Yeah for Corporate Personhood!

**a completely inoffensive name** · 02-09-2010, 02:19

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Oh look, e can talk the talk but, in the end, they take the money too:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/democr...ory?id=9777742

As I said before, either ban all of it or none of it. Banning corporate money 60 days from the election is retarded. Pls don't tell Sarah I said that!

It's all good, because we can vote with our dollar and send a message to Exxon telling them to stop bribing our politicans.

**Subotan** · 02-09-2010, 10:13

It's buying votes, the American way

**drone** · 03-13-2010, 05:38

Murray Hill runs for the Maryland 8th District seat as a Republican. Murray Hill Inc. that is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...topnews&sub=AR

Originally Posted by WaPo

Murray Hill might be the perfect candidate for this political moment: young, bold, media-savvy, a Washington outsider eager to reshape the way things are done in the nation's capital. And if these are cynical times, well, then, it's safe to say Murray Hill is by far the most cynical.

That's because this little upstart is, in fact, a start-up. Murray Hill is actually Murray Hill Inc., a small, five-year-old Silver Spring public relations company that is seeking office to prove a point (and perhaps get a little attention).

After the Supreme Court declared that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to funding political campaigns, the self-described progressive firm took what it considers the next logical step: declaring for office.

"Until now, corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington," the candidate, who was unavailable for an interview, said in a statement. "But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves."

William Klein, a "hired gun" who has been enlisted as Murray Hill's campaign manager, said the firm appears to be the first "corporate person" to run for office and is promising a spirited campaign that "puts people second, or even third."

They might have trouble with the constitutional age requirement, since the company is a fairly new startup, they probably should have bought up an older dormant corporation. I'm not usually a fan of Maryland politics, but this is made of pure win.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 03-13-2010, 06:12

Good. Its about time, we need to reverse this bigotry against corporations that have been holding them back from success to get out of poverty for the past 100 years and get them equal representation in the government as human beings.

**Xiahou** · 03-13-2010, 06:55

After the Supreme Court declared that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to funding political campaigns,

No. the Supreme Court did no such thing. Fail.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 03-13-2010, 08:40

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No. the Supreme Court did no such thing. Fail.

Please enlighten me on your right wing spin of the ruling.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 03-13-2010, 09:40

The SCOTUS noted that the first amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The important bits for this case:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress did make a law abridging the freedom of speech - specifically banning certain speech near an election. Therefore it got struck down.

But I guess 'progressives' don't like free speech, seeing the stunts like this they pull to mislead people.

CR

**HoreTore** · 03-13-2010, 10:10

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

But I guess 'progressives' don't like free speech, seeing the stunts like this they pull to mislead people.

Don't you take that attitude, CR, last time I checked my leftist attitude towards freedom of speech was a lot more fanatical than yours...

**Subotan** · 03-13-2010, 10:47

Money != Speech

**a completely inoffensive name** · 03-13-2010, 18:47

Again, CR and the right on here doesn't recognize the legal precedent of restricting rights given in the constitution for the safety and well being for the public. He seems to think he is still allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater when there isnt one and have no responsibility for the 82 year old trampled to death because it was his right to free speech.

**Xiahou** · 03-13-2010, 22:21

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Please enlighten me on your right wing spin of the ruling.

Gee, let's see. The ruling did nothing about the prohibition on corporate donations to political campaigns. So, therefore, corporations do not have the same rights as individuals when it comes to funding campaigns. I, as an individual, can directly fund a politician's campaign. A corporation cannot. The Post's story is factually false- it's really that simple.

I think it's kinda sad that a reputable paper can't even get the basic facts straight before it runs with a story like that....

**Crazed Rabbit** · 03-14-2010, 00:30

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Again, CR and the right on here doesn't recognize the legal precedent of restricting rights given in the constitution for the safety and well being for the public. He seems to think he is still allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater when there isnt one and have no responsibility for the 82 year old trampled to death because it was his right to free speech.

A precedent without basis in the constitution.

Laws against shouting fire in crowded theaters are there because of the threat of physical harm arising from such an action. Tell me, what physical harm would Hillary Clinton: The Movie, have done to anyone?

Don't you take that attitude, CR, last time I checked my leftist attitude towards freedom of speech was a lot more fanatical than yours...

Was it now? Fanatical you may be, but more fanatical than me? I think not.

Also, I was speaking about American 'progressives', like the people mentioned in the story.

Money != Speech

You wouldn't complain if news corporations were forbidden from endorsing candidates then?

CR

**a completely inoffensive name** · 03-14-2010, 01:37

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

A precedent without basis in the constitution.

Laws against shouting fire in crowded theaters are there because of the threat of physical harm arising from such an action. Tell me, what physical harm would Hillary Clinton: The Movie, have done to anyone?

You fail at recognizing reality. The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution says and the Constitution was left purposely vague for a reason. The creators behind the Constitution did not think the document would be around for a long time and did not see it as a static document with a set of definitive instructions.

Laws against shouting fire in crowded theaters are allowed because the purpose of the free speech clause of the first amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court was not to provide a legal loophole for people to incite violence and danger with their language, but to protect the ability of the public to criticism and complain. As such, the free speech clause of the first amendment was not created with the idea that a company should be able to spend as much money as they want on the candidate that will suit them best. Just as shouting fire in a crowded theater poses a threat to the public, so does rampant unchecked money contributions from powerful companies. Therefor, the ability of private contributions toward candidates should be eliminated completely from both companies and actual American citizens (following the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment) and a set amount of public funding should be handed out to all candidates with no more to be spent.

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

You wouldn't complain if news corporations were forbidden from endorsing candidates then?CR

I wouldn't complain. The purpose of a news corporation is to provide news. I don't see how Fox News telling me to vote for Palin counts as news. If individuals on the news channels being interviewed talk about who they support, then that is their right.

**HoreTore** · 03-14-2010, 10:41

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Was it now? Fanatical you may be, but more fanatical than me? I think not.

If I rememver correctly, you support banning incitements to hatred, calls for violence and stuff like that, which I believe is fully within the bounds of free speech and not something we should punish people for...

Sorry if I got that mixed up with someone else though.