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.

(Talking Points Memo)   The Supreme Court could improve the budget deficit--or they could completely screw it up. Given their track record, it seems clear what will happen   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 316
    More: Scary, supreme courts, Douglas W. Elmendorf, health law, health insurance exchange, debt limit, deficits, Congressional Budget Office, Wall Street reform  
•       •       •

3399 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jun 2012 at 1:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-14 03:34:30 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: So, if I'm understanding this thread correctly, there are several Farkers who think that Citizens United was a good idea. Please tell me that I just need more coffee and that you're not really that migraine-inducingly stupid. Bloody hell.


This thread is making me think I need crazy pills. CU is good, people should be able to shoot the homeless, Obama is a "lawbreaker" but shouldn't be arrested, and the occasional comment about PPACA.
 
2012-06-14 03:35:44 PM  

Fart_Machine: Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?


If 100 like-minded people got into a room and each put $500,000 into a bag and then took that money to the local ABC affiliate and dropped $50mm into the lap of the head of advertising to run $50mm worth of ads for Obama, should that be illegal?
 
2012-06-14 03:37:05 PM  

Pincy: Yep, I've been saying it for years now, I would be willing to pay a National sales tax if it meant we got UHC.


So would I, and I HATE the idea of using a sales tax.

FYI - just for general knowledge. We could DOUBLE the Medicare portion of the payroll tax and extend Medicare to everyone. Seriously. 48% of all health spending in the US comes from the government (Medicare, Medicaid, VA). And with the government picking up the tab we can finally impose some cost controls. Yes, doctors and pharmaceutical sales reps will whine, but since they didn't protest when manufacturing compensation plummeted over time I don't see why anyone should care that they can't afford that $80k Lexus anymore.
 
2012-06-14 03:38:04 PM  

bdub77: The court is going to dump Obamacare for political purposes. The lawyer arguing Obamacare farked up big time.

Many people in this country will be pissed about losing what they had under Obamacare. But probably not the same ones who would vote Republican. The people voting Republican, mostly old people, don't care. They have theirs, it's called Medicare.

This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.


Lets see the court pull a Citizens united, answer a question not presented, and make all federal medical care programs unconstitutional.

I will laugh and cry at the same time.

And welcome the amendment for universal healthcare that would follow about 5 years later as people, especially the elderly, die in their homes due to lack of affordable care....

/A pipe dream that the tragedy that is the US HC system leads to something good.
 
2012-06-14 03:38:30 PM  

MugzyBrown: Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment


That would suggest that the corporation acts as a group in unanimous agreement. As far as I know, only sole proprietorships can do that.

Corporations exist as THIRD PARTIES formed by a person or by people. They do not inherit their creators' rights to speech, association, to be secure in their persons, etc - mostly because the people keep those rights for themselves, and granting a corporation the right to be secure in its person is a ludicrous concept.

If anything, a corporation is like a child with thousands of parents, but if you've ever sued one, you know that corporations are orphans - no one takes responsibility for them and their farkups.

A group of people is allowed to act how it wants, provided they use their own money to do it. Unless and until a corporation can prove that 100% of its shareholders (and employees?) agree with a political expenditure, corporate speech represents coercion by the company of those shareholders who do not agree with the corporate position. A misappropriation of funds, or fraud (presenting a misleading version of the shareholders' actual opinions), or a violation of civil rights (by compelling the shareholders' support of Candidate X or Issue Y) - call it what you want, but it's still wrong.
 
2012-06-14 03:38:39 PM  

MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?

If 100 like-minded people got into a room and each put $500,000 into a bag and then took that money to the local ABC affiliate and dropped $50mm into the lap of the head of advertising to run $50mm worth of ads for Obama, should that be illegal?


No, because that is completely different from what you are implying it is exactly the same as.
 
2012-06-14 03:39:48 PM  

MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?

If 100 like-minded people got into a room and each put $500,000 into a bag and then took that money to the local ABC affiliate and dropped $50mm into the lap of the head of advertising to run $50mm worth of ads for Obama, should that be illegal?


Actually no unless you believe that every individual shareholder is in favor of what the corporation spends its finance dollars on.
 
2012-06-14 03:41:17 PM  

DamnYankees: Babwa Wawa: Otherwise, any cost-saving measure that's not specifically prohibited by the constitution is allowable. And that's not a correct interpretation of the commerce clause.

It's not? Sounds like it would be to me. What's wrong with that interpretation?


Fiscal efficiency is not a generally accepted test of constitutionality.

If it were, there would be some fairly perverse regulatory incentives.
 
2012-06-14 03:43:01 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Money is opportunity. Isn't that what they teach in economics class?


No, its not. Money is a medium of exchange, a store of value and a unit of accounting in economics. No idea where you got this "Money is Opportunity" thing.
 
2012-06-14 03:43:05 PM  

Fart_Machine: Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: Citizens United also breaks 100 years of legal precedent.

You bought that line? Try reading the opinion.

What precedents are they following?


Here's a sampling:
1st Nat'l Bank v. Belotti (corporations have 1st amendment rights) (1978)
NAACP v. Button (extending corporate 1st amendment rights to political speech) (1963)
Buckley v. Valeo (rejecting as unconstitutional prohibition of direct expenditures in political speech) (1976)

Yes, they overruled Austin, but that was a 1990 case, and an outlier among 1st Amendment cases. The "100 years of precedent" line was horsehockey.
 
2012-06-14 03:44:09 PM  

Perlin Noise: Garet Garrett: Um, that's not taking the money out.

I'm am not so stupid as to believe that money is not needed. Private interest money is obviously what I am talking about.


Ah, yes. Taking the people out of politics. Good idea.
 
2012-06-14 03:46:05 PM  

Garet Garrett: Speech is an action. Money is a concept (or a paper, if you're that way inclined). You can turn money into speech the same way I can turn it into a cheeseburger, but that doesn't make money speech any more than it makes money cheeseburgers.

I missed it where we had a federal law limiting the number of cheeseburgers I can buy.


I missed the part where that addresses the substance of my argument.

Money is not speech, it is opportunity. Once converted from opportunity into speech, the results of that conversion ("speech") are protected by the First, just as when I convert it into a cheeseburger, I retain ownership rights of said cheeseburger.
 
2012-06-14 03:46:57 PM  

CPennypacker: No, because that is completely different from what you are implying it is exactly the same as.


How is a group of people, or a single person, spending loads of money on a campaign more appealing than a corporation spending loads of money on a campaign?

Dr Dreidel: Unless and until a corporation can prove that 100% of its shareholders (and employees?) agree with a political expenditure


Does a campaign need to prove that 100% of its donors agree with a political expenditure?

Does a shareholder need to sign off on a new product?

No, when you purchase a share in a company, you do so with certain contractual rights. One of which is not approving every expenditure of the company. If you do not agree with the political spending of the company, one of the rights is to try and remove the board of directors and replace them.
 
2012-06-14 03:48:35 PM  

Perlin Noise: SkinnyHead: Of course it is. Passing an illegal law is illegal. It's illegal to do that.

You are an idiot and you should stop typing.

Wait, did I just get trolled?


No you did not get trolled. The guy is an idiot and should stop typing.
 
2012-06-14 03:49:19 PM  

derpdeederp: Dr Dreidel: Money is opportunity. Isn't that what they teach in economics class?

No, its not. Money is a medium of exchange, a store of value and a unit of accounting in economics. No idea where you got this "Money is Opportunity" thing.


Thanks for answering your own question. Money is a placeholder for other things; it is not those other things.

Money is money and speech is speech. Let's not try and play rhetorical games with a simple concept.
 
2012-06-14 03:50:14 PM  

Fart_Machine: MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?

If 100 like-minded people got into a room and each put $500,000 into a bag and then took that money to the local ABC affiliate and dropped $50mm into the lap of the head of advertising to run $50mm worth of ads for Obama, should that be illegal?

Actually no unless you believe that every individual shareholder is in favor of what the corporation spends its finance dollars on.


That's not how corporations work. Investing in a company necessarily cedes the control of finances, and other business judgments, to management. That includes operational decisions (should we open a plant in Cleveland?), PR (let's launch an ad campaign showing how green our products are!), and yes, even political activities (let's lobby the legislature for tax credits for the new enviro-friendly Cleveland plant - or, let's throw some money at the Green Plants in Cleveland PAC).

Don't like what they're doing? Unless you can convince a court they're violating the business judgment rule or prevail at a shareholder meeting, your option is to divest. Or buy control and do it yourself.
 
2012-06-14 03:51:11 PM  

MugzyBrown: Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment


Except they can also donate individually, effectively giving them TWO voices.
 
2012-06-14 03:51:53 PM  

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: No, because that is completely different from what you are implying it is exactly the same as.

How is a group of people, or a single person, spending loads of money on a campaign more appealing than a corporation spending loads of money on a campaign?

Dr Dreidel: Unless and until a corporation can prove that 100% of its shareholders (and employees?) agree with a political expenditure

Does a campaign need to prove that 100% of its donors agree with a political expenditure?

Does a shareholder need to sign off on a new product?

No, when you purchase a share in a company, you do so with certain contractual rights. One of which is not approving every expenditure of the company. If you do not agree with the political spending of the company, one of the rights is to try and remove the board of directors and replace them.


So purchasing a share isn't the same as individually donating to a campaign. I'm glad we agree.
 
2012-06-14 03:52:25 PM  

Garet Garrett: Don't like what they're doing? Unless you can convince a court they're violating the business judgment rule or prevail at a shareholder meeting, your option is to divest. Or buy control and do it yourself.


Whining doesn't work?

SWAT-ing?
 
2012-06-14 03:53:38 PM  

Garet Garrett: MugzyBrown: Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment

People who insist that we can have a legal system that doesn't grant corporations basic rights as entities are either tilt-at-windmills libertarians or blinkered, foolish liberals. Rarely effective to try to convince them. In the latter's case, they'll laud Wikipedia for opposing SOPA and be outraged at the suggestion that the New York Times Co. should have no 1st Amendment rights while saying that Exxon should be muzzled, all without a trace of self-awareness.


It's always funny to see how limiting vast amounts of money or removing transparency is considered "muzzling".
 
2012-06-14 03:53:43 PM  

DamnYankees: Babwa Wawa: The uncompensated seizure and resale of private property would have a positive impact of government balance sheet. Doesn't make it constitutional.

But that's because there's a specific provision in the constitution you can point to which it would violate. The same can't be said of Obamacare.


You are so daft in constitutional interpretation. The constitution defines government powers, the government has to justify its action. The constitutional does not merely state what the government can't do. It was a GRANTING of enumerated powers. the impetus is on government to show legality of their actions.
 
2012-06-14 03:54:06 PM  

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: No, because that is completely different from what you are implying it is exactly the same as.

How is a group of people, or a single person, spending loads of money on a campaign more appealing than a corporation spending loads of money on a campaign?


Because a corporation is not a "group of like minded people," it is property. A corporation is a favorable legal structure that businesses form to protect the individual stakeholders from personal liabiliy for the actions of the business. That legal entity operates based on the whims of its management and governing structure, and all stakeholders do not get equal say in its operations or finances. Therefore, a corporation donating to a politician is donating stakeholder money without their consent or knowledge.
 
2012-06-14 03:54:27 PM  

Dr Dreidel: derpdeederp: Dr Dreidel: Money is opportunity. Isn't that what they teach in economics class?

No, its not. Money is a medium of exchange, a store of value and a unit of accounting in economics. No idea where you got this "Money is Opportunity" thing.

Thanks for answering your own question. Money is a placeholder for other things; it is not those other things.

