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.

(The Raw Story)   High-ranking politician promises to overturn unpopular law that was upheld by the Supreme Court as soon as their candidate is sworn in next January. No, not that law. And no, not that candidate, either   (rawstory.com) divider line 126
    More: Spiffy, supreme courts, Citizens United, Democrats, campaign finance laws, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

5226 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2012 at 11:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-27 11:53:37 AM  

Rich Cream: What bugs me most about that ruling is simply that a corp. is not a self-guided entity, it is the people who run it. But those people get to donate as the people they are. Why should they get to donate again as a corporation? That is not a level playing field.


Citizens United was always a stepping stone into allowing unlimited contributions from everybody.
 
2012-09-27 11:55:06 AM  
Here's my program.

1) A candidate may spend no more than 25 cents per registered voter in the district for they are running for office, be it local, statewide or national office.

2) Donations may be made only by individuals who are registered to vote in the district, and their donation is limited to 25 cents.
 
2012-09-27 11:55:06 AM  
Pelosi says FU to CU and CU later?

Nice thought but the Gordian knot was simpler and promising to go over SCOTUS's head seems a bit of an overreach.

Even pure public campaign financing wouldn't stop the ads at this point so what's the point to making such a declaration.
 
2012-09-27 11:55:26 AM  

Anderson's Pooper: Mentat: Remember, corporations are people and free speech is money, but unions shouldn't donate to Democrats because that's a conflict of interest.

Except that SuperPACs are taking in money voluntarily given by individuals and corporations. The problem with union donations is that many union members are forced into membership in order to work in certain industries and that their dues are being used, in part, to support political candidates and ideas with which they don't agree.


I can't think of a single time a union has spent union money supporting a candidate who would be doing something bad for the members of the union. Obviously I don't have memory of every union action in America, so I could be dead wrong and they do it all the time.

That may mean that a member of, say a teacher's union, thinks that creation should be taught in the schools, women's vaginas should be legislated, trickle-down economics are good, etc and thus be upset that the union gives money to the candidate who supports decent pay and school lunches, but it is still the union acting on behalf of teachers. I'd be willing to bet the members of those unions in similar situations are still better off for having the union (in reality, that is, Not in the false reality where they pretend they are being held back by the union and would be running the show if it weren't for the union. I don't believe that bullshiat for a minute).
 
2012-09-27 11:57:34 AM  

Saiga410: Hobodeluxe: you could make public financing the only legal option I suppose. everyone gets the same amount and it's a battle of ideals only

I am so running as an independent if this occured. The campaign can cover all of my meal, lodging, travel and booze expenses.... and there will be plenty of booze expenses.


I'm sure there would be some requirements for receiving funds though. probably a petition with x amount of signatures.
 
2012-09-27 11:57:54 AM  
Fark liberals outraged by what they believe the CU ruling is.

It was decided on corporate personhood. It was decided in response to an earlier case that determined corporations can interfere with elections to a degree they need to be regulated. The problem with this is we rely on corporate news everyday. And as written the FCC could censor political speech such as newspapers and books solely due to the structuring of the organization.

The USSC did not want to sign off on the idea that the govt could decide which corporations were free to speak and which ones weren't.
 
2012-09-27 11:58:11 AM  

Saiga410: Hobodeluxe: you could make public financing the only legal option I suppose. everyone gets the same amount and it's a battle of ideals only

I am so running as an independent if this occured. The campaign can cover all of my meal, lodging, travel and booze expenses.... and there will be plenty of booze expenses.


I would consider it after seeing johnson's ability to pay out his buddies.

I wonder if there is even any oversight within the PACs themselves. I mean actual oversight and not just some technically existing rules that everyone ignores. Could I start a PAC and then pay myself a million dollars to go to hawaii and spread the good word along its beaches? Or try to get prostitutes to vote for my candidate by establishing a good personal relationship with them?
 
2012-09-27 12:00:07 PM  

Mrbogey: Fark liberals outraged by what they believe the CU ruling is.

