Supreme Court strikes a blow for the First Amendment.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13553
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 285 times

Post by WildCat » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:34 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
WildCat wrote:Toni Preckwinkle got $150,000 from the SEIU for her Cook County board run... you don't think that will influence her when it comes to cutting the fat from the county budget?
Better than getting it under the table and no one the wiser?
How would no one be the wiser? If $150,000 suddenly appears in her campaign fund without 15,000 names attached it's not hard to figure out.
What change in the law do you think it would take to make Cook County not corrupt? As distinct from enforcing the laws we have now?
1. No patronage jobs. All jobs must be listed online, as well as the names of the successful candidates. All hiring records must be available to the public, no more employees who no one admits to hiring.

2. Open the books on TIF funds. Right now, this is basically Daley's private slush fund and there is no publicly available accountability for them.

3. Fire every city/county worker who was absent for 20 days or more. excepting those with real (medically documented) illnesses.

4. $10 campaign limits, no matter if it's a person/corporation/union/group.

5. Allow all government employees to be secretly audiotaped by the general public in the performance of their official duties.

Just a few off the top of my head...
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 69785
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2858 times
Been thanked: 1098 times

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:08 pm

I agree with all of those, except the $10 campaign limit.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Post by DrMatt » Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:18 pm

Plutocracy is one of the natural side-effects of our forms of government. The tendency to worry about possible infringement of the rights of others to the point where you cannot defend yourself against them is a natural part of it, too. Neither of these things is right-wing nor left-wing.
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10026
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Post by Skeeve » Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:17 pm

WildCat wrote: 4. $10 campaign limits, no matter if it's a person/corporation/union/group.
I thought 10K per year because it is the max non-taxable gift.
If you add penalties for violation, it might even be worth enforcing.
WildCat wrote: 5. Allow all government employees to be secretly audiotaped by the general public in the performance of their official duties.
...
"...for quality purposes."
:lol:
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8351
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: One solution?

Post by xouper » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:37 pm

Skeeve wrote:
xouper wrote:
tedly wrote:... Does it necessarily follow, from the corporation's creation as a person, that it is therefore a citizen, and entitled to contribute to political campaigns? I seem to recall a great deal of fuss in US politics about taking money from Korean sources, because, (I'm guessing) they weren't citizens.
1) With respect to the court decision and the First Amendment, it is irrelevant whether a corporation is a legal "person".

2) The court decision was not about contributions to political campaigns, it was about Congress making a law abridging freedom of speech.
My solution:
Limit total 'political-candidate' contributions by any person (real or fictional) or entity to a maximum of (lets say) $10,000 per year, TOTAL.
And then leave free speech alone. YMMV
So, you agree with the Court's decision, that anyone or any group can spend as much as they want to exercise their First Amendment right to express their political opinion?

User avatar
Nyarlathotep
Posts: 47574
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 773 times
Been thanked: 1426 times

Post by Nyarlathotep » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:50 pm

DrMatt wrote:Plutocracy is one of the natural side-effects of our forms of government.
Plutocracy is the only form of government there is. All forms of government are ultimately run entirely by the rich, for the sole benefit of the rich. The appearance of things like 'democracy' is just a way of appeasing the masses who feel better about the whole exercise if they can be fooled into thinking they actually have some sort of say in how things are run.
Bango Skank Awaits The Crimson King!

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10026
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: One solution?

Post by Skeeve » Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:27 pm

xouper wrote:
Skeeve wrote:
xouper wrote:
tedly wrote:... Does it necessarily follow, from the corporation's creation as a person, that it is therefore a citizen, and entitled to contribute to political campaigns? I seem to recall a great deal of fuss in US politics about taking money from Korean sources, because, (I'm guessing) they weren't citizens.
1) With respect to the court decision and the First Amendment, it is irrelevant whether a corporation is a legal "person".

2) The court decision was not about contributions to political campaigns, it was about Congress making a law abridging freedom of speech.
My solution:
Limit total 'political-candidate' contributions by any person (real or fictional) or entity to a maximum of (lets say) $10,000 per year, TOTAL.
And then leave free speech alone. YMMV
So, you agree with the Court's decision, that anyone or any group can spend as much as they want to exercise their First Amendment right to express their political opinion?
Sure, as long as its under $10K per year, no problem with me.
I would think they'd be better off just giving that much to Hack A or Hack B, but thats their buisness.

