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 rejects Montana corporate campaign spending limits

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What if I want to speak to my Rep about repealing laws? Which in my case is what I would most likely do, but that's beside the point. Corporations are corrupting everything, our government, our media...I mean it only takes a cursory glance at these forums to tell you how screwed we are. It's all well and good to boycott, to speak out, to vote third party...whatever. But, in a country of 350 million people individual critical thinkers are so few. I'm honestly surprised by your stance on this.




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Our media is largely corporate. I used to be extreme in my anti-corporatism and I still believe charter revocation is the answer to corporate malfeasance, but where I used to think that corporations shouldn't even exist, I've come to understand that corporations can and do do good. It is not the corporation as an entity that I have a problem with, it is corporatism I have a problem with.

You know me well enough Kali, to know I am a staunch free market advocate. Corporations, by their very nature, are not a part of any free market. Their very existence begins with regulation. Earlier in this thread I linked three statutes from the United States Code and the Uniform Commercial Code that define corporations as a "person". It is understandable why Congress has done this. Corporations are chartered by states, and rarely by Congress. Congress has defined corporations as a "person" in order to have regulatory power over them, as they should. Corporations being defined as a "person" is not the problem.

Take a look at those links I provided and take note that individuals have also been statutorily defined as a "person" and herein lies the real problem. You, Anonymous404, xuenchen, neo, nor anyone else needs nor should we acquiesce to this odious statutory definition of our being. For the very same reason Congress has defined corporations as a "person" so too have they defined individuals as such, and that is so they may have regulatory power over you, I, Anonymous404, xuenchen, neo and everyone else.

It's not just Congress, the problem lies with all state legislatures and local legislatures as well. Here in Los Angeles there is an ordinance that prohibits street vending. Years ago, after I walked away from of job of almost 15 years, I needed some cash flow to get my own business started so I stood out on a sidewalk and sold my store bought DVD collection. Those DVD's were selling like hotcakes until the police came and arrested me for violation of 42.00(b) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code: Prohibiting street vending.

It took me less than 20 minutes to get the charge against me dropped, but I had tried to get the judge to strike the ordinance down as unconstitutional. The judge wouldn't do it. He dismissed the charge against me for want of subject matter jurisdiction - which is to say that the legislation had not lawful authority - but refused to strike down the ordinance.

I know full well the problems with corporate influence, because I assure you that the corporatist is all for this odious prohibition of free markets. Congress didn't create 42.00(b) of the LAMC, the Los Angeles legislature did. Were I not virtually alone here in Los Angeles in my efforts to fight for a free market, judges would have no choice but to strike the ordinance down. No one I know of really cares about this, and everyone just really wants to "go along to get along", insisting to me that I "can't beat City Hall".

This problem is huge Kali. It is insidious, and the tentacles of this problem are legion and far reaching. Arguing for the prohibition of speech isn't going to fix this problem, and only falls right into the corporatist hands, which is why the highly corporatized media is so intent in stirring the pot on this issue and making people angry, because the corporatist want speech abridged. Not theirs, mind you, but they have billions of dollars to skirt any abridgements on speech, but you and I don't.

Either we remain ever vigilant and stand tall against tyranny at every level, or we surrender to the very enemies we claim to fight. Beating them requires sound strategies, and surrender is not a sound strategy to defeat them.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Couple questions come to mind.

What was the spirit of the policy for freedom of speech that the founding fathers had in mind at the time, and what was the available mediums then?

In 1791, all you had was the newspaper, of which the majority were local papers rather than national like we have today.

The power of the media was not as consolidated as it is today either.

Anyone then, could quite cheaply voice their opinion via the newspapers or word of mouth.
We all had equal power in Freedom of Speech back then.

Today, the majority do not have the money and as a consequence, the power to broadcast nationally on TV like the minority do. They are able to play psychological games on the people in this country, and also trample on their rights by drowning out many small voices that do not have the same amount of power.

The founding fathers would not approve where the minority have more power via Freedom of Speech than the majority of the people in this country. This is exactly what they were trying to get away from where the Kings and Queens of the time had the largest and only voice permissible.

The Kings and Queens (minority) of old were terrified of Freedom of Speech as well as newspapers, because it was a threat to their rule.


Before 1791, newspapers were seen as a threat to the kings and authorities because they were a medium that allowed anyone to express their opinion – and this was very worrisome, particularly when those opinions contradicted those of the government. Because of this, what newspapers published was greatly controlled and had to be approved by the government. This all changed however in 1791, when the First Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights, which allowed for freedom of the press.


We have turned back the clock where those same minority have more power to drown out everyone else and stuff their agenda's down everyone's throat.

Limiting the amount of money one can spend to something everyone can afford, would reestablish the spirit and intent of the founding fathers.
edit on 25-6-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You make my brain hurt lol. But yes I understand what you are saying now and your stance makes much more sense to me.



Our media is largely corporate. I used to be extreme in my anti-corporatism and I still believe charter revocation is the answer to corporate malfeasance, but where I used to think that corporations shouldn't even exist, I've come to understand that corporations can and do do good. It is not the corporation as an entity that I have a problem with, it is corporatism I have a problem with.


Charter revocation will never happen in these times, I agree with you but it's a forgotten exercise. Also, I think that maybe once upon a time there were "good" corporations, good as in healthy for our economy...environmentally maybe not so much, but that's another issue for another time perhaps. I think it is no longer true that a corporation can be good, not without some fierce regulation and we both know that Capitalists as the word means in our country, go into convulsions when you mention regulation. Not to mention they buy their way out of any regulation they want anyway.




You know me well enough Kali, to know I am a staunch free market advocate. Corporations, by their very nature, are not a part of any free market.


Yes, thus my initial confusion. I don't think we have ever had a truly free market in this country, Banks have always their noses in everything.



Corporations are chartered by states, and rarely by Congress. Congress has defined corporations as a "person" in order to have regulatory power over them, as they should. Corporations being defined as a "person" is not the problem.


This where I will disagree with you. I believe the opposite, that Corporations wanted to be defined as persons because it is harder to regulate a person than a corporation. Look at how messy things have become since Citizens United was amended. Corporations were always a threat of course and had an unfair share of power before it was amended but it's like we went from a walk toward fascism to subsonic speed toward it, since.



This problem is huge Kali. It is insidious, and the tentacles of this problem are legion and far reaching. Arguing for the prohibition of speech isn't going to fix this problem, and only falls right into the corporatist hands, which is why the highly corporatized media is so intent in stirring the pot on this issue and making people angry, because the corporatist want speech abridged. Not theirs, mind you, but they have billions of dollars to skirt any abridgements on speech, but you and I don't.


Yes it is, it's terrifying but I don't think the media is stirring the pot on this at all. In fact I highly doubt it's mentioned on television, most sources are from the internet and activist sites at that and maybe rare news internet sites that report on activism. Anyway, no...this is not in the media and if the general population knew, what you, I and many other ATS'rs knew...we would have the revolution that we need.

Have you looked at that leaked document on the TPP by the way?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 





In 1791, all you had was the newspaper, of which the majority were local papers rather than national like we have today.


The majority of newspapers today remain local. There are only a few national newspapers, one of them USAToday which would probably gone by the moniker of McNewspaper if McDonald's would have let them, and the Wall Street journal come to mind, but outside of those two newspapers what others are "national"?

Since the advent of the internet, I suppose one could argue that those "newspapers" are not only "national" but global, but the newspaper, as in ink on paper remains largely local.

Further, I imagine you've used the date of 1791 because this was when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for the United States of America, but that Constitution had to be sold to the American people who all ready had a national constitution in the Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union. The Constitution was largely sold to the people by way of the Federalist Papers which were a series of essays and articles published as pamphlets and distributed to the people of the several states. In opposition of federalism was the Anti-Federalist Papers, also a series of essays published as pamphlets for the sake of the people in the several states.

Beyond this, the Revolution for Independence was also something that had to be sold to people, and Thomas Paine's seminal work Common Sense sold 100,000 copies within the first two months of publication and by the end of the year had sold more than 400,000 copies.

The Federalist Papers, or the essays that comprise the Federalist Papers, were also published in several New York State newspapers. Using the media of that day to influence the populace was no different than it is today, the only difference lies in the technology.




They are able to play psychological games on the people in this country...


This is precisely what I am attempting to address. They can only prey on the psychologically weak. Psychological "games" cannot defeat the sound mind. It is an argument of helplessness, and the Founders did not argue helplessness to forge a new nation and new Constitutional form of government.




The founding fathers would not approve where the minority have more power via Freedom of Speech than the majority of the people in this country.


