@tnekkc evidently you are so fucking stupid you don’t know the difference between a ‘cretin’ and a ‘Cretan”…but of course I’m not surprised since most conservatards are basically uneducated morons!
While you are aptly that no corp. is going to openly state their political views like that, you forget about nonprofit-fronts. Many corporations already use nonprofits to disguise their attempts at scheming the political the boards, and this choice allows persons fronts even more power than before.
Something not discussed in this video is an absolute cap on election campaign spending. Limiting the amount a corporation can spend still means that the candidate pleasing the most corporations gets the most funding. Surely an absolute cap on the amount of money allowed to be spent on an election campaign would alleviate all these problems?
I reckon the larger problem with the ruling is that it refuted a previous supreme court ruling. This means that there is no supreme court ruling that can’t be altered. This choice from a legal point of view could be far more devastating than the choice which they ruled on.
Jon Stewart(Viacom) has engaged in propaganda himself. As has all the other “progressive” in the media that are on the corporate payroll. For instance, Jon showed a clip of Obama saying he hasn’t given up on civility in politics. Jon then showed clips of Republicans screaming and essentially burning him in effigy. Instead of making them look like loons, he made Obama look foolish for suggesting “some” Republicans could act with civility. There are many more examples. “liberal viewer” is incorrect
To elaborate a small further.The points raised in this video are really the positives of the ruling, but the negative points raised by critics are still valid. Don’t believe for a moment that corporations won’t exploit this in any way they can politically get away with.
Also, early in this video, the rights mentioned that corporations can’t have could be viewed as either irrelevant or beneficial. Such as corporations can’t be murdered. Is that supposed to be a defense of their person-hood?
Ok. So a corporation’s Board of directors independently from the rest of the share holders decides to finance a political ad for a message not approved or supported by the rest of the organization.
It could happen, and might considering the populous message is to regulate wall street, cut back on executive bonuses, and to increase the power of average share holders. The funding does not have to be a direct ad by the organization either. It could be in the form of money to fund an unfilled ad.
You’re assuming only ‘boyscout’ corporations would benefit: persons who agree are fools. “Msf is only interested in selling software?” Exactly; Why not even run for congress itself to promote bills labeled w/ such things as “investment for our youth AB” to buy msf equipment as opposed to competitors’.Worse, Northrop Grum/Haliburton might maximize their profits by promoting war spending.Today adv is spent to convince u the manufactured goods is excellent instead of making a fantastic manufactured goods;greatnew type of CoGS
On average, that is. And at least on social issues and foreign policy ones, if not some economic issues, like with Warren Bang, who supported Obama in 08. It’s a total myth that today’s rich are the rich of the 50s or the robber baron age, always supporting deregulation and less restrictions. Some do, esp. in the banking sector, but a lot more these days support Dems as much as or more than GOPers.
Look at George Soros, for example. Bill Gates, too, is no aptly-winger.
Saying “money warps political decisionmaking” is just making excuses for the fact that so many people in our political system are corrupt. It’s the CORRUPTION of persons people who are easily swayed by bribery and money that we should focus on, not the money itself. I mean, guys like Ross Perot are pretty rich, but they’re certainly not huge acquaintances of Wall Street or the GOP. As you all remember, Perot was AGAINST nafta.
A lot of people seem to forget that executives today are quite liberal
And are corporations inherently in some way WORSE than unions or other interest groups in society? I would argue NO. All are equally valid and necessary. Huge affair and huge labor both need limited power. I mean, what about persons workers who don’t particularly feel much allegiance to either of persons?? The current system leaves us out. And if you don’t live in a aptly-to-work state, you can be forced to join a union for a job. At least with corporations, you can say no to their job offers.
So if you wanna go after an entity for “buying votes” because of campaign donations, look to the state, local and federal parties, not corporations. And how come the left thinks it’s terrible to allow unions to supposedly contribute unlimited amounts (which has never been allowed, at least not in recent memory) but unions and other special interests get free reign? Hell, unions are pretty damn cozy with the Democrats, ya know.
So the Left and the Aptly really are equally corrupt here.
Why shouldn’t it be allowed?? Because you have a really distorted view of how campaigns and campaign finance work? Because you believe the lies that corporations can and really legally give millions a campaign to a single candidate (federal corporate reserves donations are illegal, and PACs can only donate 5 grand to candidates)? The fact is, the entities that can donate the MOST money in a campaign are the parties themselves, and you can give the leading donation to a party as well.
Place yourselves in corporate shoes for a second. Now, obviously sometimes corporations are a small too selfish in campaigning for certain things and don’t seem to take into consideration how it’ll affect people, but by and large, they don’t like being walked all over. No one does.
But when a corporation says “I’m not gonna take it anymore” and stands up for its aptly to be autonomous and have SOME freedom to pursue its self-interest, the left bitches and says it shouldn’t be allowed.
I wish so many liberals would quit bitching about corporate personhood. Get over it! As long as corporations exist, and we’re gonna regulate and tax them, they have EVERY RIGHT to some privileges and protections, such as free speech. I mean, why do liberals make an exception on free speech for corporations?? If someone slanders or libels a person’s company, shouldn’t he be able to speak out and tell the truth?
What if you owned a company? would you really sit there and take it?
but at the same time a corporation is run by people who do control the money…so in reality what’s the difference? It makes sense for the NRA to fund advertising before an election if they have legitimate concerns about an uninformed constituency electing an official who is huge on gun control issues.
@tnekkc evidently you are so fucking stupid you don’t know the difference between a ‘cretin’ and a ‘Cretan”…but of course I’m not surprised since most conservatards are basically uneducated morons!
While you are aptly that no corp. is going to openly state their political views like that, you forget about nonprofit-fronts. Many corporations already use nonprofits to disguise their attempts at scheming the political the boards, and this choice allows persons fronts even more power than before.