Who knows, it might free up the air-waves a bit before elections too.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8351
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: One solution?

Post by xouper » Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:17 am

Skeeve wrote:
xouper wrote:So, you agree with the Court's decision, that anyone or any group can spend as much as they want to exercise their First Amendment right to express their political opinion?
Sure, as long as its under $10K per year, no problem with me.
So that's a "no", then.

If a group wants to publish a book or a DVD expressing their political views you are saying they should be limited to spending $10,000 per year on it, in clear violation of their First Amendment rights.

I disagree most vehemently with your position.

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10026
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: One solution?

Post by Skeeve » Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:27 pm

xouper wrote:
Skeeve wrote:
xouper wrote:So, you agree with the Court's decision, that anyone or any group can spend as much as they want to exercise their First Amendment right to express their political opinion?
Sure, as long as its under $10K per year, no problem with me.
So that's a "no", then.

If a group wants to publish a book or a DVD expressing their political views you are saying they should be limited to spending $10,000 per year on it, in clear violation of their First Amendment rights.

I disagree most vehemently with your position.
If a group of people wish to pool their alotted $10k/Year into something like that, go for it, as a group of people (names included), no problem with me.

Again though, I think they'd be better served to just give the cash to who ever and let them do what ever with it.

IF the GROUP is to be treated as a 'person' (entity or what ever), it should also be subject to the same limits as an individual person.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
Cool Hand
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Earning my avatar in the rain
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: One solution?

Post by Cool Hand » Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:57 pm

Skeeve wrote:
xouper wrote:
Skeeve wrote:
xouper wrote:So, you agree with the Court's decision, that anyone or any group can spend as much as they want to exercise their First Amendment right to express their political opinion?
Sure, as long as its under $10K per year, no problem with me.
So that's a "no", then.

If a group wants to publish a book or a DVD expressing their political views you are saying they should be limited to spending $10,000 per year on it, in clear violation of their First Amendment rights.

I disagree most vehemently with your position.
If a group of people wish to pool their alotted $10k/Year into something like that, go for it, as a group of people (names included), no problem with me.

Again though, I think they'd be better served to just give the cash to who ever and let them do what ever with it.

IF the GROUP is to be treated as a 'person' (entity or what ever), it should also be subject to the same limits as an individual person.
FAIL. You not only do not understand free speech under the First Amendment, but you don't get estate and gift taxes either.

CH
....life purpose is pay taxes -- pillory 12/05/13

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

"Time" -- Pink Floyd

User avatar
manny
Posts: 1830
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:41 pm
Location: New York
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: One solution?

Post by manny » Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:04 pm

Skeeve wrote: I disagree most vehemently with your position.
If a group of people wish to pool their alotted $10k/Year into something like that, go for it, as a group of people (names included), no problem with me.[/quote]How does that work? Like, when Almagacorp puts out an ad, they list the stockholders? Just the 5% stockholders?

Also, how do you value "in-kind" contributions? When the New York Times uses its massive distribution infrastructure to endorse Donald Democrat for Public Advocate, is that valued the same as a full-page ad taken in their newspaper? Do they get a discount because they're frequent buyers of their own space?

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8351
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: One solution?

Post by xouper » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:32 pm

Skeeve wrote:IF the GROUP is to be treated as a 'person' (entity or what ever), it should also be subject to the same limits as an individual person.
And under the First Amendment, that means no limit to how much an individual can spend to exercise their First Amendment right to express their political opinion.

And thus you appear to agree that groups have the same First Amendment protection from Congressional limits, and thus you agree with the Court's decision?

User avatar
Cool Hand
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Earning my avatar in the rain
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: Left and right united in opposition to ... SCOTUS decisi

Post by Cool Hand » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:45 pm

xouper wrote:
... As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.
It's discouraging to see how many politicians are in favor of violating the First Amendment. And that's exactly why it was put there.
Yep. There's also a reason it's the First Amendment among many. I think it's the most important, and I would argue the drafters thought so too and that's why they put it up front and center.

It's a shame so many people have let politicians and misguided pundits convince them that this case was wrongly decided and is a travesty of justice and law. Like I said earlier, one could see them as useful idiots to Congress.

Not trusting the government is as American as apple pie. Congress is the legislative branch of federal government. Ergo, you shouldn't trust Congress.

