Suspicions confirmed.

And indirectly that is giving money to the candidate. I rememeber when the right wing used to whine about, and still do, unions supporting candidates. Now it is corporations, and all is fine.

What? Before Citizens United unions had to abide by the same arbitrary restrictions on express advocacy and electioneering. After Citizens United unions are free to do the same thing as everyone else. The idea that this benefited one group over another doesn't make any sense.

As to political spending being a form of free speech, that once again is a product of the courts, and legislators.

I saw this quote from an editorial on the matter from about a month ago in the LA Times (don't have a link though - I wrote it down):

The 1st Amendment’s text supports corporate speech: “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As set down by the framers, the right isn’t limited to particular kinds of speakers but bans the government regulation of speech, period. And if the 1st Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak, then why — if neutral principles are adhered to — shouldn’t a group of individuals, banded together in a partnership or other association, also enjoy that right? And if an association has that right, why would it lose it when it takes corporate form?

Hostpriocally speaking, the Founders opposed corporations supporting political figures, or events.

See above - the founders were very much in favor of free speech.

So, you are saying that Citizens United did not create yet another class of "anonymous" donors? Anyway, you are yet another really boring idiocrat:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/citizens_united.php

At most it moved the chairs around and just rearranged options that were already available. I am glad you find me boring however!
 
Werbung:
Citizens United is completely misunderstood. It was absolutely the correct ruling. Even the former executive director of the ACLU called how Democrats characterize it as "liberal delusion." Wanting to go back to the days before Citizens United is wanting to go back to the days of more "dark money" and more restrictions on free speech.
I absolutely disagree with you. Citizens United opened the door to unlimited funding and allows even more dark money in politics. That is going in the wrong direction.
 
I absolutely disagree with you. Citizens United opened the door to unlimited funding and allows even more dark money in politics. That is going in the wrong direction.

How does it "allow more dark money in politics"? "Dark Money" is undisclosed donations to social welfare groups. These already existed prior to Citizens United. You might argue people use them more effectively now, but that doesn't amount to any provable causation from Citizens United.

Citizens United removed arbitrary restrictions on express advocacy and electioneering. What is the justification for saying a group is allowed to speak as they please up until 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary? Note that for some reason this never did apply apply if you are newspaper organized as a corporation, in which case you are allowed to "speak" freely whenever you would like.

What is the real difference between being allowed to run an ad that says "Call President Obama and tell him he is terrible", as opposed to "Vote for Mitt Romney"?

The direction this country should be going in is one for more protected free speech. A lot of these arbitrary campaign finance regulation was put in place to "prevent the appearance of corruption." That is absurd. Either there is corruption or there is not. Prove it or don't. You don't get to stifle free political speech because you think there is the "appearance" of something and you don't like it.
 
What? Before Citizens United unions had to abide by the same arbitrary restrictions on express advocacy and electioneering. After Citizens United unions are free to do the same thing as everyone else. The idea that this benefited one group over another doesn't make any sense.

Read what I said, with comprehension this time.

I saw this quote from an editorial on the matter from about a month ago in the LA Times (don't have a link though - I wrote it down):

The 1st Amendment’s text supports corporate speech: “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As set down by the framers, the right isn’t limited to particular kinds of speakers but bans the government regulation of speech, period. And if the 1st Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak, then why — if neutral principles are adhered to — shouldn’t a group of individuals, banded together in a partnership or other association, also enjoy that right? And if an association has that right, why would it lose it when it takes corporate form?

Because the Founders opposed corporate involvement in politics? Aside from that the reality that a corporation is nothing more then a fictional entity established by government.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/09/founding-fathers/

See above - the founders were very much in favor of free speech.

Yes, for the people.

At most it moved the chairs around and just rearranged options that were already available. I am glad you find me boring however!

Yes, I find lack of knowledge, and rational thought, quite boring.

BTW, when are you going to bring up economic theories to "debate"? Rothbard, and the Austrian school of thought maybe? Smith and laissez-faire capitalism? Keynes?
 
Biggy and I disagree on this but it does cut to the heart of the matter. Free speech has become quite nebulous imo.
But I suppose broad is better where freedoms are concerned.
Agreed, where the rights of individuals are concerned.
Where the rights of inanimate objects are concerned, not so much.
 
Agreed, where the rights of individuals are concerned.
Where the rights of inanimate objects are concerned, not so much.
Biggy made a terrific argument on this a big reason I prefer to think spending money is neither free speech or expression.
 
Read what I said, with comprehension this time.

I got it the first time.

Because the Founders opposed corporate involvement in politics? Aside from that the reality that a corporation is nothing more then a fictional entity established by government.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/09/founding-fathers/

Yes, for the people.

Let me get this straight.... people have the right to free speech...groups of people have the right to free speech...but if a group of people arbitrarily calls themselves a corporation they lose that right? Why?

Yes, I find lack of knowledge, and rational thought, quite boring.

Ok...

BTW, when are you going to bring up economic theories to "debate"? Rothbard, and the Austrian school of thought maybe? Smith and laissez-faire capitalism? Keynes?

You stated: However, since you cannot prove any of them would actually perform as "theorized" there is not much to debate.

So.....what is the point of then debating it?
 
Werbung:
I got it the first time.



Let me get this straight.... people have the right to free speech...groups of people have the right to free speech...but if a group of people arbitrarily calls themselves a corporation they lose that right? Why?

Because we are not talking about free speech in spite of what the Courts say, or people like McCain. Article One speaks to the rights of the people, not some fictional entity established by the government, and which the Founders hoped would only exist for the maximum of 20 years, and were not to be involved in politics.

http://addictinginfo.org/2013/06/09/founding-fathers/

You stated: However, since you cannot prove any of them would actually perform as "theorized" there is not much to debate.

So.....what is the point of then debating it?

None really. I just wanted to see what you would say. Debating economics is really a waste of time since no economic theory has ever been put into practice. Combinations of various theories have been tried, and all have failed.

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays8p/Theory.htm

"An economist and his guide, while hunting in Africa, fall into an elephant trap: twenty feet deep with vertical walls.

“That does it,” says the guide, “we’re done for. No escape, no food, no chance of being found in time.”

“Nonsense,” said the economist, “I can get us out of here.”

“And how do you propose to do that?,” the guide asks.

The economist replies: “Well, first we posit a ladder.”


Economists are no more inclined than the rest of us to live in a fantasy world – not, that is, as they go about the practical business of living their everyday lives. But when economists write technical papers and teach university courses, they often enter a theoretical realm of abstract concepts such as “economic man” (homo economicus) and “perfect markets,” articulated with virtuoso advanced mathematical manipulations. Very elegant, and very unreal.

Many economists, perhaps most, appreciate the limitations of economic theory in explaining and predicting social behavior and political trends. Some economists, however, claim to find in traditional (i.e. “neo-classical”) economic theory, the key to articulating and proposing public policy. It’s called “market absolutism,” and it has dominated American politics since the Reagan administration. It has also led this nation to the brink of economic disaster.

Market absolutism has led us to this crisis because its proponents in academia, politics and the media have been bewitched by theoretical concepts that apply imperfectly, if at all, to the real world in which we live and work. In particular: they posit an imaginary creature (“economic man”) that inhabits a mythical environment (the “perfect market.”)"
 
Back
Top