Obama Vows to Fight Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision - Polidicks

Lankist, how is it so hard for you to get through your head that this supreme court decision [I]may [/I]have negative consequences for the majority of Americans? I mean, opening the flood gates for money from big pharma, the oil companies, the fast food industry... the list goes on. For those guys, dropping a few million on a candidate who secures their future is not that hard to foresee happening.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19807964]Seems as though I missed this little gem. Do you not get how completely the average person's rights have been trampled by this ruling? If I want to support a candidate, I donate to their campaign because I don't have the wealth to produce my own ads and buy my own airtime. My contributions to a campaign are limited by law. Corporations, which do have massive amounts of money, now get to spend as much as they want in support of a candidate, while my realistic contributions are limited. Corporations aren't people. They don't live, they don't breath, they don't vote, they're just a legal definition. So why is it okay for them to be given rights that far supersede my own? Why are the rights of a non-person so much more important that the rights of a real citizen that they are allowed to so completely trample them? You're dodging the actual issue of the decision with your source-demanding stonewalling and petty little political definitions.[/QUOTE] You're confusing rights and equality.

basically laws like campaign finance are as important to the public good as laws against physically threatening people (assassinating judges, elected officials etc) and, as Holmes said, shouting fire in a crowded theater. obviously the way the government enforces such laws and restrictions and to what extent is debatable, but it should be rational to any reasonable person that allowing corporations (who should not be considered as individuals and not be afforded the same constitutional rights as people) to spend an unlimited amount of money running their own campaign ads is a Generally Bad Thing it isn't like campaign finance laws or laws against threatening to assassinate the president are incrementally going to lead to dissidents being thrown against the walls, and if CU's movie was "political" enough for the FEC to think it should be regulated as a campaign ad, then maybe it should be regulated. It shouldn't make a difference if it wasn't a commercial

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;19807985]You're confusing rights and equality.[/QUOTE] Yes but regardless hes has a good point. If a hundred thousand citizens gave $10 bucks, they'd only have a million dollars to support their candidate. Now a pharma company like Pfizer who makes 9.1 billion annually can trump that amount with ease to make sure the government, for example, pushes their drugs on people.

Think of it this way, if CU made an actual commercial explicitly advocating for or against a particular candidate yet made it be PPV or released it in theaters, it should still be regulated under the FEC because it's still a campaign ad regardless of format. That's how soft money works; you can't explicitly advocate for or against a candidate if you are a PAC or otherwise. Instead, the court decided to rule that this sort of soft money regulation was unconstitutional, and now we can potentially go back to Gilded Age politics. Whether or not corporations (Unions probably will be more inclined to utilize this) will be willing to risk alienating customers over their campaign influence is up in the air, though. That said, there are some corporations that are detached from consumers enough (the defense, energy, and pharmaceutical industries for example) that they would stand to gain more than they'd lose by getting heavily involved in campaign finance.

I dont see the point about all of it. Obama funded his campaign completely off of private donations, and he WON.

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;19808062]Yes but regardless hes has a good point. If a hundred thousand citizens gave $10 bucks, they'd only have a million dollars to support their candidate. Now a pharma company like Pfizer who makes 9.1 billion annually can trump that amount with ease to make sure the government, for example, pushes their drugs on people.[/QUOTE] Bribery is still illegal. And you're free to look up how much money a candidate receives from someone. So if a journalist finds that candidate Joe Blow received $10 million from the ACME drug corporation, it could very likely end up all over the news. And when voters find that out, they have a good reason to not vote for the candidate.

[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;19808104]I dont see the point about all of it. Obama funded his campaign completely off of private donations, and he WON.[/QUOTE] State and Congressional elections are the more important aspects of this, because not only are they less costly but they are easier to win if you have more money than your opponent (with some exceptions, like John Corzine's senatorial campaign, but that is not the norm)

[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;19808104]I dont see the point about all of it. Obama funded his campaign completely off of private donations, and he WON.[/QUOTE] Individual donations totaled $658 million or so. Exxon-Mobile made $45 billion in profits in '08. They could spend 70 times what individuals donated to Obama on a political candidate.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;19808145]Bribery is still illegal. And you're free to look up how much money a candidate receives from someone. So if a journalist finds that candidate Joe Blow received $10 million from the ACME drug corporation, it could very likely end up all over the news. And when voters find that out, they have a good reason to not vote for the candidate.[/QUOTE] yes but ACME drug doesn't need to give Joe Blow the money with this decision, they can simply run "vote for Joe Blow" ads legally by themselves, which is the issue Besides, it may not be literal "bribery", but companies can still campaign for preferable candidates even without promises being made, simply because of their platform. It might as well be bribery.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;19808145]Bribery is still illegal. And you're free to look up how much money a candidate receives from someone. So if a journalist finds that candidate Joe Blow received $10 million from the ACME drug corporation, it could very likely end up all over the news. And when voters find that out, they have a good reason to not vote for the candidate.[/QUOTE] Five minute news segment verses, say, five or ten minutes per hour of commercial time, times 24 hours, times the entire election season. Yeah, people are totally gonna notice that.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19808218]yes but ACME drug doesn't need to give Joe Blow the money with this decision, they can simply run "vote for Joe Blow" ads legally by themselves, which is the issue[/QUOTE] Oh I see. The problem could be solved if most people weren't sheep. :v:

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;19808145]Bribery is still illegal. And you're free to look up how much money a candidate receives from someone. So if a journalist finds that candidate Joe Blow received $10 million from the ACME drug corporation, it could very likely end up all over the news. And when voters find that out, they have a good reason to not vote for the candidate.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about bribery here, I'm talking about MASSIVE campaign contributions from corporations to candidates who will support them in whatever way they can. The politicians will stop being representatives of the people, and will become representatives of the corporations. If this is allowed, 5-10 years from now you'll see politicians who look like nascar drivers, labled with crap like Exxon-Mobile, Mcdonalds, and Wal-mart. Also, I find it funny you think that the mainstream media would actually point out things like that, considering how main stream news like Fox is literally a wing of the republican party.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;19808261]Oh I see. The problem could be solved if most people weren't sheep. :v:[/QUOTE] you could say that about a lot of things, but it would be preferable if there were laws in place that didn't leave it up in the air but damnit if people don't have a right to unfair elections :argh:

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;19808261]Oh I see. The problem could be solved if most people weren't sheep. :v:[/QUOTE] Dude, the golden rule of politics in this country is that if you shout something loud enough for long enough, people begin to assume it's true. It's the very concept Fox News is based on.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806154]The President doesn't get a say over Supreme Court rulings. He would be violating his constitutional powers as president and would be violating the law in several ways. If he tries to do anything about this he will have corrupted the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the People's forum for grievances, not a plaything for the president to manipulate or ignore. The Supreme Court is OURS, not HIS. This is why they get the final say, they are the PEOPLE'S method of which we can trump the President AND Congress. It is effectively the most powerful branch in practice because WE, THE PEOPLE are the ones being addressed.[/QUOTE] And as this thread shows, WE, THE PEOPLE think that the Supreme Court can get fucked.

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;19808298]I'm not talking about bribery here, I'm talking about MASSIVE campaign contributions from corporations to candidates who will support them in whatever way they can. The politicians will stop being representatives of the people, and will become representatives of the corporations. If this is allowed, 5-10 years from now you'll see politicians who look like nascar drivers, labled with crap like Exxon-Mobile, Mcdonalds, and Wal-mart. Also, I find it funny you think that the mainstream media would actually point out things like that, considering how main stream news like Fox is literally a wing of the republican party.[/QUOTE] I honestly can't see McDonald's or Wal-Mart getting too involved, because they actually have customers who are everyday people. It's the defense, medical, and energy industries that will be the biggest players, excluding unions which will probably play a smaller role.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19808363]I honestly can't see McDonald's or Wal-Mart getting too involved, because they actually have customers who are everyday people. It's the defense, medical, and energy industries that will be the biggest players, excluding unions which will probably play a smaller role.[/QUOTE] Absolutely, I just used those names as an example for that very reason- many people know them, therefore they will strike a cord. But in actuality, you are correct. Not to mention the Private military companies like Blackwater that will have the potential to pay for candidates that will sit idly by while they commit atrocities in foreign countries.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19808363]I honestly can't see McDonald's or Wal-Mart getting too involved, because they actually have customers who are everyday people. It's the defense, medical, and energy industries that will be the biggest players, excluding unions which will probably play a smaller role.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it'll probably be companies whose shareholders are largely Republican and whose customers are either also largely Republican, or don't really have a choice in who to buy their products from, like energy or healthcare.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806460]i'll admit that the fact unions will have the same capabilities as corporations might be a good thing, but in principle and practice it is a bad thing (unions won't be able to compete with corporate spending, etc)[/QUOTE] The town where I live has recently been through [url]=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Lindsey_Oil_Refinery_strikes]some trouble with the unions[/url]. Anyone who didn't strike got their windows smashed in and their families threatened. Unions are nothing more than legal gangs.

[QUOTE=lazyguy;19808760]The town where I live has recently been through [url]=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Lindsey_Oil_Refinery_strikes]some trouble with the unions[/url]. Anyone who didn't strike got their windows smashed in and their families threatened. Unions are nothing more than legal gangs.[/QUOTE] heh, scabs deserve it :smug: seriously though, coercion through violence is terrible no matter who does it, but generally unions are a force of good and have done so, so much for workers in the US (a local union where I did had a chili feed to help unemployed workers, and also they had a toy drive to help their children)

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19808587]Yeah, it'll probably be companies whose shareholders are largely Republican and whose customers are either also largely Republican, or don't really have a choice in who to buy their products from, like energy or healthcare.[/QUOTE] You really like to blame EVERYTHING on the Republicans.

[QUOTE=lazyguy;19808760] Unions are nothing more than legal gangs.[/QUOTE] You owe a lot to unions.

[QUOTE=JDK721;19808879]You really like to blame EVERYTHING on the Republicans.[/QUOTE] honestly republicans stand the most to gain from this that said, there are some pro-business democrats that get a lot of money from the financial sector

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19809153]honestly republicans stand the most to gain from this that said, there are some pro-business democrats that get a lot of money from the financial sector[/QUOTE] A lot of Obama's advisors are former Goldman Sachs executives. Which is why I lol every time I hear he wants to initiate financial reforms, because there's going to be infighting.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19807795]lankist i don't see how you can get off calling me pretentious when almost every other post of yours is some sort of snide patronization i'd say if anyone is being pretentious here it's you, given your posts and histrionics about free speech[/QUOTE] There is a difference between snide patronization and legitimate authority on a subject. Your pretensions are unwarranted. My condescension, while not nice nor fair, is entirely justified, as I am clearly the only one who has done any looking into this issue beyond news articles. [editline]07:22PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;19807972]Lankist, how is it so hard for you to get through your head that this supreme court decision [I]may [/I]have negative consequences for the majority of Americans? I mean, opening the flood gates for money from big pharma, the oil companies, the fast food industry... the list goes on. For those guys, dropping a few million on a candidate who secures their future is not that hard to foresee happening.[/QUOTE] You are confusing legal equality with tangible equality. [editline]07:23PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19808008]basically laws like campaign finance are as important to the public good as laws against physically threatening people (assassinating judges, elected officials etc) and, as Holmes said, shouting fire in a crowded theater. obviously the way the government enforces such laws and restrictions and to what extent is debatable, but it should be rational to any reasonable person that allowing corporations (who should not be considered as individuals and not be afforded the same constitutional rights as people) to spend an unlimited amount of money running their own campaign ads is a Generally Bad Thing it isn't like campaign finance laws or laws against threatening to assassinate the president are incrementally going to lead to dissidents being thrown against the walls, and if CU's movie was "political" enough for the FEC to think it should be regulated as a campaign ad, then maybe it should be regulated. It shouldn't make a difference if it wasn't a commercial[/QUOTE] Except "Public Good" is not enforceable in a free society.

ITT Lankist vs Pvt. Ryan

[QUOTE=BRIAN BLESSED;19808346]And as this thread shows, WE, THE PEOPLE think that the Supreme Court can get fucked.[/QUOTE] You can go ahead and take that to the courts. Prove how this ruling is unconstitutional and it will be reversed. Otherwise, you, the person, can get fucked. Majority does NOT rule. [editline]07:24PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Luke510;19807816]yup you're a lawyer.[/QUOTE] It's cool how the moment you kids get trumped you stop responding to the legitimate discussions and instead simply comment on how I am condescending or qualified. If any of you had any legitimate arguments you would be capable of responding to me without saying "Goddamn Lankist" [editline]07:25PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;19807787]I believe he means he's going to influence decision...[/QUOTE] He can't. [editline]07:27PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19809153]honestly republicans stand the most to gain from this that said, there are some pro-business democrats that get a lot of money from the financial sector[/QUOTE] Democrats are notorious for taking support from those who stand to profit from whatever sensationalist fad has gripped the nation at any given point in time. People overlook their corporate interests easier than they do the republicans because the democrats interests are more relevant to the current populism, whereas republican interests are far more consistent and static. Such as Hybrid Car manufacturers, Ethanol fuel, etc. And don't even get me started on how much BULLSHIT ethanol is. It's ruining my goddamn engine.

Obama needs to learn that people let Roosevelt have the power because he was crippled and Wheelchair bound.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19807586][url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_United[/url] It is "a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Virginia and tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code." God you're bitchy today. They're a non-profit corporation directly funding campaign ads, that's the reason for the suit in the first place. Why don't you prove to me how this ruling can possibly be a good thing for the average person? As in, actual voting, existing, breathing person, and not some legal definition.[/QUOTE] Contrary to the name, "Non-profit" organizations can legally make a profit. They are just taxed differently than "For-profit" organizations, like businesses. How else do you think they get people working for them? Their employees are not full time volunteers.