Jim Finklestein Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/mcconnell-absurd-to-ban-corporations-from-having-same-rights-as-people/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 This guy is an embarrassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Finklestein Posted June 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 I mean seriously. If Palin said it we would all be "Man that bitch is craaazy." This asshole is the fucking Minority Leader in the Senate. No wonder our shit's fcked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Or in this case Senator McConnell..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/mcconnell-absurd-to-ban-corporations-from-having-same-rights-as-people/ Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Friday said that he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban corporations from having the same rights as people because the idea was “absurd.” Speaking to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, McConnell accused President Barack Obama’s administration of using a “culture of intimidation” to stifle free speech. Following the remarks, the Washington Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay asked McConnell for his thoughts on a constitutional amendment proposed by Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) to clarify that corporations are not “people” and restore Congress’ ability to limit corporate influence in elections. “Well you have to give them some points for not hiding it,” McConnell quipped. “They are uncomfortable with corporate free speech obviously.” “They were not uncomfortable with corporate free speech when corporations that owned newspapers or television stations were engaging in it. They only become uncomfortable with it when the Supreme Court said, why should there be a carve out for corporations that own the media outlet and for no one else?” The Kentucky Republican concluded: “Its an absurd proposal and it won’t go anywhere.” He is probably right in saying that the proposal "won't go anywhere." It must pass the "U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives by two-thirds majority before being ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures..." Do I agree with campaign finance reform ? Yes. Do I agree with someone saying that corporations are not people ? No. My main question is why bring this up right now (why is this idea timing in at this point in time ? Is it because someone's money pot is drying up and someone is trying to level the field ?. This has been a problem for a long time and well before Obama took office. Why now and why the sole Democratic push when in the past Republicans have barked about this subject ? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act for further info. However, here is a snippet from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._FEC regarding the BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act): Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg, and Breyer, dissented on one section of the part of the Court's opinion written by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice, joined by Justice Kennedy and Scalia, issued a 15-page dissent against the Court's opinion with respect to Titles I and V of the BCRA. Three other justices wrote separate opinions on the decision: Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief Justice, issued a 68-page dissenting opinion and appendix, noting that BCRA forces "speakers to abandon their own preference for speaking through parties and organizations." Justice Thomas issued a separate 25-page dissenting opinion noting that the Court was upholding the "most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War." Justice Scalia issued a separate 19-page dissenting opinion, a "few words of [his] own," because of the "extraordinary importance" of the cases. http://www.tomudall.senate.gov/?id=968&p=press_release U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennet today introduced a constitutional amendment to grant Congress the authority to regulate the campaign finance system. Among other important reforms, the amendment would allow Congress to correct the controversial Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance that has the effect of allowing virtually unlimited corporate and special interest spending in elections. In 2010, the Supreme Court concluded in a highly contentious 5-4 ruling that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans, enabling them to spend freely from their corporate treasuries on campaign advertising. "By limiting the influence of big money in politics, elections can be more about the voters and their voices, not big money donors and their deep pockets," said Harkin. "We need to have a campaign finance structure that limits the influence of the special interests and restores confidence in our democracy. This amendment goes to the heart of that effort." "By equating campaign spending with free speech, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled that the wealthiest among us should have the loudest voices in our elections," said Schumer. "The American public is fed up with the outsize influence that money has on our politics. This constitutional amendment will restore the balance to our system that the American people expect in a democracy. It is time to return our elections to the hands of everyday citizens rather than the special interests." http://www.scribd.com/doc/71154073/A-Constitutional-Amendment-to-Reform-Campaign-Finance SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections. SECTION 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections. SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation. http://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2970 To alter the U.S. Constitution, an amendment must pass both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives by two-thirds majority before being ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allan-brawley/corporations-are-not-peop_1_b_1934278.html The president is not without sin, of course, in the matter of fund-raising from corporate interests, but it is significant that this source has been drying up as he adopted a more populist message -- the need to address the interests of all the people. Note: If the Justices had unkind words towards the BCRA, can you only imagine what they will have to say about this new proposal ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 You really think Corporations should be classified as "people" according to the US government and afforded those same rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Or in this case Senator McConnell..... Keep the Elizabeth Warren stuff coming, Jamie. She probably doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming President, but I'd be willing to make a serious personal investment in helping her get there if she ever tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Keep the Elizabeth Warren stuff coming, Jamie. She probably doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming President, but I'd be willing to make a serious personal investment in helping her get there if she ever tried. Same here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Same here... Me too.. If for no other reason that I now she isn't in the pocket of the corporatists.. I could pretty much deal with most philosophical differences just to have some honest governance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Me too.. If for no other reason that I now she isn't in the pocket of the corporatists.. I could pretty much deal with most philosophical differences just to have some honest governance. I'd want her to run with Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada's AG. Their campaign slogan could be "Two Vaginas, All Balls" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Keep the Elizabeth Warren stuff coming, Jamie. She probably doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming President, but I'd be willing to make a serious personal investment in helping her get there if she ever tried. Due to the nature of my job and the hatch act I can't involve myself in political campaigns. If she ever ran for president I'd find another job so I could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Finklestein Posted June 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Due to the nature of my job and the hatch act I can't involve myself in political campaigns. If she ever ran for president I'd find another job so I could. Yeah cause unlike corporations, govt employees aren't people. :ninja: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Due to the nature of my job and the hatch act I can't involve myself in political campaigns. If she ever ran for president I'd find another job so I could. Sounds like a lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 29, 2013 Report Share Posted June 29, 2013 Yeah cause unlike corporations, govt employees aren't people. :ninja: :lol: Sounds like a lie Nope, I believe in her honesty that much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 You really think Corporations should be classified as "people" according to the US government and afforded those same rights? I believe that corporations should have the right to free speech and also how they spend their money. IF we decide to restrict corporations what is next ? How many organizations will be restricted in their current right to free speech ? What about Government owned corporations ? Will it only matter when it affects the individual person ? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/15/16-Million-of-Warren-Donations-Came-Through-Websites-Lacking-Foreign-Donor-Protections The $13 million Warren has reported as "unitemized donations" in her FEC filings up until August 17 constitute an unprecedented 42% of her total contributions. It dwarves the "unitemized donation" percentage of most other Senate campaigns in the 2012 election cycle. In other words, who needs corporations any longer if a politician has found a way to side step the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 I believe that corporations should have the right to free speech and also how they spend their money. IF we decide to restrict corporations what is next ? How many organizations will be restricted in their current right to free speech ? What about Government owned corporations ? Will it only matter when it affects the individual person ? Er.. How does a corporation speak, exactly? Secondly, we already DO restrict corporations, heavily, in many different ways. But that aside, to answer your question as to "what is next"; hopefully a country where money does not determine who has a voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 Er.. How does a corporation speak, exactly? Secondly, we already DO restrict corporations, heavily, in many different ways. But that aside, to answer your question as to "what is next"; hopefully a country where money does not determine who has a voice. The many different ways you are referring to doesn't currently require a constitutional amendment. What is next will only be a concern when it happens to the individual. Money will always determine who has a voice. Its a cold hard fact and changing an amendment will not change this fact (see how much a politician can receive in unitemized deductions). Campaigns cost money and the money is going to come from somewhere. Not too many ways around it. Even the infamous Elizabeth Warren received it in spades from unitemized donations to the tune of 13 million. (42 PERCENT of her total filing). The question remains, why change the amendment if its not going to work and why now ? I'm sure you are well meaning in your efforts but in no way would I ever support taking this amendment and modifying it when it is not the answer to the problem. EVEN the justices mentioned above support this idea. Someone more versed in this matter than anybody on here. In other words, it is not wholly based in fantasy land. Perhaps there is an answer without restricting the right to spend as we see fit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 The many different ways you are referring to doesn't currently require a constitutional amendment. What is next will only be a concern when it happens to the individual. Money will always determine who has a voice. See, I don't accept that, and I'm not sure why anyone else would either. There's no reason why campaign financing can't be changed dramatically, and every reason why it should be. In a broader sense, your argument seems to suggest that since there may be ways to get around a law, we shouldn't have any laws at all. I would prefer gradual & imperfect progress to simply throwing up our hands in resignation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 Corporations are people too....you evil uncaring bastards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 Corporations are people too....you evil uncaring bastards... I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted June 30, 2013 Report Share Posted June 30, 2013 if a corporation could be black, they would find a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.