Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

PhytoExtractum Shop: Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,347
Last seen: 9 hours, 14 minutes
Citizens United * 2
    #23373019 - 06/23/16 09:18 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

I would like to rekindle an old conversation we haven't discussed in a while. That discussion revolved around Citizens United, and how we might better handle the finance of political speech. In light of this election, I think it has become clear that "Citizens United" (A name which I personally find ironic), has nothing to do with the empowerment of citizens after all. It would be more appropriately named 'Oligarchs United'. In fact, one of the biggest reasons Clinton remained financially competitive against the populist candidate (Bernie Sanders), was because citizens united and certain other campaign finance loopholes ("laundering" money through the DNC), permitted rampant bribery of politicians by the plutocrat class.

What I am saying is that the donation cap on campaign contribution limits has not stopped the common man from expressing his/her voice. The same amount of money was raised without a Super PAC, by the populist candidate. It is a demonstration that Citizens United has only benefitted the wealthy, who wish to donate uncommonly large sums of money for one reason or another (and they have their reasons).

It is because of citizens united that Clinton is turning to Bush's donors for money, rather than Bernie's (Millions of common people), because she can raise more from them. This only works against the people.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin
Every one of you should see this video.
"If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #23375304 - 06/23/16 09:31 PM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Billionaires could always spend millions on independent expenditures. Citizens United didn't change anything except the legal form they could use to do it.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Citizens United [Re: Enlil] * 3
    #23375674 - 06/23/16 11:52 PM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Given the explosion in independent expenditures since Citizens United, I'm not so sure it "didn't change anything"...



--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,347
Last seen: 9 hours, 14 minutes
Re: Citizens United [Re: Enlil] * 2
    #23375891 - 06/24/16 02:18 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Billionaires could always spend millions on independent expenditures. Citizens United didn't change anything except the legal form they could use to do it.




Yes, it gave them a more direct way of doing so. It obviously facilitates the process. This ruling only seems to benefit the wealthy, and contribute to their ever-growing influence on the political process. I see no reason for upholding it. It is bad for democracy.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin
Every one of you should see this video.
"If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #23376197 - 06/24/16 06:07 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

That makes no sense.  How is forming a corporation and contributing through a corporation "more direct" than just spending the money directly?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleairclay
Morbid and Wrong
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 2,788
Loc: Texas
Re: Citizens United [Re: Enlil]
    #23376204 - 06/24/16 06:11 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

If not for CU then Enlil, do you have any ideas on why since it's passing things have changed so greatly?


--------------------
Give no fucks, take no orders, smash the prisons and the borders. Circle that A motherfucker!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #23376223 - 06/24/16 06:18 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Given the explosion in independent expenditures since Citizens United, I'm not so sure it "didn't change anything"...





I think it's far more likely that the increase in independent expenditures is the product of Speechnow v. Federal Election Commission.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Citizens United [Re: Enlil]
    #23377216 - 06/24/16 11:52 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Only when coupled with Citizens United does Speechnow allow corporations to contribute unlimited amounts to independent expenditures.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/widening-impact-of-citizens-united/

Quote:

The DC Circuit Court explicitly rejected the FEC’s argument that large donations to groups that make independent political expenditures lead to a kind of civic corruption because such contributions lead to preferential access for donors and undue influence over officeholders.  The Circuit Court commented: “Whatever the merits of those arguments before Citizens United, they plainly have no merit after Citizens United…."




--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,347
Last seen: 9 hours, 14 minutes
Re: Citizens United [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #23378109 - 06/24/16 04:56 PM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
That makes no sense.  How is forming a corporation and contributing through a corporation "more direct" than just spending the money directly?




It may have something to do with the fact that they can donate to an organized group to further a very specific political agenda, and work in unison, rather than trying to do things independently. It seems far more effective.

I'm not going to pretend that I fully understand every facet of this issue, because that would be disingenuous. I'm sure you have a better understanding of the technical implications. However, I don't see how this is good for the United States. All that appears to be happening, is that there is more money being spent more easily to influence politics.

Also, if your support for this ruling is about preserving free speech in this country, then I have to ask, do you believe that Super PACs ought to be able to communicate with political campaigns? Isn't restricting them from doing so limiting free speech?

On a side note, I do recall you making an argument in support of CU that went something like this (correct me if I am wrong): It gives common people the ability to pool their money together and contend with wealthy financial interests in propagating their respective agendas.

I have some serious problems with that claim, if that is in fact your position.