Money is money and speech is speech. Let's not try and play rhetorical games with a simple concept.


Not sure what the original question was. Probably a different poster.
 
2012-06-14 03:55:00 PM  

Fart_Machine: So purchasing a share isn't the same as individually donating to a campaign. I'm glad we agree.


You can't read obviously.

1) Of course they're not the same, but not for the reasons you think you scored some debate point on.

2) They are the same for the reason you think you scored some debate point on. Once you give a corporation your money or a capaign your money, you don't get to overrule the business/campaign strategy just because you put money in.
 
2012-06-14 03:56:22 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Garet Garrett: Speech is an action. Money is a concept (or a paper, if you're that way inclined). You can turn money into speech the same way I can turn it into a cheeseburger, but that doesn't make money speech any more than it makes money cheeseburgers.

I missed it where we had a federal law limiting the number of cheeseburgers I can buy.

I missed the part where that addresses the substance of my argument.

Money is not speech, it is opportunity. Once converted from opportunity into speech, the results of that conversion ("speech") are protected by the First, just as when I convert it into a cheeseburger, I retain ownership rights of said cheeseburger.


In the political context, money looks a lot more like speech than some abstract concept like "opportunity." I give $100 to my local candidate for town council, that's my means of advocating for him to win. I'm not likely to take out an ad myself, or buy the gas for his bandwagon, so I give money instead.

I guess you were trying to say that money represents a medium of exchange and has no intrinsic value until it is exchanged for something that does have intrinsic value, like a cheeseburger or a 30-second radio spot. I guess that's true on some pointless level. But my point crediting your apparent point - why do we limit how people will spend their money on political speech, but not on cheeseburgers? Difficulty: In light of a constitutional provision that expressly prohibits limits on such speech?
 
2012-06-14 03:56:48 PM  

EighthDay: Babwa Wawa: While I believe the legislation is constitutional, it is a unprecedented interpretation of the commerce, and thus SCOTUS does need to rule on it.

What about the mandatory hospital insurance that was done by the US government of the 1790s?


Seriously, that has been explained so many farking times. It was attached to a condition of mercantile trade. It was by a catch all by virtue of being alive. One pro-actively entered into commerce with known requirements. It would be akin to commercial insurance for truck drivers. Stop with your idiocy.
 
2012-06-14 03:56:51 PM  

Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?

If 100 like-minded people got into a room and each put $500,000 into a bag and then took that money to the local ABC affiliate and dropped $50mm into the lap of the head of advertising to run $50mm worth of ads for Obama, should that be illegal?

Actually no unless you believe that every individual shareholder is in favor of what the corporation spends its finance dollars on.

That's not how corporations work. Investing in a company necessarily cedes the control of finances, and other business judgments, to management. That includes operational decisions (should we open a plant in Cleveland?), PR (let's launch an ad campaign showing how green our products are!), and yes, even political activities (let's lobby the legislature for tax credits for the new enviro-friendly Cleveland plant - or, let's throw some money at the Green Plants in Cleveland PAC).

Don't like what they're doing? Unless you can convince a court they're violating the business judgment rule or prevail at a shareholder meeting, your option is to divest. Or buy control and do it yourself.


So his example was a poor one. I'm glad we agree.
 
2012-06-14 03:56:54 PM  

CPennypacker: Therefore, a corporation donating to a politician is donating stakeholder money without their consent or knowledge.


Is a corporation buying a new property doing it without the consent or knowledge of the shareholders? By your definition yes. ILLEGAL!
 
2012-06-14 03:57:51 PM  

MugzyBrown: Once you give a corporation your money or a capaign your money, you don't get to overrule the business/campaign strategy just because you put money in.


For customers, sure. Shareholders, on the other hand, are nominal owners of said corporation.
 
2012-06-14 03:58:04 PM  

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: Therefore, a corporation donating to a politician is donating stakeholder money without their consent or knowledge.

Is a corporation buying a new property doing it without the consent or knowledge of the shareholders? By your definition yes. ILLEGAL!