Something not discussed in this video is an absolute cap on election campaign spending. Limiting the amount a corporation can spend still means that the candidate pleasing the most corporations gets the most funding. Surely an absolute cap on the amount of money allowed to be spent on an election campaign would alleviate all these problems?
Am I missing something obvious?
My hope is that the new free speech will overcome the liberal Cretans that have hijacked the media.
And non-racist, non-bigoted, and intelligent persons, who earn an honest income, despise FOXNEWS.
I reckon the larger problem with the ruling is that it refuted a previous supreme court ruling. This means that there is no supreme court ruling that can’t be altered. This choice from a legal point of view could be far more devastating than the choice which they ruled on.
Jon Stewart(Viacom) has engaged in propaganda himself. As has all the other “progressive” in the media that are on the corporate payroll. For instance, Jon showed a clip of Obama saying he hasn’t given up on civility in politics. Jon then showed clips of Republicans screaming and essentially burning him in effigy. Instead of making them look like loons, he made Obama look foolish for suggesting “some” Republicans could act with civility. There are many more examples. “liberal viewer” is incorrect
To elaborate a small further.The points raised in this video are really the positives of the ruling, but the negative points raised by critics are still valid. Don’t believe for a moment that corporations won’t exploit this in any way they can politically get away with.
Also, early in this video, the rights mentioned that corporations can’t have could be viewed as either irrelevant or beneficial. Such as corporations can’t be murdered. Is that supposed to be a defense of their person-hood?
Ok. So a corporation’s Board of directors independently from the rest of the share holders decides to finance a political ad for a message not approved or supported by the rest of the organization.
It could happen, and might considering the populous message is to regulate wall street, cut back on executive bonuses, and to increase the power of average share holders. The funding does not have to be a direct ad by the organization either. It could be in the form of money to fund an unfilled ad.
Please don’t turn into another Dennis Miller.
Liberal…unfortunately, I believe you’re missing the point of the Ruling…
You’re bright, but you’re not always aptly, brother….
Hope vid was meant sardonically.
You’re assuming only ‘boyscout’ corporations would benefit: persons who agree are fools. “Msf is only interested in selling software?” Exactly; Why not even run for congress itself to promote bills labeled w/ such things as “investment for our youth AB” to buy msf equipment as opposed to competitors’.Worse, Northrop Grum/Haliburton might maximize their profits by promoting war spending.Today adv is spent to convince u the manufactured goods is excellent instead of making a fantastic manufactured goods;greatnew type of CoGS
On average, that is. And at least on social issues and foreign policy ones, if not some economic issues, like with Warren Bang, who supported Obama in 08. It’s a total myth that today’s rich are the rich of the 50s or the robber baron age, always supporting deregulation and less restrictions. Some do, esp. in the banking sector, but a lot more these days support Dems as much as or more than GOPers.
Look at George Soros, for example. Bill Gates, too, is no aptly-winger.
Saying “money warps political decisionmaking” is just making excuses for the fact that so many people in our political system are corrupt. It’s the CORRUPTION of persons people who are easily swayed by bribery and money that we should focus on, not the money itself. I mean, guys like Ross Perot are pretty rich, but they’re certainly not huge acquaintances of Wall Street or the GOP. As you all remember, Perot was AGAINST nafta.
A lot of people seem to forget that executives today are quite liberal
And are corporations inherently in some way WORSE than unions or other interest groups in society? I would argue NO. All are equally valid and necessary. Huge affair and huge labor both need limited power. I mean, what about persons workers who don’t particularly feel much allegiance to either of persons?? The current system leaves us out. And if you don’t live in a aptly-to-work state, you can be forced to join a union for a job. At least with corporations, you can say no to their job offers.
So if you wanna go after an entity for “buying votes” because of campaign donations, look to the state, local and federal parties, not corporations. And how come the left thinks it’s terrible to allow unions to supposedly contribute unlimited amounts (which has never been allowed, at least not in recent memory) but unions and other special interests get free reign? Hell, unions are pretty damn cozy with the Democrats, ya know.
So the Left and the Aptly really are equally corrupt here.
Why shouldn’t it be allowed?? Because you have a really distorted view of how campaigns and campaign finance work? Because you believe the lies that corporations can and really legally give millions a campaign to a single candidate (federal corporate reserves donations are illegal, and PACs can only donate 5 grand to candidates)? The fact is, the entities that can donate the MOST money in a campaign are the parties themselves, and you can give the leading donation to a party as well.
Place yourselves in corporate shoes for a second. Now, obviously sometimes corporations are a small too selfish in campaigning for certain things and don’t seem to take into consideration how it’ll affect people, but by and large, they don’t like being walked all over. No one does.
But when a corporation says “I’m not gonna take it anymore” and stands up for its aptly to be autonomous and have SOME freedom to pursue its self-interest, the left bitches and says it shouldn’t be allowed.
I wish so many liberals would quit bitching about corporate personhood. Get over it! As long as corporations exist, and we’re gonna regulate and tax them, they have EVERY RIGHT to some privileges and protections, such as free speech. I mean, why do liberals make an exception on free speech for corporations?? If someone slanders or libels a person’s company, shouldn’t he be able to speak out and tell the truth?
What if you owned a company? would you really sit there and take it?
You are assess. I agree.
politics are bought and sold. the constitution is timeless
if its not in the constitution its nonsense.
@aarondavid826
And sadly in our day and age we have not been able to ruin racism and prejudice.
but at the same time a corporation is run by people who do control the money…so in reality what’s the difference? It makes sense for the NRA to fund advertising before an election if they have legitimate concerns about an uninformed constituency electing an official who is huge on gun control issues.