Supreme Court ruling on money and free speech
POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 22:50
VIEWED: 10274
PAGE 19 of 20
Well, supposedly Geezer is back today... I'm waiting for him to start sawing on that old tune...
It ain't so bad,
It's been done before.
You should be used to
Getting fucked by now.
Human nature,
Being what it is,
Means never hope for
Anything better.
Go back to sleep,
Let the tanks roll.
Let the big corps,
Stay in control.
And besides,
They're really sweet.
So share your crumbs
And don't eat.
So go back to sleep,
Let the tanks roll.
You should be used
To getting fucked by now
Sorry not very good, very much off the cuff! I'll do better next time. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Nice thought, Mike, but it doesn’t look like it will fly. There’s already a movement to do just that; from what I heard, if they pass such a law, it will be challenged, go to the Supreme Court, and guess what will happen there?
If you, as a corporation, want to give money to any political campaign in this country, you must be HEADQUARTERED here in the United States.
I had a thought, which of course will go nowhere. If corporations are “persons”, and the people who make UP corporations are “persons”, isn’t that some kind of double something? Like if a corporation donates to a campaign, and individuals WITHIN that corporation also donate to the same campaign, how can that be legal? I’m sure they’ll find a way around it or double-speak around it, but it occurred to me to wonder.
All in all, I think this is a disasterous travesty and yet another example of the power of one branch of government which can't really be undone by either of the others. Pffft.
Had another thought. Think they might be smarter than we give them credit for? Consider this:
Remember how the anti-abortion crowd was unsuccessful in defeating Roe v. Wade, then found myriad little ways to get around it, to make abortion harder and harder to obtain through working with states, harrassing abortion doctors...killing 'em if necessary?
And remember the "permanent Republican majority" they dreamed of, which fell through in this last election? What if they're trying different tactics, again "little" ways to get it. This ruling means for the most part corporations will support Republican candidates, as they share a lot of the same ideology. The filibuster means they can stop any Democratic majority in their tracks. Ergo, possibly "permanent Republican majorty"? Just a thought...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
YOU changed the thread title, JaynezTown, and it was pretty obvious for anyone who knows how to look. Especially because I saw your post before it was edited.
Do tell us how everyone's right to swing their arm does NOT in fact end at anyone's nose, as you have so aptly demonstrated.
Yup, it's VERY easy to see who's changing thread titles, which makes it really laughable to try to claim innocence by posting things like "Who changed the thread title?" in a post in which JaynezTown CLEARLY changed the title.
Like I said, laughable, but only because it's so sad he doesn't realize how closely he's being watched. ;)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
All in all, I think this is a disasterous travesty and yet another example of the power of one branch of government which can't really be undone by either of the others. Pffft.
Which is a prime example of why you DON'T want to get rid of the filibuster rule. It exists as a CHECK, an extreme measure to be taken in extreme circumstances. The fact that it's being used so willy-nilly (and it's NOT actually being used; it's just being THREATENED, which is a whole different kettle of fish) isn't a reason to get rid of it altogether.
Remember, one day the Republicans WILL be back in power. Do you want to do away with one of the only checks on that power that our Conresspeople still have? We've already lost - or ceded away - the power to declare war and/or fund same, we've lost any semblance of oversight when it comes to the intel goons, we've done away with so much oversight over businesses (and this will absolutely get WORSE in the wake of this atrocious ruling); why give away even MORE of the tiny bit of power the Congress still holds over its own majority?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Remember, one day the Republicans WILL be back in power. Do you want to do away with one of the only checks on that power that our Conresspeople still have?"
Which is why I said - either get rid of it or have the democrats play the same game. Though I think if they were smart, they should ALSO threaten 'the nuclear option' at this time.
B/c sure as hell, when their turn comes around, republicans WILL threaten it (again) should the democrats want to filibuster.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're missing what I've been saying once again, Mike; I believe the Republican's current use of the filibuster might well lead to both parties using it the same way, and I don't want EITHER party to do so.Quote:
I quoted this somewhere else...the filibuster no longer LEGALLY requires the traditional type:
it's just being THREATENED, which is a whole different kettle of fish) isn't a reason to get rid of it altogether. Quote:
As long as they can get away with the 'procedural filibuster', nobody's gonna go through the old kind, so that's a wsated suggestion.
The most widely cited enabler for the recent acceleration was a 1975 Senate rule change—one that, coming at a time when filibusters were on the rise, sought to reduce them by lowering the cloture requirement from 67 to 60 votes. But this fix (combined with a less widely cited earlier procedural change made in 1961) inadvertently increased the filibuster's use by ushering in the so-called "procedural" filibuster, a sort of filibuster-lite that allowed the minority to block legislation without a dissenting senator's having to speechify himself hoarse
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because s/he wants to.
Okay. Now try reading the question before you answer it.
"What's the motivation for the dedicated, innovative worker (who believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker) if, no matter how he excels, he can't get any more compensation than they do?"
Quote:
BTW- you haven't answered MY question:
But I did. On Monday the 25th at 15:04
"Generally they get dividends, etc. for meeting production or profitability goals set in their contracts, and apparently the folks who write the contracts feel justified in doing so."
Quote:
But everyone has to fit into YOUR concept of what's right? Which, in your case, means unbridled corporatism?
Nope, I've said several times, in this thread and in the past, that if folk want to form or belong to communes, co-ops, barter associations, trade guilds, or whatever, it's fine with me. Seems to me that you're the one who wants folks to fit your concept of what's right, economic system-wise.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You're missing what I've been saying once again, Mike; I believe the Republican's current use of the filibuster might well lead to both parties using it the same way, and I don't want EITHER party to do so.Quote:
it's just being THREATENED, which is a whole different kettle of fish) isn't a reason to get rid of it altogether.
I quoted this somewhere else...the filibuster no longer LEGALLY requires the traditional type:Quote:
The most widely cited enabler for the recent acceleration was a 1975 Senate rule change—one that, coming at a time when filibusters were on the rise, sought to reduce them by lowering the cloture requirement from 67 to 60 votes. But this fix (combined with a less widely cited earlier procedural change made in 1961) inadvertently increased the filibuster's use by ushering in the so-called "procedural" filibuster, a sort of filibuster-lite that allowed the minority to block legislation without a dissenting senator's having to speechify himself hoarse
As long as they can get away with the 'procedural filibuster', nobody's gonna go through the old kind, so that's a wsated suggestion.
And I think you're misunderstanding ME, Niki. Just because it "no longer LEGALLY requires the traditional type" doesn't mean that it can NEVER legally require that traditional type. I was pointing out that the rules were changed in a simple procedural manner; they can likewise be changed BACK in just such a simple way. It's not a huge battle, it's simply "going back to a more conservative time". How could the "conservatives" on the Hill object to that? It's a return to the good old days! :)
And to get back to the matter at hand, there are MORE ideas for dealing with the SCOTUS ruling on Democracy, Inc.
1) The Supreme Court says we can't limit "free speech", even by corporations. But it doesn't say that we can't LIMIT the legal ability to "listen" to that speech by our lawmakers. And neither does the Constitution. In other words, we CAN legally make it illegal for lawmakers to ACCEPT that money, or limit FROM WHOM they can accept it.
That's one check on the unbridled greed and influence-selling that is the current form and practice of lawmaking.
2) We can legally enact a form of public "campaign matching" fund in this area. I'm not suggesting that if a corporation gives $20,000,000 to a senator, that WE the taxpayers must then give a like amount to his opponent. I'm saying that if you give a campaign donation, it goes into a "general fund" (like the money you give to the election fund on your tax return, if you do so), to be disbursed equally among all qualified candidates.
In essence, this limits the campaign donations because what you give your favored (or "bought") lawmaker, you also give his opponent in a campaign.
Again, none of these are blanket solutions, because I'm not a big believer in The One True Answer theory; they're all pieces of a larger picture, and they could all be used to HELP curb the influence of Big Money on Democracy, Inc.
Discuss among yourselves. If there's anything you find useful or promising, please forward it to your representatives, be they Democrat, Republican, Independent, Klingon, Cardassian, or what have you. Please do not forward them to Darth Vader, though. He needs no help abusing power. :)
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike, I find it almost impossible to believe that Congress would choose to go back to the traditional filibuster, ever. It's not logical--it's easier for both parties the way it is, and while one or the other may fuss and moan when the filibuster is being used against them and talk about getting rid of it, I don't believe they'd actually revert to the original filibuster.
I like your idea of an 'election fund', but I have little hope at this point of much of anything standing up to the Court. Seems to me anything that limits those new "freedoms" of speech will be contested and end up before SCOTUS...and what happens then?
Cynic at the moment...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Please do not forward them to Darth Vader, though. He needs no help abusing power. :)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME