Do you have adblock enabled?
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 10
    More: Obvious, California Republicans, Dan Lungren, attack ad, League of Conservation Voters, House Administration Committee, incumbents, National Republican Congressional Committee  
•       •       •

4323 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-24 02:30:24 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:26:16 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:31:06 AM  
2 votes:
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 04:16:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:57:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:48:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:45:04 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:31:46 PM  
1 votes:
After these last four years, Republicans aren't people either. They're Reavers Link
2012-10-24 02:24:49 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:35:29 AM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 10 of 10 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