Wrong.
Read the federalists papers. Better yet, read the Preamble, the first three words are "we the people" "Not We the people and entities"
Next thing you will be claiming is that Soylent Green is people.:lol:
It happens all the time. The speech is called "commercials" (and sometimes "infomercials") and they show up on radio and TV all the time. Sometimes these commercials are paid for by enterprises which exist to provide a service for fair compensation (your local auto dealers, for instance), and sometimes they are paid for by enterprises which exist solely to collect donations to further the political and economic interests of their members (like ACORN and the environmental groups).i have yet to see a corporation speak
In the end, all we did was open up our doors and boarders of our political process to any corporation with large sums of money. Ask yourself this question, if there is a bill now which is overall great for the country and the People at large and well within the proper power of the government, but devastating to Goldman Sachs would it pass? If your answer is no, then you must admit that the system is breaking down. The Republic is at risk. The founders passed down this Republic to us and it's ours to keep or ours to loose....we are definitely on the path to loosing it.
Bottom line.. there is far far too much money in US politics and this ruling might bring it to the public view but it will also increase it considerably since now it is legal for special interests to spend billions on a candidate.
It use to be that politicians were elected by the people for the people. Now days it looks more and more like it is politicians elected by the people for the special interests and corporations.
Bottom line.. there is far far too much money in US politics and this ruling might bring it to the public view but it will also increase it considerably since now it is legal for special interests to spend billions on a candidate.
It use to be that politicians were elected by the people for the people. Now days it looks more and more like it is politicians elected by the people for the special interests and corporations.
I'm confused. Since when was a Corporation granted Constitutional rights?
i don't believe our founding fathers were referring to anyone but people.
i have yet to see a corporation speak
Wrong.
Read the federalists papers. Better yet, read the Preamble, the first three words are "we the people" "Not We the people and entities"
Next thing you will be claiming is that Soylent Green is people.:lol:
What is it that you expect Goldman Sachs to do?
Buy congressmen. What about my question, do you have an answer for it?
Not one far-right partisan hack on DP has been able to give a logical explanation why corporations, an artificial legal entity should be entitled to the same free speech protections as individuals.
That point is the issue. Because at that point the emphesis changes from what is good for the people (who the government represents) and starts being about what is good for the business. Those things aren't always the same.
I'm not a big fan of restrictive campaign finance laws...but there are bigger issues at stake here. Anyone who agrees with this ruling has no basis to ever complain about "judicial activism."
i don't believe our founding fathers were referring to anyone but people.
The founding fathers would not have agreed with that sentiment. The Boston Tea Party was an anti-corporate sentiment as much as anything.
depends. sometimes one or two people, sometimes thousands. the point is, a board of directors is not in place to represent the employees interests, they are put in place to further profits.
Not one far-right partisan hack on DP has been able to give a logical explanation why corporations, an artificial legal entity should be entitled to the same free speech protections as individuals.
Much of this has opened us up to interference by foriegn countries. Basically, any company can set up a "headquarters" in America and once they do, they can contribute all they want. Any company from any country can do it. So great. Furthermore, the People are still restricted while the corporations have become unrestricted for all practical purposes. I think that's a fundamental problem. Corporations are not people, only individuals have rights. I think this fell well into proper realm of Congress to control, at least maybe this part of it.
That point is the issue. Because at that point the emphesis changes from what is good for the people (who the government represents) and starts being about what is good for the business. Those things aren't always the same. And when in conflict the government is supposed to represent the citizens.
Or you don't have a democrasy. You have a corporitocracy(sp?)
And secondly this was about corporate financing wasn't it?
How can the Tea Party be anti-something-that-didn't-exist? That is, corporate personhood?
i don't believe our founding fathers were referring to anyone but people.
The Boston Tea Party was in protest to the Tea Tax that in part benefitted the East India Company that had a government monopoly on tea imports to the colonies.
The correct solution to that particular problem is to reduce the size, scope, and power of government so it cannot facilitate the creation of coercive monopolies.
The nation has spent a century trembling in its boots over the thought that good businessmen might get a monopoly and giving the government ever more power to prevent this...when in fact the existence of government power is what makes coercive monopolies possible.
Those are organizations of the people. ACORN is non-profit so it subsists on subsidies and donations from private individuals; therefore their existence is more democratic. If people felt they served no purpose, they'd get no money.
Corporations exist to rake in profits and their influence on government does not help to balance democracy. They are the business sector gone wild and they don't give a toss about individuals.
Let's just admit that we live in a Corporatocracy. That way we are not shocked, surprised or saddened when we get a broadside, unabashed look at the workings of our Corporate Government.
Right, and they actually had the guts to fix their government.
:lol:Does a corporation itself invest money in political advertising, or do the people who own and control the corporation do so?
Are they somehow not deserving of first amendment protection on political speech, simply because of their occupation?
And Soylent Green is people dammit!
btw, did you listen to the interview?
A fair enough issue.
How does one ensure the Chinese Army doesn't set up a corporation and contribute more money to Hillary's campaign?
However, establishing a blanket ban on corporate contributions is not the correct answer. Eliminating the freedom of the citizens is never the correct answer.
I would think the correct answer would be based on percent of US citizen ownership and control and location of facilities as well as headquarters.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?