Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 08:36am PT
|
I'm sure all you folks who believe the thinking behind this decision was good will no doubt support Olson's current effort to constitutionally legalize gay marriage nationwide. That springs from the exact same mind and logic as this decision.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 10:42am PT
|
Why the hell should I care if gays get married?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 11:00am PT
|
"sounds like a reasonable, effective response to scotus:"
Yeah, DMT & someone else suggested something similar a couple of days ago. I agree, it's an idea that's intriguing. Elections cost $ and are a responsibility of living in a democratic country like the US, so it seems appropriate.
The crux would come in how these 'Democracy Dollars' would be collected: it would be easy for opponents (esp. Repubs) to describe them as a tax, and garner the usual teaparty-style revolt. Another crux: how the funds would be distributed.
Nonetheless, it's an interesting idea that would seem to evade the freedom of speech issues with the recent SCOTUS decision.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 12:36pm PT
|
Interesting idea. If nothing else, it at least recognizes the rationale behind the First Amendment protection of free speech.
Also, thank you Fat Dad, for your thoughtful (and flattering) response. I still disagree. Your argument deals with for-profit corporations. Citizens United, the plaintiff and appellant, was a non-profit corporation whose purpose was, essentially, to engage in political speech. I'm also unaware of any previous decision defining any speech not disseminated by a natural person as commercial speech ipso facto.
I think it's no accident that Stevens' dissenting opinion is longer than the other three opinions (majority and two concurring) combined. It's really the dissent that is trying to break new legal ground. There was a letter in today's Fresno Bee saying that the majority promulgated the novel idea that corporations have constitutional rights. If this were really the first time a court did this, why do corporations get compensated for takings? For that matter, why do we think the media corporations have freedom of the press? Constitutional jurisprudence has always recognized corporate rights. The dissent tries mightily, but thankfully unsuccessfully, to change that.
Clearly, though, the divergence of views reflects a divergence of perceived threats. I feel much more threatened by a governmental interference with political speech than I do by corporations' speech (or corporations generally). Most who disagree with me would reverse my relative fears. I won't try to change that opinion.
Further affiant sayeth not.
John
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 12:41pm PT
|
the gov would not collect a penny...taxpayers would make a $50 donation to a candidate of their choice who would, in turn, provide documentation of of the donation (just as charities do)...donors would then take the $50 deduction on their taxes...it's all voluntary
the only drawback i see, is that the plan depends on the enthusiasm of the voter...120 mil voters donating $50 to their candidates would certainly outstrip corp donations, but the voters have to make the effort and even the most punctual voters are not always inclined to do more than vote once every four years...but that's an inherent flaw in democracy--you can't force anyone to vote
and the government would not be "spending" anything...the voters would be spending...one might argue that the government would lose revenue, but the gov has never been very good at spending my money anyway...and this is one instance where i would actually have complete control over how my tax money is spent
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 01:09pm PT
|
Bookworm, it would not be a deduction, but a refundable credit. A deduction only does any good if you have taxable income, and then only for the marginal percentage of your income you pay in taxes. A credit acts as if you paid that much in taxes. If you owed no taxes, you get the amount of the credit as a tax refund, even if you otherwise paid no taxes.
In that sense, it is, indeed, the treasury that pays for this.
It's still an interesting idea, though.
John
|
|
gonzo chemist
climber
the Twilight Zone of someone else's intentions
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 03:40pm PT
|
"I'm sure all you folks who believe the thinking behind this decision was good will no doubt support Olson's current effort to constitutionally legalize gay marriage nationwide. That springs from the exact same mind and logic as this decision."
Healy,
The basis for the decision was rooted in equating corporations to humans, as far as the First Amendment is concerned. I'm fairly certain that corporations ARE NOT humans.
However, I'm fairly certain that gay men and women ARE HUMANS. So I don't see any logic in your statement that ensuring rights for gays "springs from the exact same mind and logic as this decision." Unless you equate gay people to non-human entities.
If I mistook what you were saying then, I apologize. Please enlighten me...
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 10:00am PT
|
Try to find someone more conservative than Ross Johnson:
But let Ross Johnson, the chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, and a conservative former Republican legislative leader from Orange County, expound:
"It's an idiotic decision that defies logic to presume that a corporation is entitled to the same constitutional rights as the people. Our Constitution starts out with, 'We the people.' It doesn't say 'We the corporations.' These are legal fictions that exist because of the sufferance of government. We regulate corporations in a number of ways."
As for independent expenditures not influencing officeholders, the former lawmaker says: "These people don't live in caves. If you're elected to the state Senate and someone spent $500,000 getting you there, you think you're going to return his phone call?
