Fully 79% of voters support passage of a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people, including 42% who would definitely support it. Just 21% are opposed. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment.
Findings from a national survey of registered voters
conducted by Hart Research Associates. PDF:
I think there is just too much money that goes into campaign fundraising. The huge numbers involved lead to moral corruption if not worse. I'm not a liberal who rails against the big bad evil corporations, we need corporations to drive our economy ahead, but we need to take the big money out of fundraising. The idea of citizen legislators is long lost, buried under the need to raise millions for each cycle.
Whats your take? Do you support passage of a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, or not, and why?
Thanks in advance.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
I believe it is impossible to keep corporate money out of politics, and I would rather see it happening in the sunshine instead of hidden where people can't see it.
MSimon wrote:
If a corp is not a person what rules apply?
MSimon, I think the difference currently is a corporation has personhood, but is not a citizen. IIRC this came down from, do corporations have free speech? The Answer is yes they do, and they can spend however much money they want to exercise that free speech.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
MSimon wrote:And then you have the problem of redoing case law with your redefinition.
The purpose of making a corporation = person is that the corp. should have the liabilities of a person - i.e. can commit murder, theft, etc.
If a corp is not a person what rules apply?
A corporation is an assembly of interested people. As the constitution grants freedom of association, it is silly to regard common acts of an association as illegal that would be legal for any individual member.
The Supreme court decided this ruling correctly, and John McCain (and Russ Feingold) were stupid jack asses for even attempting to infringe upon this right.
Actually, the point of it is that any court can make any decision at any time. A decision is not the core, it is the argument to support the decision that actually matters.
There is no rule that a court must follow previous decisions in similar cases. That is the beauty of it. Happens all the time. It does not take centuries.
ladajo wrote:Actually, the point of it is that any court can make any decision at any time. A decision is not the core, it is the argument to support the decision that actually matters.
There is no rule that a court must follow previous decisions in similar cases. That is the beauty of it. Happens all the time. It does not take centuries.
Individual cases do not take centuries. A body of settled law does.
I'm not against it. I would need a very good reason. So far I'm not convinced that the gains would exceed the losses.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
As I understand the case, the law considered allowed unions to make political contributions while prohibiting corporations. The court found the distinction between unions and corporations to be faulty and overturned the restriction on corporations, allowing them to do what unions could do.
Fully 79% of voters support passage of a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people, including 42% who would definitely support it. Just 21% are opposed. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment.
Findings from a national survey of registered voters
conducted by Hart Research Associates. PDF:
I think there is just too much money that goes into campaign fundraising. The huge numbers involved lead to moral corruption if not worse. I'm not a liberal who rails against the big bad evil corporations, we need corporations to drive our economy ahead, but we need to take the big money out of fundraising. The idea of citizen legislators is long lost, buried under the need to raise millions for each cycle.
Whats your take? Do you support passage of a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, or not, and why?
Thanks in advance.
This is why we have a Constitution, to protect individuals (natural or artificial) from the bigotry and biases of majoritarian tyranny. A majority of the population opposes gay marriage, funny how liberals only mention popular support when its their own agenda. 78% also believe the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, but I dont see liberals ending their support for gun control laws, or screaming "legislating from the bench" on 2nd amendment cases like Heller vs DC or MacDonald vs Chicago, when their own anti-gun bigotry is shot down as the unconstitutional garbage that it is.
hanelyp wrote:As I understand the case, the law considered allowed unions to make political contributions while prohibiting corporations. The court found the distinction between unions and corporations to be faulty and overturned the restriction on corporations, allowing them to do what unions could do.
A point I have always made when discussing this subject. I perceived long ago that the Unions would simply ignore McCain/Feingold, and they would never even get prosecuted. On the other hand, every legal force would be brought to bear against corporations who violated it.
I said at the time that McCain was just naive and stupid on this issue. His law only crippled one side (his) and not the other.
MSimon wrote:And then you have the problem of redoing case law with your redefinition.
The purpose of making a corporation = person is that the corp. should have the liabilities of a person - i.e. can commit murder, theft, etc.
If a corp is not a person what rules apply?
A corporation is an assembly of interested people. As the constitution grants freedom of association, it is silly to regard common acts of an association as illegal that would be legal for any individual member.
The Supreme court decided this ruling correctly, and John McCain (and Russ Feingold) were stupid jack asses for even attempting to infringe upon this right.
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Folks don't get it... a corporation is a *nothing*. It is an imaginary entity. It is nothing but a collection of "people", pooling their resources together to accomplish a common goal.
It would be wholly IN character for politicians to try to take away people's right to assemble and petition government in whatever way they deem appropriate. I say IN character because they have been completely ignoring the Constitution for centuries now, why would they stop at this one when it could get them re-elected?
Ugh, it pisses me off that it's almost a cliche now to say that "yeah they ignore the Constitution" like it's no big deal. 200 years ago they would have gathered up torches and pitchforks and marched on the capitol for such things.
