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 New York Times)   Republicans report epiphany: Corporations aren't people after all   (nytimes.com) divider line 50
    More: Obvious, California Republicans, Dan Lungren, attack ad, League of Conservation Voters, House Administration Committee, incumbents, National Republican Congressional Committee  
•       •       •

4322 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Oct 2012 at 2:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-24 10:31:06 AM  
Riiight. The 'epiphany' only came after they learned the hard way that it didn't give Republicans an unfair advantage over Democrats.
 
2012-10-24 11:26:16 AM  

Diogenes: Riiight. The 'epiphany' only came after they learned the hard way that it didn't give Republicans an unfair advantage over Democrats.


I think it's closer to "Wah, they are running ads about me, quoting everything I said and using it against me!"
 
2012-10-24 11:35:29 AM  

RedPhoenix122: Diogenes: Riiight. The 'epiphany' only came after they learned the hard way that it didn't give Republicans an unfair advantage over Democrats.

I think it's closer to "Wah, they are running ads about me, quoting everything I said and using it against me!"


That was included in my comment. They thought the Dems wouldn't be able to marshal enough funds to use their own tactics against them.
 
2012-10-24 12:53:45 PM  
So are these Republicans pushing to repeal Citizens United?
 
2012-10-24 02:19:21 PM  

hugram: So are these Republicans pushing to repeal Citizens United?


Maybe the DISCLOSE act, but exclude corporation funded SuperPACs and only hit unions funded ones.
 
2012-10-24 02:19:56 PM  
Oh, corporations are still people. They just have to tweak the laws a bit to exclude the wrong type of people.
 
2012-10-24 02:21:43 PM  
Hey, I know GOP....how about fark you, mmmkay? You brought this shiat on yourself. Take some farking responsibility and man up! Your bootstraps ought to be long enough to loop over the moon to use as a pulley by now, so you get no excuses for anything ever.
 
2012-10-24 02:22:14 PM  

hugram: So are these Republicans pushing to repeal Citizens United?


Of course they are. Citizens United will have served it's purpose after this election cycle.
 
2012-10-24 02:23:10 PM  

RedPhoenix122: I think it's closer to "Wah, they are running ads about me, quoting everything I said and using it against me!"


Typical mainstream media, reporting on a Republican's extremely offensive quote just because the guy said it.

/Onion
 
2012-10-24 02:24:01 PM  

hugram: So are these Republicans pushing to repeal Citizens United?


The article makes it sound like they want to remove all spending limits and just mandate disclosure. That doesn't seem like a better solution.
 
2012-10-24 02:24:49 PM  
So those who want to change it are the ones that are suffering because of it.

Dumbasses don't think about the long term consequences of their actions, do they?
 
2012-10-24 02:26:14 PM  

Nadie_AZ: So those who want to change it are the ones that are suffering because of it.

Dumbasses don't think about the long term consequences of their actions, do they?


Ignoring possible outcomes or failing to consider there might be unintended consequences has long been a hallmark of our politicians and has worked so well so far, why change it now?
 
2012-10-24 02:29:20 PM  
Corporapetions have the same God-given, Constitutional rapes as any Rapeublican person. It's right there in the Bill of Rapes.

/study it out
 
2012-10-24 02:29:46 PM  

karmaceutical: hugram: So are these Republicans pushing to repeal Citizens United?

Of course they are. Citizens United will have served it's purpose after this election cycle.



Until 2016 when another group of partisans want to buy ad time for a film critical of Democratic Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren then the whole cycle will start again.
 
2012-10-24 02:30:08 PM  

Nadie_AZ: So those who want to change it are the ones that are suffering because of it.

Dumbasses don't think about the long term consequences of their actions, do they?


They do. They just didn't foresee that their actions would come back to bite them in the arse, since they equate "Liberal" with the eunuch party (aka Democrats) and didn't expect that there would be people out there with money and balls who would be willing to go toe to toe with them. Now that they realize that there are people out there who are willing to play dirty, they want to change the rules again.
 
2012-10-24 02:30:24 PM  
this is what you wanted guys. you cheered when SCOTUS gave corporations the 'right' to pump unlimited amounts of cash into elections. you can't back out now...just because you didn't read the fine print on your deal with the devil before you signed away your soul isn't cause enough to change the terms of your contract.

your wish was granted. all deals are final...thems the rules. sorry.
 
