PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court - Corporate Campaign Ads - A good thing?


Getoffthecomputer
01-23-2010, 7:19 PM
Can someone help me understand how the recent Supreme Court ruling is a good thing? Corporations will now be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on the advertising for elections, and specifically be able to advocate the defeat of a specific candidate.

Why are more people not outraged about this?

A corporation now has all the benefits of citizen with deep pockets but none of the accountability.

Elections will be won by the candidates that fight for what is best for the corporation, not what is best for the people. Is this where trickle down economics come into play? Should I just be happy to have a job at, say, Wal-Mart?

I'm sorry but I don't get it. I am all for fiscal conservatism, and gun rights, but if this is a win for the conservative movement, what is the benefit?

Window_Seat
01-23-2010, 7:37 PM
As a general rule, the candidates that corporations favor for election are the same ones who are "less unfriendly" to the RKBA cause. This is why the ruling is not such a bad thing. One way this ruling has been a DEK is that the unions are also on the favorable end of this ruling. However, It could potentially come back to bite the corp's or unions in the end because of negative sentiment against both types should they get carried away (which they do). I think of it as more entertainment...:popcorn:

Erik.

GrizzlyGuy
01-23-2010, 7:50 PM
See here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=261589) and here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=261850) . If you want to cut to the chase, I suggest watching the video here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3679252&postcount=22) (same one later posted here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3687678&postcount=124)).

zhyla
01-23-2010, 7:51 PM
As a general rule, the candidates that corporations favor for election are the same ones who are "less unfriendly" to the RKBA cause. This is why the ruling is not such a bad thing.

No. Laws need to be made because they're correct and constitutional, not because they happen to benefit us at the moment.

I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but here's my line of thought. Corporations are made of of individuals. So long as those individuals are US citizens I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to collectively contribute to a campaign. You may not like the outcome of that, but it's their business what they do with their money.

What on earth does this have to do with 2A politics?

bwiese
01-23-2010, 7:52 PM
Why should my NRA be limited in the amount of money it can spend in promoting freedom?

AJAX22
01-23-2010, 7:55 PM
Interesting.....

its going to make 2010 and 2012 interesting thats for sure.....

Cokebottle
01-23-2010, 7:57 PM
McCain-Feingold was a violation of the 1A.

If we want to keep our rights, we have to take the good with the bad.
We can't demand on being heard when we insist that others be silenced.

The left is very good at doing that... and M/F was a law that did that.

dantodd
01-23-2010, 8:10 PM
Can someone help me understand how the recent Supreme Court ruling is a good thing? Corporations will now be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on the advertising for elections, and specifically be able to advocate the defeat of a specific candidate.

Why are more people not outraged about this?

A corporation now has all the benefits of citizen with deep pockets but none of the accountability.

Elections will be won by the candidates that fight for what is best for the corporation, not what is best for the people. Is this where trickle down economics come into play? Should I just be happy to have a job at, say, Wal-Mart?

I'm sorry but I don't get it. I am all for fiscal conservatism, and gun rights, but if this is a win for the conservative movement, what is the benefit?

It's not about "conservative movement" it's about freedoms and rights. The moment you start taking rights away from A and giving them to B we have a problem. Should a big corporation like the New York times be able to publish a piece urging you to vote for candidate X but the NRA or Doubleday Books are prohibited from publishing a similar statement for Candidate Y?

Or are you suggesting that corporate publishers like newspapers should be prohibited from publishing important campaign information during an election cycle? How about the "Swift Boat" book? Should that be proscribed within 60 days of an election?

Corporations are legal individuals and they are held accountable, they can be fined and if their officers operate outside the bounds of the law they can go to jail (see the busts at Shot Show this week) just like anyone else. In this day and age people regularly choose corporate entities as a means of assembly. The corporation that sued the FEC in this case was a small group of people who organized the corporation specifically as a means of political expression. Why deny them this right?

berto
01-23-2010, 8:25 PM
Money = speech

Voting is a right that carries with the responsibility of being informed on candidates and issues.

Shareholders can question the political advocacy of a corporation. Consumers can decide to boycott corporations over political advocacy by the corporation. How is an ad bought by a corporation different than an ad bought by a labor union, an interest group, or a rich guy?

Getoffthecomputer
01-23-2010, 8:27 PM
McCain-Feingold was a violation of the 1A.

If we want to keep our rights, we have to take the good with the bad.
We can't demand on being heard when we insist that others be silenced.

The left is very good at doing that... and M/F was a law that did that.

Assuming that corporations should be defined as "others."

Corporations do what is good for business, not what is good for communities, towns, states, or country.

What would be the downside to stopping the madness and making all elections funded by the government, therefore funded by the people, with MUCH tighter spending limits of course?

I guess I could try and debate this to death or I could take the advice of another poster, and view it as entertainment.

7x57
01-23-2010, 8:35 PM
Corporations do what is good for business, not what is good for communities, towns, states, or country.


You don't even know what corporations are. The NRA is a corporation. It cannot speak on my behalf if corporations are muzzled.


What would be the downside to stopping the madness and making all elections funded by the government, therefore funded by the people, with MUCH tighter spending limits of course?


Because it is the Marxist fantasy that money is evil. What is evil in the eyes of freedom is when the government gets to choose the winners of elections, because it simply perpetuates itself by making election rules that favor incumbents, and their supporters. This is not a problem of bad rules--it is a problem of letting the government make rules in the first place.

