It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits. Dear God.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:17 PM
OK, now for an extremely unpopular opinion...

The United States was not built on restrictions on freedom of speech. Neither was it built on corporate involvement in politics. What this is about is not tenets of freedom, but pragmatism. Every person in the USA has an inherent, God-given, constitutional right to state their preference in any political race, and to use such statement to attempt to influence others. Thus, any limit on that ability for individuals is unconstitutional, and that includes limits on how much one can spend on advertising their viewpoints.

Corporations should not have such rights to become involved in political free speech. However, from a pragmatic viewpoint, a corporation can funnel money through executive officers (who are, after all, individuals), and it is nigh impossible to stop this loophole in the process from being exploited. So any restriction on corporate spending for campaigns is essentially either a useless attempt to stop the unstoppable, or a restriction on personal free speech.

It is a sad fact that it is not the fault of any corporations or lobbyists that we are in the sad state of affairs we are in. It is the fault of every one of us. If one wishes to change the way things are done, one must do whatever is necessary to influence as many people as possible. Even, better, if one wishes the country to return to its roots of individual responsibility, equality, and freedom, one must strive to convince as many people as possible that they should vote for leaders who promote such.

Corporations do not vote. Lobbys do not vote. PACs do not vote. They have absolutely no say-so in who is elected. What they can do is give money... huge sums of money, which can then be used for advertising to promote a candidate. In order for this to be successful, people who do vote must be willing to listen to the loudest message, as opposed to the most sensible message. And that is exactly where we have failed. We the people, the real true power in the country, have abrogated our responsibility to vote for sensible government on favor of a devil-may-care adherence to whatever message is repeated the most on our favorite MSM station. That is the problem, not the source of the money used.

But not only do we have the ultimate power in political decisions based on our individual ability to vote, we also have the ultimate power over corporations themselves by our economic votes. Where do you think that money comes from that is being used to skew political activism away from the public desires? It comes from me and you. Every time we buy a product, some of that money we spent goes to corporate profits, which can then be funneled through donations into campaigns we may or may not agree with. Thus, if we limit our spending to those corporations that do not spend money against our wishes, we cut the funding off at the source. The court decision that prompted this thread is then moot.

Oh, but we can't do that, you say? Really? I can. I have the ability to choose what I buy and who I buy it from. I can walk into a store and see a product I really want, but refuse to buy it because it is made by someone I have identified as being prone to lobby for agendas I oppose. Sure, it is inconvenient at times, but we can't have it both ways. We can't abrogate our responsibility to be responsible for our actions while complaining that someone else is pressing an agenda we disagree with with money we gave them out.

So I say the following:

Liberals, quit crying about conservatives stopping your agendas. If they are so wonderful, convince the people how wonderful they are, and you won't be hindered by political maneuvering.

Conservatives, quit trying to outspend your opponents. If you have the best solutions, tell the people about them. You will save a lot of money and time.

Both sides, we the people are fed up, and it is time to read the writing on the wall. Either show us, the people you serve, the average working men and women who are simply trying to survive, why you are the best, and if you succeed, the fight will be moot.

And finally, to those who (rightly) distrust both sides of the political aisle, quit listening to the commercials. Research things yourself and find out what is really happening. Then cast your vote for whoever you can find who will run things the way you want, get involved in nominating someone if you can;t find them already on your ballot, or even run yourself if need be. Ignore the commercials and signposts. That makes them worthless.

But everyone quit crying because someone else has some advantage... they don't. The power belongs to the people. It belongs to you. Just use it.

Having a shovel does not dig a ditch. You have to use the shovel.


posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:18 PM

Originally posted by niteboy82
reply to post by johnny2127

Perhaps the old Supreme Court did that. These days constitutionality takes a back seat to opinion and special interests. Otherwise, no one would care what political affiliation any of the Justices have because they would rule solely upon the Constitution.

There is no need for a Amendment to tell us that Corporations aren't people. They aren't people.

Of course corporations are not people, although they are made up of people. And legally speaking, when you create a business and get a Tax ID number, a corporation has all the right of an individual. It is its own entity. May not make sense, but that is how the legal system is set up. Of course it was set up at a different time, with a much different political climate. But, yes, legally this was the correct ruling. The correct thing would be for them to get a constitutional amendment passed. That is the only way to get this sort of reform to stand.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

The problem with that is you know the old say, money talks BS walk meaning a regular tax payer (mostly broke this days) can never comepete with the corporation free speeches pay by million dollars campaigns.

