McCain-Feingold de-fanged

[jimster]

Corporations had rights while McCain-Feingold were in place.  Just certain ones. There have been some rulings in the past that gave corporations rights,  and some would say when a person forms a corp. he is forming another person.  Lot's of laws. 

What I was saying was McCain-Feingold was an attempt to limit freedom of speech for some corporations, not others, a form of censorship maybe.

I would like my corporation I work for to be able to pump money into something political if they choose if General Electric gets to,  and they own msnbc, that's a heck of a lot of advertisement and free speech for a corporation when some others are not allowed to.

All I was trying to point out was interpretation of the constitution should be across the board...or not at all.  McCain-Feingold was like picking and choosing and censoring some things, but not others.  That's what it seemed to me anyway, but I'm no high court judge and don't have a say anyways.

I still think if they paid attention to "Congress shall make no laws", there would be less trouble all the way around, but it seems they made lot's of laws already that were not supposed to be made.   

[wareagleguy]

"Dem's do have Acorn, Womens Lib, Gay Rights, who support them"
Dixie,
How are these corporations? 

I think your look into corporation's moral compass is interesting.  You state that the management (leadership) of many companies is of the liberal mindset.  I would be willing to bet you that an overhelming majority is NOT of the liberal mindset.  You are correct one thing in tha fact corporations is immoral.  This differece today than in 1960 is the all mighty dollar rules.  Yes, investors want more form the investments but it is being done at the death of this country.  The reason, CEOs are moving production offshore to reduce costs.   Good for the bottom line but as we all can see the result.

[jimster]

I can agree not all corporatons are not on the up and up, but the one I work for seems to be. I don't know how you pass laws against some and not others though.  I really think corporations just got the the "evil" brand put on them, like insurance companies and doctors, and capitialism.
Maybe the fact our jobs are moving off shore is because they pay one of the largest corp tax in the world staying inside the borders, and there is a midset out there that profits are bad and evil, so I guess they just go away at some point after government tries sticking it to them, along with some people's help.
 
While corporations would have a bigger say in politics with this ruling, it's naive to think they already don't have influence and it balances out the free speech rights other organizations had in politics like the unions and such.  I don't know the answer to the root problem of money running politics, but I doubt having the government, especially Congress, picking and choosing through passing another law is the answer. They have an agenda all their own too.  I distrust any laws they pass, McCain-Feingold included.

 

[Dixie Dude]

We have one of the highest corporate income taxes in the world already.  China has no corporate income tax.  What would happen if we dropped the corporate income tax.  I'll bet some of these companies will come back home.  I think we should get rid of all income taxes and replace it with a sales tax.  Corporations would pay more in sales tax for their materials when they bought them.  We would pay when we bought something.  The Libertarian party said a few years ago that if we had just a 1% national sales tax, it would bring in more than income tax.  You get to keep all your money and only pay taxes when you bought something.  Liberals have the misconception or don't want to know the truth about this.  They think it would hurt the poor more.  Well you could eliminate tax on groceries and medicine.  They don't have to buy logo shirts, and designer jeans, but they do have to eat and be healthy.   

Capitalism is not bad, neither are corporations.  Just how they are ran.  Liberal corporations or owners who gave money to Dems are GE (who owns NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC), Microsoft, Apple Computer, Intel, Time-Warner, George Soros, Warren Buffet, among others.  Also millions of people from overseas gave $10 each to Obama.  This has never occured before.  I think one of these multi-national corporations made a mailing list from foreign phone books and mailed the money in that way.  Couldn't verify this. 

For you guys information most Democrat money came from wealthy donars, most Republican money came from millions of small doners.  Dems have lied about the Republicans being wealthy.

[Dixie Dude]

Another thing, in 1960 most corporations looked at success over longer term like 20 years.  Today it is bottom line from quarter to quarter, year to year.  No long term planning, even if short term is not as profitable. 

[Casull]

nothing out of context except in your above post/quote. I quoted the whole 1st amendment

Too blind to see your own twisting of the langauge of the Amendment.  Yep, you quoted the whole 1st Amendment, and then proceeded to parse it to fit your bias.  Unless of course you are going to apply your limit to "the people" to the press and the church as well.  Come on tm7, at least be honest about your dishonesty. 

[moorepower]

So why don't you include the Unions in your groups, or the Sorros monster PAC. While your at it how free is the press, other than Fox, that states only one side of the story. The Dems changed the rules, so that they were set up for a huge advantage,$$$$$, given the fact that the unions were excluded from the law and the fact they control the majority of the press. Now boo hoo, they are mad because it was overruled by the court. All that happened was mega PAC's were formed by the dems  and the $$$ going into campaigns went up. Make the donations transparent plain and simple. How is it legal to prevent a person or group to not be able to respond to another groups statements. How do you not call that a violation of free speech.

[nomosendero]

nothing out of context except in your above post/quote. I quoted the whole 1st amendment

Too blind to see your own twisting of the langauge of the Amendment.  Yep, you quoted the whole 1st Amendment, and then proceeded to parse it to fit your bias.  Unless of course you are going to apply your limit to "the people" to the press and the church as well.  Come on tm7, at least be honest about your dishonesty.  

Oh yeah..Ok..sure...

[yt=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NzlG28B-R8Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NzlG28B-R8Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]


..TM7

TM, why did you move your profile to this thread ?