Corporate Free Speech
Associations mentioned іn thе video: tinyurl.com tinyurl.com tinyurl.com Join mе οn Face Book www.facebook.com Best Demotivational posters οn thе web: www.facebook.com www.facebook.com www.facebook.com Evolution Posters: www.facebook.com Ben Stein іѕ аn Idiot: www.facebook.com
Hell YEAH! You tell ‘em Jaguar! I’m sooooo glad to finally see someone who can see past the “freedom of speech” smokescreen that has been place over this issue. It’s been really discouraging to see otherwise intelligent people go out and defend this ruling. I kind of expected it from the libertarian Shanedk, but that LiberalViewer supported it came as a surprise.
Way to go man.
Fantastic, now I’ve gotta figure out something else to do with a pallet of pudding. So many thoughts that all liable end in me being arrested and/or unemployed and/or single.
@Preachingsin – Well, ya see, its sort of….I got nothin’.
I’ll give somebody 20 internet dollars if they can give reasons for the mechanics of a pudding wall.
Well we would all be hard pushed to find anyone that we agreed with on every single theme.
With this, you have vindicated yourself from many future ills.
Nearly everything you stated reflected my thoughts on Liberal’s vid. I felt particularly weird about how off he was as well; not just as a critical thinking, non-theist, doubter, but too as a liberal minded, realist. So much of what the guy had to say before this, made so much sense that I was taken aback by the lack of depth to his reasoning.
Concord.
The bitch is… we don’t often disagree! lolz
@Exmech2
Then everything is matured!
Fantastic discussion. I look forward to more dialogue in the future.
Agreed that it will probably demand an amendment. I disagree, though, that the Court made the aptly choice, and 4 members of that esteemed body agree with me.
Right that there is far too much acrimony circulating this issue. Alas… the Internetz.
Well, it’s not donations to a campaign we’re talking about. The golden child candidate need never have approached the corporation, who will fire up their own marketing departments, and buy enough airtime to feasibly block out any challenger. They need never make any appreciable donation to do this. There could very well be no accountability. If free speech is the line of reasoning, I feel the speaker at least should be identified.
[I know I'm on a perilous precipice of Slippery Slope here]
I’m glad you can at least acknowledge this. I could very well be on the same slope as well. I guess in summary, I just feel that the Constitution should be specifically amended if you truly want to get your way on this. Until that happens, excellent or terrible, I feel the Supreme Court probably made the aptly choice. At the very least, I don’t reckon the choice warrants the amount of hard-feelings I’ve been seeing out there.
[But, the candidate that is running against Motorola's "golden child" is at a severe disadvantage.]
That may be right, but this sort of thing goes both ways. One million people donating 10 dollars to the “let’s regulate Motorola campaign” are an equally potent political force. A corporate structure is often necessary to manage funds of that magnitude, but you cannot restrict one without restricting the other.
Cont.
I know I’m on a perilous precipice of Slippery Slope here, but I’ve been party to enough board meetings to know that a particular permanent will become a topic at a number of board meetings. I’d like to be a glide on the wall for persons…
Cont.
Obviously, that, in itself would not be enough to consider a constraint. But, the candidate that is running against Motorola’s “golden child” is at a severe disadvantage. I feel I’m a moderately reasonable individual who might make a decent Representative. But I would stand no chance against a corporate sponsorship like that. Thus, the golden child has an unfair advantage, and Motorola has essentially rigged the election.
Motorola is a Superfund corporation. They must provide water and make other restitutions to certain areas. I can see them spending millions to support a candidate, or candidates, that will help them abolish the Superfund program as it’ll be less expensive for them.
I guess my next question is simply,
What constitutes an “unfair” advantage?
So far, all I have been hearing is material like “corporations are profit-seekers with lots of money to throw around…”
I’m sure there is a better way to give reasons for it, but I do not find the mere virtue of wealth or self-interest as a pretext for restricting speech.
Ol’ Chuck doesn’t delight in ALL of his rights, but he does delight in free speech. I’m not arguing against against the ruling because I have some neurotic paranoia of corporations. This is an unreasonable premise. I maintain that unlimited corporate sponsorship will be an unfair advantage not loved by all candidates, thus, not a honest election. There is a huge difference between are your line of reasoning and mine. The stereotyping of corporations doesn’t help your case at all.
My Limb of the clergy was a regional leader of the NRA in New York for many years (60s and 70s era).
But you’re quite aptly, political NPOs do afford a voice for many who have few other resources. So I will concede that point. But considering Corporations can donate to NPOs as well, why the need for corporate sponsors to give an unfair advantage to specific candidates?
A defender of undo corporate influence wrote”Charles Manson is a total dickhead. But he should, as a citizen of the United States, delight in? the aptly of free speech…the question is not how nasty corporations are” first Charles Manson is a prisoner and her doesn’t have the full rights of residency anymore. Second, it is a matter of how corrupt corporations are. Corporations primary goal is profits and not the public excellent, making jobs. Just look at the anti-climate change propaganda
[Really, I do feel that even NPO's should be constrained]
I have to disagree entirely. I feel that orgs like the NRA exist solely for the function of giving a loud voice to collective groups of small people. The more people who support the org, the louder the voice gets. Limiting the speech of the NRA is consequently nothing less than limiting the speech of the people who collectively support them.
ps, I’m a paid limb of the NRA which is why I like using them as an example
Really, I do feel that even NPO’s should be constrained regarding campaigns. Corporations, both profit and NPO have certain advantages with regard to lobbying that the average citizen does not. This more than offsets any disparity in specific free speech rights. The NRA does not support all of my views, neither does the Sierra club, though I am in agreemnt of both platforms. I reckon the center got screwed in this deal.
I feel that free and honest elections are a necessary safeguard of free speech. There are valid and very strong arguments for both of us, and this is probably why the Court was so divided.
@stanjz
[They? are a group of very powerful men who often do something that is very detrimental to society and fantastic for profits.]
If I may respond, this is a very narrow understanding of what corporations do and why. It is the rough equivalent to saying “all black people ever do is eat watermelons and fried chicken.” For every Fox news, there are a hundred Googles.
@Exmech2
So my next question for you is, what about non-profit corporations? Do you reckon the NRA has an “unfair advantage?” All they do is pool money from donations, same as the Sierra club. Would you at least concede that political non-profit corporations probably should not theme to these constraints?
@Exmech2
I reckon you summed it up well. The final judgement call is simply “which takes precedence, free speech or honest elections?”
I am sloping to say that free speech leads to better elections. But this is a judgement call on my part. You are sloping to say the opposite. I can respect you entirely for that position as well, and you have demonstrated some merits for it.
I just hope I at least showed that the issue is not quite so cut-and-dry as “corporations are evil.”