And the root cause of your mistake in favoring it is deciding that you needed to run to the nanny state to protect you from some evil. That's generally how the government persuades people to surrender power--convince them that only the state can save them from whatever is the bogeyman of the hour, and if there is no suitable bogeyman to manufacture one.

7x57

Telperion
01-23-2010, 8:37 PM
Corporations do what is good for business, not what is good for communities, towns, states, or country.

Corporations are groups of people who have come together for a common purpose. Sometimes that is making money, other times it is something else. The NRA and ACLU are corporations; they exist because people pooled their resources together to achieve for a cause what they could not do individually. Why should a group of like-minded people be denied the right to speech?

When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.
- Justice Kennedy, for the Court

dantodd
01-23-2010, 8:42 PM
What would be the downside to stopping the madness and making all elections funded by the government, therefore funded by the people, with MUCH tighter spending limits of course?

Do you trust the marketplace of ideas where individuals and corporations can give voice (though money) to ideas they support or do you think the government can best determine what ideas and candidates to support financially?

Getoffthecomputer
01-23-2010, 8:53 PM
Im not saying the government should decide. Im saying the candidates should be alotted a specific amount of money to spend as they see necessary.

I didn't thing the NRA was a corporation. I thought it was a 501 c non profit organization. Corporations are FOR PROFIT. With fair and balanced financing we would not need the NRA. We would simply vote for the candidate that supported gun rights, or whatever other issue we believe in.

Also, if corporations are equal to people, why are they taxed less than the average person.

Good discussion. Im feeling a little like I'm on the bottom of a dog-pile though.

dantodd
01-23-2010, 9:09 PM
Im not saying the government should decide. Im saying the candidates should be alotted a specific amount of money to spend as they see necessary.

I didn't thing the NRA was a corporation. I thought it was a 501 c non profit organization. Corporations are FOR PROFIT. With fair and balanced financing we would not need the NRA. We would simply vote for the candidate that supported gun rights, or whatever other issue we believe in.

Also, if corporations are equal to people, why are they taxed less than the average person.

Good discussion. Im feeling a little like I'm on the bottom of a dog-pile though.

1) who decides WHICH candidates get the money the government takes from tax payers?

2) 501 (c) non-profit corporations were effected by McCain Feingold. In fact, Citizens United, who brought the suit, was a non-profit 501(c)3

3) the tax laws are not in any way fair. To expect such is naive. Why are farmers taxed less? Why are homeowners taxed less? Why are the wealthy taxed less?

Cokebottle
01-23-2010, 9:10 PM
I didn't thing the NRA was a corporation. I thought it was a 501 c non profit organization. Corporations are FOR PROFIT.
Non-profits are also corporations.
Business is for profit. The act of incorporation is simply a legal procedure to form a legal entity or "person" comprised of a minimum of 3 officers and a BoD. The act of incorporation provides some level of personal liability protection for the officers and directors of the corporation (creditors can generally not pursue officers personally unless there is proof of embezzlement).
NRA, ACLU, and the Calguns Foundation are all corporations.
Also, if corporations are equal to people, why are they taxed less than the average person.They are not.

This is a fallacy promoted by the left pushing their "class envy" agenda.
Fact is, most (of course, not all) corporations make less per year (taxable income) than you do. Operating expenses, cost of goods sold, payroll expenses, etc... they are all deductible, as they should be. If my corporation has $10 million/year in sales and 1 million in gross profits, but net profit is only $100,000, it would be impossible for my corporation to pay income taxes based on $10 million, or even $1 million.
The left points to the $30,000 in taxes that the $10 million company paid and claims that they only paid .3%, when in fact they paid 30%.
The average American pays well under 20% of their gross income.
With fair and balanced financing we would not need the NRA. We would simply vote for the candidate that supported gun rights, or whatever other issue we believe in.It would be great if it worked that way, but it never has and never will.
Even without making direct campaign contributions, lobbyists will always represent the interests of groups of people. Those with the loudest voice get the attention... even of those elected on an opposing platform.

And McCain-Feingold was not about reforming campaign contributions... it was about SILENCING groups from distributing information to the public about candidates, which were viewed as campaign advertisements, thus, non-monetary contributions.

norman
01-23-2010, 9:11 PM
Why only government? What if I have a good idea for the country but the government does not like it and refuses to give me money to express it? Can't I get a group to fund my speech? If not, it sounds like USSR.


Im not saying the government should decide. Im saying the candidates should be alotted a specific amount of money to spend as they see necessary.

tiki
01-23-2010, 9:14 PM
I think this is going to turn out bad. When we talk about corporations, most people think the NRA, Microsoft, GE and Coca Cola.
What happens when a foreign entity, like China or a Mexican drug cartel, decides to start "helping" candidates? Personally, I am bothered by the thought that someone like the Chinese governent or Dubai World Ports can influence the elections in this country. How long will it take for deals to start taking place?

dunndeal
01-23-2010, 9:18 PM
Also, if corporations are equal to people, why are they taxed less than the average person.

The American corporate income tax is the second highest in the industrialized world, only Japan's is higher.

M. Sage
01-23-2010, 9:21 PM
Double-dupe, closing.