It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

page: 14
66
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Indeed.. Please inform us 'sheeple' about this unholy reasoning Mr. yellowcard..




posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


A right is only a right as long as it does not cause injury to another. Abrogation or derogation of a right is demonstrated by some form or injury, whether that injury be by assault and battery, murder, or theft of property or detainment against another persons will, or denial of basic rights to worship a religious ritual, to speak freely, to print freely, or to peaceably assemble.

The right to worship in the religious manner one chooses does not give any person the right to murder others, as murder, or as you put it, religious sacrifice of humans, is clearly an abrogation and derogation of a persons right to life.

The right to speech does not give any person the right to cause injury by creating a panic or inciting a riot that obviously creates injury. One can't say bomb on a plane or act in a way that frightens the other passengers in a vehicle suspended and moving in air because of the obvious nature of the environment and certain speech can and has caused injury to others. Creating a panic or inciting a riot on an airplane is one such example.

It is not so clear that your claim that Eros based religions cant televise their rituals. HBO, SHOWTIME and a number of cable television networks regularly air films that feature scenes that depict "Eros based religions". If these cable networks can broadcast this, then it seems any Eros based religion that wants to create their own cable network in order to do the same can do so.

Network television has been subject to administrative agency rulings pretty much since the inception of television and under this jurisdiction licensing schemes have been created that regulate all forms of speech. It has been through the granting of jurisdiction by the people who have applied for these licenses that allows this regulation to happen. Interestingly enough, The Citizen's United Court spoke directly to the idea that administrative agencies can negotiate a waiver of basic rights and held such a notion was non binding if that waiver involved a right. Thus, the idea that Eros based religions can't rely upon network television to broadcast their rituals, can be effectively challenged using the very SCOTUS ruling so many people are upset about.

If a person has been evicted from a church for standing up and loudly indicting that church they have been evicted from private property, and I don't know about you, but when I was a child my parents were quite clear that as long as I lived under their roof, I was subject to their laws, and could not just say what I wanted to without fear of reprisal. The First Amendment does not prohibit religions or parents or even corporations from chilling speech, it prohibits Congress from creating legislation that would do so.

Compulsory prayer in public schools is not freedom of religion. No person or student in a public school can be kept from engaging in prayer if they choose to.

Shouting profanities at children in a kinder garden is clearly injurious to those children and no one has a right to cause that kind of injury.

It is unclear what your point is about warning labels and exactly how such a thing is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Pornography is restricted from areas where it can cause injury. Thus, pornographic materials can not be handed out in places such as public schools where children are, and other such public places such as parks and areas of recreation because of the injury it would cause.

Libel is defined as being the false and malicious publication for the purpose of defaming a living person. In other words, libel is injurious to those who have been libeled.

If verbal harassment has come to the point of assault then it has caused injury. Your next example is basically the same as this one only demonstrates the injury in the language you've used: "Why we don't have verbal abuse laws." Abuse is defined as mistreatment or treating another badly, if that mistreatment qualifies as assault then it is injurious.

None of what you have listed are "exceptions to the rule", they are examples of harming others. A right is only a right in that it does not cause injury to others.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


Hey Ziggy, I took this political ideology test, apparently I am a libertarian, who knew?

www.theadvocates.org...





posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lynxlynx
Indeed.. Please inform us 'sheeple' about this unholy reasoning Mr. yellowcard..


Oh, I will, most political groups (or businesses) incorporate to evade personal legal liabilities...So say you overshot your donation limit, well guess what under the old rule if you joined and give to Move On or the Tea Party movement and wanted to run your own ads over a certain level within 30 60 days of an election...that was ILLEGAL! Now it's not, congrats, now you have more 1st Amendment rights and if you Ron Paul supporters or Kucinich supporters want to give to some 3rd Party that isn't Ron Paul because you reached your donation limit...you can join your money together under an LLC and run your own ads in favor of Ron Paul or what have you...and you have no limit on time or money. Read the case...that's what it was ALL about.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

[edit on 23-1-2010 by yellowcard]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Am I just too damn drunk, or did you not answer my question..?

