McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law Shut Down

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

There are easy ways around this. The individuals in the network are entitled to free speech therefore those news stations only provide a forum for the individuals to express themselves. I don't see how what he said would limit their ability to operate at all.

If the individuals in those corporations are entitled to free speech, why not other corporations? Why can't they provide a forum for other corporations?

[zoobernut]

If the individuals in those corporations are entitled to free speech, why not other corporations? Why can't they provide a forum for other corporations?

You mean other employees of other corporations? I would think they would have the rights of free speech as well. I think it is a loophole but it would somewhat stop corporations from having the same rights as people.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You mean other employees of other corporations? I would think they would have the rights of free speech as well. I think it is a loophole but it would somewhat stop corporations from having the same rights as people.

Individually they do have the rights of free speech. What this was about is when individuals are organized as a corporation and the corporation exercises free speech.

The question then is, if you say corporations don't have the right to free speech because they aren't individuals, then how can that argument not be applied to media corporations as well? Simply saying they are "providing a forum" doesn't work because the govt. could limit what is said in their "forum" b/c they are a corporation. Maybe a better way to put it is, they are exercising their right to free speech by putting what they want in their "forum" and thus could be regulated.

[zoobernut]

Individually they do have the rights of free speech. What this was about is when individuals are organized as a corporation and the corporation exercises free speech.

The question then is, if you say corporations don't have the right to free speech because they aren't individuals, then how can that argument not be applied to media corporations as well? Simply saying they are "providing a forum" doesn't work because the govt. could limit what is said in their "forum" b/c they are a corporation. Maybe a better way to put it is, they are exercising their right to free speech by putting what they want in their "forum" and thus could be regulated.

You could argue they don't have the right to regulate what is in their forum so they don't suppress their individual employees right to free speech therefore TV and print could still exist fine. I just don't think it is the best argument against taking away corporations rights as entities.

[Howard Roark]

should I be scared?

[Solefald]

Let's see here. If corporations aren't entitled to the same freedoms as people, say free speech, then NBC CNN CBS ABC aren't entitled to free speech either and the government should limit their speech.

the first amendment specifically mentions the press, you fuckwit

[Kuya]

I find it amusing how some conservative are willing to fall on their own swords to defend their, at times, misguided beliefs, and consequently further erosion of the polity.

[Howard Roark]

Kuya what's your sig from?

[Kuya]

Look at the link that says what's my sig.

[Howard Roark]

http://showdowninamerica.org/ ?

[zoobernut]

Dude the "Whats my sig?" text is a link. Click it, watch, enjoy, maybe?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

the first amendment specifically mentions the press, you fuckwit

The supreme court has never held the first amendment applies only to a particular industry you ignorant fuckwit.

Brandreth v. Lance (N.Y. Chanc. Ct. 1839)

Commonwealth v. Blanding (Mass. 1825)

Edit: Both are good examples of how the SC still interprets it, so don't give me lol 1800 crap.

[Howard Roark]

Dude the "Whats my sig?" text is a link. Click it, watch, enjoy, maybe?

are you talking to me? that america link didn't have it, I still don't get it

[zoobernut]

are you talking to me? that america link didn't have it, I still don't get it

Yeah the text in Kuya's sig, that says "What's my sig?" is the link to see the video that is in his sig.

[Beckwin]

Now if the above strikes down interaction of private enterprise in politics...should the same then be applied to workers unions as a whole? I don't see why there should be a distinction between Unions and Corporations if were just looking at this within the realm of monetary donations.

Unions are groups of people who can be held responsible for their actions. Corporations are not groups of people... corporations are entities considered to be people, yet are owned by other people who are not held accountable for the actions of the corporation. It's kind of like having an imaginary friend that you can funnel money in and out of, AND you can make him your whipping boy when you get in trouble.

What's more is how they interact with politics. Unions group their interest to represent a large voting bloc (that is, a large collection of individual voters). They can make contributions to campaigns/politicians, but that usually comes as a bundle of working-class donations. Ads that they might run are limited in scope by the fact that a union's funding comes strictly from membership dues. The union doesn't make money for the union as it's own entity; the union doesn't really have a business to grow... basically, it'd take a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge across the board salary increase for union workers to represent a sort of disproportional influence on democracy.

Corporations, on the other hand, operate quite differently in respect to politics. Now, to be fair, corporate donors are similar to union donors- they are a group of individuals who bundle their individual donations (the notable difference is that these sorts have the huuuuuge salary that let's them donate wads of cash, though they are often few in number compared to unions). The problem arises with ads/political action committees funded by corporations. Basically, the corporation sees these as investments. Investments have returns in terms of profits. If Corporation A invests funds toward Candidate B, they're banking that Candidate B will enact policy that leads to more profits for Corporation A. You can see how this might (and does) snowball.

[Howard Roark]

Yeah the text in Kuya's sig, that says "What's my sig?" is the link to see the video that is in his sig.

ok look, I'm getting frustrated here,

http://showdowninamerica.org/

click that.

show me where is says that picture in the site, I can't find it

I already asked kuya what his sig is, I think he is afk

[Deftscythe]

This is a good first step but we're still way behind the Shadowrun timeline.

[ZarakiKujata]

ok look, I'm getting frustrated here,

http://showdowninamerica.org/

click that.

show me where is says that picture in the site, I can't find it

I already asked kuya what his sig is, I think he is afk

You can't have more then 100% of something shown?

[Not Kuno]

Oh god this is completely horrifying. How is this supposed to be good for anyone again? When it comes to companies they're first to sell everything down the river for profit so I can't see how this will work.

[Solefald]

The supreme court has never held the first amendment applies only to a particular industry you ignorant fuckwit.

Brandreth v. Lance (N.Y. Chanc. Ct. 1839)

Commonwealth v. Blanding (Mass. 1825)

Edit: Both are good examples of how the SC still interprets it, so don't give me lol 1800 crap.

except for, you know,

AUSTIN v. MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

the very rulings that today's ruling overturned