It was decided on corporate personhood. It was decided in response to an earlier case that determined corporations can interfere with elections to a degree they need to be regulated. The problem with this is we rely on corporate news everyday. And as written the FCC could censor political speech such as newspapers and books solely due to the structuring of the organization.

The USSC did not want to sign off on the idea that the govt could decide which corporations were free to speak and which ones weren't.


err "was not decided"
 
2012-09-27 12:00:44 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: Mentat: Remember, corporations are people and free speech is money, but unions shouldn't donate to Democrats because that's a conflict of interest.

Except that SuperPACs are taking in money voluntarily given by individuals and corporations. The problem with union donations is that many union members are forced into membership in order to work in certain industries and that their dues are being used, in part, to support political candidates and ideas with which they don't agree.


Unions support those who support them. Just like corporations. Do you think shareholders and employees of a corporation vote on who their company gives money to?
 
2012-09-27 12:03:06 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Rich Cream: What bugs me most about that ruling is simply that a corp. is not a self-guided entity, it is the people who run it. But those people get to donate as the people they are. Why should they get to donate again as a corporation? That is not a level playing field.

Citizens United was always a stepping stone into allowing unlimited contributions from everybody.



That sounds level but it isn't. It's more bullshiat.
 
2012-09-27 12:04:10 PM  

Mrbogey: Fark liberals outraged by what they believe the CU ruling is.

It was decided on corporate personhood. It was decided in response to an earlier case that determined corporations can interfere with elections to a degree they need to be regulated. The problem with this is we rely on corporate news everyday. And as written the FCC could censor political speech such as newspapers and books solely due to the structuring of the organization.

The USSC did not want to sign off on the idea that the govt could decide which corporations were free to speak and which ones weren't.


Quit bringing your factual data to this illogical biatchfest!
 
2012-09-27 12:04:24 PM  

pete1729: Here's my program.

1) A candidate may spend no more than 25 cents per registered voter in the district for they are running for office, be it local, statewide or national office.

2) Donations may be made only by individuals who are registered to vote in the district, and their donation is limited to 25 cents.


This made me LOL
 
2012-09-27 12:12:34 PM  

pete1729: Here's my program.

1) A candidate may spend no more than 25 cents per registered voter in the district for they are running for office, be it local, statewide or national office.

2) Donations may be made only by individuals who are registered to vote in the district, and their donation is limited to 25 cents.


That's more lenient than mine. Mine:

1) All elections are publicly funded. Use of non-public money for any kind of campaign is completely illegal
2) There will be a 5 year moratorium on lobbyists becoming politicians or politicians becoming lobbyists
3) All lobbyist/politician contact must be recorded and made immediately available to the public free of charge
4) All politicians must use the same healthcare and retirement system their constituents use

/like someone else said about my unicorn farts, "when pigs fly"
//get the money out of politics and politics will once again be for the people, by the people.
 
2012-09-27 12:20:40 PM  
Anderson's Pooper The problem with union donations is that many union members are forced into membership in order to work in certain industries and that their dues are being used, in part, to support political candidates and ideas with which they don't agree.

But aren't you the folks that always say that if you don't like the conditions of employment you should just find another job?
 
2012-09-27 12:27:37 PM  
1) CU had nothing to do with corporate personhood (which is a term of art that doesn't even mean what you think it means) or even corporations being "people."

2) The problem with a very very broad protection of free speech rights is that they are very very broad. For every person who says "money isn't speech," do you realize that this is not the argument? The argument is: "Can the government put limits on the instruments of disseminating your ideas?"

Let's do it as a hypo: Alice wants to make herstatement that Candidate is a poopy head. Alice could go into town square and shout at the top of her lungs 24/7 that Candidate sucks. Or! Alice could make a bunch of fliers and hand them out. Great! Fliers are an instrumentality of speech, they are a "force multiplier" that allows Alice to reach many more people. Limiting her access to fliers limits her ability to speak (from a legal perspective).

