buckley and Citizens United and establish a new trajectory that leads into that direction.

You want to talk about "judicial activism" and how the American right really views it, right there's your #1 Case Example. Buckley reversed nearly 70 years of jurisprudence in the face of Congressional action and was lauded by the right, and Citizens United reversed the 25 years' of jurisprudence since Buckley in the face of Congressional action and was lauded by the right.

Quagdingo: A Dark Evil Omen: Quagdingo: I don't believe corporations to be so bad. That whole idea of limited liability (up to the amount you invested in the corporation) has really worked wonders for our country and economy. The issue with bad corporations is the people managing them, not the corporation (or its form) itself.

Even if you believe that, how does it follow from that that corporations should be given endlessly expanded "rights" greater than actual people?

Oh it doesn't. Sometimes when I read arguments like a few in this thread, it seems people wish to do away with the 'corporation'. I do not want that.

Well, I'm opposed to corporate personhood and corporations with unlimited charters in entire, I think the entire premise is flawed and dangerous. But that is a separate and distinct discussion from this.

birchman: So you were lying. Got it.

It's kind of the thing he does.

Shaggy_C: At least we would have some visibility to the money trail. With these 'Super PACs', corporations are able to donate millions towards campaigns under the table.

You kidding me? if the courts stood behind the idea corporations ought to be able to be unrestricted in hard money contribution, an argument that corporations and candidates have an extant right to privacy is very soon behind.

Republicans never fight for anything that won't translate directly to more control being handed over to multinational corporate interests, and fewer rights for Americans. It went from being their job to being their passion.

Philip Francis Queeg: Ask not what British Petroleum can do for you, ask what you can do for to British Petroleum.

Shaggy_C: One of the key parts of the CU decision was that the Supreme Court was imploring the Congress to pass new laws requiring that all donations be publicly available. Of course, with the Republicans taking the House and still filibustering the Senate, it was a non-starter. Don't blame the courts for this fark up.

Um, if the courts made a decision based on the assumption of future laws rather than the laws as they existed when the decision was made, then yeah that's a fark up you can blame on the courts.

qorkfiend: theknuckler_33: 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."

I think the distinction is that the limitations apply to donations directly to the candidate or their campaign committee, who also must disclose their donors; the loophole is the large PACs can get unlimited funds with no disclosure and run ads in favor of a specific candidate.

No, I understand that. I was addressing the idea that corporations are held to a different legal standard than unions.

Jim_Callahan: A Dark Evil Omen: Working member of a union == shareholder of a company?

A union is a corporation composed of laborers whose purpose is to contract their labor to another company, in fact if not in name, so sure, why not. Since in a proper union each member gets a vote and has a financial stake, describing them as shareholders seems reasonable, in that it's the literal truth of the matter.

I have absolutely no idea what the actual nomeclature for it is, though, and I think that they're "not a corporation" in the sense that they're governed by a different set of laws in most cases than those that cover proportional-ownership-based corporations. But in the literal sense of what a corporation is, they're corporations.

//The non-member-owned version of a Union would be a private third-party labor contractor, like a temp agency or a construction contractor.

Except that there's real, important substantive differences, like equal voting rights as opposed to voting shares and democratic governance.

It is exactly not analogous to corporate shareholders in the same way that the political situation of medieval peasants is not (or at least, is not supposed to be) analogous to citizens in a democratic republic.

tenpoundsofcheese: Philip Francis Queeg: tenpoundsofcheese: 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?

Unions cannot donate money to candidates.

They can do promote the candidates through advertising and campaigns. That is not a direct donation, but it is essentially a donation.

So do corporations. What were you complaining about exactly?

Jim_Callahan: A union is a corporation composed of laborers whose purpose is to contract their labor to another company, in fact if not in name, so sure, why not. Since in a proper union each member gets a vote and has a financial stake, describing them as shareholders seems reasonable, in that it's the literal truth of the matter.

"Yeah, it's not a corporation in the literal sense of the word, or any definition at all, but unions involve money and people, and since corporations also involve money and people, describing them as corporations seems reasonable to me. Also, theme-parks involve money and people, so unions are also basically theme-parks."

Shaggy_C: One of the key parts of the CU decision was that the Supreme Court was imploring the Congress to pass new laws requiring that all donations be publicly available. Of course, with the Republicans taking the House and still filibustering the Senate, it was a non-starter. Don't blame the courts for this fark up.

Yeah, Part IV, the one that also upheld BCRA's existing disclosure requirement. The one that was only added to the opinion because Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor joined Kennedy while the rest was decided by Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas joining Kennedy.

That doesn't paint a pretty picture for establishing precedent with strong footing. Honestly, in that atmosphere it's probably better for Congress to have not acted to strengthen disclosure requirements from the standpoint of an advocate of government transparency and accountability, since by doing nothing there's no basis for a later challenge along the lines I mentioned.

The Republican National Committee is not aware of any publicly held entity that has a direct financial interest in this case.

I lol'd.

Saiga410: 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....

Soilent Green?

that bosnian sniper: That doesn't paint a pretty picture for establishing precedent with strong footing.