So now in America if you have money then you can buy yourself some air free speech.

Im sure most Americans can not afford to buy million dollar air space to show their freedom of speech this days promoting for their favorite candidate.

That means only those that can get a million dollar sponsor can get a good shot at poltics

[edit on 21-1-2010 by marg6043]

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by marg6043

Wrong, they pool money. So they can pool lots of individual donation to pat for airtime. They don't need to find one large donor as you allege.

Interesting fact by the way...... individuals donate more money to political campaigns than corporations. And always have even before McCain Feingold.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by johnny2127

Let see who gets priority when it comes to air time, I never seen a regular joe promoting a candidate in prime TV as usual is always big interest groups specially those that own prime TV.

Radio is the same, now you either have religious organizations owning local stations with their own agendas and then you have Satellite radio that is a big corporation.

Corporations runs America.

When it comes to money and power, those on the top of the ladder runs the show.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:40 PM
I am compelled to reiterate the nature of this ruling.

A person is free to express their support for a political campaign without limitation (in regards to finance).

There is little that can be argued to vilify that position as unconstitutional.

What is - or should be - unconstitutional is the notion that a state chartered corporate enterprise of whatever nature should be protected as a 'person.'

Corporations have no civic duty beyond that which they freely adopt. Citizens are not so blessed. Corporations conceal guilt and liability for anti-social and even illegal actions, citizens are singularly liable.

Corporate lawyers seized upon the 14th ammendment to imbue their clients with the rights and privileges of citizens.

Citizens can be drafted, coerced to comply with laws and policies they do not support - Corporations have a multiplicity of legal tools and provisions to ensure they cannot.

Citizens are mortal. Corporation are not.

The problem here is the immortality of the corporate machinery, the sacrosanct nature of its protection of the beneficiaries, and the inviolate nature of 'trade' as the most important element of it's mandate while allowing it's board freedom to act outside its charter, or to make its charter so vague as to be inconsequential. Corporations can own, or spawn many other corporations, thus layering their protection from liability even further.

Citizens confronting government do so standing virtually naked before the her, corporations are allowed steel-plate armor.

This is the inequity that chaffs the notion of sovereign liberty..., if that can even be said to exists anymore.

It saddens me to say that all that was good about the republic has been actively diminished by the corporate 'citizen,' while they actively 'sold' us the idea that it was all good and well - calling monopolies and cartels 'freedom' and and exploitation and excess 'capitalism.'

If you want to sign your paycheck over to some 'political' idea, I agree it is your right as a citizen (read: person). How corporations merit such a 'right' is beyond reason..., their 'person-hood' is an offense against reason.

But since our political machinery derives nearly all of it's financial strength from corporations, I contend we should not rely on them to cease drawing the water from the well.

Those justices who dissented recognize the lie for what it is. but in the narrow context of citizenship and the definition of "person" it cannot be challenged.

It is the definition of person that must be challenged here... and because of corporate-controlled media and opportunistic feeders in the celebrity politician realm, a balanced discussion will not take place until some patriots expose it for what it is openly, in a forum which cannot be controlled by them. Can anyone say that this is possible?

Google Video Link

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by johnny2127

Let see who gets priority when it comes to air time, I never seen a regular joe promoting a candidate in prime TV as usual is always big interest groups specially those that own prime TV.

Sorry to explain this to you, but special interest groups are made up of people and individual donations also. Do you not get solicited all the time by special interest groups for donations? Special interest groups are not just corporations.

I am not saying this is a great ruling for America. I'm just saying that it was the correct legal ruling, as was expected by most legal scholars. This needs to be a constitutional amendment to stand.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

While a door is been opened to challenging, trust me is going to be pleanty of lobbyist in Washignton already wispering sweet words in the ears of those that they own.

The citizens stands no chance for change.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by marg6043]

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:03 PM
I would like to make 3 points to the discussion on page 4.

amazinggecko has a new thread that you should look at in regards to who owns the US.

America for Sale: The Rise of Foreign Powers and the Death of the Citizen

The installation of corporations as a person is a long time in coming. There are so many problems with this it is no longer funny and too in depth to discuss here without derailing the discussion. For just one point that I as an individual will never be able to EVER compete as a sole proprietor. These corporate laws are a back door lawyer maneuver of epic proportions. A corporation cannot be held personally responsible for negligence like in a product liability. Like I have said before, you will not be able to compete in any component against a corporation.

Next point on the corporations they will just buy both or all possible candidates by funding all sides of any election.

We all know it exist now, this will only make it more extreme.

I have grazed the dissenting opinion, I would like to investigate more on corporate personhood.

Say goodbye to any possibility, of any real movements any longer. The corporate oligarchy has arrived in full force.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by AllexxisF1

You are putting YOUR words in my mouth. I didn't say I think corporations are people. Corporations are run by people. Those people have a say. If they want to spend their money on advertisement via a Corporation etc against a particular person or party... So.....

They can play in 24/7 because they have THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH to do so. What do you care? You have the freedom to turn it off.

Are you afraid now, for example, that FORD Motors can now spend BIG BUCKS telling everyone how bad the Democrate are and how OBAMA tried to blackmail it's shareholders into giving it up?

I find it interesting how members on here say they Deny Ignorance, search for the truth etc.... I have to say, I am not seeing it-in the political arena anyway.

Wait, I get it now-after seeing who is upset about this (D- Chuck Schumer and other Democrates). I see now that this law will alter the way they are screwing over the people...

Why continue-I waste my energies... we won the ruling... Guess you better start packing those bags to head off to whatever liberal holdup you think is right for you. I'll be busy back here taking America back. Mark one up for the good guys.

The American people want Freedoms. Not Gov't intervention in every aspect of their lives.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:19 PM
I hate to point out the obvious, as well as be labeled for defending corporations, however there is something I see as a bright spot in all of this.
As a professional political consultant I have seen, in EVERY election, Unions buy the race. (note the recent expansion of government)
Groups whose very salary is dictated by the people they are trying to elect. (public employee unions, who are responsible for bankrupting cities everywhere)
Don't have union support? You most likely will not be elected.
Although I cannot claim that corporations will be a better solution, (eliminating all group contributions would be a better option, IMO) it at least balances the scales once again.
I mean, at least I can denounce a corporations choice through my spending habits.
At least I can communicate with the corporations I own stock in, to approve or disapprove of their choices. This is more than any union I worked for gave me.
All of our retirements are tied up in three ways. One of those ways,(public employees retirement) was monopolizing the group. Now the other two get their say.

Again, I am against EITHER corporations OR unions getting access to our politicians.
I am just happy that the sides are a little more even now.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

I can see why you are a forum moderator. Thank you for the way you put what I am/was trying to say-in near perfect-word form.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:23 PM
The Republic is over, by allowing corporations unlimited funding of a campaign it makes our govt. leaders and their lackeys subservient to corporation ideals. Welcome one and all to the Banana Republic of United States.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:29 PM
Yeah its much better to let the MSM decide!! Our system is broken! This is so #ed up I dont know what to say.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by Donkey_Dean]

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:32 PM

Originally posted by hoghead cheese
The Republic is over, by allowing corporations unlimited funding of a campaign it makes our govt. leaders and their lackeys subservient to corporation ideals. Welcome one and all to the Banana Republic of United States.

You obviously didn't read the ruling. They still cannot donate to politicians.

The court, in a 5-4 split, overturned two earlier decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by johnny2127]

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by AllexxisF1

FYI, conservative means little government. How are they conservative if they essentially just voted to expand government into all businesses? That liberal judge is the only government conservative.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by johnny2127

You obviously didn't read the ruling. They still cannot donate to politicians.

Correct...not directly. They can however spend endless amounts of money on tv/radio ads promoting or trashing any candidate of their choosing...which means they can essentially blackmail any politicians who wants to run for office as they can slander and smear them endlessly.

ALso, this ruling applies to ALL corporations...both international and national...meaning a chinese company, russian company, or any other corporation can do this.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by David9176

Again, I will say this for the umpteenth time. I am not saying this is a good decision for America. But it is the correct legal ruling. They need a constitutional amendment for this reform to stick

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by AllexxisF1

FYI, conservative means little government. How are they conservative if they essentially just voted to expand government into all businesses? That liberal judge is the only government conservative.

This sort of rhetoric is getting very old. The Supreme Court is a judicial body, not legislative. They rule on the constitutionality of various things. And nearly all legal scholars have long said this legislation was unconstitutional. As a judge, even if you do not like the result a your ruling, you have to rule according to the law, not make law. This was the correct legal ruling. Crappy as the result is.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by TheTruthShallFreeYou

The ruling includes unions (oh, and special interest groups).

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in