Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 21, 2010 10:36:10 GMT -5
Free speech wins big as High Court strikes down spending limits for corporations on political campaigns. Amen.
Now for my friends from the Left: How can it be that Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor all voted against an expansion of Free Speech?
I thought that crowd favored Free Speech?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Jan 21, 2010 11:15:44 GMT -5
Johnson & Johnson / Exxon 2012!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,760
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 21, 2010 11:18:16 GMT -5
I'm confused as to how corporations are protected under the first amendment. We, the company?
I'm sure there's some convoluted item in there.
I don't really know how this helps any of this, and why anyone here would be happy. What we need is more behind-the-scenes corporate influence and less influence for individual citizens?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 21, 2010 11:18:45 GMT -5
It must be that Breyer et al. hate Umerika.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 21, 2010 11:23:05 GMT -5
Free speech wins big as High Court strikes down spending limits for corporations on political campaigns. Amen. Now for my friends from the Left: How can it be that Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor all voted against an expansion of Free Speech? I thought that crowd favored Free Speech? I suggest you reread your copy of The Road to Serfdom, because it's just as cautious about corporations as it is about trade unions when it comes to special interests. While I didn't like spending limits on campaigns, I am troubled by the role special interests of all shapes, sizes, ilks and creeds play in our democracy. Therefore, I'm happy about the decision on its face, but troubled by larger trends in our society.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,765
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 21, 2010 11:25:11 GMT -5
Ironically, both McCain and Feingold could be adios in the 2012 Senate elections.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 21, 2010 11:28:41 GMT -5
Ironically, both McCain and Feingold could be adios in the 2012 Senate elections. Palin's going to campaign for McCain in Arizona. He'll win.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 21, 2010 12:36:30 GMT -5
Ironically, both McCain and Feingold could be adios in the 2012 Senate elections. Feingold is up for reelection this year. All the Wisconsin GOP heavyweights are going for the vacant governor's seat, so Feingold looks like he might slip through. As for the Supreme Court ruling, it's one of those strange instances that's a victory for big corporations and big labor unions. But the most important part of McCain-Feingold (the soft money ban) is still intact.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 21, 2010 12:42:28 GMT -5
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 21, 2010 13:37:52 GMT -5
Free speech wins big as High Court strikes down spending limits for corporations on political campaigns. Amen. Now for my friends from the Left: How can it be that Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor all voted against an expansion of Free Speech? I thought that crowd favored Free Speech? I can't believe that this is anything more than trolling. Should we apply the entire bill of rights to corporations? Is it unconstitutional to prohibit me from giving money to al qaeda because it infringes on my first amendment rights?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 21, 2010 13:47:01 GMT -5
Is it unconstitutional to prohibit me from giving money to al qaeda because it infringes on my first amendment rights? I think there might be something in the Constitution about treason, but by all means, knock yourself out. Can we call this one "Analogy FAIL?"
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 21, 2010 14:00:28 GMT -5
Is it unconstitutional to prohibit me from giving money to al qaeda because it infringes on my first amendment rights? I think there might be something in the Constitution about treason, but by all means, knock yourself out. Can we call this one "Analogy FAIL?" You mean that donating money as an exercise of free speech may in fact be constitutionally limited?? That is the exact point I'm trying to make, thanks for the help. Where in the constitution does it say that corporations have free-speech rights the same way a person does?
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 21, 2010 14:19:36 GMT -5
Where in the constitution does it say that corporations have free-speech rights the same way a person does? Please, never start a sentence with "Where in the Constitution does it say..." The treatment of McCain-Feingold has been pretty interesting. First, the Court was okay with the legislation in McConnell, then not okay with it in in Wisconsin Right to Life, and now has apparently further hobbled (but not killed) the legislation, according to media reports. This opinion is less of a shocker than simply the next step in a sequence.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 21, 2010 14:23:09 GMT -5
Haha you're right about starting a sentence like that. Reading it back I picture myself holding a pocket constitution in front of me yelling at police at a protest or something...
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 21, 2010 14:36:00 GMT -5
I am astounded that anyone, much less incredibly intelligent Justices, can sustain the notions that corporations are "people" and that money is "speech." Are they similar? In some instances. Can they function the same way in our society? Sometimes. But to have blanket policies based on these two premises is flat out nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jan 21, 2010 15:02:05 GMT -5
some "people" have more "speech" than others ...
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 21, 2010 15:04:50 GMT -5
My sense is that the apparent disparities among recent decisions can be attributed to deep divisions among the Justices as much as anything else. This is a 5-4 opinion with a dissent in part from a member of the majority as well as a rather lengthy dissent from Stevens.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 21, 2010 15:10:10 GMT -5
I think there might be something in the Constitution about treason, but by all means, knock yourself out. Can we call this one "Analogy FAIL?" You mean that donating money as an exercise of free speech may in fact be constitutionally limited?? That is the exact point I'm trying to make, thanks for the help. Where in the constitution does it say that corporations have free-speech rights the same way a person does? Your type of political speech may be limited - your ability to make any political speech, full stop, is not.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 21, 2010 15:22:08 GMT -5
Just to elevate the discourse here, I'd like to discuss this topic by somehow utilizing the analogy of screaming words at strippers versus "making it rain" Pacman Jones style.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 21, 2010 15:46:07 GMT -5
Where in the Constitution does it say I can't make it rain???
Well done, strummer. ;D
|
|