That's not to mention the fact the next three Justices to go between age and health will likely be Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy (Scalia's in good health and let's face it, he's going to hold that seat until the day he dies). That's two Justices on the liberal wing, and the swing vote. Obama has to get a second term and replace both Ginsburg and Breyer, and net one additional appointment, to ensure ground's held against Citizens United let alone look at reversing it.

Idiocracy again establishes itself to be future history, not fiction.

Why is it as a stockholder they are allowed to take my money to fund a politician I don't like?

They are using other people's money for politics!! Much of that money is from foreign nationalists.

We served under President British Petroleum from 2001-2009.

Has more "Free Speech" in US elections than anyone in this thread does.

dahmers love zombie: Idiocracy again establishes itself to be future history, not fiction.

[i.imgur.com image 320x240]

Man, I hate how people denigrate President Camacho. The man was interested in improving things, and when he found the right person for the job of helping solve the country's problems he went, got him, and gave him all the help he needed.

I only wish we had Camacho,

Corvus: [i.usatoday.net image 490x553]

Has more "Free Speech" in US elections than anyone everyone in this thread added together does.

FTFM.

qorkfiend: blahpers: s1ugg0: Some day we'll all look back and remark how citizen's united was the death blow to our once great nation.

We were already bleeding out from thousands of wounds from the same corporate sword.

I was a democracy like you, until I took Citizen's United to the knee.

You see those corporations from Dubai? They've got curved swords.

Curved.

Swords.

Saiga410: Corvus: Corvus: [i.usatoday.net image 490x553]

Has more "Free Speech" in US elections than anyone everyone in this thread added together does.

FTFM.

Speak for youself.

Ah, willful self-delusion: The hallmark of the conservative.

Saiga410: Corvus: Corvus: [i.usatoday.net image 490x553]

Has more "Free Speech" in US elections than anyone everyone in this thread added together does.

FTFM.

Speak for youself.

You have billions in stock of US companies?

A Dark Evil Omen: qorkfiend: blahpers: s1ugg0: Some day we'll all look back and remark how citizen's united was the death blow to our once great nation.

We were already bleeding out from thousands of wounds from the same corporate sword.

I was a democracy like you, until I took Citizen's United to the knee.

You see those corporations from Dubai? They've got curved swords.

Curved.

Swords.

A politician might get aroused nervous when a corporation person approaches with their checkbook drawn.

Saiga410: LarryDan43: To be an american corporation you have to employ a majority of american workers right? Or is a headquarters at a strip mall in sandusky with your workforce in china sufficient?

As long as you give the govt 35% of your profit each year you can be considered an american corporation.

Yes, those "crippling" taxes that less than a third pay (new window).

Saiga410: A Dark Evil Omen: Saiga410: LarryDan43: To be an american corporation you have to employ a majority of american workers right? Or is a headquarters at a strip mall in sandusky with your workforce in china sufficient?

As long as you give the govt 35% of your profit each year you can be considered an american corporation.

Yes, those "crippling" taxes that less than a third pay (new window).

Point missed.

You pay 35% on profits you are an american corporation. 34%.... nope you are not.

Except, as the article I linked proves, that is complete and utter bullshiat. It should be true, but isn't.

Saiga410: You pay 35% on profits you are an american corporation. 34%.... nope you are not.

Okay, fine.

If you're supposed to pay 35% in profits, but don't because you employ an army of accountants, tax attorneys, lobbyists, "buddies" in the IRS, and hedge fund managers to employ every write-off, loophole, and tax shelter in the book to in fact pay 0% in profits, you are an American corporation.

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.

Ya like he has any change...

/more likely another Johnson Administration...
//TERM LIMITS!!!

Wish they would stop pussyfooting around and just say that only people who are wealthy are the only ones who can vote. We all know they're thinking it.

Benni K Rok: FTFA:Most corporations are not large entities waiting to flood the political system with contributions to curry influence. Most corporations are small businesses.

I'm not worried about most corporations exploiting this. I'm worried about the few that are large entities waiting to buy blocks of Federal Government off every 2, 4 or 6 years depending on the seats.

My thoughts exactly.

Most people aren't psychotic murderers either. That does not mean there's no need to restrict the behaviors of those few who are.

The Life Of Brian: Ya like he has any change...

President Earnhardt: he'll be the brick wall of deficit spending.

If foreign companies can donate unlimited amounts of cash, shouldn't foreigners be allowed to vote, too?

Maybe everyone should get one vote for each dollar they donate. Donate a million and get a million votes.

Only seems fair.

HotWingConspiracy: 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.

Dinglefutz John Boehner

In June 1995, Boehner distributed campaign contributions from tobacco industry lobbyists on the House floor as House members were weighing how to vote on tobacco subsidies.[19] In a 1996 documentary by PBS called The People and the Power Game, Boehner said "They asked me to give out a half dozen checks quickly before we got to the end of the month and I complied. And I did it on the House floor."

On September 18, 2008, Congressman Boehner attended a closed meeting with congressional leaders, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and was urged to craft legislation to help financially troubled banks. That same day (trade effective the next day), Congressman Boehner cashed out of an equity mutual fund.[31]

On October 3, 2008 Boehner voted in favor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP),[32] believing that the enumerated powers grant Congress the authority to "purchase assets and equity from financial institutions in order to strengthen its financial sector."