Peter_Puget Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Why don't we go back to this issue! After all baseball is America's game! Date: June 30, 1870 Treatymaking Country: Dominican Republic Subject of Treaty: Annexation Vote: Yeas=28; Nays=28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 How do I feel about it? Haven't figured that one out yet. Are you kidding? Get a fucking clue. It's not an issue I've focused on, so I can safely plead ignorance until I do. There has been one discussion on it at CHAOS headquarters, and that was enough to impart the complexity and far reaching consequences of denying contributions protected political speech status. As a 100% donor funded organization chartered with protecting privacy rights, groups like ours are naturally concerned. Remember, everything really is connected to everything else in this universe, so it's good to be careful what you wish for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 More fetishization of the law. Legally, corporations are individuals, therefore they must be given equal protection under the law. Yeah, it's a problem with the legal designation. Yeah, the ACLU is institutionally blind to it. Not complicated. It's why I'm not a joiner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 which part isn't complicated? i'm sure your voice at cascadeclimbers does a hell of a lot more than does the aclu in rescuing the poor helpless americans from the grips of those darn republicano corporatists. but i'm sure you get to call yourself a purist when you're hittin on that sexy co-ed touting her communist credentials at the weekend dorm party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 but i'm sure you get to call yourself a purist when you're hittin on that sexy co-ed touting her communist credentials at the weekend dorm party. wait...lying to get hot college snatch is wrong?!? i would like to hear someone knowledgable speak to how limiting corporate speech would hurt human speech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 don't jump to conclusions, buddy. how ludicrous is it to give friggin corporations individual legal rights? and yeah, if'n you think it's all good to lie in order to get what you want, then go for it. i wish your wife and daughter well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." They need to take the money out of Washington to fix the problem. Not allow the ones with the most money in. Bone, you're soooo out of your league here. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing con law isn't your strong suit. this is spray right? Out of my league.....I am spray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 don't jump to conclusions, buddy. how ludicrous is it to give friggin corporations individual legal rights? and yeah, if'n you think it's all good to lie in order to get what you want, then go for it. i wish your wife and daughter well! kimmo = humorless killjoy btw, did i say i was for corps having individual rights? are you so eager to jump on somebody that you wanna hop on the first (ugly) honkey that walks on by? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) A corporation is an common way to set up a mechanism for long term giving to any cause. The ACLU, for example, is a combination of 2 corporations: one tax exempt, one (that lobbies) not. Furthermore, many individuals incorporate, often for the primary purpose of just such giving. Political speech is a form of human speech. The debate, settled recently, has been over whether or not campaign financing constitutes political speech. It's partly a free association issue. Donating is a form of association, which should be free unless the government can show a compelling enough interest to make it otherwise. It's partly a privacy issue. Typically, the government has deferred to standard of confidentiality when it comes to political involvement, with a few notable exceptions, one recent and in our very own state. It's partly an equal protection issue. Why should one type of organization or association (corporation) be exempt from regulation while another is not? The imbalanced influence adherence to such principles produces is pretty obvious, but what if you were charged with the task of proving exactly if, how, and why that is so? What success criteria would you use? Good luck, and send us the report. Popular wisdom often doesn't translate well to proving a systemic pattern that produces tangible harms when compared to a reformed system. I guess that's what happens when basic values must be interpreted by da hairless monkey. Edited January 22, 2010 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 don't jump to conclusions, buddy. how ludicrous is it to give friggin corporations individual legal rights? And how about labor unions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 don't jump to conclusions, buddy. how ludicrous is it to give friggin corporations individual legal rights? And how about labor unions? whores setup to match corporate power Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I agree. But should they be likewise treated vis a vis political contributions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Thanks for forwarding the party communique. The verbal contortions on display are quite impressive. I respect the ACLU's commitment to protecting civil rights even when that means defending Nazis and the rest. I get it. But their acceptance of the underlying assumption that corporations deserve rights equal to those of individuals is simply wrong. That political speech is human speech is a no-brainer. What is also a no-brainer is that corporations are not people and that corporate speech isn't speech, it's called advertising. They shouldn't be afforded the full rights and privileges of the individual and what they say is not, and can never be, free