Bluegrassrivals

The US Supreme Court upheld Americans' freedom of speech today and ruled key parts of the McCain-Feingold law unconstitutional. Corporations will now be able to exercise their political speech as union bosses have done with members' dues for decades.

Democrats, particularly NY Sen. Chuckie Shumer are extremely worried and upset about the decision. Shumer has promised to hold hearings on the decision.

[INDENT]Ruling on Spending May Alter Political Terrain

WASHINGTON — Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.

The ruling represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision to reshape the way elections were conducted. Though the decision does not directly address them, its logic also applies to the labor unions that are often at political odds with big business. Link to full article[/INDENT]

The President's response......................."The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," President Obama said in a statement released by the White House. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”

Obama said it would immediately start to work with Democrats and Republicans on a solution to mitigate the rulings impact.
Correct me if I'm Wrong(I know some of you will:biggrin but didn't Candidate Obama go around this law while running but not accepting government money thus being able to spend an unlimited amount in 2008?

Yeah those fine upstanding labor unions (who've never tried to influence the political process :please: ) won't use this to their benefit and the benefit of left leaning candidates will they? How much union support did the Dems have in the 08 elections? Seems to me like all this ruling does is level the playing field between left leaning unions and right leaning corporations and that's why the leftys are so up in arms about it.

Seems to me, that all this did is make buying votes legal....from both sides. When it comes down to it, neither side is really representing the people, just thier special interest group.

ImagineThat! Wrote:When it comes down to it, neither side is really representing the people, just thier special interest group.

The truth is spoken here.

thecavemaster Wrote:A right leaning court favors Big Business. As Gomer would say, "Surprise, surprise." The whole idea that corporations have the legal status of individual persons is a black eye on American jurisprudence.

You are mistaken. Corporations indeed do have the legal status of individuals. Just as human beings, corporations sue and can be sued. Just as human beings, corporations can own property. Just as human beings corporations pay income taxes. And on and on.

The legal point is that each of us is a human being. However, we are also legal beings. Corporations are legal beings. Our association with legal matters arises from the fact that we, like corporations, are legal beings and not because we are human beings. We have legal rights and, though many seem to forget, legal responsibilities.

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to exend the right to contribute to political campaigns to corporations in the same manner as it is extended to individuals. After all, in the eyes of the law and of the US Constitution, if properly interpreted, we are all legal beings.

BO's statement that he is going to effect this decision is just another example of his inflated opinion of his own abilities. If nothing else, he is pompous. Since he touted himself as a Professor of Constitutional Law (a bit of a gilding of the facts), he should know better.

thecavemaster Wrote:A right leaning court favors Big Business. As Gomer would say, "Surprise, surprise." The whole idea that corporations have the legal status of individual persons is a black eye on American jurisprudence.

So I guess a left leaning court would be for the people? Come on man, I seriously hope you are not as naive as you seem on here.

Beetle01 Wrote:So I guess a left leaning court would be for the people? Come on man, I seriously hope you are not as naive as you seem on here.

The left lean toward the working class and the right leans toward business. You know this is true.

All Tell Wrote:Yeah those fine upstanding labor unions (who've never tried to influence the political process :please: ) won't use this to their benefit and the benefit of left leaning candidates will they? How much union support did the Dems have in the 08 elections? Seems to me like all this ruling does is level the playing field between left leaning unions and right leaning corporations and that's why the leftys are so up in arms about it.

Thank unions for getting and keeping yor wage up to standard.

It is funny how liberals have never had a problem with big corporations like GE, CBS, Disney, and Time Warner paying for air time for guys like Olbermann, Chris "Obama sends a thrill up my leg" Matthews, and a long, long list of left wing "journalists" who virtually doubled as Obama's communications staff during his campaign.

Would you liberals be okay with banning political speech from the airwaves, movies, and books during a campaign and if so, who would decide who is reporting the "objective truth" about political events and who is simply reacting to a tingly leg?

If it is okay for our big corporate media to engage in political advocacy, then why should an industry with a bullseye on its back (e.g., the coal industry) not have the right to defend itself against blatant political attacks?

