I get a sinking feeling in my guy when I think about this. I'm not very good at figuring out political implications for these types of things, but every since I watched The Corporation, I've hated the way corporations operate in this country more and more every day.
And this just seems to be even worse news.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course Obama would be opposed...he got most his money online form unverified sources. He said it was "'a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.'"
You mean like giving tax exemptions to your top supporters and political advisors...unions. Tax everyone's health policy except for those who work to support your reelection and who's leader is your most frequent visitor in the white house.....Unions.
The stampede of special interest money is fine so long as it doesn't come from your opponents. Your friends get tax exemptions.....Change you can believe in.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Of course Obama would be opposed...he got most his money online form unverified sources. He said it was "'a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.'"
You mean like giving tax exemptions to your top supporters and political advisors...unions. Tax everyone's health policy except for those who work to support your reelection and who's leader is your most frequent visitor in the white house.....Unions.
The stampede of special interest money is fine so long as it doesn't come from your opponents. Your friends get tax exemptions.....Change you can believe in.
Well, if that's true, then why would Obama be opposed at all? The articles I've read about this say it will apply to unions as well. Business spent the better part of the 20th century trying to place serious limits on union contributions for political activities, culminating in landmark restrictive legislation in 1959's Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. But even then they weren't happy, and tried again in the 70s. If this ruling takes the stopped off of union funds as well as corporate funds, then Obama just got a wellspring of funding from his union buddies. Ultimately, corporate funds are going to outnumber union funds, but corporations don't just donate to one party, they play both sides. Not all unions tend to favor Democrats, but I think you could make a great case that the ones with all the money tend to favor Democrats, even if they don't always vote that way.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I am concerned this was a free speech issue, and I am happy the Supreme Court ruled like this.
Democrats should be happy. I could be wrong, but most Democrats raise more money than republicans anyways, now they can raise even more!
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
also its entirely possible someone can be against this in principle even if it hypothetically benefits 'their side' more. at the cost of the functionality of popular rule.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I am concerned this was a free speech issue, and I am happy the Supreme Court ruled like this.
As far as I'm concerned this was a free speech issue, and the Supreme Court ruled against it.
What this does is drastically decrease the average person's opportunity to be heard. Corporations are unique in having a liability-free method of raising money. The average person, for practical purposes, does not. If you thought DC used to be in the pocket of elitist special interests, hold on to your knickers, Anabel-Mae.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Corporations are unique in having a liability-free method of raising money.
What way is that?
As for the rest, I quote two posts of mine from the other thread:
quote:Of course, that it is not minor is far from proven. In particular, as we're not talking about donations, but political speech of other kinds, I think you'll find that remarkably few large international corporations engage in much even of the sorts that have long been allowed. They just aren't very interested in it.
quote:Also, you might want to compare the two scenarios again:
Only individuals can spend money on political speech: the only ones who can afford TV ads and other large expenditures are rich people.
Corporations can also spend money on political speech: rich people can still afford TV ads and other large expenditures, and might be able to afford more, but people who cannot individually afford TV ads can now band together and purchase TV ads as a group for the purposes of political speech (just like the group did in this instance). The New York Times cannot be forbidden from publishing things because the government doesn't like them. Et cetera.
quote:As far as I'm concerned this was a free speech issue, and the Supreme Court ruled against it.
The corporation was a group of like-minded people who organized together for the express purpose of participating in the political process. They were forbidden to do so solely because of the organizational form they chose to employ. This case was particularly good because it showed directly how, with extraordinary clarity in this case, the free speech of individuals was stifled by forbidding corporate speech.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do for profit corporations and not-for-profit corporations have to be handled the same? If so, is there a good reason why? Why not say that 527s can spend what they like, but Exxon can't?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what's stopping, say, Exxon-Mobil from using it's considerable financial resources to flood the market with ads for pro-oil politicians? Exxon-Mobil is after profits, not participating in politics.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
There is a populist debate raging in this country, and that debate is based on who is more dangerous to the common man.
Is it the all powerful government who can stop people from saying what they wish because they happen to be in the form of a corporation?
Is it the all powerful corporations who deal in billions of dollars and can use their money to force their will on anyone of smaller funds?
Or Is it the elitist corporate fat cat or the elititst government bearuocrat?
Is it the uncaring government or the uncaring insurance company that the common person can rely on?
Is the spending of millions to get their voice heard over the shouts of those without millions a danger to free speech or the definition of free speech?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If government is of the people (and so forth) that should be an easy question. At least government has a mandate to be fair and "provide for the common welfare". That is the purpose of government. For-profit corporations have the mandate of making money for their stockholders.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama is the one who killed campaign finance reform by not accepting public funds and accepting all of the obviously phony internet funds. The SC just riffled through the corpse's pockets to get the wallet and jewelry. It took six people to kill campaign finance reform. One aspiring president and five justices.
