Campaign Donation Rules Changed by Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Hatton, Jan 21, 2010.

  1. Hatton

    Hatton Registered Member

    Well, it took them long enough to get to a big issue! Some of the portions of McCain-Feingold have been struck down by the Supreme Court. Personally, this is going to make the 2010 and 2012 elections VERY interesting to watch!

    I plan on talking about this on my podcast on Sunday but wanted to see what folks here thought of the issue.

    From http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&emc=na

    For myself, I think the decision is accurate based on the language of the Constitution.
     

  2. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I have always argued that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and glad to see portions of it struck down. It's a clear violation of the First Amendment, this decision has been a long time coming.
     
  3. Jeanie

    Jeanie still nobody's bitch V.I.P. Lifetime

    I think it's a huge mistake that will send our country in entirely the wrong direction to give corporations the same basic rights as human beings. Corporations are not the same as people and should not be afforded the same rights.
     
  4. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    heh, I dont like it personally.

    So now we enter a generation where without a doubt, the winner of the elections wont be who will be best for the nation...but who the corporations footed the biggest bill for.

    Dont get me wrong, I realize people still vote. But lets be honest here... what percentage of the American Population is actually aware of what they're voting for? How many people voted for Bush because he was the recognizable name and Kerry was nothing more than a Flip Flop? How many people voted for Obama because he was Obama and had far better logos than McCain?

    I hate to say it, but the Average American People dont know how politics works. Its not about who has the policies anymore, its about who gets the most face time with what areas. Sure some things happen where the people are seriously fed up, like what just happened in Mass. But those are cinderella story, few and far between situations.

    Just think, the election of 1836, Martin Van Buren beat William H. Harrison by 216,000 +/- popular votes. The Presidential election of 1836 recorded 1,314,991 voters total. Just the difference in voters in the 2008 election was 10x that of the total voters for the Buren Harrison election. I have a hard time believing that the understanding of those voters are equivelant to those back in 1836.

    Things have changed and they havent changed for the better of understanding. They've changed to the age of Marketing... and ugh, I just dont believe I'm happy when Elections are gonna be practically solely based on who gets the most money to market the most effectively.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2010
  5. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    Yet they're taxed and can be held liable and sued for producing something that harms society yet it's unconstitutional for a corporation to donate money to a candidate?
     
  6. Jeanie

    Jeanie still nobody's bitch V.I.P. Lifetime

    They also actually can produce something that harms society on a grand scale, whereas people generally can't. Corporations also never die, and thus can accumulate unlimited wealth.
    ------
    I don't understand how the Constitution applies to a corporation. The preamble reads "We the People"
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2010
  7. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    So? Because they never die Congress has the power to abridge whatever rights they want?

    If we're going to use the "they're not people" standard then let's eliminate all corporate taxes and let's eliminate every single lawsuit filed against then and completely absolve them of all civil liability. After all they're not human so how can they pay taxes and be sued like humans?

    The point is if I want to sell every single asset I have, my house, my truck, my investments, everything and donate it to a politician who is running for office because it's my belief that is the right thing to do and is best for the country what law, statute, ordinace, clause in the Constitution gives Congress the power to prevent me from doing that? How is that any different for a corporation? Is there any language in "Congress shall pass no law.... abridging the freedom of speech" that says "except when it comes to corporations?" Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I object to all abridgments of freedom of speech whether it be a corporation or Joe Blow down the street.
    ------
    in order to form a perfect union....meaning "we're creating this union", not "this only applies to humans".

    And so again, IF it only applies to humans let's do away with having to legally file articles of incorporation, let's do away with all corporate taxes, and let's eliminate every lawsuit filed against them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2010
  8. Jeanie

    Jeanie still nobody's bitch V.I.P. Lifetime

    No Congress cannot abridge the rights of the people

    Corporations do not act in the best interest of the country. They act in the best interest of their shareholders and profit margins.
     
  9. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2010
  10. Major

    Major 4 legs good 2 legs bad V.I.P.

    I agree with what icegoat said. Seems like this will only strengthen the stranglehold that Republicans and Democrats have over the country. We're going in the wrong direction.
     

Share This Page