What does this have to do with money? Well as Homer Simpson taught me, money can be exchanged for goods and services. In this case, money can be spent on fliers. Thus a rule saying Alice cannot spend money on fliers is tantamount to a rule saying Alice cannot use fliers at all (and before any wag suggests that she could just print them herself . . . she is still spending money - on paper, on electricity, etc). Given that the speech section of the First Amendment was written to prevent the venerable British traditions of jailing printers who made political broadsheets for the content of their messages and destroying the instruments of producing fliers and pamphlets, a ban on political money is pretty much right in the ambit of what the framers were trying to stop.

Major disclosure rules and requirements - great, we need more. But I must admit, even though i don't like the idea of rich people flooding the marketplace of ideas, i really really hate the idea of amending the constitution to make it ok for government to limit not just speech, but political speech* much more.

*as in "the whole point of the First Amendment"
 
2012-09-27 12:32:19 PM  

Smackledorfer: I can't think of a single time a union has spent union money supporting a candidate who would be doing something bad for the members of the union. Obviously I don't have memory of every union action in America, so I could be dead wrong and they do it all the time.

 
2012-09-27 12:33:37 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: balance of power is just so 18th century for the dems.
no surprise.


I know I'm feeding a troll here, but: tenpoundsofcheese, you're a genuine retard.
 
2012-09-27 12:35:08 PM  

Teiritzamna: 1) CU had nothing to do with corporate personhood (which is a term of art that doesn't even mean what you think it means) or even corporations being "people."


I would say directly. Indirectly it does. Corporate personhood as an idea is granting a corporation rights as an entity, and this is about the rights of these types of entities. The decision mentions that associations of people(ie a corporation, a union, etc.) have the same rights as individual people, which is very much the same concept.
 
2012-09-27 12:35:48 PM  
But remember, OWS was inneffective, disorganized, bought and paid for, never going to accomplish anything, defecating on police and urinating *all over american principles* and real americans aren't going to bow to the demands they aren't making.

Therefore, Pelosi isn't a real american. But we already knew that.

Or something.

/idk I'm bad at this.
//Here's hoping she isn't just blowing smoke up my ass.
 
2012-09-27 12:44:57 PM  
Let's try that again:

HarveyBrooks: But aren't you the folks that always say that if you don't like the conditions of employment you should just find another job?


In some professions, especially education, it's impossible to get a job without becoming a member of the union.

Hobodeluxe: Unions support those who support them. Just like corporations. Do you think shareholders and employees of a corporation vote on who their company gives money to?


Shareholders can sell their shares if they don't agree with the way the company is being run, including the support of particular political candidates. Union members have no say in how their dues are spent.

Smackledorfer: I can't think of a single time a union has spent union money supporting a candidate who would be doing something bad for the members of the union. Obviously I don't have memory of every union action in America, so I could be dead wrong and they do it all the time.


Unions are made up of individuals who have varying political beliefs. They should not be forced to fund political actions with which they don't agree.


My original point was that there is a significant difference between voluntary political donations by individuals and groups and the mandated use of union dues for political purposes. I would have no issue with unions supporting political candidates and causes if they used funds that were not tied to members' dues. Use the dues for collective bargaining and other workplace issues. Collect additional, voluntary, funds from members or leadership for political purposes. And yes, I understand that there may not always be a bright line between workplace and politics.
 
2012-09-27 12:51:31 PM  
Wouldn't that pretty much require a Constitutional amendment? That's not quite as easy as a simple majority vote in the House, but thanks for insulting my intelligence, I don't get enough of that from the GOP these days.
 
2012-09-27 12:53:56 PM  

Antimatter: Couldn't they just pass a law clarifying the role of corporations and limiting their rights, and thus, negate CU? The Supremes can't argue it's a violation of their rights, as the Constitution makes no mention of corporations to begin with.


Unless they interpret what "we the people..." means to include corporations as "people". I think refining the role of a corporation to limit the ability to enter into political decisions would be a decent law.
 
2012-09-27 01:01:32 PM  
You can't...overturn a law that the Supreme Court has ruled on. You can only take it back to superior court and start over again.