Who gives a f*ck about the campaign money.. Did the thought of doublecrossing a company come in to your head?
If I got x$ from company X I would f*ck'em over just for the fun of it =)..

Companies don't VOTE for officials.. You do..



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by lynxlynx
Am I just too damn drunk, or did you not answer my question..?

Who gives a f*ck about the campaign money.. Did the thought of doublecrossing a company come in to your head?
If I got x$ from company X I would f*ck'em over just for the fun of it =)..

Companies don't VOTE for officials.. You do..


Well, first off you didn't ask a question...and second off a company is just an organization of people. A pool of capital from any investor, and that could include YOU (and an investment can be a political investment.) People that act as if all Corporations are criminal is laughable...people form corporations for legal reasons and thus it is a person. Read my post, and it explains why this ruling is good, I believe quite clearly.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by yellowcard]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Yeah it wasn't my question, but you still didn't answer it.. It was that other guys question, I don't know who's , because ats is coded by monkeys so I can't see schaisse when I'm writing a reply :>..

And I bet your have a 2nd account where you can give stars to your self.. Now theres a conspiracy for you o_O....

But please, just answer the original ques why can those 2 companies do something what ever it was I can't recall, that others can't...



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I am looking around the net and I find this from Ron Paul, 2003


by Ron Paul, Dr. December 22, 2003

In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law “That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”

Two important points ignored by the Court should be made. First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment, they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency. This is precisely what McCain-Feingold represents: blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble reform.

Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American.

Outrageously, the Court failed to strike down a provision of the campaign finance bill that virtually outlaws criticism of incumbent politicians for 60 days before an election—exactly the time when most voters learn about candidates and issues. The ban essentially prohibits any group from airing radio or television ads that cast politicians in a negative light during the critical final months of an election. The ban even carries the possibility of criminal penalties, meaning the Court has endorsed criminalizing political dissent! Incumbent politicians certainly will be the beneficiaries of the new ban, as they no longer have to suffer through ads that criticize their performance.

Wealthy people will always seek to influence politicians, because government unfortunately plays a very big role in determining who gets (and stays) rich in our country. Our federal government has become a taxing, spending, and regulating leviathan that virtually controls the economy. Having rejected the notion of limited, constitutional government, we can hardly be surprised when special interests use corrupting campaign money to influence the process! We need to get money out of government; only then will money not be important in politics. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand.



blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble reform.

What do you guys think?



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


What do you think? Why don't you just open a thread about that and let see what happens?


I believe Paul reasoning is the same like those 5 conservative judges, McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional. Either all of them are guilty or not that depends on your perspective. So, what's it gonna be, are they right or not?



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Just wanted to share this:




posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ventian
 


He will pour unlimited money into campaigns and really buy off some politicians. Obama appointed Sotomeiyor to pass laws just like this.


Do you have any idea what you post?

The decision DOES NOT allow unlimited contributions to campaigns. It allows corporations and unions to advertise just as media corporations have been allowed.

Sotomayor voted AGAINST the majority!

You obviously have neither read the decision nor understand its meaning.

At some point, ATS must have a basic literacy and intelligence test for qualification to post. Crap such as this would be nonexistent.

Deny ignorance!

jw



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxlynx
 


Maybe I'm missing something here.

I am incorporated. Why am I NOT entitled to 1st amendment rights that some other persons/corporations were entitled to before yesterday?

(in most countries, a corporation is legally a "person")

Why did these media corporations enjoy the right to spend or publish freely about their preferred candidates, but not me?