2012-10-24 02:30:31 PM  

qorkfiend: Oh, corporations are still people. They just have to tweak the laws a bit to exclude the wrong type of people.


"I think this place is restricted, Wang, so don't tell them you're Jewish. Okay?"
 
2012-10-24 02:31:38 PM  

karmaceutical: hugram: So are these Republicans pushing to repeal Citizens United?

Of course they are. Citizens United will have served it's purpose after this election cycle.


I hate that feeling of not seeing things before and knowing you have a point.

Wow, I feel stupid never seeing that one.

/Duh
 
2012-10-24 02:31:46 PM  
After these last four years, Republicans aren't people either. They're Reavers Link
 
2012-10-24 02:35:49 PM  
Citizens United, whether you think it was rightly or wrongly decided, was not a partisan case. The law it overturned was part of the McCain-Feingold act for goodness sake. You remember McCain, the guy who ran for president as a Republican and who has been one of the most prominent supports of campaign finance restrictions? The McCain-Feingold Act was also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. And do you remember who was president (and hence who signed the bill into law) back in 2002? Yes, the evil Republican neo-con George W. Bush.

The ruling in Citizens United had support among groups on both the right and the left (see, e.g. ACLU, AFL-CIO). The portion of McCain-Feingold it struck down was an unconstitutional restriction on political speech. I mean, the law would have banned a movie about a political candidate in the middle of the political season solely on the basis that it was political speech funded by a corporation. The government attorneys lost that case the moment they couldn't explain why the rationale that allowed the FEC to block Hillary: the Movie wouldn't have also applied to The Audacity of Hope or Dreams of my Father (which are also about political candidates who were currently running for office and which are printed, distributed, and sold by for profit corporations, at least Citizens United was a non-profit.

If a Supreme Court justice asks you: "Under your theory of the Constitution, would the government be allowed to ban books about a political candidate?" And you answer 'Yes,' then you just lost.
 
2012-10-24 02:38:39 PM  
Hypocrisy knows no bounds in eitherparty
 
2012-10-24 02:41:28 PM  
"We had to see how this worked out for a cycle," he said.

I had to hit myself on the head with at 20lbs sledge to see how it worked out.

I had to drive my car into the sea and let it sit to see how it would work out.

I had to wipe my ass with my hand, smear it on my face and then run around a daycare, just to see how it would work out.
 
2012-10-24 02:42:24 PM  
No way McConnell lets that happen. He'll take on the House and possibly even lose some Rs in the Senate, but he'll scrape together the 40 votes to filibuster it.

Even if it does pass, it will have to get past the SCOTUS, which will be impossible until Kennedy retires.
 
2012-10-24 02:45:04 PM  
Easy solution to dark money attack ads:

Create an incentive for people to sue the ad makers. Deceptive and misleading statements generally don't get full free speech protections. And while you can technically sue for a lot of this stuff now, people just don't do it because it's usually too expensive, too long, and too often there's no payoff. So give people a payoff. Create absurd statutory damages a la the DMCA. Triple actual damages. When ads are principally funded by one person or group, who go through a straw-man organization to try to distance themselves from negative consequences of the ad, let people sue the person or group and not just the strawman. Make it so you can sue the people who run these organizations personally too. Make it so everyone can sue, not just candidates, but their political parties, opposition groups, or even people just see the ad on tv.

If you make the lawsuits profitable enough, and easy enough, you'll eventually make people like Karl Rove and the Koch brothers too scared to say anything mean about anyone. You'll see fewer political ads in general, and the ads you do see will just be the candidates talking about themselves, their own positions and their own accomplishments. Good fences make good neighbors, like good lawsuits make honest candidates.
 
2012-10-24 02:48:14 PM  

Nuuu: Easy solution to dark money attack ads:

Create an incentive for people to sue the ad makers. Deceptive and misleading statements generally don't get full free speech protections. And while you can technically sue for a lot of this stuff now, people just don't do it because it's usually too expensive, too long, and too often there's no payoff. So give people a payoff. Create absurd statutory damages a la the DMCA. Triple actual damages. When ads are principally funded by one person or group, who go through a straw-man organization to try to distance themselves from negative consequences of the ad, let people sue the person or group and not just the strawman. Make it so you can sue the people who run these organizations personally too. Make it so everyone can sue, not just candidates, but their political parties, opposition groups, or even people just see the ad on tv.

