Corporations and Campaign Finance - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 01-26-2010, 03:43 AM

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/...e-too?page=0,1

So it is essentially precedent that corporations have the rights of persons.

But what the government argued is that they don't have first amendment rights. Well what about media corporations? Can Congress limit their expression? Yes, but they have been specifically exempted in legislation, the government argues. If a corporation were to publish a book, and refer to a candidate in that book, would that be illegal? Yes, it would be, the government argued. [these arguments I heard on a panel on NPR. The conservative KILLED the liberal dude, whose only argument was that this would ruin elections. Ok, maybe. But you are not actually making a legal argument. You are just advocating for the result you want. The liberal had no cogent reply about media companies and first amendment rights, it was comical.]

What is really striking me as bizarre is how some liberals are referring to this as the Dred Scott decision of our day. Seems to me it is hardly the revolutionary position, and is hardly without precedent.

The whole campaign law was stupid. It merely made corporations shuffle the money around with accounting, and didn't limit them. Now that the money doesn't have to be shuffled, liberals are crying foul. It is bizarre.

Today, just a short time after this supposed "worst decision in 100 years", there is a realization among the left that they are going chicken little on this one.

01-26-2010, 03:43 AM	#1
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,367	Corporations and Campaign Finance http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/...e-too?page=0,1 So it is essentially precedent that corporations have the rights of persons. But what the government argued is that they don't have first amendment rights. Well what about media corporations? Can Congress limit their expression? Yes, but they have been specifically exempted in legislation, the government argues. If a corporation were to publish a book, and refer to a candidate in that book, would that be illegal? Yes, it would be, the government argued. [these arguments I heard on a panel on NPR. The conservative KILLED the liberal dude, whose only argument was that this would ruin elections. Ok, maybe. But you are not actually making a legal argument. You are just advocating for the result you want. The liberal had no cogent reply about media companies and first amendment rights, it was comical.] What is really striking me as bizarre is how some liberals are referring to this as the Dred Scott decision of our day. Seems to me it is hardly the revolutionary position, and is hardly without precedent. The whole campaign law was stupid. It merely made corporations shuffle the money around with accounting, and didn't limit them. Now that the money doesn't have to be shuffled, liberals are crying foul. It is bizarre. Today, just a short time after this supposed "worst decision in 100 years", there is a realization among the left that they are going chicken little on this one.