Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

**Sstashmoo** · January-22-10, 12:38 AM

Quote: "So how many corporations will be shooting themselves in the foot when they rub consumers the wrong way with their campaign choices? This could be a double-edged sword for them."

I can't recall it ever being that, so far...

**ejames01** · January-22-10, 07:35 AM

Consumers are idiots.

Originally Posted by lilpup

So how many corporations will be shooting themselves in the foot when they rub consumers the wrong way with their campaign choices? This could be a double-edged sword for them.

**East Detroit** · January-22-10, 07:47 AM

A nation of consumers, instead of citizens.

The only way consumers would take to the streets is if HD TV was suddenly banned.

**rb336** · January-22-10, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "when speech is dominated"

The one with the microphone wins. We can all bitch and moan on a blog or around the water cooler, it's basically meaningless. As long as some ratchet jaw with marching orders is flapping his gums through the millions of dashboard speakers, there is a never ending supply of idiots to absorb, believe and agree - and vote.

exactly how the cororatists want it

**rb336** · January-22-10, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Rideron

Bullshit:

Every 'average joe" on two legs has the EXACT SAME RIGHT to give a politician millions of $$$'s that big corporations have.

If you don't happen to HAVE millions to give politicians... tough.

this has got to be the lamest comment i've seen this year

**3WC** · January-22-10, 08:59 AM

Lilpup is correct. A little common sense on here goes a long way.

What do you all think corporations are, anyway? It clear Rb has no concept.

Corporations are us. Countless millions of us. We own corporations through direct ownership, mutual funds, pension funds etc. And if one assumes [[probably, incorrectly in many cases) that unions have adverse interests to corporations, then the unions have the same ability to influence voters as do corporations.

If we, the owners of corporations, don't like the political and other positions they take, sell their shares. They don't like that and will be careful to avoid alienating their owners.

It's not like we're not inundated with political advertising every time we turn around. Rb and others seem to think that we, the people, are a bunch of idiots, incapable of sorting through all the political BS, and we'll be robotized by the bad old corporations. Nonsense.

It's a tempest in a teapot.

**bailey** · January-22-10, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by ejames01

If the government is controlled by corporations and the super rich, then we will be living in fascism.

as a point of clarification... i think what you are describing is a "plutocracy" which isn't necessarily fascist, and is pretty much what we have already.

I wonder though, if we'll hear from the Cbats [[he's oddly missing....has he been banned?) of the world decrying this extrodinary bit of judicial activism.

The decision is a stunning display of judicial activism from a chief justice who promised to engage in anything but. Remember all his promises to respect precedent? Apparently he doesn't. As E.J. Dionne writes: "Remember Roberts saying judges were like umpires calling the balls and strikes? In this case, he and his colleagues canceled the game altogether and decided on their own what the final score would be." Roberts expanded the scope of the initial case before him, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to take on a century's worth of campaign-finance regulation. Dahlia Lithwick describes it perfectly: "The court had to reach out far beyond any place it needed to go....This started off as a case about a single movie. It morphed into John Roberts's Golden Globe night."

**ejames01** · January-22-10, 02:15 PM

Corporations are not us. The microscopic percentage of stock that a single average citizen owns in a company is meaningless. And no one is going to be manipulating their investments based on what a corporation is doing politically [[as if most people would even know what their efforts are). I would bet the the average person has no idea what companies that their mutual funds are invested in [[and who would have the time to do that anyway?).

It would take something pretty bad for investors to ignore a good ROE and divest.

Originally Posted by 3WC

Lilpup is correct. A little common sense on here goes a long way.

What do you all think corporations are, anyway? It clear Rb has no concept.

Corporations are us. Countless millions of us. We own corporations through direct ownership, mutual funds, pension funds etc. And if one assumes [[probably, incorrectly in many cases) that unions have adverse interests to corporations, then the unions have the same ability to influence voters as do corporations.

If we, the owners of corporations, don't like the political and other positions they take, sell their shares. They don't like that and will be careful to avoid alienating their owners.

It's not like we're not inundated with political advertising every time we turn around. Rb and others seem to think that we, the people, are a bunch of idiots, incapable of sorting through all the political BS, and we'll be robotized by the bad old corporations. Nonsense.

It's a tempest in a teapot.

**ejames01** · January-22-10, 02:16 PM

I agree with that, but the government could rapidly turn fascist if people interfered with commerce.

Originally Posted by bailey

as a point of clarification... i think what you are describing is a "plutocracy" which isn't necessarily fascist, and is pretty much what we have already.