"And there's a matter you're voting on, and they come in and say, 'This is a silver-bullet issue for us.' Are you going to vote for the greater good of the state, or are you going to be swayed?"
"Last Thursday was not a good day for the American people. It's awfully difficult to look at this decision and have any hope for the future of campaign finance regulation."
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 11:24am PT
|
"Ken M,
You state:" Ok, I'll bite. These are PRESS corporations, which are specifically exempted by the Constitution. Their freedom to publish (in the larger sense), is fundamental to our freedom, and is why they are known as the "fourth branch of gov't".
Alright, since you planted this and repeated it over and over, now make the point that you wanted to make:"
My point is that no one questions that corporations possess this constitutional right (freedom of the press), yet they persist in arguing that corporations cannot possess any constitutional rights. Which is it?"
I don't agree with your assumption that corporations possess this right----only PRESS corporations have this right. I see nothing in the Constitution that relates to corporations at all. The only reason that a press corporation has this protection is because they are functioning as the PRESS. If I created a corporation call "Ken's Press Corporation", which made, say, wine, and attempted to defend myself in court by asserting PRESS protections, I'd be laughed out of court.
Your logic is that because a corp takes on the press rights, because they are a press corp.......a corp then takes on ALL a person's rights, because it is acting as a person? It is NOT acting as a person, it is not a person.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 11:28am PT
|
"The answer should be more education, not more Government control."
REALITY CHECK: most eduction in this country is financed by the gov't!
You join singularly non-understanding groups:
"Keep the gov't away from my Medicare"
"The people should not have to pay for the Savings and Loan Rescue, the Gov't should pay for it."
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 11:58am PT
|
Financing education and providing education are two different things.
See the public schools.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 08:30pm PT
|
"Mitchell says the court's decision primarily liberates nonprofit advocacy groups, such as the Sierra Club, which the FEC fined $28,000 in 2006. The club's sin was to distribute pamphlets in Florida contrasting the environmental views of the presidential and senatorial candidates, to the intended advantage of Democrats. FEC censors deemed this an illegal corporate contribution."
here's the whole article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012703909.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
barry either lied in his speech or he's a lousy "constitutional scholar"
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 08:41pm PT
|
$5000 barry beats the crap out of ANY Republican evolution denier in 2012
|
|
Delhi Dog
Trad climber
Good Question...
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 08:46pm PT
|
Thanks Fat Dad. Well stated.
DD
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 11:49pm PT
|
2000+ years ago, the Roman Republic degenerated into an de facto monarchy. Since the people's political power was eroded, a different way of enacting change became popular: assassination of the emperor.
And when the people's power in the U.S. has been eroded beyond a certain point, that same evil solution will undoubtedly become popular again. After all, what alternative do the people have, when they are stripped of their statutory power? To just sit there, and take it?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2010 - 12:27pm PT
|
"There was a letter in today's Fresno Bee saying that the majority promulgated the novel idea that corporations have constitutional rights. If this were really the first time a court did this, why do corporations get compensated for takings?"
It's not the first time the question has come up as to whether corporations are citizens...but it has done an awful lot to support the concept.
"I feel much more threatened by a governmental interference with political speech than I do by corporations' speech (or corporations generally)."
Well, John, we have just taken a giant step towards melding the two (gov't & corps) together, once and for all.
The more I have been thinking and reading about this, the more it upsets me. As I have stated, I'm not in favor of censoring anyone, but corporate influence has overpowered and undermined our democratic system regularly and continually for decades. There needs to be a direct intervention that makes a distinction b/w the voice of the citizens and the voice of a few within a mega-corporation.
The SCOTUS and all conservatives have exposed their complete hypocrisy in describing the naming of 'activist judges'. Not that Dems are any better, but Repugs have repeated ad nauseum their supposed high ground position in naming justices that are objective, only 'call the balls and strikes' (Robert's words), and ideologically neutral. With one grand decision, the conservatives have exposed themselves, once again, to be the party of grand ol' hypocrisy.
"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations."
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2010 - 12:32pm PT
|
So teachers haven't been allowed to teach what/how they wanted for at least 40 years in my experience. But teachers I know nowadays are REALLY watched. Its now a purely Federal Curriculum. One I know from Phoenix retired a little early 3-4 years ago. Tired of fighting it.
Performance testing drives teachers to focus on test results for whatever the cirriculum is. The cirriculum itself is far more driven by the textbook publishing industry via the dubious proxy of the Texas public school system and, by extension, Texas school boards and legislature.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2010 - 10:49pm PT
|
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!