And...before you say it, yes, I do realize that Fox News Channel and right wing talk radio are organized as corporations but I do not have a problem with corporations participating in the political process. So, please spare me the charge of hypocrisy.

When in doubt, our Supreme Court should always err on the side of free speech and freedom of association.

TheRealVille Wrote:The left lean toward the working class and the right leans toward business. You know this is true.

The right leans toward freedom, including individual liberty and economic freedom. The left leans toward heavy handed top down control and centralized planning. Freedom should not be feared by any class of people - it is what made this country great.

TheRealVille Wrote:Thank unions for getting and keeping yor wage up to standard.

You can also thank some (not all) unions for driving their employer out of business.

All Tell Wrote:Yeah those fine upstanding labor unions (who've never tried to influence the political process :please: ) won't use this to their benefit and the benefit of left leaning candidates will they? How much union support did the Dems have in the 08 elections? Seems to me like all this ruling does is level the playing field between left leaning unions and right leaning corporations and that's why the leftys are so up in arms about it.

We can't forget about GE?

When Democrats intensify their demonization of corporations leading up to the election, those corporations will be able to legally wage campaigns against the tyrants. Even with liberal special interest groups having been given free rein to attack corporations free speech rights under McCain-Feingold, most Americans still understand that the legal muzzle was unfair.

Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money Is "Free Speech"

[Image: yyil6yjqdeuwzk0t0a6u6q.gif][Image: xiayrihs_esmrnolt8760q.gif]

Truth Wrote:You are mistaken. Corporations indeed do have the legal status of individuals. Just as human beings, corporations sue and can be sued. Just as human beings, corporations can own property. Just as human beings corporations pay income taxes. And on and on.

The legal point is that each of us is a human being. However, we are also legal beings. Corporations are legal beings. Our association with legal matters arises from the fact that we, like corporations, are legal beings and not because we are human beings. We have legal rights and, though many seem to forget, legal responsibilities.

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to exend the right to contribute to political campaigns to corporations in the same manner as it is extended to individuals. After all, in the eyes of the law and of the US Constitution, if properly interpreted, we are all legal beings.

BO's statement that he is going to effect this decision is just another example of his inflated opinion of his own abilities. If nothing else, he is pompous. Since he touted himself as a Professor of Constitutional Law (a bit of a gilding of the facts), he should know better.

Of course, your equating of Standard Oil with John Doe, along with a sophmoronic analysis of "the eyes of the law," suggest much of what Justice Holmes said, "No, no this is not a court of justice, simply a court of law." I imagine that the Board that decided to pay claims and not fix the PInto's propensity to explode because a recall is more expensive would agree with you that they are just individual beings with no more or less capacity to screw people over than John Doe.

thecavemaster Wrote:Of course, your equating of Standard Oil with John Doe, along with a sophmoronic analysis of "the eyes of the law," suggest much of what Justice Holmes said, "No, no this is not a court of justice, simply a court of law." I imagine that the Board that decided to pay claims and not fix the PInto's propensity to explode because a recall is more expensive would agree with you that they are just individual beings with no more or less capacity to screw people over than John Doe.

I'm not equating anything. I'm trying to teach you a little Constitutional Law. You are obviously in need of an education in that area.

By the way, your emotional argument mentioning Justice Holmes and Ford Pintos, is amusing. It is often stated that a little knowledge of the law is dangerous. However, your complete lack of knowledge of the law is not dangerous because it is so obvious. It is, instead, comical.

Truth Wrote:I'm not equating anything. I'm trying to teach you a little Constitutional Law. You are obviously in need of an education in that area.

By the way, your emotional argument mentioning Justice Holmes and Ford Pintos, is amusing. It is often stated that a little knowledge of the law is dangerous. However, your complete lack of knowledge of the law is not dangerous because it is so obvious. It is, instead, comical.

Hey if you think he's "good" as law discussions, just wait till you hear him rattle off his "nots" and "gazentas" when it comes to financial matters. I seriously doubt that he's capable of making change for a dollar working at The Happy Gizzard.

