We don't live in a free market society, and with good reason. I suggest you think about that.
Nothing is black and white. Not all corporations do bad things; not all corporations do good things. As I said, the ruling was fair.
Whenever rulings or legislation is passed that favors the corporate upper crust, it has wide spread implications. It's a simple fact that corporations behave like individual persons with a huge amount of money and resources. They have sway over the democratic process, which is not always a bad thing, but regulations don't exist because of those who behave.
This particular ruling doesn't mean much in the grand scheme, other than giving the nod to lobbyists to keep doing what they're doing.
Money does buy politics and that is simply a modern reality, which is why I am not jumping for joy about this.
i fail to see how a corporation has a right to free speech.
We don't live in a free market society, and with good reason. I suggest you think about that.
i fail to see how a corporation has a right to free speech.
As much as the people at dailykos would like to pretend that that was the issue in question in this case, it wasn't. It is, however, a useful tool for distracting people from the fact that the claims of "an end to democracy" are horribly overblown.
This should help:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I believe this time it warrants a two hand salute. :mrgreen:
i fail to see how a corporation has a right to free speech.
I think you lost sight of what you were even arguing. These are not things you have to tell me.
And there's a LOT more to this ruling than just limits on corporate spending, for which I indeed AM jumping for joy.
A union is an entity made up of members elected to represent them. a corporation is not.Why shouldn't they have a right to free speech? Why should a union have more rights than a corporation?
A union is an entity made up of members elected to represent them. a corporation is not.
however, i believe neither should be able to contribute to candidates or political parties. i think all campaigns should be financed by the taxpayers, on an equal basis.
Then why are you implying I'm against freedom because I don't like the ruling? I said it was fair which is why I support it... but that doesn't mean I have to like it. There is a difference between my own preferences and my preferences for the greater good. Take note.
A union is an entity made up of members elected to represent them. a corporation is not.
however, i believe neither should be able to contribute to candidates or political parties. i think all campaigns should be financed by the taxpayers, on an equal basis.
Why shouldn't they have a right to free speech? Why should a union have more rights than a corporation?
A union is an entity made up of members elected to represent them. a corporation is not.
however, i believe neither should be able to contribute to candidates or political parties. i think all campaigns should be financed by the taxpayers, on an equal basis.
it should not ... neither should be entitled to free speech, unless they possess the actual physical ability to speak
but when was the last time you have seen either a corporation or union actually speak
by its decision, the sc has given over citizens' rights to what could be multi-national organizations - and potentially corporate arms of foreign governments
should we really trust the multi-national corporations and foreign, state-owned entities to not inordinately influence our politics, which is their right as has now been proscribed by the highest court
we continue to have the best government money can buy
Where did I say anything about your being "against freedom"? Is this why you think I'm looking through a "black-and-white lens"? Because it's the way you see things? Seems that way.
Harshaw said:Corporations = evil; must have free speech suppressed.
Orius said:Oh yes... because I think there should be economic regulation, I am against freedom.
Harshaw said:Well, yeah, which is why I'm calling it out.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...aign-finance-reform-rules.html#post1058266093
I'd love to hear an explanation for how this decision will corrupt politics in a way that it's not already corrupted, as opposed to your ignorant pronunciations on issues you clearly don't understand.
Don't piss on me and call it rain.
Corporations = evil; must have free speech suppressed.
Well, yeah, which is why I'm calling it out.
.
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.
Naturally. The Reiche-wing loves to buy off votes.
Now they can do it wholesale.
You lament the striking down of regulations on corporations on the grounds that corporations are necessarily a corruptive influence on politics.
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?