If you make the lawsuits profitable enough, and easy enough, you'll eventually make people like Karl Rove and the Koch brothers too scared to say anything mean about anyone. You'll see fewer political ads in general, and the ads you do see will just be the candidates talking about themselves, their own positions and their own accomplishments. Good fences make good neighbors, like good lawsuits make honest candidates.


I have a feeling that would result in a new form of electioneering that's based entirely on stripping your opponent of the ability to promote themselves by deluging every ad with litigation, regardless of merit.
 
2012-10-24 02:49:40 PM  
Democrats had the foresight to realize citizens united was bad. Republicans just saw how they could use it to their advantage. Shortsightedness always the winning strategy.
 
2012-10-24 02:50:41 PM  

monoski: Hypocrisy knows no bounds in eitherparty


So vote Rosanne Barr.
 
2012-10-24 02:57:25 PM  

IrateShadow: Nuuu: Easy solution to dark money attack ads:

Create an incentive for people to sue the ad makers. Deceptive and misleading statements generally don't get full free speech protections. And while you can technically sue for a lot of this stuff now, people just don't do it because it's usually too expensive, too long, and too often there's no payoff. So give people a payoff. Create absurd statutory damages a la the DMCA. Triple actual damages. When ads are principally funded by one person or group, who go through a straw-man organization to try to distance themselves from negative consequences of the ad, let people sue the person or group and not just the strawman. Make it so you can sue the people who run these organizations personally too. Make it so everyone can sue, not just candidates, but their political parties, opposition groups, or even people just see the ad on tv.

If you make the lawsuits profitable enough, and easy enough, you'll eventually make people like Karl Rove and the Koch brothers too scared to say anything mean about anyone. You'll see fewer political ads in general, and the ads you do see will just be the candidates talking about themselves, their own positions and their own accomplishments. Good fences make good neighbors, like good lawsuits make honest candidates.

I have a feeling that would result in a new form of electioneering that's based entirely on stripping your opponent of the ability to promote themselves by deluging every ad with litigation, regardless of merit.


Most states have anti-SLAPP laws (strategic lawsuit against public participation) and the rest could follow suit. If you do it right (and I'll admit you'd need to design this intelligently in order for it to work) the two types of lawsuits would keep each other in balance.
 
2012-10-24 03:07:11 PM  
First - as always i feel it necessary to decry that Citizens United has nothing to do with Corporate Personhood. Its holding rests on the aggregate first amendment rights of individuals. By contrast, Corporate Personhood is about rights held by companies that are not held by the members of the business.

hugram: So are these Republicans pushing to repeal Citizens United?


Since it is a Constitutional opinion, which would require an amendment diminishing rights under the 1st amendment, probably not - they are probably looking to increase transparency
 
2012-10-24 03:09:14 PM  

Talondel: If a Supreme Court justice asks you: "Under your theory of the Constitution, would the government be allowed to ban books about a political candidate?" And you answer 'Yes,' then you just lost.


Yeah, as an attorney thats right up there with: "If someone asks if you're a god, you say YES"
 
2012-10-24 03:27:47 PM  
...which is why they shouldn't pay tax.
 
2012-10-24 03:30:06 PM  

Teiritzamna: Talondel: If a Supreme Court justice asks you: "Under your theory of the Constitution, would the government be allowed to ban books about a political candidate?" And you answer 'Yes,' then you just lost.

Yeah, as an attorney thats right up there with: "If someone asks if you're a god, you say YES"


why?
 
2012-10-24 03:32:01 PM  
 
2012-10-24 03:40:13 PM  
We have a GOP candidate that is a champion for it and a GOP platform that is predicated on it......
 
2012-10-24 03:45:20 PM  

Teiritzamna: First - as always i feel it necessary to decry that Citizens United has nothing to do with Corporate Personhood.


Doesn't the whole notion of (Super)PACs (and the insane freedom to operate they have relative to you and I) rely on that notion, though? That someone can create a corporate "person" (a PAC) and have that "person" do all the speechifying (spend a shiatton of money producing/airing ads - and thanks to CU there aren't limits on time or amount) while also shielding the real person from blowback (because they're under no obligation to disclose who the real people running the corporate person are)?

Is all you're saying that the one (CU) isn't directly related to the other (personhood)? Because what's at issue seems to be more about the union of the two than about either part.
 
2012-10-24 03:48:09 PM  

IrateShadow: hugram: So are these Republicans pushing to repeal Citizens United?