Mr.Kimball Wrote:Hey if you think he's "good" as law discussions, just wait till you hear him rattle off his "nots" and "gazentas" when it comes to financial matters. I seriously doubt that he's capable of making change for a dollar working at The Happy Gizzard.

What you are telling me Mr. Kimball, is that thecavemaster is quite likely a high ranking member of BO's administration and probably another of those former community agitators who are trying their best to turn us into a socialist country.

Truth Wrote:What you are telling me Mr. Kimball, is that thecavemaster is quite likely a high ranking member of BO's administration and probably another of those former community agitators who are trying their best to turn us into a socialist country.

Well, there was once a time when one of those life choices that batman had to make came around. Batman was not unlike many of us. He stood right square in the middle of one of those crossroads in life. He stared this challenge down the barrel fearlessly and as diligently as a big city lawyer chasin down the little old lady that fell in the grocery store to get what was rightly acomin to her he proceded to find his life's callin. Education was very important to a young batman.Batman became quite proficient at calling out the right answers to the flashcards that his grandmother used to train him on early in life. The little goomer could be heard all up and down the holler yellin out "it's 3 granny, it's 3". He became quite the numerical wizz kid, and could sipher to beat the band. That is, as long as the numbers didn't add up to more toes than were on his two feet. Batman was also taught early in his life about being fair and balanced. Granny always told him that all of the chicken's were just as important in the carpenter's eyes as the other. They all got the same amount of scratchins, no matter if they were too lazy to lay an egg or not.

So I guess you can see the dilema that young cavemaster was tormented with. You know, be a member of 8% of the Mao-bama's inner circle and cabinet that has a background in finance (the sky was the limit for him), or be a fry cook at Jethro Bodine's franchised Happy Gizzard restraunt in Booneville. Ultimately the decision was made easy for him. While working a summer job at the "Gizzard" , he was let go, because of the lawsuit that he filed against the chain. He claimed it unconstitutional and racist that Jethro would only use white chickens in it's recipes. The word spread, quickly hitting the streets of Chicago of this eastern Kentucky wunderkind. Half economic genius and half chicken's rights activist. His versatility was unfounded.The "Obama-gang" knew they now had located the missing piece to the puzzle. They could now conquer the world.

I think judging by the way in which this country is being led, that batman is more than qualified to be a cabinet member. Who ever said a boy from out of the hill's couldn't make it big in Washington?

Truth Wrote:I'm not equating anything. I'm trying to teach you a little Constitutional Law. You are obviously in need of an education in that area.

By the way, your emotional argument mentioning Justice Holmes and Ford Pintos, is amusing. It is often stated that a little knowledge of the law is dangerous. However, your complete lack of knowledge of the law is not dangerous because it is so obvious. It is, instead, comical.

By all means, unTruth, enligthen us: in your reasoning, then, it is wise to count a corporate entity as "all men"? Is that correct? In the midst of your idiot's laughter, please, explain your position.

thecavemaster Wrote:By all means, unTruth, enligthen us: in your reasoning, then, it is wise to count a corporate entity as "all men"? Is that correct? In the midst of your idiot's laughter, please, explain your position.

lol

thecavemaster Wrote:Kimball, Kimball... thou flatterest me with thy intimations...

Just rendering unto Caesar, batman.:worthy:

Mr.Kimball Wrote:Just rendering unto Caesar, batman.:worthy:

Your coins don't spend.

thecavemaster Wrote:Your coins don't spend.

Hey, do you think I might borrow that government card of yours then?

Mr.Kimball Wrote:Hey, do you think I might borrow that government card of yours then?

Shredded paper.

thecavemaster Wrote:Shredded paper.

Ah, batman.:biggrin:

Mr.Kimball Wrote:Ah, batman.:biggrin:

Corporate power, joined to the mass media, linked to the military-industrial... hey a good Republican warned against it: Did you like Ike?

I favor unions but they are over stepping their bounds when they are getting into political campaigns.

If Corporations are going to be banned from getting involved politically, so should unions, imo both parties should be banned from politics. both parties do have legal rights, but they dont have the individual constitutional rights of political freedom.

It is not a corporation/business/unions place to be involved in politics. It is the right of the individuals of those entities, but not of those groupings.