A corporation buying property is presumably doing so to conduct business at the behest of its stakeholders.
 
2012-06-14 03:58:12 PM  

Fart_Machine: It's always funny to see how limiting vast amounts of money or removing transparency is considered "muzzling".


Oh, I must've misunderstood. Is your position that there is some non-vast amount of money that a corporation may spend that is protected by the constitution? Out of curiosity, what's that figure?
 
2012-06-14 03:59:19 PM  

MugzyBrown: Dr Dreidel: Unless and until a corporation can prove that 100% of its shareholders (and employees?) agree with a political expenditure

Does a campaign need to prove that 100% of its donors agree with a political expenditure?


Do I really need to answer this question? By donating to a campaign, it's sort of implied that the donator supports that campaign/candidate.

Does a shareholder need to sign off on a new product?

No, when you purchase a share in a company, you do so with certain contractual rights. One of which is not approving every expenditure of the company. If you do not agree with the political spending of the company, one of the rights is to try and remove the board of directors and replace them.


No, because that's the raison d'etre for the company - making products. I guess for PACs which are (essentially) political corporations, the rule holds, but that doesn't mean PACs have to be legal. Besides which, we're talking about corporations that fund PACs, not the PACs themselves.

I suppose that I see investing in a company to be investing in the corporate space that entity has carved out - health insurance, auto parts, baby furniture - and political playing by a corporation to be outside that corporate space.

I can agree that I want my shares of Exxon/Mobil to do well without agreeing with E/M's decision to keep fighting against repaying the good people of Prince William Sound. My desire for the company to do well sits apart from my belief that the E/M lobbying to have environmental catastrophe damages capped by law so they don't owe $3,000,000,000 to fishermen is wrong. One is solely a corporate matter (Should E/M have to pay for farking up?), the other is political (Should E/M get to lobby the Alaskan/Federal government to have their potential liability reduced?).

One is lensed as a shareholder, the other as a voting citizen.
 
2012-06-14 04:02:04 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Garet Garrett: Speech is an action. Money is a concept (or a paper, if you're that way inclined). You can turn money into speech the same way I can turn it into a cheeseburger, but that doesn't make money speech any more than it makes money cheeseburgers.

I missed it where we had a federal law limiting the number of cheeseburgers I can buy.

I missed the part where that addresses the substance of my argument.

Money is not speech, it is opportunity. Once converted from opportunity into speech, the results of that conversion ("speech") are protected by the First, just as when I convert it into a cheeseburger, I retain ownership rights of said cheeseburger.


Like someone else said up above, money is a unit of value. It provides opportunity, but it doesn't guarantee it.

I could have a million dollars and want a Bugatti Veyron, but there are only so many Veyrons. If one isn't available, then I don't have an opportunity to buy it, even though I have the money.

with speech, money has the value of buying more means of expressing speech. It isn't necessarily the opportunity to express speech. If anything, the opportunity to all to express speech should be as protected as the speech itself, regardless of how much money they have.

I don't know how that wasn't apparent to the SCOTUS though.

/Money isn't speech
//Speech is speech
///Expression should be available to all
////Money just means you can possibly express louder and more often, if the opportunity exists.
 
2012-06-14 04:02:07 PM  

CPennypacker: A corporation buying property is presumably doing so to conduct business at the behest of its stakeholders


Actually, everything the corporation does is presumably in furtherance of its corporate purpose. Including political activities. A presumption that can be overcome by a showing that its acts are ultra vires.
 
2012-06-14 04:02:36 PM  

Generation_D: I think its becoming consensus you'd have to go back to the 1800s to find one that is on a par with this one.


Rufus Peckham would like to have a word with you.
 
2012-06-14 04:02:53 PM  

verbaltoxin: I could have a million dollars and want a Bugatti Veyron


You can't afford it.
 
2012-06-14 04:03:30 PM  
For customers, sure. Shareholders, on the other hand, are nominal owners of said corporation.

