Citizens United

[mtangelsfan]

I know this is out of the blue but I have been thinking about this SCOTUS decision for a while.  I understand that it would be awesome to get money out of politics and that the law they decided against would have done that somewhat.

 

What I don't understand is why it wasn't a legally correct decision.

 

If a corporation can be taxed, convicted of crimes and penalized by the government than why shouldn't  it have rights?

[arch stanton]

When it can be thrown in jail or stabbed in the heart come talk to me.

[mtangelsfan]

They can be taxed.  We became a nation over that very issue.  Besides, your argument is an emotional one.  I wondering why, legally, it was the wrong decision.

[arch stanton]

Organizations aren't people. Giving them the rights that were intended for individual citizens diminishes the rights of the citizens.

[mtangelsfan]

If they are taxed like people why shouldn't they have some of those rights?  They already don't vote.

[nate]

The people that own them and work for them vote.

 

Isn't the point of a democracy that the people vote?  Everyone has an equal voice?

[gotbeer]

If they are taxed like people why shouldn't they have some of those rights?  They already don't vote.

 

Don't you know that in Amerca votes don't matter.  How much corporations give to politicians to make decisions in their favor matter.  Money talks, votes walk.

[arch stanton]

If they are taxed like people why shouldn't they have some of those rights?  They already don't vote.

They're not taxed like people. they're taxed like the for-profit money making entities that they are. Paying taxes doesn't define you as a citizen of the United states. If that's the basis of your whole argument then it's pretty weak.

[mtangelsfan]

The people that own them and work for them vote.

 

Isn't the point of a democracy that the people vote?  Everyone has an equal voice?

 

Those people also get taxed.  I'm just wondering why taxation without representation is ok in this instance.  And this country is a republic, not really a democracy.

[mtangelsfan]

They're not taxed like people. they're taxed like the for-profit money making entities that they are. Paying taxes doesn't define you as a citizen of the United states. If that's the basis of your whole argument then it's pretty weak.

 

I'm not really trying to make an argument, I'm just trying to figure out why, aside from the hatred for corporations in general, this was a bad 'legal' decision.

[Schildog]

Those people also get taxed.  I'm just wondering why taxation without representation is ok in this instance.  And this country is a republic, not really a democracy.

 

the way they lobby isn't enough representation? 

[mtangelsfan]

This argument only makes sense to me unless you include all organizations.

 

Unions, privately held companies, charities, all excluded from giving financially. 

[arch stanton]

This argument only makes sense to me unless you include all organizations.

 

Unions, privately held companies, charities, all excluded from giving financially. 

Sounds good to me

[Glen]

It's difficult for me to articulate why I think CU is bad, other than repeating "corporations aren't people."  It's really that simple.  I also understand that that lack of articulation opens the door for corporations to be legally viewed as people.  

 

That's why I'm not a lawyer, among several other reasons.

[mtangelsfan]

It's difficult for me to articulate why I think CU is bad, other than repeating "corporations aren't people."  It's really that simple.  I also understand that that lack of articulation opens the door for corporations to be legally viewed as people.  

 

That's why I'm not a lawyer, among several other reasons.

 

So you would exclude any entity that isn't a person?  I'm not trying to jump to a conclusion, just asking.

[arch stanton]

I would absolutely exclude all entities.

[mtangelsfan]

I would absolutely exclude all entities.

 

I figured you would.  You have a pretty straight forward view on things.  I'm wondering if some of the others would as well.

[nate]

Those people also get taxed.  I'm just wondering why taxation without representation is ok in this instance.  And this country is a republic, not really a democracy.

 

They are represented by the people that own them and work for them.  How is that not being represented?

[mtangelsfan]

and you feel the same way toward all non-citizens, correct?

 

How about foreign individuals?

[nate]

No, I do not feel that non citizens should be allowed to vote in the US.  I don't see how it is related either.

 

I do however think that criminals should be allowed to vote.  Like it or not, they are still a part of this country and should have a voice.

 

Put it this way, in WI, state parks require dogs to be on a leash... My dog would love to run around without a leash in the parks, but isn't allowed to vote for the anti leash candidate.  I could however if I felt it was in my and my dogs best interest.

 

Companies would love to monopolize their industry, pay no taxes, and otherwise rape and pillage their customers.  They can't vote for their favorite candidate but their owner can.  Otherwise you get a minority having more power than the majority.  In the US every citizen should count as 1 vote and have an equal voice.

[mtangelsfan]

I wasn't talking about voting.  I'm talking about being able to donate to a campaign.

 

You haven't answered my question regarding whether you would include all non-individuals/citizens in a ban on campaign donations.

[nate]

I do not include them for the same reason I don't think they should vote.

[Thomas]

Without providing groups (corporations, unions or non-profits etc) rights afforded by the 1st amendment, what would prevent a Republicans for instance if they had enough votes to ban Planned Parenthood from advertising completely? Or the NAACP from assembling in protests? There was a reason the ACLU fought for the initial ruling, even if the backlash from the ruling led them to distance themselves from the issue entirely.

[mtangelsfan]

That is a good point Thomas.  Its why I feel that a cap on campaign spending, not donations would be the best way to curtail the influence peddlers.  

[Thomas]

I'd happily support a constitutional amendment regarding campaign spending/donations.