Do these fools not understand what a Supreme Court ruling actually is?
 
2012-09-27 01:04:40 PM  

dericwater: Antimatter: Couldn't they just pass a law clarifying the role of corporations and limiting their rights, and thus, negate CU? The Supremes can't argue it's a violation of their rights, as the Constitution makes no mention of corporations to begin with.

Unless they interpret what "we the people..." means to include corporations as "people". I think refining the role of a corporation to limit the ability to enter into political decisions would be a decent law.


Better would be to force public funding for campaigns and ban private electioneering as they regard to elections otherwise
 
2012-09-27 01:12:40 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: My original point was that there is a significant difference between voluntary political donations by individuals and groups and the mandated use of union dues for political purposes.


Oh I got your points, but my point was that any political leanings of a union are such that they support the union members. The teacher's union is out there picking candidates that support improving or maintaining the situation for teachers. Nothing more and nothing less. They aren't donating because of planned parenthood, global warming, trickle down economics, etc. Thus, their donations are in fact completely in line with the overall purpose of the union.

Anderson's Pooper: Collect additional, voluntary, funds from members or leadership for political purposes.


Which then defeats the entire purpose of a union. Leave the union if you don't want the benefits the union provides, one of which is its political influence. Screw free riding.

Anderson's Pooper: HarveyBrooks: But aren't you the folks that always say that if you don't like the conditions of employment you should just find another job?

In some professions, especially education, it's impossible to get a job without becoming a member of the union.


That makes no difference, they should find another career. Just borrow money from your parents for the education costs. In fact, you should have been doing that to fund your K-12 education as well, given the way the republican party leans. It's pretty hard to find a career in a non-union position where a portion of the profits off the work you do don't end up in the political system in some manner and without your absolute control. At least union members are stakeholders AND stockholders to be served by the union. As a non-union employee you are a stakeholder in the success of the business, but are not necessarily served in any way by the way your corporate leaders choose to spend your money.

Essentially your argument is that unions are special because what, 'members can't get exactly what they want and in some way are forced to go along with the group to some extent'? Show me any organization of any kind that is any different.
 
2012-09-27 01:13:00 PM  

Diogenes: Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.

I agree. And a little silly to make such a promise.


Not silly at all. They have no chance at the house. Why not make any promise you think may help you.
 
2012-09-27 01:14:54 PM  

Citrate1007: This will probably be the first Amendment to the Constitution i'll see passed in my lifetime. I think overall Americans regardless of political affiliation realize that the Citizens United decision and SuperPacs are a very, very bad thing.


The only way it'd pass as an amendment is if the States propose it instead of Congress. Congress will NEVER pass it.
 
2012-09-27 01:15:22 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: Let's try that again:

HarveyBrooks: But aren't you the folks that always say that if you don't like the conditions of employment you should just find another job?

In some professions, especially education, it's impossible to get a job without becoming a member of the union.


Not true. You can start your own education business. Go into private teaching, whatever.

Hobodeluxe: Unions support those who support them. Just like corporations. Do you think shareholders and employees of a corporation vote on who their company gives money to?

Shareholders can sell their shares if they don't agree with the way the company is being run, including the support of particular political candidates. Union members have no say in how their dues are spent.


Not true. Members can and should attend union member meetings and discuss why their union chapter should support on various positions. It's only the lazy members who just give the money and don't care what the union decides to support. And that's ok as well.

Smackledorfer: I can't think of a single time a union has spent union money supporting a candidate who would be doing something bad for the members of the union. Obviously I don't have memory of every union action in America, so I could be dead wrong and they do it all the time.

Unions are made up of individuals who have varying political beliefs. They should not be forced to fund political actions with which they don't agree.


Ideally, union members may have varying opinions, but through discussions at meetings, come to a consensus that might indicate that while one's opinions may not carry the day, at least it was heard and a reasonable compromise was taken. My ex was the head of her teaching union and had to fight hard to convince the membership that their choice for the health plans was not optimal: that many were choosing a more expensive, less beneficial option (mainly because of marketing). It got to some people's heads, but others stood firm on the more expensive/less benefit option. It affected everyone because the payment was made as a lump payment through the union back to the school district.