"First tier" media corporations (exempt from "campaign finance" restrictions prior to 1/21/10):

Time Warner
Disney
Bertelsmann
Viacom
News Corporation
TCI
General Electric
Sony
Columbia
TriStar Pictures
Seagram
Universal
CBS
New York Times Co.
Hearst
Comcast
Gannett
CNN
Headline News
CNNfn
TBS
TNT
Turner Classic Movies
Comedy Central
Court TV
HBO
Cinemax
PrimeStar
Warner Brothers
New Line Cinema
Time
People
Sports Illustrated
Time-Life Books
Warner Music Group
Six Flags
Capital Cities/ABC
Miramax
Buena Vista
Fairchild Publications
Chilton Publications;
Hyperion Books
Hollywood Records
Mammoth Records
Walt Disney Records
Univision

"Second Tier" media corporations:
# Westinghouse
# Advance Publications
# Gannett
# Cox Enterprises
# Times-Mirror
# Comcast
# McGraw Hill
# Reader's Digest
# Knight-Ridder
# Dow Jones
# New York Times Co.
# Tribune Co.
# Hearst
# Washington Post Co.
# Cablevision
# DirecTV (Owned by General Motors)
# DreamWorks
# Thomson
# Rogers Communications
# Hollinger
# Cisneros Group
# Globo
# Clarin
# Televisa
# Havas
# Reed Elsevier
# EMI
# Hachette
# Reuters
# Kirch Group
# Granada Group
# BBC
# Axel Springer
# Canal Plus
# CLT
# Pearson PLC
# United News & Media
# Carlton Communications
# Mediaset
# Kinnevik
# Television Francais 1
# Verlagsgruppe Bauer
# Wolters Kluwer
# RCS Editori Spa
# VNU
# Prisa Group
# Antena 3
# CEP Communications
# NHK
# Fuji Television
# Nippon Television Network
# Cheil Jedang
# Tokyo Broadcasting System
# Modi
# Asahi National Broadcasting Co.
# Toho Company
# PBL
# TVB International
# Chinese Entertainment Television
# Asia Broadcasting and Communica-tions Network
# ABS-CBN
# Doordarshan
# Chinese Central Television


These "media corporations" were exempt from the McCain- Feingold and prior restrictions.

Why? What makes them so special?

There is no reason for one "group" of people to have special privileges under the Constitution at the expense of others.

In the U.S., a "corporation" is a "person." Learn something.

Deny ignorance!

jw



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
It's not only about some media corporations having special access to the political system... though that was unfair... it's about the fact that corporations now have a MUCH louder voice in the process.

Consider these scenarios:

Halliburton wants to launch a new war -

They spend billions putting enough candidates on tickets and then billions more lobbying other candidates they don't own.

They get their war.

Or and even scarier one --

Candidate A, a Democrat (though he could be a Republican... no difference in this case) wants to NOT be Halliburton's candidate.

Halliburton calls the DNC and says, hey, we'll pull all funding from all candidates tomorrow, unless Candidate A is replaced or plays ball.

Candidate A is replaced.

An individual could NOT get the same results in either scenario.

A corporation NOW can.

Stop pretending this protects speech when actually all it does is transfers decision making to Corporations.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
well this is clearly evidence that the hands that wash each other are definitely connected, isn't it? kinda like, "let's create a virus so we can sell a vaccine."



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
If Labor Unions get to donate large amounts of money,I think it's only fair to let companies and Corporations do that also!



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
If Labor Unions get to donate large amounts of money,I think it's only fair to let companies and Corporations do that also!


bingo



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


A right is only a right as long as it does not cause injury to another. Abrogation or derogation of a right is demonstrated by some form or injury, whether that injury be by assault and battery, murder, or theft of property or detainment against another persons will, or denial of basic rights to worship a religious ritual, to speak freely, to print freely, or to peaceably assemble.

The right to worship in the religious manner one chooses does not give any person the right to murder others, as murder, or as you put it, religious sacrifice of humans, is clearly an abrogation and derogation of a persons right to life.

The right to speech does not give any person the right to cause injury by creating a panic or inciting a riot that obviously creates injury. One can't say bomb on a plane or act in a way that frightens the other passengers in a vehicle suspended and moving in air because of the obvious nature of the environment and certain speech can and has caused injury to others. Creating a panic or inciting a riot on an airplane is one such example.