The article makes it sound like they want to remove all spending limits and just mandate disclosure. That doesn't seem like a better solution.


This would benefit Republicans because they have no shame. They will stand proudly behind negative attack ads and consider themselves truth seekers or some nonsense.
 
2012-10-24 04:14:14 PM  

Ed Finnerty: Corporapetions have the same God-given, Constitutional rapes as any Rapeublican person. It's right there in the Bill of Rapes.

/study it out


You said rape 4 times. Thats as many as four ones. And that's terrible.
 
2012-10-24 04:16:21 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Doesn't the whole notion of (Super)PACs (and the insane freedom to operate they have relative to you and I) rely on that notion, though? That someone can create a corporate "person" (a PAC) and have that "person" do all the speechifying (spend a shiatton of money producing/airing ads - and thanks to CU there aren't limits on time or amount) while also shielding the real person from blowback (because they're under no obligation to disclose who the real people running the corporate person are)?


Corporate Personhood is a doctrine where we must treat a corporation as a legal person so that it can have rights distinct from the rights of either its agents or shareholders. The big purpose of this is to limit liability - a corporation can be sued and can sue, and does so as its own entity. When you sue IBM you are not suing all of its millions of shareholders, but IBM itself. This is why when there is a corporate lawsuit you don't get a call from a lawyer. Additionally, corporations own property distinctly from anyone else. If IBM happens to own a building, IBM owns it. The president of IBM doesn't own it, and neither do the shareholders. Being an entity for the purpose of suit and owning property are the big pillars of Corporate Personhood.

CU however rests on totally different grounds: Corporations do not speak. Their agents speak for them. Or, in rare cases, their shareholders. Each of these individuals has a right to free speech under the 1st amendment. The question then becomes, if you put these people together in a group, do they lose those rights? The CU answer is no, they do not. Thus the holding of CU is based on the idea that individual 1st amendment rights do not get diminished when they are aggregated. This rule applies regardless of whether the group is a corporation, or just a bunch of people hanging out together in a coffee shop. Corporate Personhood has nothing to do with it.
 
2012-10-24 04:19:38 PM  

meyerkev: Teiritzamna: Talondel: If a Supreme Court justice asks you: "Under your theory of the Constitution, would the government be allowed to ban books about a political candidate?" And you answer 'Yes,' then you just lost.

Yeah, as an attorney thats right up there with: "If someone asks if you're a god, you say YES"

why?


[notsureifserious.jpg]

this is why

www.film3sixtymagazine.com
 
2012-10-24 04:49:29 PM  
When will they realize that tax cuts for the very wealthy do NOT stimulate the economy? Or that trickle-down economics was a dismal failure? Or that there is no such thing as energy independence in a global energy market?
 
2012-10-24 05:30:09 PM  
us4palin.com
 
2012-10-24 05:39:29 PM  
Thanks to those Librul lovin' rich folks, they got a taste of their own medicine. Ha ha biatches.
 
2012-10-24 06:12:03 PM  
No.

Really, we're not.

What part of "No abridge of free speech" is hard to understand?
 
2012-10-24 06:21:58 PM  
i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-24 06:50:33 PM  

Teiritzamna: CU however rests on totally different grounds: Corporations do not speak. Their agents speak for them. Or, in rare cases, their shareholders. Each of these individuals has a right to free speech under the 1st amendment.


Except, of course, that they don't. We generally don't extend right to non-citizens living in other countries, and that's what those shareholders and agents may be.

A Saudi prince cannot send money to a politician, but a company partly owned by a Saudi prince can? There's no way to make that stand up unless you declare the company itself to be a citizen.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

This is pretty clear to me. The Supreme Court seems to have ignored it in their decision.
 
2012-10-24 07:38:13 PM  
I think you mean rapeiphany, Subby.
 
2012-10-24 10:25:54 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: This is pretty clear to me.


It's pretty clear that it applies to 'people holding any office'. It clearly doesn't apply to people seeking office.
 
2012-10-24 11:47:30 PM  
ctrl-f "free speech now"
No hits.

Huh.
 
2012-10-25 04:17:58 AM  
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
Did the picture in TFA remind anyone else of this?
 
2012-10-25 10:42:18 AM  
Teiritzamna:

Corporate Personhood is a doctrine where we must treat a corporation as a legal person so that it can enjoy rights without the annoying responsibilities or negative consequences.

FTFY
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

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