http://news.yahoo.com/retired-justice-s ... 37797.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;He (Stevens) said the fact that corporations had no right to vote should give Congress the power to exclude them from direct participation in the electoral process.
Should exclusion from participation in the electoral process then by extension this also be extended to foreign nationals, illegal aliens, convicted criminals and others who are not able to vote?kalm wrote:Nothing all that new here. The retired Supreme Court Justice talks about the influence of outside money on local elections which of course is very problematic and limits the freedom of individual voters.
But the last line of the article is a very clear and concise way to look at corporate personhood and their rights. Should corporations also now have the right to vote?
http://news.yahoo.com/retired-justice-s ... 37797.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;He (Stevens) said the fact that corporations had no right to vote should give Congress the power to exclude them from direct participation in the electoral process.
Ivytalk wrote:
I'd rather talk about imposing intellectual and employment/property qualifications for voting.
We have a winner! Ivytalk wrote:Three certainties in this world: death, taxes, and another "corporate personhood" bitchfest from kalm.
I'd rather talk about imposing intellectual and employment/property qualifications for voting.
That's just the trouble, LB: they ain't!LeadBolt wrote:Ivytalk wrote:Three certainties in this world: death, taxes, and another "corporate personhood" bitchfest from kalm.
I'd rather talk about imposing intellectual and employment/property qualifications for voting.
How novel, oh wait a minute, that's where we started out, back when all men were created equally....
Corporations are neither good nor evil, they are inanimate.GannonFan wrote:Considering his advanced age and deteriorating mental state, does Stevens even remember that "corporations" are not evil, skynet-like computers or some other non-human thing but instead actually a collection of individuals (i.e. people) who have grouped together for a purpose? I understand that he has most certainly forgotten more law than I'll ever know, but he is certainly reaching in his attempt here to single out corporations as things different than all the other groups of people that influence elections.
Oh, so Corporations are Republicans. Got ya.kalm wrote:Corporations are neither good nor evil, they are inanimate.GannonFan wrote:Considering his advanced age and deteriorating mental state, does Stevens even remember that "corporations" are not evil, skynet-like computers or some other non-human thing but instead actually a collection of individuals (i.e. people) who have grouped together for a purpose? I understand that he has most certainly forgotten more law than I'll ever know, but he is certainly reaching in his attempt here to single out corporations as things different than all the other groups of people that influence elections.
They are indeed groups of people, but that is not the same as a person.
Corporations may be large or small. They may be democratic or autocratic. They can have a huge impact on elections and therefore democracy and freedom outside their jurisdiction.
As Stevens pointed out, they currently don't have the right to vote...yet. But since they tend to be intelligent, hard working, and often times possess property, I'm sure Ivy is working on that one.
Ibanez wrote:Oh, so Corporations are Republicans. Got ya.kalm wrote:
Corporations are neither good nor evil, they are inanimate.
They are indeed groups of people, but that is not the same as a person.
Corporations may be large or small. They may be democratic or autocratic. They can have a huge impact on elections and therefore democracy and freedom outside their jurisdiction.
As Stevens pointed out, they currently don't have the right to vote...yet. But since they tend to be intelligent, hard working, and often times possess property, I'm sure Ivy is working on that one.
kalm wrote:Ibanez wrote:
Oh, so Corporations are Republicans. Got ya.
Go back to suckling off the gov'mint teat...whore!Ibanez wrote:kalm wrote:
I'm reelin them in, like Cappy done taught me.
Which Gov't? You don't know which Gov't I work for.kalm wrote:Go back to suckling off the gov'mint teat...whore!Ibanez wrote:
I'm reelin them in, like Cappy done taught me.
You could be talking about Unions (although some would argue the intelligent and hard working part for unions) so are you saying that Unions should not be able to impact elections?kalm wrote:Corporations are neither good nor evil, they are inanimate.GannonFan wrote:Considering his advanced age and deteriorating mental state, does Stevens even remember that "corporations" are not evil, skynet-like computers or some other non-human thing but instead actually a collection of individuals (i.e. people) who have grouped together for a purpose? I understand that he has most certainly forgotten more law than I'll ever know, but he is certainly reaching in his attempt here to single out corporations as things different than all the other groups of people that influence elections.
They are indeed groups of people, but that is not the same as a person.
Corporations may be large or small. They may be democratic or autocratic. They can have a huge impact on elections and therefore democracy and freedom outside their jurisdiction.
As Stevens pointed out, they currently don't have the right to vote...yet. But since they tend to be intelligent, hard working, and often times possess property, I'm sure Ivy is working on that one.
So where do we draw the line for what groups of people can "have impact" on elections? Unions are an easy example, they've been involved in elections forever. Why is that allowed and corporations aren't? How about any lobbying group? The NRA, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, self proclaimed Tea Party people, Greenpeace, the League of Women Voters, AARP, AMA, any professional societies, colleges, the Chamber of Commerce, and so on. Heck, when you think of it, what are political parties other than groups of people gathered together under one umbrella for the explicit purpose of impacting the political process. Should we do away with those groups too? In your hyperfocused pursuit to deny certain groups (i.e. groups you don't agree with) the ability to collectively impact elections in favor of the "individual", you and Stevens seem to be missing the fact that it is individuals who initially come together in the first place to create these groups.kalm wrote:Corporations are neither good nor evil, they are inanimate.GannonFan wrote:Considering his advanced age and deteriorating mental state, does Stevens even remember that "corporations" are not evil, skynet-like computers or some other non-human thing but instead actually a collection of individuals (i.e. people) who have grouped together for a purpose? I understand that he has most certainly forgotten more law than I'll ever know, but he is certainly reaching in his attempt here to single out corporations as things different than all the other groups of people that influence elections.
They are indeed groups of people, but that is not the same as a person.
Corporations may be large or small. They may be democratic or autocratic. They can have a huge impact on elections and therefore democracy and freedom outside their jurisdiction.
As Stevens pointed out, they currently don't have the right to vote...yet. But since they tend to be intelligent, hard working, and often times possess property, I'm sure Ivy is working on that one.
Yeah, because the braintrust of Kagan/Sotomayor is really tearin' it up.dbackjon wrote:A great justice - more brains in him that in all of the three stooges of Scalia/Thomas/Alito
Fair points, GF.GannonFan wrote:So where do we draw the line for what groups of people can "have impact" on elections? Unions are an easy example, they've been involved in elections forever. Why is that allowed and corporations aren't? How about any lobbying group? The NRA, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, self proclaimed Tea Party people, Greenpeace, the League of Women Voters, AARP, AMA, any professional societies, colleges, the Chamber of Commerce, and so on. Heck, when you think of it, what are political parties other than groups of people gathered together under one umbrella for the explicit purpose of impacting the political process. Should we do away with those groups too? In your hyperfocused pursuit to deny certain groups (i.e. groups you don't agree with) the ability to collectively impact elections in favor of the "individual", you and Stevens seem to be missing the fact that it is individuals who initially come together in the first place to create these groups.kalm wrote:
Corporations are neither good nor evil, they are inanimate.
They are indeed groups of people, but that is not the same as a person.
Corporations may be large or small. They may be democratic or autocratic. They can have a huge impact on elections and therefore democracy and freedom outside their jurisdiction.
As Stevens pointed out, they currently don't have the right to vote...yet. But since they tend to be intelligent, hard working, and often times possess property, I'm sure Ivy is working on that one.
Again, while you claim to be against groups having "huge impact", your sole focus on "corporations" as the only group to ban undermines your premise since you conveniently forget all the other groups that have just as much if not more of an impact on the political process.
And that's why trying to contort the legal sphere to exclude some groups and not others is just doomed for failure and a bad way to look at it. Treat them all the same and go from there, and I think if you do that, then you have to acknowledge that any group, be it a corporation or an elementary schools PTA, should be allowed to influence an election by expressing themselves.kalm wrote:Fair points, GF.GannonFan wrote:
So where do we draw the line for what groups of people can "have impact" on elections? Unions are an easy example, they've been involved in elections forever. Why is that allowed and corporations aren't? How about any lobbying group? The NRA, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, self proclaimed Tea Party people, Greenpeace, the League of Women Voters, AARP, AMA, any professional societies, colleges, the Chamber of Commerce, and so on. Heck, when you think of it, what are political parties other than groups of people gathered together under one umbrella for the explicit purpose of impacting the political process. Should we do away with those groups too? In your hyperfocused pursuit to deny certain groups (i.e. groups you don't agree with) the ability to collectively impact elections in favor of the "individual", you and Stevens seem to be missing the fact that it is individuals who initially come together in the first place to create these groups.
Again, while you claim to be against groups having "huge impact", your sole focus on "corporations" as the only group to ban undermines your premise since you conveniently forget all the other groups that have just as much if not more of an impact on the political process.
And as I've mentioned before, you would have to limit other groups like unions as well. I have no problem with that.
I still think it goes back to campaign financing. Elections should be about ideas but when 90% of them are won by the biggest fundraiser and you look at the $'s spent on lobbying, they become more about the money. It's subversive to democracy.
But I do get the free speech concerns as well. If I want to personally pay for a "Vote for Ivytalk" campaign sign to put up in my yard, why should I be limited as to how much I can spend on it or how large it is? Then again there are a few restrictions on speech too.
I just don't like groups of people. A regular Howard Roarke am I.
Very naive GF.GannonFan wrote:And that's why trying to contort the legal sphere to exclude some groups and not others is just doomed for failure and a bad way to look at it. Treat them all the same and go from there, and I think if you do that, then you have to acknowledge that any group, be it a corporation or an elementary schools PTA, should be allowed to influence an election by expressing themselves.kalm wrote:
Fair points, GF.
And as I've mentioned before, you would have to limit other groups like unions as well. I have no problem with that.
I still think it goes back to campaign financing. Elections should be about ideas but when 90% of them are won by the biggest fundraiser and you look at the $'s spent on lobbying, they become more about the money. It's subversive to democracy.
But I do get the free speech concerns as well. If I want to personally pay for a "Vote for Ivytalk" campaign sign to put up in my yard, why should I be limited as to how much I can spend on it or how large it is? Then again there are a few restrictions on speech too.
I just don't like groups of people. A regular Howard Roarke am I.
As for the money side of it, it's easy to fall back on the "the guy with the most money almost always wins" card. Of course, the guy who appeals the most to voters coincidentally appeals the most to the same voters who have money. People with bad ideas that most people have a distaste for can't convince people to vote for him and also can't convince people to fund him. Heck, Newt only had that guy from Vegas funding him and look where he ended up. It's a chicken and egg argument, but in the end, it's not the money that makes someone attractive to vote for, it's the ideas and message and personality they have that makes people vote for him/her and makes people want to give them money.
Huh? That's supposed to be an argument against the Supreme Court decision? Really, that's what you come up with?kalm wrote:Very naive GF.GannonFan wrote:
And that's why trying to contort the legal sphere to exclude some groups and not others is just doomed for failure and a bad way to look at it. Treat them all the same and go from there, and I think if you do that, then you have to acknowledge that any group, be it a corporation or an elementary schools PTA, should be allowed to influence an election by expressing themselves.
As for the money side of it, it's easy to fall back on the "the guy with the most money almost always wins" card. Of course, the guy who appeals the most to voters coincidentally appeals the most to the same voters who have money. People with bad ideas that most people have a distaste for can't convince people to vote for him and also can't convince people to fund him. Heck, Newt only had that guy from Vegas funding him and look where he ended up. It's a chicken and egg argument, but in the end, it's not the money that makes someone attractive to vote for, it's the ideas and message and personality they have that makes people vote for him/her and makes people want to give them money.
I'll give you an example of how it works.
The state of Washington controlled liquor through a combination of state owned stores and some privately owned stores. Then Costco, who wanted to get it's Kirkland Brand of booze into the state funded a referendum to the tune of $20 million to allow liquor sales in grocery stores and big box retailers.
They sold it under the "your booze prices will go down through greater competition" concept. The referendum passed, with the legislature writing in an agreement with the wholesalers to pay enough tax on the booze sales to offset the state's revenue loss from closing all of the state owned stores.
All the people who voted "no' were happy because they were told during the campaign that the prices would go down. But of course the opposite happened as wholesalers have to pass the cost on to the retailers who in turn pass it on to the consumers and now the prices are going up.
Except for Costco and other big players, who get to warehouse it's own products, bypassing the wholesalers.
Ahhhh... ain't "democracy" grand?
Very, very nteresting that you're now lumping me in with the true conservatives who lack faith in the hoi poloi.GannonFan wrote:Huh? That's supposed to be an argument against the Supreme Court decision? Really, that's what you come up with?kalm wrote:
Very naive GF.
I'll give you an example of how it works.
The state of Washington controlled liquor through a combination of state owned stores and some privately owned stores. Then Costco, who wanted to get it's Kirkland Brand of booze into the state funded a referendum to the tune of $20 million to allow liquor sales in grocery stores and big box retailers.
They sold it under the "your booze prices will go down through greater competition" concept. The referendum passed, with the legislature writing in an agreement with the wholesalers to pay enough tax on the booze sales to offset the state's revenue loss from closing all of the state owned stores.
All the people who voted "no' were happy because they were told during the campaign that the prices would go down. But of course the opposite happened as wholesalers have to pass the cost on to the retailers who in turn pass it on to the consumers and now the prices are going up.
Except for Costco and other big players, who get to warehouse it's own products, bypassing the wholesalers.
Ahhhh... ain't "democracy" grand?
The example is perfectly fine - people had the opportunity to make an evaluation of a political policy (i.e. state owned liquor stores) and they made a decision. Frankly, living in a state with state owned liquor and beer stores myself, I'd vote for their elimination regardless of how much money Costco or any other large warehouser put into a lobbying effort to make it so. Whether a result is successful for the voters themselves or not is really immaterial - the fact that they get to make the decision is.
While I certainly question the intelligence of the typical American voter, it's really disheartening to see how absolute your confidence is in their lack of it. Do you really advocate an oligarchy of people like yourself that you seem to be implying in your treatise against democracy? For shame.
I knew you'd come around!kalm wrote:Very, very nteresting that you're now lumping me in with the true conservatives who lack faith in the hoi poloi.GannonFan wrote:
Huh? That's supposed to be an argument against the Supreme Court decision? Really, that's what you come up with?
The example is perfectly fine - people had the opportunity to make an evaluation of a political policy (i.e. state owned liquor stores) and they made a decision. Frankly, living in a state with state owned liquor and beer stores myself, I'd vote for their elimination regardless of how much money Costco or any other large warehouser put into a lobbying
effort to make it so. Whether a result is successful for the voters themselves or not is really immaterial - the fact that they get to make the decision is.
While I certainly question the intelligence of the typical American voter, it's really disheartening to see how absolute your confidence is in their lack of it. Do you really advocate an oligarchy of people like yourself that you seem to be implying in your treatise against democracy? For shame.
Ivy, looks like I'm back with you and Burke again.
kalm wrote:Very naive GF.GannonFan wrote:
And that's why trying to contort the legal sphere to exclude some groups and not others is just doomed for failure and a bad way to look at it. Treat them all the same and go from there, and I think if you do that, then you have to acknowledge that any group, be it a corporation or an elementary schools PTA, should be allowed to influence an election by expressing themselves.
As for the money side of it, it's easy to fall back on the "the guy with the most money almost always wins" card. Of course, the guy who appeals the most to voters coincidentally appeals the most to the same voters who have money. People with bad ideas that most people have a distaste for can't convince people to vote for him and also can't convince people to fund him. Heck, Newt only had that guy from Vegas funding him and look where he ended up. It's a chicken and egg argument, but in the end, it's not the money that makes someone attractive to vote for, it's the ideas and message and personality they have that makes people vote for him/her and makes people want to give them money.
I'll give you an example of how it works.
The state of Washington controlled liquor through a combination of state owned stores and some privately owned stores. Then Costco, who wanted to get it's Kirkland Brand of booze into the state funded a referendum to the tune of $20 million to allow liquor sales in grocery stores and big box retailers.
They sold it under the "your booze prices will go down through greater competition" concept. The referendum passed, with the legislature writing in an agreement with the wholesalers to pay enough tax on the booze sales to offset the state's revenue loss from closing all of the state owned stores.
All the people who voted "no' were happy because they were told during the campaign that the prices would go down. But of course the opposite happened as wholesalers have to pass the cost on to the retailers who in turn pass it on to the consumers and now the prices are going up.
Except for Costco and other big players, who get to warehouse it's own products, bypassing the wholesalers.
Ahhhh... ain't "democracy" grand?