Today there is a growing trend in corporate America. More and more private corporations are choosing not to employ smokers and are requiring employees to take tobacco tests to verify that there are non-smokers. Those found to be smokers are being fired even if they only smoke on personal time at home.
Now, I have mixed feelings on the subject but it’s a fact that corporations are becoming increasingly intrusive as it suits their bottom line. That bothers me.
Let’s say that one day in the future a conglomerate of corporations called Omnicorp produce the technology to micro-chip every American citizen. These corporations will receive billions of dollars from the government to issue their new bio-tag IDs. Now there’s an election coming up with one politician who favors the initiative and one who doesn’t. Corporations that will benefit from the issuing of this new security technology are going to pour untold amounts of money behind his running for election. You will hear the dissenting voice on public radio and sound bite news blurbs. But for the most part the television and airwaves are going to be FILLED with patriotic music, scenes of mom baking hot apple pie in the kitchen, and a message illustrating how these microchips are as American as it comes. And in this age of increased national security challenges it’s our duty to be micro-chipped. There will be adds about lost and abducted children, ailing elderly parents. All demonstrating how this new micro-chip technology will make life “safer”. There will be a plethora of these ads since they have all the corporate money behind them. The adds will increasingly give the impression that this is the opinion of every American… the adds are on every station, at all times, and after all… have you heard the “other guy’s” adds? No, he’s just a marginalized voice of the fringe who doesn’t favor this initiative because of their paranoia or political irrationality. So vote for our pro-chip candidate.
The way I see it a corporation isn’t a human being. It’s money and resources do not belong on the political landscape. The CEO of a corporation can donate private funds out of his own account if he favors a candidate, just like me. He can write an article to the editor, just like me. He can go to the ballot box and vote his convictions, just like me. Why give him such a great advantage if using corporate money to get his message out and silence anyone else’s?
I do see a freedom of speech issue here. In a society where money talks… the one with the most money (corporations) will have the floor relatively unchallenged.
I just don’t want American to become the greatest nation money can buy.
Only one issue with this ... lobbyists. Substitute lobbyist for corporations in your quote and it's the same thing that's been done for years. Lobbyists are retained by companies or corporations to influence Congress on bills. This wasn't changed with the ruling.
As for as the last sentence, as we've seen with BHO's healthcare bill - money or earmarks talk already. No need for companies to get involved when you have a President and his chief of staff authorizing bribes in order to shove their legislation thru Congress.
Only one issue with this ... lobbyists. Substitute lobbyist for corporations in your quote and it's the same thing that's been done for years. Lobbyists are retained by companies or corporations to influence Congress on bills. This wasn't changed with the ruling.
Hey, do you think that with this ruling lobbyists are going to be middle men and perhaps corporations will just go straight to the politicians? That might be interesting.
Quote:
As for as the last sentence, as we've seen with BHO's healthcare bill - money or earmarks talk already. No need for companies to get involved when you have a President and his chief of staff authorizing bribes in order to shove their legislation thru Congress.
I know. The entire system is corrupt. Praise God we're part of the Kingdom. Our King is Righteous and one day the governments of this world will crumble to ash in the hot wake of our returning Lord and Savior, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Jesus Christ.
My point is that the people who are upset, at least 75% of all Americans polled, from a broad political spectrum, see the latest SCOTUS ruling as damaging for our democratic process.
Why are we upset?
Are we all just deceived?
The article is not about foreigners pouring money into our elections.
The article is about America's disdain that private companies have unfettered access to our election process.
Is the disdain not warranted?
How is this article not telling the truth?
How are Americans not supposed to be upset about this?
I will tell you why I am upset.
I am upset because the American people have been fed a pack of lies about this ruling.
Barak Obama has lied his perverbial butt off. This ruling is a victory for the Constitution.
It is a victory for freedom of speech.
The American people dont hear that message. They just hear the president telling lies about how this opens the doors for foreign money to enter our political process. AND IT IS A LIE.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I am upset because the American people have been fed a pack of lies about this ruling.
Barak Obama has lied his perverbial butt off. This ruling is a victory for the Constitution.
It is a victory for freedom of speech.
The American people dont hear that message. They just hear the president telling lies about how this opens the doors for foreign money to enter our political process. AND IT IS A LIE.
Corporations aren't people Ferd. A CEO of a corporation could vote and even contribute as much as I can under the old law. Now the CEO's have all the money and power of the corporate entity behind them. Our founders would have never let this happen. They contended with the tyranny of British corporations.
I don't think it's the worst thing that's ever happened, but I'm leary. If you do a search on this forum for the word "corporatocracy" you'll see how I continually predict that America will one day be ruled by private corporate entities and our democratic process will be an absolute farce... until they find away to completely remove the democratic process. I and I believe that they will.
Our enemies are on the right and on the left. We can't let either side gain too much power. We are the people and that's our duty.
Corporations aren't people Ferd. A CEO of a corporation could vote and even contribute as much as I can under the old law. Now the CEO's have all the money and power of the corporate entity behind them. Our founders would have never let this happen. They contended with the tyranny of British corporations.
I don't think it's the worst thing that's ever happened, but I'm leary. If you do a search on this forum for the word "corporatocracy" you'll see how I continually predict that America will one day be ruled by private corporate entities and our democratic process will be an absolute farce... until they find away to completely remove the democratic process. I and I believe that they will.
To note - the ruling was about First Amendment rights and whether it applies to corporations. The majority upheld that it does. They've left it open (something that hasn't been mentioned) to future action to close loopholes on foreign donations in regards to US companies owned by foreign entities.
Again, it was about the First Amendment rights.
I like the way Justice Thomas responded about the ruling:
Quote:
The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.
He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”
Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.
“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”
“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.
Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”
Where does the Constitution grant a first amendment right to a corporation? I know that we as individuals have the righ to free speech. But should a "corporation" be allowed to use it's profits to silence political opposition and/or to drown out opposing voices such as yours and mine?
Where does the Constitution grant a first amendment right to a corporation? I know that we as individuals have the righ to free speech. But should a "corporation" be allowed to use it's profits to silence political opposition and/or to drown out opposing voices such as yours and mine?
Who makes up a corporation? Individuals.
All this complaining about the ruling reversal really is insincere because of Lobbyists. Corporations already spend huge amounts of money influencing both Congress and the bills presented. They own both the Congress and White House. Both parties in Congress are given incredible amounts of money by these people.
BHO can't be upset over the ruling, but allow Lobbyists in the WH ... which is exactly what he did just a few days after bashing them in his SOTU speech. Here he bashed Lobbyists, then just a couple days later invited them to the WH to discuss bills.
I'm not bothered by the ruling. I do believe it needs to be reviewed and loopholes need to be tightened.
But the truth needs to be told, and right now it's not happening.
Who makes up a corporation? Individuals.
All this complaining about the ruling reversal really is insincere because of Lobbyists. Corporations already spend huge amounts of money influencing both Congress and the bills presented. They own both the Congress and White House. Both parties in Congress are given incredible amounts of money by these people.
BHO can't be upset over the ruling, but allow Lobbyists in the WH ... which is exactly what he did just a few days after bashing them in his SOTU speech. Here he bashed Lobbyists, then just a couple days later invited them to the WH to discuss bills.
I'm not bothered by the ruling. I do believe it needs to be reviewed and loopholes need to be tightened.
But the truth needs to be told, and right now it's not happening.
So, is it right for a corporation to unlimitedly contribute money to politics even if those politics don't represent the will of the individuals it's comprised of?
What if major corporations throw all this money behind gay marriage or abortion rights? I'm just leary.
So, is it right for a corporation to unlimitedly contribute money to politics even if those politics don't represent the will of the individuals it's comprised of?
What if major corporations throw all this money behind gay marriage or abortion rights? I'm just leary.
Good questions. It's like with Unions, some workers are forced to be in Unions they don't want to be in; and pay dues which are used to support politicians and bills they don't agree with or support individually.
Linear Mode