Shareholders cannot stop the executives from spending money or anything. Part of the deal is you're giving control of your money to the Board and Officers of the company.

A corporation buying property is presumably doing so to conduct business at the behest of its stakeholders.

So is a corporation donating to a political campaign.


In fact, being a shareholder is more "fair" than donating to a campaign. If you don't like the candidates your company is donating to, you can sell your shares and divest. If you don't like the direction the campaign is going, you can't ask for your money back.
 
2012-06-14 04:03:41 PM  

MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?

If 100 like-minded people got into a room and each put $500,000 into a bag and then took that money to the local ABC affiliate and dropped $50mm into the lap of the head of advertising to run $50mm worth of ads for Obama, should that be illegal?


Yes. Let them donate their money directly to their candidate of choice (and get a personal income tax deduction). Using corporate fronts, whether for profit or non-profit, has turned elections into "buy a politican" yard sales for corporate entities and makes the desires of the People obsolete and unimportant.

However, I'm willing to compromise. Let's make all political donations 100% anonymous to the candidate. Donate all you want, but the money goes through a blind proxy and it is a felony for the candidate to attempt to obtain the identity or for the donor to tell the candidate. You get a receipt for tax purposes, but it will not indicate who the money was donated to. PACs must also work through a blind proxy.
 
2012-06-14 04:06:15 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I can agree that I want my shares of Exxon/Mobil to do well without agreeing with E/M's decision to keep fighting against repaying the good people of Prince William Sound. My desire for the company to do well sits apart from my belief that the E/M lobbying to have environmental catastrophe damages capped by law so they don't owe $3,000,000,000 to fishermen is wrong. One is solely a corporate matter (Should E/M have to pay for farking up?), the other is political (Should E/M get to lobby the Alaskan/Federal government to have their potential liability reduced?).


Right, and you have deferred, by law, to management as to the decision how management should go about dealing with those good people.
 
2012-06-14 04:06:37 PM  

Garet Garrett: Ah, yes. Taking the people profit out of politics. Good idea.

 
2012-06-14 04:06:39 PM  

Garet Garrett: ultra vires.


I'm pretty sure a company attempting to buy itself favorable legislation is ultra vires
 
2012-06-14 04:08:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well, what I'm hearing from Obama and his toadies is that nothing is ever Obama's fault. Not even Obamacare.


here's a hint, einstein: not everybody thinks obamacare is a bad thing. in fact, when you break it into its constituent parts, most americans are for it.
 
2012-06-14 04:11:46 PM  
The sheer mass of stupidity in this thread is distorting space and time.

Respect to the brave souls who are trying to add some reason to it; you're better men than I, Gunga Din.
 
2012-06-14 04:11:59 PM  

Garet Garrett: why do we limit how people will spend their money on political speech, but not on cheeseburgers? Difficulty: In light of a constitutional provision that expressly prohibits limits on such speech?


Why do we limit how people spend their money on nuclear weaponry, in light of a Constitutional protection of my (individual) right to "keep and bear arms"?
 
2012-06-14 04:12:00 PM  

OgreMagi: Let's make all political donations 100% anonymous to the candidate. Donate all you want, but the money goes through a blind proxy and it is a felony for the candidate to attempt to obtain the identity or for the donor to tell the candidate


It's a fun idea, but a waste of time & money. Do you really think candidates wouldn't know? How about I call my candidate... I'm sending $1mm today. I circumvented the $10 billion dollar Federal Electron Proxy System with a phone call.

OgreMagi: Using corporate fronts, whether for profit or non-profit, has turned elections into "buy a politican" yard sales for corporate entities and makes the desires of the People obsolete and unimportant.


So you're fine with one of the Koch brothers donating $100m, but not Koch Industries, because that would be buying a politician?
 