It is not so clear that your claim that Eros based religions cant televise their rituals. HBO, SHOWTIME and a number of cable television networks regularly air films that feature scenes that depict "Eros based religions". If these cable networks can broadcast this, then it seems any Eros based religion that wants to create their own cable network in order to do the same can do so.

Network television has been subject to administrative agency rulings pretty much since the inception of television and under this jurisdiction licensing schemes have been created that regulate all forms of speech. It has been through the granting of jurisdiction by the people who have applied for these licenses that allows this regulation to happen. Interestingly enough, The Citizen's United Court spoke directly to the idea that administrative agencies can negotiate a waiver of basic rights and held such a notion was non binding if that waiver involved a right. Thus, the idea that Eros based religions can't rely upon network television to broadcast their rituals, can be effectively challenged using the very SCOTUS ruling so many people are upset about.

If a person has been evicted from a church for standing up and loudly indicting that church they have been evicted from private property, and I don't know about you, but when I was a child my parents were quite clear that as long as I lived under their roof, I was subject to their laws, and could not just say what I wanted to without fear of reprisal. The First Amendment does not prohibit religions or parents or even corporations from chilling speech, it prohibits Congress from creating legislation that would do so.

Compulsory prayer in public schools is not freedom of religion. No person or student in a public school can be kept from engaging in prayer if they choose to.

Shouting profanities at children in a kinder garden is clearly injurious to those children and no one has a right to cause that kind of injury.

It is unclear what your point is about warning labels and exactly how such a thing is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Pornography is restricted from areas where it can cause injury. Thus, pornographic materials can not be handed out in places such as public schools where children are, and other such public places such as parks and areas of recreation because of the injury it would cause.

Libel is defined as being the false and malicious publication for the purpose of defaming a living person. In other words, libel is injurious to those who have been libeled.

If verbal harassment has come to the point of assault then it has caused injury. Your next example is basically the same as this one only demonstrates the injury in the language you've used: "Why we don't have verbal abuse laws." Abuse is defined as mistreatment or treating another badly, if that mistreatment qualifies as assault then it is injurious.

None of what you have listed are "exceptions to the rule", they are examples of harming others. A right is only a right in that it does not cause injury to others.


All of which flies in the face of your previous statements quoted below.
According to you, there are no exceptions when someone who disagrees with your interpretations, says there are. But you immediately launch a diatribe full of them to defend a baseless claim.

If your elected officials being chosen by foreign powers does not pass your litmus test. You may want to read what Alexander Hamilton Said about this.





It is clear who is confused here, and your language betrays your emotions. Your confusion is evident by your own claims of being a "conservative" until you "read" the ruling rendered by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. If you were a conservative before this ruling then what exactly were you conserving if not the Constitution? If you believe SCOTUS took conserving that Constitution too far, then speak intelligently to it, rather than waste your time making fallacious arguments.

It was no doubt a conservative Court that relied upon strict conservative methodology to reason their decision and that reason was that the First Amendment expressly prohibits Congress from making any laws that would abridge the freedom of speech. Is this your problem with the ruling? Do you believe that speech can and should be regulated by Congress? Is that your idea of conservatism?


Just because you say it, does not make it gospel. Your notion of conservatism is precisely that.

Your notion.

Are you infallible?




[edit on 25-1-2010 by ziggystrange]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
And in Europe we are stunned. when we just didnt think the american people could be more fu--ed by the greedy corp´s. this pops up..



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
If Labor Unions get to donate large amounts of money,I think it's only fair to let companies and Corporations do that also!


bingo


But don't you see that this ruling allows foreign corporations to donate to US political candidates.

Do you really want foreign business interests involved in the American electoral process? I don't!

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


No they don't want to address that at all.

Still what is going to stop corporations now from registering as voters because their status of person hood, how about corporations running for government positions



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join