The Founders would not approve of the weak kneed sniveling helplessness the majority claim today. For the Founders TPTB was the throne of England, and a revolution later, no longer was there a PTB, but was instead a form of governance where power was understood to be distributed evenly among the populace. Today we have countless beings surrendering to a "power elite" and astonishingly insisting that the only way to reign in the power elite is by reigning in their own rights, because the helpless refuse to even imagine a day where they could manipulate billions of dollars to pay for speech and publishing.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



The Founders would not approve of the weak kneed sniveling helplessness the majority claim today. For the Founders TPTB was the throne of England, and a revolution later, no longer was there a PTB, but was instead a form of governance where power was understood to be distributed evenly among the populace. Today we have countless beings surrendering to a "power elite" and astonishingly insisting that the only way to reign in the power elite is by reigning in their own rights, because the helpless refuse to even imagine a day where they could manipulate billions of dollars to pay for speech and publishing.


Can't argue with that point.
More people need to wake up, turn off the tv and realize that were under attack, and that the elite at the top are not your friends and are not to be trusted.

It is to bad that this is the way it really is.

It is the job of the people at the top and in the corporations, financial industry etc to take advantage of you and it is the people's job to realize they are not there to help you.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


One question though.

We have a military for defensive purposes, or at least, it is supposed to be for defensive purposes and most everyone agrees with this facet, because there are many entities external to our country that would like to take advantage of us.

It also goes without saying, that the National Guard, Separate States etc were designed in such a way to also protect us and provide defense for us internally as well

Now the Government and their Multi-International Financial and Corporate stooges have taken that defense away from us through many deceitful tactics.

So would not the first step be to restore the states powers as well as National Guard, that is soley under the leadership of the state?
edit on 25-6-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





This where I will disagree with you. I believe the opposite, that Corporations wanted to be defined as persons because it is harder to regulate a person than a corporation.


And yet, today we have a Congress and President absolutely convinced that they can regulate you in terms of health care and force you purchase private insurance. On a state level we all ready have government forcing people to purchase private insurance for automobiles and this only works because of the voluntary signature on a drivers license and the surrender of a bill of sale in exchange for a "title of registration". Regulation of the individual through voluntary surrender, but on a federal level no such licensing scheme exists but because individuals have been defined as a "person", and of course one of those definitions is in Title 26 of the tax code, Congress and a President are convinced they can regulate you, and of course, if you do not acquiesce to this regulation, how will they enforce it? Why through the IRS, of course!

This statutory definition of a "person" is not to make things easier for anyone, I assure you. The difference is those billions of dollars you fret about that corporations can use to skirt regulatory schemes, or when it is necessary pay the fine to keep doing what they are regulated against. It is a beautiful symbiotic relationship between government and government created "person", and who loses is the individual. On this point, you are correct, but the only way out is the way through, and we as individuals have to learn to refuse to acquiesce to bogus legislation and stand up against criminal thugs who think it is their job to put you in your place.




Look at how messy things have become since Citizens United was amended.


Don't imagine that things weren't messy before this ruling, or that this ruling has added to any mess. In the end, it is our mess to clean up and we will not clean it up by insisting the broom be made illegal.




Corporations were always a threat of course and had an unfair share of power before it was amended but it's like we went from a walk toward fascism to subsonic speed toward it, since.


In that thread of mine I linked Killing Korporations, if you check it out you will read a poster who is arguing against this because of the "jobs" corporations can create versus the sole proprietor. In essence this guy is making the argument that corporations are necessary so people can have "good jobs". Sigh.




Yes it is, it's terrifying but I don't think the media is stirring the pot on this at all. In fact I highly doubt it's mentioned on television, most sources are from the internet and activist sites at that and maybe rare news internet sites that report on activism.


The only reason people believe the Supreme Court "made corporations a person" is because this what media has told them. The certainly didn't read this from the ruling that was made, and while there were dissenting opinions it is not as if that dissent declared that the majority "made corporations a person".




Have you looked at that leaked document on the TPP by the way?


I have not. I will try to do so in the next few days.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 





We have a military for defensive purposes, or at least, it is supposed to be for defensive purposes and most everyone agrees with this facet, because there are many entities external to our country that would like to take advantage of us.


