zappaisgod said:

Nothing ever gets through.

Corporations are owned by millions and millions of shareholders.  Probably the biggest single entity that owns stock in corporations are pension funds. Workers.  Then there are just regular people who invest for themselves.  That is who owns corporations.  I owned a corporation once myself.

Do you know what tiny tiny fraction of the population I am concerned about having excess control?  Media owners.  What is that old saw about not getting in a pissing contest with somebody who buys ink by the barrel?  Well fuck that shit.

Bill Gates' wealth is not the cause of anybody else's poverty and he has in fact enabled greater freedom for anybody.  That he got rich as fuck doing so is not detrimental to the bums who spew out babies they can't afford without responsible fathers.

If you are stupid you will probably stay poor.  Oh well.  That is how it works.  To what extent should winners subsidize losers?  We already pay almost all the income taxes



The same stupid shit gets posted here by the same stupid people.  Here is the secret to success in life.

Get to fucking work doing something other people value.

---

KauaiOrca said:

zappaisgod said:

Nothing ever gets through.

Corporations are owned by millions and millions of shareholders.  Probably the biggest single entity that owns stock in corporations are pension funds. Workers.  Then there are just regular people who invest for themselves.  That is who owns corporations.

---

I sent you a link of the first scientific evidence of who truly owns and controls corporations.  Relatively small (let's say less than one billion) investors have no real influence on the big Fortune 1000 companies.  The influence comes from a very small group of banks and investment groups that control the real leverage in our financial system.

---

That's a very obvious fact to most people here, but zap's a little slow (actually, slow is an overstatement; he'll never budge on a lost position).  In fact, even after being corrected, you'll hear him repeat this nonsense in the next thread.

KauaiOrca said:

We are talking about who controls the giant global multinationals that operate in a borderless world that are steadily purchasing the political processes of virtually every country that matters.

You are talking about GOP slogans about personal responsibility.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

Summed up: third-party spending is always subject to limits, first-party spending is subject to limitations on the advertising costs only?

---

Yes, first party spending is subject to limitations on the fair market value of advertising costs only.  Unless you convince me otherwise. 

---

Quote:

he'll never budge on a lost position

---

akira_akuma said:

Quote:

he'll never budge on a lost position

---

pot meet kettle.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

even after being corrected,

---

luvdemshrooms said:

psyconaught said:

akira_akuma said:

Quote:

he'll never budge on a lost position.  In fact, even after being corrected, you'll hear him repeat his nonsense in the next thread.

---

pot meet kettle.

---

haha right?

---

Except you often don't correct anything.

And before you ask... it's pointed out when it happens so no, I won't link you to it.

---

BoldAsLove said:

Well, I do like this definition significantly more than your old one.

But how do you determine what counts as an advertising cost and what is the fair market value? For example, if a movie maker makes a politically themed movie, is that subject to limitations even if no third-party was involved? I could definitely see that movie being considered advertising in many ways.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

Well, I do like this definition significantly more than your old one.

But how do you determine what counts as an advertising cost and what is the fair market value? For example, if a movie maker makes a politically themed movie, is that subject to limitations even if no third-party was involved? I could definitely see that movie being considered advertising in many ways.

---

An  ad was defined as "any form of communication used to attempt to persuade an audience to take or continue some position."  So by that definition, political movies would likely be an ad.  If they paid to have their movie played, it's subject to the spending cap.  But if theaters paid the movie company to have it played, then it would be under the spening limit (remember, production costs don't count towards advertising costs), and there's no issue.

Fair market value comes into play so the rule can't be circumvented.  For example, if someone put a political ad on a billboard they owned, it would be costed based on what another local billboard company would charge to publish the ad.

---

I guess Enlil would be out of a job then since a lawyer is paid to persuade an audience to take a position.... 

"  For example, if someone put a political ad on a billboard they owned, it would be costed based on what another local billboard company would charge to publish the ad."

So you just limited that persons speech also....  Your definitions are so vague and non-specific that there are countless arguments against them.  'Any communication'  ''an audience' 'some position'  I don't think you can use weasel word modifiers like that to write a law.  Based on everything you have posted for days on this topic, this Turd still sinks to the bottom of the cesspool.

starfire_xes said:

"  For example, if someone put a political ad on a billboard they owned, it would be costed based on what another local billboard company would charge to publish the ad."

So you just limited that persons speech also....

---

starfire_xes said:

Your definitions are so vague and non-specific that there are countless arguments against them.

'Any communication'
'an audience'
'some position'

I don't think you can use weasel word modifiers like that to write a law.

---

starfire_xes said:

Based on everything you have posted for days on this topic, this Turd still sinks to the bottom of the cesspool.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I won't ask you to link to it, because you never can.

---

I won't because you are there when it happens. Your "forgetting" is your issue, not mine.

starfire_xes said:

this Turd still sinks to the bottom of the cesspool.

---

Le_Canard said:

My thoughts on this - First of all, let's go with the analogy that money is somehow speech. So, I've only got $5 to give to my favorite candidate whilst Mr. Rodney Richpig has millions to give to his candidate. So what we've got here is that I'm in the back of a very large stadium whispering whilst Mr. Richpig is in the front with a bullhorn. How is that fair? What's next? Giving someone more votes depending on how big your bank account is? I've actually heard this proposed by some Libertarians once.

---

Enlil said:

So,  it's effectively a ban on all political commentary.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

johnm214 said:

Yep, that's the way all these attacks on free speech via campaign finance reform ideas work: they are either unprincipled measures that lack a guiding philosophy and are trivial to work around or they are ever-growing seeds of totalitarianism. The unworkable distinction between good and bad speech in the eyes of the reformer will forever necessetate greater and more arbitrary power on the part of the censor to prevent their provisions from being rendered moot.

---

So you're ok with how the wealthy are having an ever greater influence on Government that was supposed to be for the people?

---

johnm214 said:

How exactly are things getting worse? If anything theres a much greater diversity of opinion and much more competition in business sectors that tend to resist monopolistic power.

Enlil said:

So,  it's effectively a ban on all political commentary.

---

No, only political commentary he doesn't like. Can't you see the distinction?

---

KauaiOrca said:

johnm214 said:

How exactly are things getting worse? If anything theres a much greater diversity of opinion and much more competition in business sectors that tend to resist monopolistic power.

Enlil said:

So,  it's effectively a ban on all political commentary.

---

No, only political commentary he doesn't like. Can't you see the distinction?

---

I think you are grossly underestimating the power and reach of global corporations.  There was nothing even remotely like that in the 1700's and, in fact, the Founders saw the money that was influencing British politics and tried to steer away from that.

---

johnm214 said:

You yourself claim the politicians are owned by the corporations and to fight the later you propose to give the former arbitrary power to censor and punish political speech. You'll have to explain the thought process to me, as it looks like you propose to give those you claim to be corrupt yet more power in the hope they'll suddenly act responsibly once they have to power to silence dissent.

---

Quote:

A corporation is a legal entity, it is not a being that is given "rights" like freedom of speech.

---