1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperAll that matters to me is why the ruling was made. It was made in response to a low budget movie being made about Hillary come last election that was censored. It had nothing to do with corporarate corruption. The Dems can hide behind the retoric of protecting us from evil corporations all they want, but the bottom line is the law restricted freedom of the press. The Framers would never have gone along with restricting freedom of the press, especially politically charged freedom of speech.
What about them? Do you have ANY clue what this lawsuit was about? Right now, without looking it up.
Originally posted by whodeyI'm glad you finally looked it up (just now).
All that matters to me is why the ruling was made. It was made in response to a low budget movie being made about Hillary come last election that was censored. It had nothing to do with corporarate corruption. The Dems can hide behind the retoric of protecting us from evil corporations all they want, but the bottom line is the law restricted freedom of the ...[text shortened]... e along with restricting freedom of the press, especially politically charged freedom of speech.
The law that they repealed, which had stood for decades, did absolutely nothing to restrict Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else from pushing their rhettoric. We already had Freedom of press.
What it did do was put at least some restrictions on Corporations from undo influence into our political system. Now private donations from everyday Americans now must compete with the incredibly deep pockets of corporate America.
Originally posted by whodeyThe Framers would have found the idea of artificially created entities having natural rights like "freedom of speech" palpably absurd.
All that matters to me is why the ruling was made. It was made in response to a low budget movie being made about Hillary come last election that was censored. It had nothing to do with corporarate corruption. The Dems can hide behind the retoric of protecting us from evil corporations all they want, but the bottom line is the law restricted freedom of the ...[text shortened]... e along with restricting freedom of the press, especially politically charged freedom of speech.
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd that's the problem with this ruling.
The Framers would have found the idea of artificially created entities having natural rights like "freedom of speech" palpably absurd.
Let's say I decide to purchase Michelin tires for my car. And now Michelin decides they want to use the money from my purchase to fund an anti-Democratic commercial because they oppose labor unions.
Now, as an American citizen who actually has rights under the Constitution - my money was funneled to a candidate I don't support against my consent.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperPeople don't "[have] rights under the Constitution'; they had their rights before the Constitution was written and would have them whether it had ever been put into effect.
And that's the problem with this ruling.
Let's say I decide to purchase Michelin tires for my car. And now Michelin decides they want to use the money from my purchase to fund an anti-Democratic commercial because they oppose labor unions.
Now, as an American citizen who actually has rights under the Constitution - my money was funneled to a candidate I don't support against my consent.
That is the essence of the political philosophy the Framers overwhelmingly believed in (see the Declaration of Independence). Thus, to say that entities which exist solely because the legislature allows them to exist have "rights" is fundamentally at odds with their philosophy.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat is an ariticially created entity? Is it the media giants. Is it the drug making giants? Is it the NAACP? What exactly qualifies as an artificially created entity?
The Framers would have found the idea of artificially created entities having natural rights like "freedom of speech" palpably absurd.
Originally posted by whodeyIn the State of Nature, organization of individuals pursuing certain goals are expected and essential. But a corporation is a particular form of business arrangement that exists solely because legislatures have passed laws allowing them to exist. If the very existence of something is because of legislative grace, then it cannot possibly have rights which exist irrespective of the collective will.
What is an ariticially created entity? Is it the media giants. Is it the drug making giants? Is it the NAACP? What exactly qualifies as an artificially created entity?
Originally posted by no1marauderBut the case was not brought before the Supremes by a corporation, rather, it was brought to them by an advocay group. Corporations, advocacy groups, and labor unions are the ones that are censored by the FEC. The case was over a 90 minute motion picture called, "Hillary The Movie" which was a highly critical movie about Hilliary Clinton. The FEC saw the moive and ruled it was more of a political ad than a movie in their opinion. The straw that broke the camels back, however, was when a lawyer from the FEC admitted to judge Scalia that books payed for by coporations could be banned. This, in turn, enraged a few of the judges on the Supreme Court, and with good reason.
In the State of Nature, organization of individuals pursuing certain goals are expected and essential. But a corporation is a particular form of business arrangement that exists solely because legislatures have passed laws allowing them to exist. If the very existence of something is because of legislative grace, then it cannot possibly have rights which exist irrespective of the collective will.
Originally posted by whodeyI suggest you actually do some of your own homework and actually study the procedural details of the case; you have them ludicrously wrong.
But the case was not brought before the Supremes by a corporation, rather, it was brought to them by an advocay group. Corporations, advocacy groups, and labor unions are the ones that are censored by the FEC. The case was over a 90 minute motion picture called, "Hillary The Movie" which was a highly critical movie about Hilliary Clinton. The FEC saw the m ...[text shortened]... anned. This, in turn, enraged a few of the judges on the Supreme Court, and with good reason.
Suffice to say that the majority went out of their way to reach issues not really necessary to resolve the particular case. And they did so to strike down the ban on corporations directly funding campaign ads.
Originally posted by no1marauderPlease tell me where specifically I am in error and not just a random critique saying that they did not need to strike down the entire law to resolve this case. in addition, do you agree that this advocay group should have been censored, or should the Supremes have ruled to keep the law in place with modifications?
I suggest you actually do some of your own homework and actually study the procedural details of the case; you have them ludicrously wrong.
Suffice to say that the majority went out of their way to reach issues not really necessary to resolve the particular case. And they did so to strike down the ban on corporations directly funding campaign ads.
Originally posted by whodeyI'll let a law professor explain it:
Please tell me where specifically I am in error and not just a random critique saying that they did not need to strike down the entire law to resolve this case. in addition, do you agree that this advocay group should have been censored, or should the Supremes have ruled to keep the law in place with modifications?
The Citizens United group, the anti-Hillary Clinton group, did not even ask them to wipe out decades of Supreme Court case law on the rights of corporations in the First Amendment. The Court, in fact, raised the question, made the parties go back and brief this case, and then came up with the answer to the question that the Court itself, or the five right-wing justices themselves, posed here.
There would have been lots of other ways for those conservative justices to find that Citizens United’s anti-Hillary Clinton movie was protected speech, the simplest being saying, “Look, this was pay-per-view; it wasn’t a TV commercial. So it’s not covered by McCain-Feingold.” But the Court, or the five justices on the Court, were hell-bent on overthrowing McCain-Feingold and the electioneering communication rules and reversing decades of precedent.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/22/in_landmark_campaign_finance_ruling_supreme
Corporations are artificially created entities created for the purpose of limiting the liability of the owners (stockholders), in order to promote capital growth. For example, if I invest in a corporation as a stockholder (owner), my economic liability is limited to the amount of my investment; whereas in other forms of ownership, my economic liability could extend to my personal assets.
To maintain that such an artificial entity has some “natural rights” is absurd. It is no more than a legally sanctioned business arrangement. Corporations, qua corporations, could be barred from any and all political activity without violating anyone’s rights.
The corporate form of business arrangement could, for that matter, be legislated out of existence without violating anyone’s rights. I am not advocating that, just making the point.
Originally posted by vistesdWhat about advocacy groups?
Corporations are artificially created entities created for the purpose of limiting the liability of the owners (stockholders), in order to promote capital growth. For example, if I invest in a corporation as a stockholder (owner), my economic liability is limited to the amount of my investment; whereas in other forms of ownership, my economic liability co ...[text shortened]... f existence without violating anyone’s rights. I am not advocating that, just making the point.