I wonder though, if we'll hear from the Cbats [[he's oddly missing....has he been banned?) of the world decrying this extrodinary bit of judicial activism.

lilpup · January-22-10, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by ejames01

Corporations are not us. The microscopic percentage of stock that a single average citizen owns in a company is meaningless. And no one is going to be manipulating their investments based on what a corporation is doing politically [[as if most people would even know what their efforts are). I would bet the the average person has no idea what companies that their mutual funds are invested in [[and who would have the time to do that anyway?).

It would take something pretty bad for investors to ignore a good ROE and divest.

It's about consumers even more than stockholders. You think the big banks haven't noticed the 'move your money' action? Grassroots action is easier than ever with the internet - if a trend catches fire there's no stopping it until it burns out. Remember, that's a big part of how Obama got elected.

**rb336** · January-22-10, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by 3WC

Lilpup is correct. A little common sense on here goes a long way.

What do you all think corporations are, anyway? It clear Rb has no concept.

Corporations are us. Countless millions of us. We own corporations through direct ownership, mutual funds, pension funds etc. And if one assumes [[probably, incorrectly in many cases) that unions have adverse interests to corporations, then the unions have the same ability to influence voters as do corporations.

Let's make one thing clear, 3WC, and that is that if one of us knows what a corporation is, it is not you, except at the most simplistic level.

Corporations were originally created as a means to provide a common good. they were licensed, usually for a set period of time and for a narrow purpose. Today they are primarily shells to provide cover for their managers to rip off the people and destroy the middle class with complete impunity. they are unlimited in their scope and the only limits on them is their liability, and that limit is in their favour

If we, the owners of corporations, don't like the political and other positions they take, sell their shares. They don't like that and will be careful to avoid alienating their owners.

if you really think that is a viable strategy when most shares are held by various agencies, when the # of shares in a multinational numbers in the millions, i've got stock in a bridge in san francisco for sale

Rb and others seem to think that we, the people, are a bunch of idiots, incapable of sorting through all the political BS, and we'll be robotized by the bad old corporations. Nonsense.

except that the people keep doing their damndest to prove us right. They accept lies from whichever party, no matter how baldfaced they are, and continue to accept those lies regardless of how thoroughly they have been proven to be lies. [[case in point death panels. case in point sadam was behind 9/11. case in point "there were no terrorist attacks on the US under Bush)That, my friend, is the definition of an idiot

**Jimaz** · January-22-10, 04:52 PM

TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation WARNING: Do not click any www.poclad.org links on this page. Poclad currently has an "Expoit-PHPBB.b Trojan" infection.
A CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO CORPORATE CHARTER REVOCATION UNDER STATE LAW
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

**3WC** · January-22-10, 05:55 PM

Well Rb, you seem to think I don't know much about corporations. Even though I practiced corporate law for several years, I don't claim to lnow everything there is to know, although I guess you think you do.

You don't appear to remember that a couple of years ago on the old forum there was a legnthy discussion of corporations and you are spouting the same sophomoric stuff now as you did then. Some may think I referred to your view in an earlier post for the sole purpose of goading you into some typical ridiculous statement. That's not the case, but one could be forgiven for thinking so based on your comment above: "Corporations are primarily shells to provide cover for their managers to rip off people and destroy the middle class with impugnity." Nuf said.

By the way, I am not at all surprised to learn you own stock in a bridge in San Francisco. [[You and Manny Maroun, the bridge tycoons, right.) Rest easy, there's always the greater fool theory and sometimes it works so you may be able to dump it on some other sucker by the time you're 21.

**ejames01** · January-22-10, 07:34 PM

Regardless of your expertise, there is no way that you are going to convince anyone to believe that the average person has more power than large corporations or super rich people.

Originally Posted by 3WC

Well Rb, you seem to think I don't know much about corporations. Even though I practiced corporate law for several years, I don't claim to lnow everything there is to know, although I guess you think you do.

You don't appear to remember that a couple of years ago on the old forum there was a legnthy discussion of corporations and you are spouting the same sophomoric stuff now as you did then. Some may think I referred to your view in an earlier post for the sole purpose of goading you into some typical ridiculous statement. That's not the case, but one could be forgiven for thinking so based on your comment above: "Corporations are primarily shells to provide cover for their managers to rip off people and destroy the middle class with impugnity." Nuf said.

By the way, I am not at all surprised to learn you own stock in a bridge in San Francisco. [[You and Manny Maroun, the bridge tycoons, right.) Rest easy, there's always the greater fool theory and sometimes it works so you may be able to dump it on some other sucker by the time you're 21.

