The United States of the Corporation

[SteamWake]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now what part of 'shall make no laws' is misunderstood here?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Now what part of 'shall make no laws' is misunderstood here?

When they wrote that, did it apply to corporations? In fact, the founding fathers specifically LIMITED corporations and their powers - they could be dissolved for breaking the law.

It wasn't until 1886 that corporate personhood was established. You think giving a corporation (which have all the characteristics of a sociopath) unfettered access to the halls of power is a good thing? Enjoy your chains of slavery.

I invite you to actually THINK THROUGH the repurcussions of what has happened, instead of parroting back whatever feces John Boehner spouted out about this. Truly think this through and come up with a reason why this is a good idea.

[Onkel Neal]

I'm on the fence on this one. It's going to be interesting to see what changes come from this.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

When they wrote that, did it apply to corporations? In fact, the founding fathers specifically LIMITED corporations and their powers - they could be dissolved for breaking the law.

It wasn't until 1886 that corporate personhood was established. You think giving a corporation (which have all the characteristics of a sociopath) unfettered access to the halls of power is a good thing? Enjoy your chains of slavery.

I invite you to actually THINK THROUGH the repurcussions of what has happened, instead of parroting back whatever feces John Boehner spouted out about this. Truly think this through and come up with a reason why this is a good idea.

First off it's not "unfettered access". Many spending restrictions remain in place. Your cries of wolf are not helping anything here.

Second the law as written was unconstitutional. Shame on Congress for passing something that doesn't stand constitutional muster.

If you Democrats really object to the SJC's ruling then convene a constitutional convention and change the 1st amendment.

[August]

BTW let's take the lefts objection to this ruling to it's natural conclusion.

Who owns the New York Times? That's right, a corporation. If corporations shouldn't have free speech then the corporate owned NYT shouldn't either.

"Freedom of the press" you say? Well as we see these days you don't have to belong to a corporation to report the news. Just ask any blogger.

So mookie, I expect that you and Keith Olberman to immediately start advocating that the New York Times, the Boston Globe and any other corporation owned "news" network be banned from providing politically related news reporting during elections.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

BTW let's take the lefts objection to this ruling to it's natural conclusion.

Who owns the New York Times? That's right, a corporation. If corporations shouldn't have free speech then the corporate owned NYT shouldn't either.

"Freedom of the press" you say? Well as we see these days you don't have to belong to a corporation to report the news. Just ask any blogger.

So mookie, I expect that you and Keith Olberman to immediately start advocating that the New York Times, the Boston Globe and any other corporation owned "news" network be banned from providing politically related news reporting during elections.

Wrong natural conclusion. Since companies can now use the media to run ads supporting the positions of the politicians they've contributed to, they can basically pay to get whomever they want elected.

Hate the price of prescription medication? Sorry, the Senator from Merck, in a bill co-sponsored by the Senator from Pfizer, has established that drug company patents don't expire, thus effectively ending the generic drug market.

Hate the bailouts? Well, hate to break it to you, but the House of Representatives brought to you by Goldman Sachs will vote 434-1 in favor of the next one.

Want to start a business? Well, the City Council, sponsored by WalMart along with the Mayor, brought to you by Target has changed the zoning laws, and your store must close.

"Freedom of the press" you say? Well as we see these days you don't have to belong to a corporation to report the news. Just ask any blogger.

Good luck with that when the President, brought to you in part by Boston Globe and Rupert Murdoch signs a bill preventing "unlicensed news reporting."

[SteamWake]

So corporations should not run political ads but Acorn should?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

So corporations should not run political ads but Acorn should?

Which one of those is a non-profit?

[August]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

So corporations should not run political ads but Acorn should?

Not just ACORN but the New York Times, the Boston Globe and a million other liberal rags. Those media CORPORATIONS get to run political ads under the guise of "news".

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Wrong natural conclusion. Since companies can now use the media to run ads supporting the positions of the politicians they've contributed to, they can basically pay to get whomever they want elected.

Hate the price of prescription medication? Sorry, the Senator from Merck, in a bill co-sponsored by the Senator from Pfizer, has established that drug company patents don't expire, thus effectively ending the generic drug market.

Hate the bailouts? Well, hate to break it to you, but the House of Representatives brought to you by Goldman Sachs will vote 434-1 in favor of the next one.

Want to start a business? Well, the City Council, sponsored by WalMart along with the Mayor, brought to you by Target has changed the zoning laws, and your store must close.

Companies still cannot directly contribute money to a candidate so your use of "sponsor" is misleading at best and if a mayor changes zoning laws to favor one company over another he's just setting himself up for a lawsuit.

Good luck with that when the President, brought to you in part by Boston Globe and Rupert Murdoch signs a bill preventing "unlicensed news reporting."

So you totally ignore the fact that your corporate owned Boston globe can publish partisan propaganda as "news" and get away with it but you object to Joe Liquor store owner being able to send out a flyer asking it's patrons to support the candidate that opposes higher liquor taxes? This type of thing is why the law was thrown out.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by August

BTW let's take the lefts objection to this ruling to it's natural conclusion.

Who owns the New York Times? That's right, a corporation. If corporations shouldn't have free speech then the corporate owned NYT shouldn't either.

"Freedom of the press" you say? Well as we see these days you don't have to belong to a corporation to report the news. Just ask any blogger.

So mookie, I expect that you and Keith Olberman to immediately start advocating that the New York Times, the Boston Globe and any other corporation owned "news" network be banned from providing politically related news reporting during elections.

Can you identify the logical fallacy in the above? Because I'm sure August can't!!!

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

First off it's not "unfettered access". Many spending restrictions remain in place. Your cries of wolf are not helping anything here.

Second the law as written was unconstitutional. Shame on Congress for passing something that doesn't stand constitutional muster.

If you Democrats really object to the SJC's ruling then convene a constitutional convention and change the 1st amendment.

First off, it is in effect unfettered access. It doesn't matter that direct contributions are still illegal. The point is they now have the ability to control the debate by controlling the flow of information. With no cap on political ad campaigns, corporations can now run total media blitzes supporting their position, no mater how right or wrong it is over and over until people just accept it at face value.

And while I appreciate your cute little "HURR HURR If you Democrats hate it so bad, change the 1st Amendment Why do you hate freedom" comment, its not about the 1st Amendment. It's about the SCOTUS' interpretation of the 14th, back in 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that established the idea of "corporate personhood."

And actually if you want to go down the rabbit hole even further, I'll let Wikipedia take it from here:

The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in U.S. v. Detroit Timber and Lumber (1905), headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."[5]
The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[6]

In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.[7] However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion itself.