Obama displayed the same greed we castigate investment bankers for, and now he is acting like he is surprised that this happened.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We need to look at the origins of the suit. This litigation began because a movie about Hillary was not allowed to be advertised. A movie about a political figure could be shut down, how about books or articles? The question was asked, can a book be released about a political candidate during a campaign? The government side said books concerning political candidates could be barred. An astute lawyer brought the law down to books and the court was repulsed. Books are also produced by corporations. No one will argue for book banning although the law didn't identify the media. The suit was about a movie. Corporations make movies..corporations own news papers with editorial pages and corporations own radio stations etc. Whats the difference between a corporate movie, radio station, book or news paper? Who decides what political speech emanating from a corporate source is acceptable? The Supreme Court made the right decision.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I am concerned this was a free speech issue, and I am happy the Supreme Court ruled like this.
As far as I'm concerned this was a free speech issue, and the Supreme Court ruled against it.
What this does is drastically decrease the average person's opportunity to be heard. Corporations are unique in having a liability-free method of raising money. The average person, for practical purposes, does not. If you thought DC used to be in the pocket of elitist special interests, hold on to your knickers, Anabel-Mae.
But "average people" are already not being heard. How many thousands of average people were involved it the Tea Party movement, and yet were put down as tea baggers, right wing extremist, violent redneck kooks?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Average people in the States may very well be right-wing extremist violent kooks Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, that's right. I forgot. The left would NEVER resort to violence to get a point across *cough-peta-cough", Only us right wing rednecks. sorry. going back to my still now, y'all! Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Hehehehe Corporations have more rights then people now
IP: Logged |
quote:In treating corporations the same as individuals, Citizens United leaves the door wide open for foreign influence in our politics. In the case of Chinese corporations, this also means foreign government involvement. Most multinational Chinese corporations, like Haier, China Telcom, and China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCE), have U.S. subsidiaries. These are companies incorporated in the United States: Haier's U.S. subsidiary, Haier American Holding Corporation, China Telecom's subsidiary, China Telecom Americas, and CSCE's subsidiary, China Construction America, are all incorporated in Delaware.
Under Citizens United, all three of these subsidiaries are citizens of Delaware and enjoy the same political speech rights as any other citizen of the United States. Citizens United does not permit us to look behind their corporate veil to see their relationship to foreign corporations. But make no mistake: these subsidiaries are heavily influenced--if not outright controlled--by their Chinese parent corporations. This is not unique to Chinese corporations. In a parent-subsidiary relationship, especially for foreign corporations, there is a lot of overlap between the parent and its U.S. subsidiary; the parent usually owns a majority, if not all of the shares of the subsidiary; capital is often infused to the subsidiary from the parent; and directors from the parent's board usually sit on the subsidiary's board of directors. This is the relationship that Haier, China Telcom, and CSCE all have with their U.S. subsidiaries.
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: Oh, that's right. I forgot. The left would NEVER resort to violence to get a point across *cough-peta-cough", Only us right wing rednecks. sorry. going back to my still now, y'all!
Wait, how many violent PETA episodes are there?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, they certainly fund and support domestic terrorists. Not sure how many violent acts they engage in directly.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Sweet! Every cloud has a silver lining
quote:In treating corporations the same as individuals, Citizens United leaves the door wide open for foreign influence in our politics. In the case of Chinese corporations, this also means foreign government involvement. Most multinational Chinese corporations, like Haier, China Telcom, and China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCE), have U.S. subsidiaries. These are companies incorporated in the United States: Haier's U.S. subsidiary, Haier American Holding Corporation, China Telecom's subsidiary, China Telecom Americas, and CSCE's subsidiary, China Construction America, are all incorporated in Delaware.
Under Citizens United, all three of these subsidiaries are citizens of Delaware and enjoy the same political speech rights as any other citizen of the United States. Citizens United does not permit us to look behind their corporate veil to see their relationship to foreign corporations. But make no mistake: these subsidiaries are heavily influenced--if not outright controlled--by their Chinese parent corporations. This is not unique to Chinese corporations. In a parent-subsidiary relationship, especially for foreign corporations, there is a lot of overlap between the parent and its U.S. subsidiary; the parent usually owns a majority, if not all of the shares of the subsidiary; capital is often infused to the subsidiary from the parent; and directors from the parent's board usually sit on the subsidiary's board of directors. This is the relationship that Haier, China Telcom, and CSCE all have with their U.S. subsidiaries.
posted
I didn't have all that much time to follow this when it was happening and looking back at things on it now, I'm not seeing coverage of something that I was confused about at the time.