My original point was that there is a significant difference between voluntary political donations by individuals and groups and the mandated use of union dues for political purposes. I would have no issue with unions supporting political candidates and causes if they used funds that were not tied to members' dues. Use the dues for collective bargaining and other workplace issues. Collect additional, voluntary, funds from members or leadership for political purposes. And yes, I understand that there may not always be a bright line between workplace and politics.


And some shareholders can't just cash out because the political choices of the corporation is not in line with their opinions. I understand the image that unions tell their members what to do. But in reality, that's not how unions work. There are a lot of discussions and debates within the membership of a union.
 
2012-09-27 01:17:12 PM  

bhcompy: Teiritzamna: 1) CU had nothing to do with corporate personhood (which is a term of art that doesn't even mean what you think it means) or even corporations being "people."

I would say directly. Indirectly it does. Corporate personhood as an idea is granting a corporation rights as an entity, and this is about the rights of these types of entities. The decision mentions that associations of people(ie a corporation, a union, etc.) have the same rights as individual people, which is very much the same concept.


Actually, no its the opposite. Corporate personhood is the legal creation of an entity that has rights explicitly distinct from the people who make that entity up. It is generally the right to own property and sue/be sued. As an example, when Exxon Mobile owns an oil field, none of its shareholders/officers/boardmembers own that field. Exxon does. Sherholders own only the right to vote, receive dividends and bring derivative suits. The officers can direct the company, but they owe a ton of duties to the company, especially when it comes to disposition of assets - they are agents of Exxon, just like a realtor selling your house is an agent. That is what corporate personhood is - a set of rights distinct from those owned by the people making up the corporation.

CU rested on pretty much the exact opposite ground, that a company doesn't really have rights to speak, its agents/shareholders do. As such, it is unconstitutional to hold that government cannot restrict a citizen's rights to speak as an individual, but if two or more citizens band together too pool resources, somehow the government can now crack down like a mofo.

That's what i mean when i say that CU does not rest on corporate personhood. In fact, it is a bizarrely "democratic" (i know - the irony) argument, as it basically says grass roots groups can pool cash to counter the effect of a few individual billionaires like the Koch Bros. That's not how it seems to be shaking down, but the idea is there.
 
2012-09-27 01:21:33 PM  

dericwater: Antimatter: Couldn't they just pass a law clarifying the role of corporations and limiting their rights, and thus, negate CU? The Supremes can't argue it's a violation of their rights, as the Constitution makes no mention of corporations to begin with.

Unless they interpret what "we the people..." means to include corporations as "people". I think refining the role of a corporation to limit the ability to enter into political decisions would be a decent law.


Well as noted, CU is just a good ol' fashioned First Amendment case really (the rights of groups to speak are the same as the rights of the individuals in those groups to speak) so no - the holding of CU pretty much precludes any such statutory work around.
 
2012-09-27 01:21:59 PM  

dericwater: There are a lot of discussions and debates within the membership of a union.


It is amazing that people seem to believe that union members have no input into their union, but that they believe that we somehow have more input into what our governor, mayor, legislature, or executive leadership does. We are in a thread discussing whether business leaders should have the ability to speak millions of times more loudly than individuals through money being considered free speech while acting like individual union members are somehow massively disenfranchised slaves to the system? wtf.

In a union I get an opinion that I feel counts. I have a union leader who will respond to my emails. My union dues are as valuable as anyone else's.

I've never gotten anything but generic stock responses from any official I'm supposed to be influencing with my vote, and any money I can afford to give is a farking joke compared to a guy like Adelson. Or Soros, take your pick.


I'm sorry, but if disenfranchisement of the little guy is a problem we want to address, then unions are pretty goddamned far down the line of things to look at.
 
2012-09-27 01:27:15 PM  

Smackledorfer: I'm sorry, but if disenfranchisement of the little guy is a problem we want to address, then unions are pretty goddamned far down the line of things to look at.


in this regard, the little guy's "disenfranchisement" is his own fault and the fault of every other little guy who is influenced by campaign ads over understanding the issues. That's the heart of the matter. Yeah, it's bullshiat that money = speech but if we weren't a nation of fools being led around by the nose, it wouldn't be a problem. Lobbying, that's another issue entirely.
 
2012-09-27 01:34:12 PM  

GhostFish: Weaver95: Cythraul: Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.

Which is a farkin' tragedy.

agreed...but nobody in Congress is going to repeal the ruling that gives them all unlimited amounts of free money. that never happens.

The GOP has been benefiting much more from Citizens United than the Democrats have been.
So it makes total sense to me that the Democrats could willingly give up the resources offered by Citizens United.

They're basically calling for mutual disarmament when they're outgunned.


And union based advertising promotion? Most unions are incorporated. Are the dems really going to give up that leverage. Or will special wording be added to protect it? Can an individual still talk, or will you ban his speech? Think adleson. What about talking heads on news channels. They have an unfair microphone. Are john Stewart and orielly to be muted?

Honestly don't know why liberals are so into banning free speech. Once you start it becomes a slippery slope. See how Chavez revoked broadcast licenses from opponents.
 
2012-09-27 01:37:22 PM  

Citrate1007: Smackledorfer: And they defend Adelson

This is what scares me most. Adelson admitted that he's giving Mitt countless millions so that the DoJ will stop looking into criminal charges involving his casinos (bribery & money laundering). Apparently this is not only legal, the farker is confident enough to say it on camera.

Sheldon Adelson: Investigation Into His Casinos By Justice Department Is Top Reason For Backing Romney


Lol. Wow. What spun. Aldeson was arguing that due to his support of Romney, the doj is now harassing him. He stated that the executive was going after him due to his political speech. Nice spin you put on that.
 
2012-09-27 01:39:41 PM  

Antimatter: Couldn't they just pass a law clarifying the role of corporations and limiting their rights, and thus, negate CU? The Supremes can't argue it's a violation of their rights, as the Constitution makes no mention of corporations to begin with.


The first amendment was a limit in congressional power. It was not a granting of rights. Some day liberals will understand the basic premise that the constitution outlined federal powers and not citizen rights.
 
2012-09-27 01:41:51 PM  
So, every now and then there's a trick that gets floated around as a way to essentially eliminate porn, or abortion, or any kind of speech or expression that some group of people don't like. Basically, you pass a law that gives any individual the right to sue for any aforementioned offending action that might hurt their delicate sensibilities. So if you see porn, and are offended by this, you can sue the porn producer and get massive statutory damages. The hope is that opportunists will pour into the market and file BS lawsuits that essentially bankrupt the industry.

You could do something far more restrained here and get us back to a more sensible state of affairs. Pass a law that gives any candidate for office the right to sue any private organization that runs a negative attack ad against that candidate which is false or misleading. Exempt ads by the candidates themselves or their national parties. Write in stupidly huge statutory damages: say, three times the cost to produce and air the ad, or $150,000 for every time the ad is aired, or the demonstrated cost of any corrective advertising. Make it so that if maybe 20% of the funding of that organization came can be traced directly to one corporation or mega-donor, that you can collect damages against that mega-donor directly. This way, the next time the Koch brothers dump $20,000,000 into a deliberately false hit job against some candidate, they'll come away with a $60,000,000 bill payable directly to the guy they were trying to take down. Once a few of these suits get filed, that Super-PAC money well will go bone dry in an instant.
 
2012-09-27 01:41:52 PM  

Teiritzamna: Well as noted, CU is just a good ol' fashioned First Amendment case really (the rights of groups to speak are the same as the rights of the individuals in those groups to speak) so no - the holding of CU pretty much precludes any such statutory work around.


Not if you change the way business-entities are legislated into existence. "A company can still be a company (make/sell/support widgets), but zero political donations are allowed from corporate coffers" - what's wrong with that?

Target (for example) doesn't get to "lobby" a governor to tax-break them a new superstore? Boo-farkity-hoo - these sort of double-handwashings are part of the reason we're in this mess of large entities paying far less than they should owe in any sane taxation plan to begin with.

You interact with your government as a private citizen or lobbying group, not as a business. If you want friendly treatment from government, ask for it as a citizen or group of citizens.
 
2012-09-27 01:43:05 PM  

MyRandomName: Citrate1007: Smackledorfer: And they defend Adelson

This is what scares me most. Adelson admitted that he's giving Mitt countless millions so that the DoJ will stop looking into criminal charges involving his casinos (bribery & money laundering). Apparently this is not only legal, the farker is confident enough to say it on camera.

Sheldon Adelson: Investigation Into His Casinos By Justice Department Is Top Reason For Backing Romney

Lol. Wow. What spun. Aldeson was arguing that due to his support of Romney, the doj is now harassing him. He stated that the executive was going after him due to his political speech. Nice spin you put on that.


It's a chicken/egg situation in my opinion.
 
2012-09-27 01:50:17 PM  
If you can do that, you can end the wars, raise taxes on the rich, and pass single-payer universal healthcare first.

Or maybe you shouldn't open your horse-mouth and make promises everyone knows you can't keep.
 
2012-09-27 02:04:27 PM  
Last time I checked, amending the Constitution wasn't that easy. Something something state legislatures something something...
 
2012-09-27 02:07:18 PM  
It's funny that people who oppose unions don't understand that the United States is, in its essence, a union. You belong to the United States union when you become a US citizen. You have to pay your dues (taxes) and you follow in lock-step insofar as how the United States projects itself to the rest of the world. Of course, there are internal discourse and debate that give direction to how the United States project itself to the world. But at the end, you can't speak opposite to what the country decides to speak. And it's pretty much the same thing with almost any other country in the world.
 
2012-09-27 02:10:17 PM  

dericwater: It's funny that people who oppose unions don't understand that the United States is, in its essence, a union. You belong to the United States union when you become a US citizen. You have to pay your dues (taxes) and you follow in lock-step insofar as how the United States projects itself to the rest of the world. Of course, there are internal discourse and debate that give direction to how the United States project itself to the world. But at the end, you can't speak opposite to what the country decides to speak. And it's pretty much the same thing with almost any other country in the world.


Corporations donating to politicians to sway legislation = Free Speech
Unions donating to politicians to sway legislation = Conflict of Interest

These are the Party above Country GOP....
 
2012-09-27 02:25:42 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Teiritzamna: Well as noted, CU is just a good ol' fashioned First Amendment case really (the rights of groups to speak are the same as the rights of the individuals in those groups to speak) so no - the holding of CU pretty much precludes any such statutory work around.

Not if you change the way business-entities are legislated into existence. "A company can still be a company (make/sell/support widgets), but zero political donations are allowed from corporate coffers" - what's wrong with that?

Target (for example) doesn't get to "lobby" a governor to tax-break them a new superstore? Boo-farkity-hoo - these sort of double-handwashings are part of the reason we're in this mess of large entities paying far less than they should owe in any sane taxation plan to begin with.

You interact with your government as a private citizen or lobbying group, not as a business. If you want friendly treatment from government, ask for it as a citizen or group of citizens.


During my lengthy period of trying to seek a legal hook against CU, one of my friends advanced the incorporation change argument for a while. The problem is twofold however. 1 even if it worked it would only affect new companies, as making it retroactive would pretty much be verboten under the contracts clause/DPC. and 2, it wont work. Basically, as noted above because CU does not rest on corporate personhood, but instead the free speech rights of individuals who happen to be working as a group, changes to incorporation law would likely be unconstitutional as well. Here is a good article on it form the Volokh Conspiracy.