expression; it's an investment. The legal system is fully capable of making distinctions between what rights are afforded human beings and what protections (or restrictions) are afforded associations and organizations as a whole. It's also capable of placing limitations on political speech in the form of contributions that are appropriate to maintaining a functional electoral system, the cornerstone of a viable Republic based on the will of the governed. I'm not really sure from what you've written above which slippery slope you're worried about, but when you wake up from whatever they put in the coffee at your meeting you'll find we just landed at the bottom of a very big one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I agree. But should they be likewise treated vis a vis political contributions? hell fucking yes. I only like unions because they make corps, and more importantly managers, squeal like little pigs because workers don't roll over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Thanks for forwarding the party communique. The verbal contortions on display are quite impressive. I respect the ACLU's commitment to protecting civil rights even when that means defending Nazis and the rest. I get it. But their acceptance of the underlying assumption that corporations deserve rights equal to those of individuals is simply wrong. That political speech is human speech is a no-brainer. What is also a no-brainer is that corporations are not people and that corporate speech isn't speech, it's called advertising. They shouldn't be afforded the full rights and privileges of the individual and what they say is not, and can never be, free expression. The legal system is fully capable of making distinctions between what rights are afforded human beings and what protections (or restrictions) are afforded associations and organizations as a whole and placing limitations on political speech in the form of contributions that are appropriate to maintaining a functional electoral system, the cornerstone of a viable Republic based on the will of the governed. I'm not really sure from what you've written above which slippery slope you're worried about, but when you wake up from whatever they put in the coffee at your meeting you'll find we just landed at the bottom of a very big one. Yes, of course . God forbid an otherwise loyal adherent admit to the entertainment of rational analysis. Back in line, TTK! Commissar Prole will not tolerate the doubt you are harboring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 How exactly is placing Shell Oil on the same legal footing as my grandmother or her bridge club the entertainment of rational analysis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 How exactly is placing Shell Oil Labor Unions on the same legal footing as my grandmother or her bridge club the entertainment of rational analysis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Yeah, I'll be waiting for you to answer either one of those questions...for eternity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Like TTK, I'm on the fence with this one. But since you seem to believe you possess clarity, please feel free to explain your lack of consistency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 By the way, if labor unions, and by extension liberals and Democrats had so much to gain from the ruling, why wasn't it unanimous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) Maybe we should just dissolve the Supreme Court and let justice Kennedy decide all constitutional issues? But you still haven't answered my question. Edited January 22, 2010 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I didn't see one from you. You've had three to work on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 please feel free to explain your lack of consistency. Like TTK, I'm on the fence with this one. Reading comprehension. Take your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) Why I don't fall all over myself to inject the phrase "labor unions" into every conversation I have about this topic? Well, two reasons: First, I think the disparity between corporate power and the power of organized labor in 21st century America is on the level of orders of magnitude. That the media feels it has to breathlessly assure its listeners and viewers that the new rules(?) apply to labor unions as well as multinational behemoths is absurd on its face. Secondly, unions and corporations are fundamentally different. Unions are at least ostensibly democratic institutions that through internal political processes seek to represent the interests of their members. At any rate, I'm not against restrictions on the amount of money that an individual, a corporation, or a labor union can contribute to a political campaign. When a potential representative has to place themselves on the auction block for the highest bidder or the amount of money a candidate has can win them an election (and it's becoming a practical reality), it doesn't matter where the money comes from; the system is fucked. If you're "on the fence" about this issue in this day and age, in this country, seeing what is plain as day to anyone with eyes then you're the one's got some explaining to do. Edited January 22, 2010 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 don't jump to conclusions, buddy. how ludicrous is it to give friggin corporations individual legal rights? And how about labor unions? i'm not sure exactly what legal rights you are referring to.... i'm also not sure that corporations and labor unions should enjoy the same legal protections and rights, since the aims of both (generally) differ so greatly. maybe seems like comparing apples and oranges a little bit, but i'd like to hear what you mean with your question above.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.