Impact of Citizens United

[thaiboxerken]

I dont have the slightest idea how you can think that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to corporations, unless it's corprate news media.

Because corporations are not people, nor do they necessarily represent the views of those who work for/in those corporations. The Citizens United decision did not place corporations on the same, level, playing field with individual citizens. It gave them much more power, on a political level, than any single citizen has. It's basically setting up corporations as elite entities that can spend unlimitted funds in political campaigns, something that individuals cannot.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Also, Wildcat, are you not concerned that foreign corporations could be (probably are) funding political campaigns in the USA?

 

[WildCat]

It is sad. Seriously WC, I mean allowing multi billion dollar corporations to invest hundreds of millions to support the candidate that will look after their interests...how is that democracy?

Sad.

TAM

Ask Target how well dipping their toes in the political waters helped them.

And explain why it is that Target shouldn't be allowed to do this, but Viacom can.

You don't get to pick and choose which corporations have rights. If one does, they all do. If one doesn't, none of them do. It really is that simple.

 

[WildCat]

Because corporations are not people, nor do they necessarily represent the views of those who work for/in those corporations. The Citizens United decision did not place corporations on the same, level, playing field with individual citizens. It gave them much more power, on a political level, than any single citizen has. It's basically setting up corporations as elite entities that can spend unlimitted funds in political campaigns, something that individuals cannot.

As I already said: "Then you don't think the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc etc have the right to comment on political issues, or any other issue Congress decides to restrict them on."

Because all of those entities are corporations.

Also, Wildcat, are you not concerned that foreign corporations could be (probably are) funding political campaigns in the USA?

As has been stated many times before in these threads, Congress is free to put a $10 limit on campaign donations if they wish. I see no reason that wouldn't be permitted. Then you wouldn't have to worry so much about illegal donations from foreigners and foreign interests.

See how well that idea flys with your favorite Dems...

 

[T.A.M.]

Me personally, I don't think ANY CORPORATION, Walmart, Target, Chicago Tribune, should be able to donate money to a political candidate or surrogate.

So I agree with you...but my opinion is NONE of them should.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

As I already said: "Then you don't think the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc etc have the right to comment on political issues, or any other issue Congress decides to restrict them on."

Because all of those entities are corporations.


As has been stated many times before in these threads, Congress is free to put a $10 limit on campaign donations if they wish. I see no reason that wouldn't be permitted. Then you wouldn't have to worry so much about illegal donations from foreigners and foreign interests.

See how well that idea flys with your favorite Dems...

There is a difference in the media commenting on something, political punditry, that goes on on both sides, and $100,000,000 plus donated to get the party that favors them in power.

Do you really, honestly feel that is democratic???

TAM

 

[WildCat]

Me personally, I don't think ANY CORPORATION, Walmart, Target, Chicago Tribune, should be able to donate money to a political candidate or surrogate.

So I agree with you...but my opinion is NONE of them should.

TAM

Then you also agree that the MSNBC could be forbidden from any political commentary whatsoever. Facts only, no opinions allowed.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Then you also agree that the MSNBC could be forbidden from any political commentary whatsoever. Facts only, no opinions allowed.

You don't see a difference between donating to a campaign and having political opinions?

Target only suffered because they didn't hide their donations. Now, however, they can hide their donations. How's that fit into your "how well did it go for Target" argument?

 

[WildCat]

There is a difference in the media commenting on something, political punditry, that goes on on both sides, and $100,000,000 plus donated to get the party that favors them in power.

Can you explain the difference? Because I don't see it.

Do you really, honestly feel that is democratic???

TAM

Then put a limit on donations to campaigns and parties to, say, $10. No need to gut the Constitution over this.

 

[WildCat]

You don't see a difference between donating to a campaign and having political opinions?

So long as those opinions aren't transmitted via corporate assets I have no problem with it.

Keith Olbermann can stand on the street corner and spout off all he likes. Or start his own non-corporate newspaper or channel.

 

[Unabogie]

Ask Target how well dipping their toes in the political waters helped them.

Which is exactly why corporations are now funneling their money to the Chamber of Commerce instead. So they can say it's merely to further their business interests while in reality it's all going to the GOP. Regardless, it's still corporate money flowing in unheard of amounts straight into public elections, and in many cases, we don't even know who is donating the money.