?stop thinking corporations as people and start thinking people exercising their rights in a group, if you want to see how overturning CU is a very sticky problem
 
2012-09-27 03:00:22 PM  

Teiritzamna: stop thinking corporations as people and start thinking people exercising their rights in a group, if you want to see how overturning CU is a very sticky problem


That's why I approached it as a "people" problem. People, under my plan, would still be allowed to form groups and lobby government, but they would need to be separate entities dedicated solely to lobbying and separate from any corporation. The people in corporations are still allowed to donate, and their rights of association are not trampled.

The sticking point I can see is the post-hoc rewriting of campaign-finance law. Since each election is a separate thing, could my proposal be written as "Applying to all elections after Jan 1, 20XX"? And I suppose we couldn't do that for primaries, as those are run by "private" concerns (political parties, who have their own rules), making it a bit of an incomplete move, but am I getting close?

// make lobbying groups not-for-profit (or nonprofit; I forget which one is allowed to have profits) and profits are taxed 60%
 
2012-09-27 03:04:58 PM  

dericwater: It's funny that people who oppose unions don't understand that the United States is, in its essence, a union.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Autonomous Corporation, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Personal Responsibility, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America in the name of Jesus Christ, our Savior.
 
2012-09-27 03:14:21 PM  

Teiritzamna: ?stop thinking corporations as people and start thinking people exercising their rights in a group, if you want to see how overturning CU is a very sticky problem


How about a federal law that political contributions made by a corporation pierce the corporate veil?
 
2012-09-27 03:26:29 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Rich Cream: What bugs me most about that ruling is simply that a corp. is not a self-guided entity, it is the people who run it. But those people get to donate as the people they are. Why should they get to donate again as a corporation? That is not a level playing field.

Citizens United was always a stepping stone into allowing unlimited contributions from everybody.


Citizens united did not affect campaign contributions. Seriously, people who post this shiat are morons. Campaigns were not affected. Cu was only about independent speech. Of you can prove pacs are working with campaigns, it is a violation of federal law. See Massachusetts where the candidates asked the pacs to stop.
 
2012-09-27 03:28:16 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Anderson's Pooper: Mentat: Remember, corporations are people and free speech is money, but unions shouldn't donate to Democrats because that's a conflict of interest.

Except that SuperPACs are taking in money voluntarily given by individuals and corporations. The problem with union donations is that many union members are forced into membership in order to work in certain industries and that their dues are being used, in part, to support political candidates and ideas with which they don't agree.

Unions support those who support them. Just like corporations. Do you think shareholders and employees of a corporation vote on who their company gives money to?


Corporations work for shareholders. Employees are not part of the corporation in a technical sense.
 
2012-09-27 03:28:59 PM  
I would be absolutely elated to see Democrats stand up to Citizens United by introducing a constitutional amendment... While Mitt Romney is out there saying we need laws to stop teachers and unions from giving money to politicians, he's fine with taking millions from people with active DoJ investigations... it's time for the silliness to stop. I look forward to the Dems introducing this amendment every year, just like republicans do with right to life ant anti-gay marriage amendments. Even if it doesn't pass, Democrats should list themselves as the party that is against this kind of idiocy.
 
2012-09-27 03:31:27 PM  
The Citizens United ruling would be overturnable--and would never have been an issue--if it is not framed as a First Amendment issue. That was what got the opponents screwed in the first place. It was framed in terms of the potential chilling effect it could have on small businesses, personal corporations (doctors, eg.) and even charitable organizations which are non-profit corporations. I think part of either the brief or the opinion referenced Greenpeace and the Sierra Club--do we really not want candidates to have endorsements from them?

No matter how conservative they are, the Supreme Court will NEVER uphold any law or proposed law that infringes on the First Amendment. Framing opposition to CU as a 1st Amd. issue was a stroke of brilliance on the part of the lawyers. We all know the purpose of the law was to allow corporations unlimited right to pay off, I mean, contribute to the candidate of their choice. But merely the thought of suppressing people's rights to do so ensured the Court ruled the way it did.

I'll keep saying this till some attorney gets off his or her fat ass, stops whining about the CU ruling, and reframes the argument in a way that makes it clear the intent of the law is to stop corporations from paying off politicians.
 
Displayed 50 of 126 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 »
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