I would really like to hash this one out, once again, because I would like to know that my position on this issue is the correct one.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin
Every one of you should see this video.
"If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #23379015 - 06/24/16 11:00 PM (7 years, 7 months ago)

The rich have always been able to spend as much as they want in support of a candidate.  This was true before Citizens United, and it's true now.  The only way to change it is to gut the first amendment.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Citizens United [Re: Enlil]
    #23379200 - 06/25/16 12:08 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

So why exactly did Citizens United bother to go to court?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,347
Last seen: 9 hours, 14 minutes
Re: Citizens United [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #23379297 - 06/25/16 01:06 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

What did change as a result of Citizens United was that wealthy individuals were permitted to pool their money with other donors in super PACs. Those other donors can now include corporations and unions in addition to private persons. But in terms of private individuals’ ability to give, nothing has changed. As Parton argues, part of the problem is that the rich are richer, hence more influential, and our political culture has become much more tolerant of heavy spenders. To this, I would add that another major advantage conferred to wealthy donors by the existence of super PACs is that making independent expenditures has become much easier. One of the more burdensome aspects of making independent political contributions has been finding a company to create and disseminate advertisements. With super PACs able to hire staff and focus on these tasks full time, all donors have to do is provide the money; they eliminate a lot of coordination costs and help political spending go further.




http://prospect.org/article/super-facts-about-super-pacs

So, it is now much simpler to make these expenditures (bribe politicians), the money goes further, and corporations and unions are afforded the same right to political speech as individuals.

That essentially sums up the effect of Citizens United. Now, does this help maintain equilibrium in the power structure? No (though some may believe that the wealthy have a right to more political power and influence). It would appear to me that the only effect of CU has been to bolster the already overwhelming power of oligarchs in American society.

It should be repealed, and done away with.

You know, I think if a corporation is going to be permitted a voice, and counted as the equivalent of a person, then every constituent of that institution should be permitted a vote on what kind of speech they wish to engage in. It shouldn't be figure-heads deciding what the corporation stands for. It should be the collective group.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin
Every one of you should see this video.
"If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy


Edited by Bigbadwooof (06/25/16 01:12 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #23379579 - 06/25/16 03:48 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
So why exactly did Citizens United bother to go to court?



We've covered this before.  Because Citizens United wasn't a rich person.  It was a PAC.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #23379586 - 06/25/16 03:52 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

What did change as a result of Citizens United was that wealthy individuals were permitted to pool their money with other donors in super PACs.






Not only wealthy individuals...also middle class and poor individuals.

The wealthy don't need super PACs.  They can afford to buy airtime directly.  Middle class individuals need the ability to pool their money to do so.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,347
Last seen: 9 hours, 14 minutes
Re: Citizens United [Re: Enlil]
    #23379711 - 06/25/16 05:11 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

What did change as a result of Citizens United was that wealthy individuals were permitted to pool their money with other donors in super PACs.






Not only wealthy individuals...also middle class and poor individuals.

The wealthy don't need super PACs.  They can afford to buy airtime directly.  Middle class individuals need the ability to pool their money to do so.




Middle class people don't need to do this, as they don't contribute more than the cap on campaign contributions in the first place. The middle class generally takes to youtube or blogs, if they are a particularly avid supporter.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin
Every one of you should see this video.
"If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #23380024 - 06/25/16 08:36 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

You're confusing campaign contributions with independent expenditures.  PACs don't contribute to campaigns.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Citizens United [Re: Enlil]
    #23380594 - 06/25/16 11:59 AM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Wooof nailed it.  Many super PACs devote all of their resources to a single candidate, which is effectively the same as a direct contribution.

You can cover your eyes and pretend that's the not the case, but people know better.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Citizens United [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #23380603 - 06/25/16 12:03 PM (7 years, 7 months ago)

I think this comic sums it up very nicely:



--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Citizens United [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #23380645 - 06/25/16 12:14 PM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Wooof nailed it.  Many super PACs devote all of their resources to a single candidate, which is effectively the same as a direct contribution.

You can cover your eyes and pretend that's the not the case, but people know better.



As long as the candidate isn't in control of it, i don't have a problem with that.  The alternative is the decimation of free speech.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: Citizens United [Re: Enlil]
    #23380764 - 06/25/16 12:45 PM (7 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
As long as the candidate isn't in control of it, i don't have a problem with that.  The alternative is the decimation of free speech.



The alternative is what we've had for hundreds of years before Citizens United gave the country to the corporation.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

PhytoExtractum Shop: Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Who contributed the most?
( 1 2 3 all )
RonoS 1,941 46 06/28/03 08:02 AM
by Rhizoid
* NAFTA's Investor ''Rights'': A Corporate Dream, A Citizens.. Psilocybeingzz 900 3 06/09/03 10:17 AM
by Anonymous
* The United States is NOT Capitalist...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
trendalM 16,626 133 09/28/09 11:34 AM
by Phred
* The last good President of the United States...
( 1 2 3 all )
chunder 4,237 53 02/09/04 03:13 PM
by Blastrid
* The United Nations -- useless as tits on a bull Phred 2,536 18 10/22/04 09:59 AM
by AntiMeme
* What have muslims or islam contributed to modern society?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
Innvertigo 13,760 180 09/24/04 07:15 PM
by Phred
* Open Letter to the Citizens of the United States of America jux 489 0 09/20/04 03:52 PM
by jux
* Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision Ellis Dee 1,138 10 06/26/03 09:51 AM
by Learyfan

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,569 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.038 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.