SCOTUS Allows Texas Voter I.D. Law

[AZGrizFan]

Our new motto is: "No voting unless you're part of the 53% who pay taxes".

What if you don't earn enough to pay income taxes?

Then you should have no representation without taxation.

[Ibanez]

What if you don't earn enough to pay income taxes?

Then you should have no representation without taxation.

Touche.

[Skjellyfetti]

Complete and utter bullshit. Just because you don't own property doesn't mean you aren't entitled to a voice. Also, for all the love that Republicans have for the founding fathers, they seem to forget a rallying cry of our Revolution, "No Taxation without Representation."

Our new motto is: "No voting unless you're part of the 53% who pay taxes".

And corporations that don't pay taxes can't donate to political campaigns.

[SDHornet]

Our new motto is: "No voting unless you're part of the 53% who pay taxes".

And corporations that don't pay taxes can't donate to political campaigns.

Why not?

[AZGrizFan]

Our new motto is: "No voting unless you're part of the 53% who pay taxes".

And corporations that don't pay taxes can't donate to political campaigns.

I wish corporations couldn't donate to political campaigns at all.

[Bronco]

and unions

[Skjellyfetti]

I wish corporations couldn't donate to political campaigns at all.

[Ibanez]

And corporations that don't pay taxes can't donate to political campaigns.

I wish corporations couldn't donate to political campaigns at all.

Same here. If only we can get Citizens United overturned.

[JohnStOnge]

Right. You guys want government to be able to regulate corporations, tax them (and yes they do tax them...this nonsense about corporations not paying taxes over time is just that...nonsense), and do all sorts of thing to them but you don't want them to be able to donate money to political campaigns in order to support politicians they perceive as favorable to their interests.

Corporations are composed of people.

If you're worried about reforming political speech you ought to be focusing on looking for ways to hold people accountable for false and/or misleading campaign ads. If you get some control over that there's no reason to be concerned about who can give money in order to finance campaign ads.

[kalm]

Right. You guys want government to be able to regulate corporations, tax them (and yes they do tax them...this nonsense about corporations not paying taxes over time is just that...nonsense), and do all sorts of thing to them but you don't want them to be able to donate money to political campaigns in order to support politicians they perceive as favorable to their interests.

Corporations are composed of people.

If you're worried about reforming political speech you ought to be focusing on looking for ways to hold people accountable for false and/or misleading campaign ads. If you get some control over that there's no reason to be concerned about who can give money in order to finance campaign ads.

1). Corporations used to pay a much higher share of taxes.

2). Please show me where in the constitution rights are guaranteed for groups of people.

[Ivytalk]

Right. You guys want government to be able to regulate corporations, tax them (and yes they do tax them...this nonsense about corporations not paying taxes over time is just that...nonsense), and do all sorts of thing to them but you don't want them to be able to donate money to political campaigns in order to support politicians they perceive as favorable to their interests.

Corporations are composed of people.

If you're worried about reforming political speech you ought to be focusing on looking for ways to hold people accountable for false and/or misleading campaign ads. If you get some control over that there's no reason to be concerned about who can give money in order to finance campaign ads.

1). Corporations used to pay a much higher share of taxes.

2). Please show me where in the constitution rights are guaranteed by the SCOTUS for groups of people.

FIFY. The question answers itself.

[kalm]

1). Corporations used to pay a much higher share of taxes.

2). Please show me where in the constitution rights are guaranteed by the SCOTUS for groups of people.

FIFY. The question answers itself.

The framers didn't foresee a bunch of activist hacks in robes.

[Baldy]

Right. You guys want government to be able to regulate corporations, tax them (and yes they do tax them...this nonsense about corporations not paying taxes over time is just that...nonsense), and do all sorts of thing to them but you don't want them to be able to donate money to political campaigns in order to support politicians they perceive as favorable to their interests.

Corporations are composed of people.

If you're worried about reforming political speech you ought to be focusing on looking for ways to hold people accountable for false and/or misleading campaign ads. If you get some control over that there's no reason to be concerned about who can give money in order to finance campaign ads.

2). Please show me where in the constitution rights are guaranteed for groups of people.

Are you blind?
It's right next to the one where the constitution grants rights for abortions.

[travelinman67]

FIFY. The question answers itself.

The framers didn't foresee a bunch of activist hacks in robes.

So the CA Prop 8 and Obamacare decisions were activism?