**3WC** · January-22-10, 10:19 PM

You misunderstand me. I don't claim the an individual has muck clout. I'm saying that large groups of shareholders through their unions, pension plans and so forth have much power if they want to use it.

Read the WSJ analysis of the decision in today's issue. There really is not that much of a change from before, as a practical matter. The Court's decision upheld part of McCain/Feingold which requires those running ads to identify themselves. Therefore, the reader has some idea as to whether the content is biased, or merely calling attention to established facts which voters should consider, and their impact on the sponsor of the ad. What's the harm in that?

By the way, I financially support The Institute for Justice in Washington, a Libertarian public interest law firm which has led the nationwide fight against imminent domain abuse, and always represents the little guy in fighting city hall on a wide range of issues. IJ filed a persuasive amicus brief at the Su Ct promoting the winning issues.

**gazhekwe** · January-25-10, 08:58 AM

Here's a commentary by Keith Olbermann. The future he spins at the end looks a lot like 1984, with the people hobbled by ignorance. He even predicts the end of Beck and Limbaugh because they incite the people. Can't have that.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...85508#34985508

**rb336** · January-25-10, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by 3WC

Some may think I referred to your view in an earlier post for the sole purpose of goading you into some typical ridiculous statement. That's not the case, but one could be forgiven for thinking so based on your comment above: "Corporations are primarily shells to provide cover for their managers to rip off people and destroy the middle class with impugnity." Nuf said.

of course it is. you say nothing, except to try to insult. the behavior of most multi-nationals, esp since reaganomics started, back my comment to the hilt

**3WC** · January-26-10, 10:27 PM

Rb, I was not trying to insult you and am chagrined if you though I was. However, your words speak for themselves.

There are countless corporations in the world. I, and possibly others, would find it informative, and possibly enlightening, if you'd list a few corporations which you feel evidence the characteristics you set forth in your view quoted in my post above. Thanks in advance.

**firstandten** · January-26-10, 11:20 PM

Isn't it something ? The same people who said Sotomayor would be an activist judge and try to make law, are the same folks who are in favor of the 5 right wingers who just made law, they gave the concept of corporate personhood the same rights as a natural person. They took the concept of corporate personhood into areas the founding fathers couldn't imagine nor want to. Strict constitutionalist ? those 5, what a bunch of bunk.

**rb336** · January-27-10, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by 3WC

Rb, I was not trying to insult you and am chagrined if you though I was. However, your words speak for themselves.

There are countless corporations in the world. I, and possibly others, would find it informative, and possibly enlightening, if you'd list a few corporations which you feel evidence the characteristics you set forth in your view quoted in my post above. Thanks in advance.

ExxonMobile
Chase
United Health Care
KBR
Aetna
Chevron
ConocoPhilips
BP
GlaxoSmithKlein
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Merck
Haliburton
whatever name Blackwater is using now
Cigna
Wellpoint
CitiBank
Bank of America
CapitolOne
Goldman Sachs
Wells Fargo
Morgan Stanley
UBS

for a start

**mauser** · January-28-10, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by jiminnm

Oh, I wasn't aware that freedom of speech led to fascism.

Corporations are not people. Period.

They have no speech rights based on the fallacy of "corporate personhood".. That argument is idiotic.

Giving such powerful rights to corporations, including multi and trans-national corporations, is in fact fascism.

**jiminnm** · January-28-10, 11:54 AM

There is nothing in the first amendment limiting the right of free speech to people [[I presume you mean humans). Corporations are considered persons under federal and state laws, and the Sup Ct has affirmed that. As a legally recognized person, they have the right of free speech. What is surprising is not that the SupCt recognized this, but that it took so long to do so.

**barnesfoto** · January-28-10, 02:09 PM

Really? Corporations are people?
Which corporation do you support for president?

**rb336** · January-28-10, 04:36 PM

which corporations are in jail for murder, theft, fraud, whatever?

**jiminnm** · January-28-10, 07:31 PM

Did either of you read the words I wrote? I didn't say that corporations were people, I said they were persons under the law. They have to be considered persons in order to have the right to own property, sign contracts, pay taxes, sue and be sued, etc. Nothing in the constitution distinguishes the rights of people and legally created persons. That's why I said above that to limit the right of persons created by law and not nature it would be necessary to amend the constitution. The cases mjs cited related to the regulatory power of the feds under the Commerce Clause and were unrelated to free speech.

From what I've read, a clear majority of constitutional lawyers think this was the correct legal opinion.