|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Citizens United [Re: airclay]
#23407640 - 07/03/16 04:17 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
airclay said: sarcasm with either of these statements really wouldn't change the fact that you're arguing two sides of a coin.
and that special needs comments is an insult. do you want to edit it or should I just report you in the spirit of your claims that insults are flung around and no one does anything about it?
Report it, snitches are a dime a dozen on this, the best drug forum ever!
And Penile already taught me how to insult, it's a fine line, one I'll be sure not to cross again, if you're offended by my "observation" that's on you, not me, go cry to your mommy
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
airclay said: sarcasm with either of these statements really wouldn't change the fact that you're arguing two sides of a coin.
and that special needs comments is an insult. do you want to edit it or should I just report you in the spirit of your claims that insults are flung around and no one does anything about it?
Report it, snitches are a dime a dozen on this, the best drug forum ever!
And Penile already taught me how to insult, it's a fine line, one I'll be sure not to cross again, if you're offended by my "observation" that's on you, not me, go cry to your mommy
I'm playing the progressive game of belittling instead of debating, remember?
|
airclay
Morbid and Wrong




Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 2,788
Loc: Texas
|
|
lol I'm over trying to converse w you. I only hope that you are indeed 15 and have a chance at growing up.
-------------------- Give no fucks, take no orders, smash the prisons and the borders. Circle that A motherfucker!
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Citizens United [Re: airclay]
#23407700 - 07/03/16 04:39 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
airclay said: lol I'm over trying to converse w you. I only hope that you are indeed 15 and have a chance at growing up.
Lol, dude you've nene tried to converse, you hopped on the insult bandwagon, just fuckinh ignore me, if you have the balls
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,347
Last seen: 8 hours, 9 minutes
|
Re: Citizens United [Re: airclay]
#23407720 - 07/03/16 04:44 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
airclay said: So I've been looking at the strengthening of the corporate structure through landmark cases and think that enlil's is correct. It goes back to in 1886 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co. ) set the precedent for corporate personification. Guaranteeing 14th amendment rights to corporations and bars treating a small business and multi-national any differently regardless of the scale of the damage done. 1906 ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/201/43/case.html ) sets up 4th amendment rights for corporations. 1976 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo ) protects politcal spending equating $$$ to speech.
In reading up I found these two to be particularly disturbing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Coal_Co._v._Mahon ) which gives corps 5th amendment rights to the takings clause meaning that they can sue over the potential losses a change in legislation could cause through regulatory takings.
and also ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. ) which (as Zappa RIP liked to remind us of) changed the responsibilities of corps directly to profitting the shareholders with no concern for benefitting customers or employees.
ah the dark nature of capitalism 
edit: correct or fine tune what's not legally accurate, enlil
I wish you had posted this when I had the time to read through all of that shit. So, how does that all tie in with Citizens United?
-------------------- "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
 
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,347
Last seen: 8 hours, 9 minutes
|
|
I just put HU on ignore. I can't do it anymore. Stop conversing with him, and start conversing with us, so we can sort out an appropriate stance on Citizens United.
-------------------- "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
 
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Citizens United States, that becuase corporations pay taxes, they are entitled to representation,
Now unless you want to give them tax free status like churches have, which I'm not at all opposed to, you must give them their constitutional rights, which include the right to weigh in on political topics
Btw, woofie put me on ignore becuase he's too chickenshit to debate me
|
airclay
Morbid and Wrong




Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 2,788
Loc: Texas
|
|
I had to. Sometimes it was funny but I just couldn't do it anymore.
I think enlil is correct in that it would take much more than overturning CU to change the situation we're in. He referenced Speechnow v. Federal Election Commission ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_evolution_in_2010 )
which I think limits the FEC authority to stopping corruption (which means that if money = speech then we are not seeing corruption in the current landscape?)
Quote:
Referencing Buckley v. Valeo, the Court found that campaign contributions and expenditures constitute "speech" and, therefore, fall under the protection of the First Amendment. The court – importantly - noted that limiting contributions and expenditures in an effort to equalize the political field is not a “legitimate government interest” sufficient to justify these regulations. The court went on to state that the only legitimate government interest that allows for the restriction of campaign finances is preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.
I think that set the grounds for CU
Quote:
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a case that received widespread attention and is often seen as the genesis for an explosion in political spending. Citizens United overruled an earlier decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and (in part) McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. These early cases had upheld prohibitions on “independent expenditures” and electioneering communications by corporations (respectively). FECA had prohibited corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make electioneering communications or independent expenditures for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate.[7] The Supreme Court found that the regulations, as narrowly applied to the case at hand (distribution of a documentary it had produced with the electioneering window) would nonetheless have a chilling effect on political speech. The Court, therefore, took a broader review of the regulations and whether they were facially valid restrictions on protected First Amendment Speech. The Court returned to the first amendment principle that "political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence." They held that §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures and electioneering communications was a ban on speech and subject to "strict scrutiny;" requiring the government to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In its review, the Court made several critical holdings: 1. The "anti-distortion" rationale in Austin argued for a compelling governmental interest in limiting political speech by corporations to prevent "the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” 2. That this rationale in fact "interferes with the 'open marketplace of ideas' protected by the First Amendment." According to the Court, "[a]ll speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.” 3. And that "the rule that political speech cannot be limited based on a speaker’s wealth is a necessary consequence of the premise that the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity." In short, the court overturned its earlier ruling in Austin and the anti-distortion rationale as a justification for restrictions on speech, as embodied in political spending. The Court also expanded on the distinction from Buckley v. Valeo between contributions (to candidates/parties/PACs) and expenditures (paid for by oneself) by finding that the anti-corruption rationale was a permissible basis for restricting corporate contributions, but not independent corporate expenditures. The Court held that the appearance of, or actual, corruption was the only constitutionally valid basis to restrict expenditures, and that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
It seems to be nitpicking and twisting of the details in the highest order in the protection of money passing hands
I don't agree that money = speech because, to me, that would equate that an individual (independently, with out organization {including corps that are legally individuals}) have more of a right to unmolested opinions and representations of such from the state than the average citizen. Which I believe to be a reverse of democracy. The 1976 Buckley V Valeo decision says that I'm wrong tho and that
Quote:
The Court affirmed a First Amendment interest in spending money to facilitate campaign speech, writing, "A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached."
so it seems that we're deeply entrenched in laws that protect the spending of money over democracy; based upon the fallacy of a free-market meritocracy in which you have earned the right through the accruance of capital to more of a say than others with less than.
to answer your q about it tying into CU; as long as corps are equal to people then the way money is labelled as speech puts actual people at a huge disadvantage. The pool of money to represent the interest of the people will never be able to contend with the pool of money to represent the shareholder primacy (or profits at all cost)
-------------------- Give no fucks, take no orders, smash the prisons and the borders. Circle that A motherfucker!
Edited by airclay (07/03/16 05:29 PM)
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Citizens United [Re: airclay]
#23407822 - 07/03/16 05:26 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Love it, clearly explain the reasoning behind CU, libtards block it cause "blah blah blah" *fingers in ears*
Fucking hilarious
|
airclay
Morbid and Wrong




Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 2,788
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Citizens United [Re: airclay]
#23408323 - 07/03/16 08:24 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
More info on the Buckley decision:
More or less breaks down how it opens the door and plays into the situation we have today
Quote:
Perhaps most important for the future development of the law was Buckley's unequivocal rejection of the promotion of equality as a basis for limiting contributions or spending. This has significantly limited any effort to promote political equality through regulation of campaign spending and contributions. In 2008, the Court further restricted attempts to equalize spending in elections for the U.S. House and Senate when it struck down the "Millionaires Amendment" in FEC v. Davis (originally Davis v. FEC). That case overturned legislation that allowed candidates to accept larger contributions if their opponent spent substantially from personal wealth. In 2010, the Court overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In Citizens United, the Court, following Buckley's holding providing more expansive First Amendment protections for independent expenditures made on a candidate's behalf, held that Congress could not ban independent expenditures by corporations. The next year, in Arizona Free Enterprise PAC v. Bennett (2011) the Court further restricted state authority to regulate campaign finance to achieve greater equality, striking down provisions of Arizona's public financing system that gave extra government money to candidates who faced high spending opponents or high levels of independent expenditures. Buckley's protections for political speech and activity, and skepticism of government efforts to regulate such activity, have left the United States at odds with the practice that has since developed in much of the democratic world. For instance, under the European Convention on Human Rights, it was held in Bowman v United Kingdom[4] that equality of citizen voice was a legitimate purpose, and spending money was not the core of freedom of expression. The leading case in Europe, Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom held that the UK's total ban on political advertising was compatible with freedom of expression "given the danger of unequal access based on wealth and to political advertising" which goes "to the heart of the democratic process."[5] A similar approach is taken in Latin America. In other Commonwealth countries, including Canada, Harper v. Canada (Attorney General),[6] it is routinely held that rules designed to limit spending at elections are legitimate, because they prevent conflicts of interest and promote political equality.
Justice White's dissenting opinion:
Quote:
Concededly, neither the limitations on contributions nor those on expenditures directly or indirectly purport to control the content of political speech by candidates or by their supporters or detractors. What the Act regulates is giving and spending money, acts that have First Amendment significance not because they are themselves communicative with respect to the qualifications of the candidate, but because money may be used to defray the expenses of speaking or otherwise communicating about the merits or demerits of federal candidates for election. The act of giving money to political candidates, however, may have illegal or other undesirable consequences: it may be used to secure the express or tacit understanding that the giver will enjoy political favor if the candidate is elected. Both Congress and this Court's cases have recognized this as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken. Since the contribution and expenditure limitations are neutral as to the content of speech and are not motivated by fear of the consequences of the political speech of particular candidates or of political speech in general, this case depends on whether the nonspeech interests of the Federal Government in regulating the use of money in political campaigns are sufficiently urgent to justify the incidental effects that the limitations visit upon the First Amendment interests of candidates and their supporters. [...] It is also important to restore and maintain public confidence in federal elections. It is critical to obviate or dispel the impression that federal elections are purely and simply a function of money, that federal offices are bought and sold, or that political races are reserved for those who have the facility -- and the stomach -- for doing whatever it takes to bring together those interests, groups, and individuals that can raise or contribute large fortunes in order to prevail at the polls.
which would make me think that revisiting this decision might be a good idea with a little vision into how it would actually play out as Justice White described.
-------------------- Give no fucks, take no orders, smash the prisons and the borders. Circle that A motherfucker!
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Capitilaism sucks! Throw away our iPhones, laptops and cars! Booo capitilaism, I would prefer bread lines and only one choice of deodorant for life! Down with companies! Govt will protect me!
Will you ever make just one post without a staw man?
-------------------- 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.
|
|