Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

dbackjon wrote:first, get rid of corporate personhood. then, this gets overturned.

kalm wrote:So Ive, do you think corporations and people are one in the same?

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:So Ive, do you think corporations and people are one in the same?

From a free speech perspective, absolutely!

From a humanitarian perspective, corporations are better than what the law calls "natural persons." Give me a company with a perpetual charter, a charitable foundation and an unlimited bank account over a whiny bunch of tight-fisted, Volvo-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, deodorant-avoiding, PETA-worshipping "progressives" any day!

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:So Ive, do you think corporations and people are one in the same?

From a free speech perspective, absolutely!

From a humanitarian perspective, corporations are better than what the law calls "natural persons." Give me a company with a perpetual charter, a charitable foundation and an unlimited bank account over a whiny bunch of tight-fisted, Volvo-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, deodorant-avoiding, PETA-worshipping "progressives" any day!

The basic premise underlying the Court's ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker's identity, including its "identity" as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United maybe required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant.Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

kalm wrote:Libertarians are republicans who like to smoke pot and get laid.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:Libertarians are republicans who like to smoke pot and get laid.

So I was a libertarian even before I was a lesbian? This is all so confusing...

Ivytalk wrote:Last Friday was the first anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC, the landmark Supreme Court case that struck down McCain-Feingold restrictions on political speech. The author of an op-ed piece in Friday's Wall Street Journal described the decision as follows:

"Although the decision has been vilified, the court's evenhanded principle [that "First Amendment protections do not rise or fall with the identity of the speaker, be it an individual or an entity"] protects the free-speech rights of business corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, media outlets and the myriad groups that people form and use to press their views and amplify their voices, especially on public issues."

And who was the author of this sordid screed? Not a right-wing fanatic, but Professor Joel M. Gora of Brooklyn Law School. Professor Gora, who is counsel to the New York ACLU, represented plaintiffs in both Citizens United and the 1976 campaign finance case of Buckley v. Valeo. He's a recognized civil libertarian.

OK, klam, dawgbreath, jellybelly, etc.: Have at it!

kalm wrote:Libertarians are republicans who like to smoke pot and get laid.

houndawg wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Last Friday was the first anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC, the landmark Supreme Court case that struck down McCain-Feingold restrictions on political speech. The author of an op-ed piece in Friday's Wall Street Journal described the decision as follows:

"Although the decision has been vilified, the court's evenhanded principle [that "First Amendment protections do not rise or fall with the identity of the speaker, be it an individual or an entity"] protects the free-speech rights of business corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, media outlets and the myriad groups that people form and use to press their views and amplify their voices, especially on public issues."

And who was the author of this sordid screed? Not a right-wing fanatic, but Professor Joel M. Gora of Brooklyn Law School. Professor Gora, who is counsel to the New York ACLU, represented plaintiffs in both Citizens United and the 1976 campaign finance case of Buckley v. Valeo. He's a recognized civil libertarian.

OK, klam, dawgbreath, jellybelly, etc.: Have at it!

What?

Why am I supposed to mad because the Supreme Court made the accepted mode of buying politicians officially the law of the land?

Ibanez wrote:

kalm wrote:Libertarians are republicans who like to smoke pot and get laid.

I didn't know Kalm was an alias for D1b. How about say something smarter than that. I align myself with the libertarians, However, I don't smoke pot.


D1b loves both those things and I DOUBT he's a closet republican.