Do people know what happened with the stare decisis angle here? From what I can tell, Chief Justice Roberts held that they could overturn a hundred or so year of legal precedent because the Supreme Court decisions on this issue weren't unanimous. Which seemed like a huge deal to me as, as I understand it, this is a drastic reinterpretation of stare decisis. For example, if the composition of the court shifts, there is now nothing stopping them from just reversing this decision, despite having no new angles or anything, because they want to. And this can be done to any decisions that didn't have a unanimous consensus.
This seemed to get very little coverage or analysis and I'm wondering if I misunderstood what was going on or if I was attaching a greater significance to it than other people were. Does anyone have a more informed view of this?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:From what I can tell, Chief Justice Roberts held that they could overturn a hundred or so year of legal precedent because the Supreme Court decisions on this issue weren't unanimous.
They didn't overturn a hundred years of legal precedent. The only precedents overruled were from 1990 and 2003, neither of which was anywhere near 100 years ago. I'm not sure how Roberts could have "held" that either, since as an individual judge he doesn't have the power to do anything like that. What's more, the Supreme Court has never been bound by stare decisis except as it chooses to be. They overturn unanimous precedents with some regularity.
I'm not surprised it isn't getting coverage or analysis; its a combination of misunderstandings of how the court functions and just plain factual inaccuracy.
Btw, not only were the precedents being overturned recent, the case was a very good test case. That is, the law (which isn't anywhere near 100 years old, either -- it was part of McCain-Feingold) and associated precedents were preventing a group of citizens who had banded together for the express purpose of advocating a political position from advocating that political position. I'm not sure how one can read that as anything other than a brutal damper on free speech. What's more, most corporations in the US (the vast majority) are directly controlled by a small number of people who are also the sole shareholders/owners, and thus would be acting on their own behalf with resources they controlled -- except the law also forbids them from engaging in free speech.
Other notable corporations many think the government should not be able to restrict re: political speech include newspapers, the ACLU, and labor unions. Indeed, the only corporations most people seem to rail against having speech (keep in mind a corporation is just a legal fiction to represent the bundled rights of those participating in it) are public corporations and companies majority owned by public corporations, and it isn't at all clear the supreme court wouldn't be amenable to a law restricted in that fashion.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Corporate spending on political causes is free speech and represents the collective interest of many people.
The benefit that corporations and businesses provide to society (ie wealth generation) far exceeds the cost that they demand otherwise we wouldn't pay for their services and products. A little bit of sharp dealing, etc. can be dealt with on a free market. People will buy less of a businesses' products if they don't like the business or what it is selling giving businesses an incentive to sell things that people want.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Riiiiight.......the free market guides itself perfectly. Just tell that to the former employees of Enron, and to Goldman Sacs and the rest of the billionaires getting bonuses after almost crashing our "free market".
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the free market works when individuals are the ones engaged in it.
When it is an organization who must answer to stockholders - in others words, the motivation of profit is disconnected from and exceeds the motivation of excellent product and/or service, then the free market falls apart.
Corporations do not act like rational human beings. They do not have true community ties.
Great little example, Walmart has a small grocery store near us. The group of workers there and the neighborhood have all become well known to each other. The workers had a community connection. Almost NO turnover rate with them. The store is profitable. But Walmart wanted more profit. It almost closed the store down in favor of a superwalmart close by, where the workers would just become numbers and the connection would be lost. Luckily, the feasibility studies worked in ours and their favor. The whole community connection thing had no pull in it.
Feasibility studies are not how we built communities of individuals having a product or service to sell, and seeing their customers face to face. Knowing them. Helping them out when in need.
But they are how corporations work.
So many of us now work for a corporation that we have ourselves become disconnected from our community. We no longer are directly helping our neighbors by the work we do. Heck, most of the producers don't even touch the customers they're designing or building for. And the customer service has no idea how it was made. And the people truly gaining from it don't care about the workers or the customers. Of course they pay lip service. They must, or they lose profit. But the motive is still always profit rather than human connection.
This is why free market shouldn't really be applied to corporations. They do not have ethical motives. They CAN'T by nature. They are driven by stockholders who (while individually may be ethical human beings) expect to earn money. Who will take their investment away as soon as there are losses of profit.
I haven't seen any movie or anything. I might be interested in watching "The Corporation". It is just that my husband has worked for two private companies - one was bought by a corporation and the other went semi-public, and he watched them be destroyed in the name of profit. It's caused me to think about it a lot.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
It goes both ways.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