For instance, who the hell is funneling $150k into Art Robinson's campaign, considering how fringe whacktard that guy is? Don't we have a right to know? Don't you think that's unhealthy for a democracy to have, not free speech, but bought speech, which none of "us" here can ever hope to enjoy?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Then put a limit on donations to campaigns and parties to, say, $10. No need to gut the Constitution over this.

As long as donations are opaque, how could this be enforced?

 

[T.A.M.]

Can you explain the difference? Because I don't see it.


Then put a limit on donations to campaigns and parties to, say, $10. No need to gut the Constitution over this.

Because Olbermann, Hannity, Limbaugh, Maddow, they are commentators. They give their opinions, they do interviews...I see it as different.

Do you really see allowing huge corporations like Banks, and Wall Street Firms, to lay gigantic heavy hands on election results a GOOD THING?

really?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

So long as those opinions aren't transmitted via corporate assets I have no problem with it.

Keith Olbermann can stand on the street corner and spout off all he likes. Or start his own non-corporate newspaper or channel.

SO your opinion then, is Fox should stop functioning, as it is clearly just the PR arm of the REP party, and MSNBC should stop functioning, as it is a PR arm of the DEM party?

TAM

 

[WildCat]

Which is exactly why corporations are now funneling their money to the Chamber of Commerce instead. So they can say it's merely to further their business interests while in reality it's all going to the GOP.

Nothing in the story in the OP said the money from the CoC went to the GOP.

Regardless, it's still corporate money flowing in unheard of amounts straight into public elections, and in many cases, we don't even know who is donating the money.

So? Pass a transparency law.

For instance, who the hell is funneling $150k into Art Robinson's campaign, considering how fringe whacktard that guy is? Don't we have a right to know? Don't you think that's unhealthy for a democracy to have, not free speech, but bought speech, which none of "us" here can ever hope to enjoy?

All campaign donations over a certain amount are public record. Why don't you look it up?

 

[WildCat]

Because Olbermann, Hannity, Limbaugh, Maddow, they are commentators. They give their opinions, they do interviews...I see it as different.

They're employees of gigantic corporations with diverse business interests, speaking on the corporate dime.

Do you really see allowing huge corporations like Banks, and Wall Street Firms, to lay gigantic heavy hands on election results a GOOD THING?

really?

TAM

They already did that before. Really, what do you think has changed?

 

[T.A.M.]

They're employees of gigantic corporations with diverse business interests, speaking on the corporate dime.


They already did that before. Really, what do you think has changed?

Because I think prior to the decision, in a real close race, maybe, MAY BE, their hand in it could be decisive.

Now, with the Citizens United Decision, I think that they will LITERALLY BUY the politicians they wish to have in power, and BUY THEIR ELECTION.

TAM

 

[SezMe]

As has been stated many times before in these threads, Congress is free to put a $10 limit on campaign donations if they wish. I see no reason that wouldn't be permitted. Then you wouldn't have to worry so much about illegal donations from foreigners and foreign interests.

WildCat, if you think instituting a campaign donation cap would solve the problem, you're wrong. For example, the Swift Boar campaign was done entirely outside the formal political campaign process. Similar but much larger efforts are now possible with no accountability under Citizens. Like TAM, I just cannot see how you think this is a good thing. After all, one result is that your own vote can be highly diluted, if not discounted entirely as a result.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because corporations are not people

The first amendment says nothing about people. You fundamentally misunderstand it if you think personhood has anything to do with the issue. The issue is what power Congress has. And Congress can't restrict free speech, whether the speech in question is from a person or a corporation.

And you STILL didn't answer Wildcat's question. Why do you think news corporations should have rights that other corporations don't? Because that was the situation prior to Citizens United.

It's basically setting up corporations as elite entities that can spend unlimitted funds in political campaigns, something that individuals cannot.

Umm... why can't individuals do that? I'm curious as to what your rationale here is, because to me this claim looks like complete nonsense.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now, with the Citizens United Decision, I think that they will LITERALLY BUY the politicians they wish to have in power, and BUY THEIR ELECTION.

Yeah, not so much, chicken little.

Seriously, have you never seen an election where some wealthy candidate dumps tons of his own money into a campaign, outspends his competitor, and still loses? Money isn't everything in politics. Not by a long shot. It buys advertising, it doesn't buy votes. And advertising works best when you have an actual message. Which, again, money doesn't buy.

And what Citizens United allows for federal campaigns has already been allowed for many state campaigns for quite some time. Yet what you describe wasn't happening, at least not because of any such third-party speech.