Federalist #26 - Alexander Hamilton


From the same source, the people of America may be said to have derived an hereditary impression of danger to liberty, from standing armies in time of peace. The circumstances of a revolution quickened the public sensibility on every point connected with the security of popular rights, and in some instances raise the warmth of our zeal beyond the degree which consisted with the due temperature of the body politic. The attempts of two of the States to restrict the authority of the legislature in the article of military establishments, are of the number of these instances. The principles which had taught us to be jealous of the power of an hereditary monarch were by an injudicious excess extended to the representatives of the people in their popular assemblies. Even in some of the States, where this error was not adopted, we find unnecessary declarations that standing armies ought not to be kept up, in time of peace, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE.



It is not said, that standing armies shall not BE kept up, but that they ought not to be kept up, in time of peace. This ambiguity of terms appears to have been the result of a conflict between jealousy and conviction; between the desire of excluding such establishments at all events, and the persuasion that an absolute exclusion would be unwise and unsafe.


The Anti-Federalist X:


The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.


Hamilton, in Federalist Papers largely defended the notion of standing armies during a time of peace, but the Anti-Federalists were strongly opposed to this, which is why Hamilton was defending the idea.

Standing armies during times of peace have demonstrably led to more wars, military conflicts, and other adventures that have only created a situation where now our foreign enemies have only strengthened their resolve against us. Thus, it is now argued we need standing armies to protect us from our enemies resolve which was strengthened by the fact that we had standing armies to begin with.

Beware the military industrial complex.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
JPZ summed it up the best as usual


We all need to really wake up here.

"People" need to realize that we don't live in a hermetically sealed laboratory.

If "people" who "own" "corporations" in general are stopped or "limited" from donating to political campaigns, then what stops those same "People" who "own" "corporations" from donating "cash" under the table ?

And worse yet, what stops those same "People" who "own" "corporations" from "issuing" cash bribes to politicians after elections for influence in lawmaking ?

One positive way to view this is that now you get to see the lists of donations at least.


Those big international (corporatist) corporations (many with the same stockholder lists) will get their way regardless of laws.
 



The alarm bells should be ringing right now concerning the "dissenting" opinion from this case.

Supporters of the "dissenting" justices and supporters of the "majority" need to analyze the "dissenting" opinion.

can anyone "see" beyond this:

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court concluded that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 42). I disagree with the Court’s holding for the reasons expressed in Justice Stevens’ dissent in that case. As Justice Stevens explained, “technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct contributions.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at67–68). Indeed, Justice Stevens recounted a “substantial body of evidence” suggesting that “[m]any corporate independent expenditures . . . had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in their capacity to generate quid pro quo arrangements.” Id., at ___ (slip op.,at 64–65).

Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana.Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. 2011 MT 328, ¶¶ 36–37, 363 Mont. 220, 235–236, 271 P. 3d 1, 2
AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. BULLOCK
BREYER, J., dissenting
36–37. Thus, Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.
Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Court’s per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote instead to deny the petition.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



“substantial body of evidence” suggesting that “[m]any corporate independent expenditures . . . had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in their capacity to generate quid pro quo arrangements.”


Quid Pro Quo Definition:


[Latin, What for what or Something for something.] The mutual consideration that passes between two parties to a contractual agreement, thereby rendering the agreement valid and binding.


This game of something for something has to stop. Pay to play is not the way our Constitutional republic was established. We can blame the corporations, we can blame the government, but they are not alone in this pay to play mentality. I cannot tell you how many times I've read, either here or in letters to the editor where someone is writing "As a taxpayer I have rights", and what is meant by this is privilege. What the "taxpayer" wants is their own satisfaction of quid pro quo.

It is corporations that should be heavily taxed not individuals, and it is the corporations who largely escape "income" taxation while the individual is buried underneath a five volume set filled with millions upon millions of words that for most require a "certified tax accountant" to wade through and if anyone runs afoul of this tax code then what is required is a "tax attorney" who can only help a person become "tax compliant" but if that person suddenly comes to the realization that they were never even liable for the damn tax to begin with then that "tax attorney" can no longer help and will speedily refer the individual to a criminal defense attorney.

The key has always been "income" taxation since its passage. This "income" tax has facilitated the steady growth of an ever out of control government that makes it quid pro quo deals with corporations and no amount of oppressive legislation trampling all over unalienable rights will stop this. What will stop this is when every individual who only became a "taxpayer" - which is to say someone subject to applicable revenue laws - was through their own voluntary self assessment and contractual agreement through signature under penalty of perjury to be a taxpayer revokes their contract signature - fully using the law of estoppel on this matter - and extricates themselves from an oppressive system that operates comfortably outside of the restraints of the Constitution that grants that government limited power for a limited time.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join