What's so hard to understand about that? Why the cognitive dissonance on this matter? Oh yeah, it's because corporations are teh evil du jour, and in much of the public's eye, teh corporations are more evil than government.

Fools. No corporation has the power of the state. In functioning nations, no corporation has ever had the power of the state, and many powers belong uniquely to the state. Although it's a false dilemma, I'd take corporatism over statism any day.

CH
....life purpose is pay taxes -- pillory 12/05/13

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

"Time" -- Pink Floyd

User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Post by DrMatt » Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:01 pm

Nyarlathotep wrote:
DrMatt wrote:Plutocracy is one of the natural side-effects of our forms of government.
Plutocracy is the only form of government there is. All forms of government are ultimately run entirely by the rich, for the sole benefit of the rich. The appearance of things like 'democracy' is just a way of appeasing the masses who feel better about the whole exercise if they can be fooled into thinking they actually have some sort of say in how things are run.
No way! Mattocracy has nothing to do with Plutocracy. What kind of Mickey Mouse governor do you mistake me for?
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.

User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Left and right united in opposition to ... SCOTUS decisi

Post by DrMatt » Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:05 pm

Cool Hand wrote:Fools. No corporation has the power of the state. In functioning nations, no corporation has ever had the power of the state, and many powers belong uniquely to the state.
I cannot tell whether that's a lead-in to a no-true-corporation or a no-truly-functioning nation. Both categories must apply to the 1930s.
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.

User avatar
Cool Hand
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Earning my avatar in the rain
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: Left and right united in opposition to ... SCOTUS decisi

Post by Cool Hand » Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:11 pm

DrMatt wrote:
Cool Hand wrote:Fools. No corporation has the power of the state. In functioning nations, no corporation has ever had the power of the state, and many powers belong uniquely to the state.
I cannot tell whether that's a lead-in to a no-true-corporation or a no-truly-functioning nation. Both categories must apply to the 1930s.
Neither.

CH
....life purpose is pay taxes -- pillory 12/05/13

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

"Time" -- Pink Floyd

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10026
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Post by Skeeve » Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:22 pm

xouper wrote:
Skeeve wrote:IF the GROUP is to be treated as a 'person' (entity or what ever), it should also be subject to the same limits as an individual person.
And under the First Amendment, that means no limit to how much an individual can spend to exercise their First Amendment right to express their political opinion.

And thus you appear to agree that groups have the same First Amendment protection from Congressional limits, and thus you agree with the Court's decision?
Yea, even though I think that McCain Feingold does not allow 'anyone who is ineligible to vote' to contribute (typically minors, resident aliens etc) and it's not too much of a streatch to include 'legal persons' in that list.

CH gave me a better idea though.
Rather than argue any limitation of free speech maybe we should try something else. Lets tax political contributions (of any type) above $10K/year per 'person.' What do you think?
Then Skank Of America could start in...

En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Re: Left and right united in opposition to ... SCOTUS decisi

Post by En folkefiende » Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:23 pm

Cool Hand wrote: It's a shame so many people have let politicians and misguided pundits convince them that this case was wrongly decided and is a travesty of justice and law.
Well, silencing people is clearly out. Does that apply to people who are silenced because they can't afford 4 billion for a 1-minute spot?
Formerly jj, the enemy of the people, aka the bullies who rant and lie here.

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13553
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 285 times

Post by WildCat » Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:29 pm

Skeeve wrote:
xouper wrote:
Skeeve wrote:IF the GROUP is to be treated as a 'person' (entity or what ever), it should also be subject to the same limits as an individual person.
And under the First Amendment, that means no limit to how much an individual can spend to exercise their First Amendment right to express their political opinion.

And thus you appear to agree that groups have the same First Amendment protection from Congressional limits, and thus you agree with the Court's decision?
Yea, even though I think that McCain Feingold does not allow 'anyone who is ineligible to vote' to contribute (typically minors, resident aliens etc) and it's not too much of a streatch to include 'legal persons' in that list.

CH gave me a better idea though.
Rather than argue any limitation of free speech maybe we should try something else. Lets tax political contributions (of any type) above $10K/year per 'person.' What do you think?
Do you realize this case has nothing at all to do with campaign contributions?
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 69785
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2858 times
Been thanked: 1098 times

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:30 pm

Skeeve wrote: Lets tax political contributions (of any type) above $10K/year per 'person.' What do you think?
And use it for public campaign financing? :twisted:
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale