Thank You Roberts, Alito and Scalia

[merrylander]

Already a group calling themselves Concerned Taxpayers of America are running TV ads against the Democratic incumbent DeFazio but they will not reveal the source of their funding (probably a European pharmaceutical company). Now much as I hold the three supremes in utter contempt I know they are not stupid so the only reason that I can see for what they did is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[whell]

Right. They certainly would not have been motivated to protect freedom of speech.

[merrylander]

If the corporations want to be free to talk then stand up and be counted, don't hide behind some phoney name.

As I have posted elsewhere no one conversant with the English language could possibly have drawn the conclusion they did regarding the First Ammendment, they really need a remedial reading class.

Since when did $$$$ = speech?

BTW four justices agree with me, so that is 4 to 4 as we all know Thomas is just Scalia's echo.

[whell]

There's a hole in the current election law that requires filings in a quarterly basis. The hold was found, by some savvy legal folks I'm sure, and exploited. Those on the other side of this election will, I'm sure, now exploit this hole as well. Not in time for this election likely, but the next election cycle. Come October when the filings are due, the funding source will become public.

As far as the First Amendment, I find nowhere in my reading of the law that corporations are exempt, since such entities are made up of people. If entities were exempt from 1st amendment protections, then PAC's and other political organizations would also be exempt.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

If the corporations want to be free to talk then stand up and be counted, don't hide behind some phoney name.

That's what spineless cowards do, Rob.

As I have posted elsewhere no one conversant with the English language could possibly have drawn the conclusion they did regarding the First Ammendment, they really need a remedial reading class.

Oh, they know what they did.

Since when did $$$$ = speech?

Always has. Where have you been?

BTW four justices agree with me, so that is 4 to 4 as we all know Thomas is just Scalia's echo.

Have a Glorious Day. I'm hittin' the Flea Markets.

Dave

[merrylander]

Likely they should not be exempt for nowhere in the Constitution can I find where the people refers to anything other than individual citizens. They may freely assemble but does that necessarily mean pass the hat and spend the money in election advertising?

Since the ruling merely says corporations without regard to where they are headquartered our elections are now open to foreign interference.

BTW are not the duties of a good citizen to uphold the nation? If I as a citizen dump my money into a Swiss bank the government would be after me and rightly so if I did not report it. Yet a corporation can close its factories here and ship all the jobs overseas with no fear of the government, hardly the behaviour of a good citizen, no? The two you linked to in the CEO thread state quite openly that their sole interest is "the bottom line".

How many corporations have served in the military? Can a corporation run for elective office? One here in Maryland actually tryed to do so but was rejected. Sorry but the absolute rediculousness of the ruleing is laughable.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Likely they should not be exempt for nowhere in the Constitution can I find where the people refers to anything other than individual citizens. They may freely assemble but does that necessarily mean pass the hat and spend the money in election advertising?

Since the ruling merely says corporations without regard to where they are headquartered our elections are now open to foreign interference.

BTW are not the duties of a good citizen to uphold the nation? If I as a citizen dump my money into a Swiss bank the government would be after me and rightly so if I did not report it. Yet a corporation can close its factories here and ship all the jobs overseas with no fear of the government, hardly the behaviour of a good citizen, no? The two you linked to in the CEO thread state quite openly that their sole interest is "the bottom line".

How many corporations have served in the military? Can a corporation run for elective office? One here in Maryland actually tride to do so but was rejected. Sorry but the absolute rediculousness of the ruleing is laughable.

+1. Well put sir. One should be human to be a person. Entities that exist only to promote the bottom line do not share human values. Without the responsibilities that humans have, corporations do not deserve the rights that humans should enjoy, but are being washed away be the power wielded by corporations. Sadly ironic that corporations are getting as large as governments, and come to dominate governments, but themselves operate in the most anti-democratic fashion - one dollar one vote.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

+1. Well put sir. One should be human to be a person. Entities that exist only to promote the bottom line do not share human values. Without the responsibilities that humans have, corporations do not deserve the rights that humans should enjoy, but are being washed away be the power wielded by corporations. Sadly ironic that corporations are getting as large as governments, and come to dominate governments, but themselves operate in the most anti-democratic fashion - one dollar one vote.

Regards,

D-Ray

Well, if we're going to deprive entities of free speech - and the first amendment authors were particularly interested in protecting political speech - was then we're going to have to be consistent. We'll need to deprive churches, unions, charitable organizations, PAC's and other entities the right to free speech as well.

[merrylander]

AFAIK no other democracy that I am aware of runs their elections quite as we do, at least none that I have observed.

Another thing that is inimical to a free society is turnout by the electorate. In Canada employers are required to ensure that employees have four hours in which to vote. I used that requirement at both ends of the schedule, I would either vote in the morning as soon as the polls opened, then go to work. Alternatively I could leave work four hours before the polls closed. The workers at the polls during the recent primaries assured me that this is not the case here.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Likely they should not be exempt for nowhere in the Constitution can I find where the people refers to anything other than individual citizens. They may freely assemble but does that necessarily mean pass the hat and spend the money in election advertising?

Since the ruling merely says corporations without regard to where they are headquartered our elections are now open to foreign interference.

BTW are not the duties of a good citizen to uphold the nation? If I as a citizen dump my money into a Swiss bank the government would be after me and rightly so if I did not report it. Yet a corporation can close its factories here and ship all the jobs overseas with no fear of the government, hardly the behaviour of a good citizen, no? The two you linked to in the CEO thread state quite openly that their sole interest is "the bottom line".

How many corporations have served in the military? Can a corporation run for elective office? One here in Maryland actually tryed to do so but was rejected. Sorry but the absolute rediculousness of the ruleing is laughable.

So, its OK to curtail constitutional freedoms to those who are not US citizens? I guess its OK then to deprive the folks who want to build a Mosque at Ground Zero their right to property and religion, particularly if the funding for the mosque comes from outside the US. I guess its OK to ask illegal immigrants "for their papers".