2012-06-14 04:15:30 PM  

Garet Garrett: Dr Dreidel: I can agree that I want my shares of Exxon/Mobil to do well without agreeing with E/M's decision to keep fighting against repaying the good people of Prince William Sound. My desire for the company to do well sits apart from my belief that the E/M lobbying to have environmental catastrophe damages capped by law so they don't owe $3,000,000,000 to fishermen is wrong. One is solely a corporate matter (Should E/M have to pay for farking up?), the other is political (Should E/M get to lobby the Alaskan/Federal government to have their potential liability reduced?).

Right, and you have deferred, by law, to management as to the decision how management should go about dealing with those good people.


Again you missed the point. What I take issue with is not that Exxon/Mobil wants to shirk their responsibility - that's expected behavior for penny-pinching sociopaths (which all corporations essentially are). What I take issue with is Exxon/Mobil lobbying the referees to change the rules.

If Exxon/Mobil's CEO-the-Hutt (I know, former CEO) wants to lobby Juneau or Washington, I wish him all the luck in the world. I take exception to Exxon/Mobil lobbying Juneau or Washington.
 
2012-06-14 04:20:57 PM  

MugzyBrown: OgreMagi: Let's make all political donations 100% anonymous to the candidate. Donate all you want, but the money goes through a blind proxy and it is a felony for the candidate to attempt to obtain the identity or for the donor to tell the candidate

It's a fun idea, but a waste of time & money. Do you really think candidates wouldn't know? How about I call my candidate... I'm sending $1mm today. I circumvented the $10 billion dollar Federal Electron Proxy System with a phone call.

OgreMagi: Using corporate fronts, whether for profit or non-profit, has turned elections into "buy a politican" yard sales for corporate entities and makes the desires of the People obsolete and unimportant.

So you're fine with one of the Koch brothers donating $100m, but not Koch Industries, because that would be buying a politician?


That phone call would be a felony on my proposed system and both parties would be guilty (unless the candidate immediately reported the call to the proper agency). Yes, I know catching them would be difficult, but it's better than the current system. As for the Koch brothers making huge donations, I don't have a problem with that. They are people and have rights. Koch Industries is a "thing" and does not have rights (I don't care what they say in Citizens United). It may be pure symantecs, but the concept is important.
 
2012-06-14 04:23:54 PM  

Garet Garrett: it wouldn't offend the 1st Amendment at all to ban the use of megaphones


It wouldn't.

What, you think it would?
 
2012-06-14 04:37:41 PM  

friday13: sprawl15: DamnYankees: Except for the fact that this would never happen, you're exactly right.

That it would never happen is totally irrelevant. When you test the limits of potential inputs to a logical assertion, you don't just test what is expected. You see this in software: a question that asks for your birthday had better be able to handle an input of 'balloon intestine', or it's shiatty logic.

DamnYankees: I believe it, provisionally, because I can't think of any example which would violate it.

Killing the homeless would save money. Why wouldn't that be allowed under the commerce clause?

Because it doesn't actually regulate commerce.


Exactly my point. DamnYankees was arguing that "any cost-saving measure that's not specifically prohibited by the constitution is allowable" by the commerce clause.
 
2012-06-14 04:46:20 PM  

Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: It's always funny to see how limiting vast amounts of money or removing transparency is considered "muzzling".

Oh, I must've misunderstood. Is your position that there is some non-vast amount of money that a corporation may spend that is protected by the constitution? Out of curiosity, what's that figure?


I would argue that there isn't necessarily a hard number. Instead, I would argue that Congress and the states should have the power to regulate political donations and expenditures in spite of the fact that they are a form of free speech. Justice Kennedy's argument was that there is no way for these things to give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption, and thus there is no compelling state interest in establishing regulations that violate free speech. Can you honestly tell me you believe that when somebody like Sheldon Adelson spends what he calls a "limitless" amount of money to get Mitt Romney elected that there is no corrupting influence there, or that nobody could possibly think there is a corrupting influence there?

/and this says absolutely nothing about how judicially activist it was to take a simple statutory case and transform it into a far-reaching constitutional case
 
Displayed 50 of 316 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report