Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 1/25/10 08:11 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Again you're an idiot because we're talking about something else and not property.

The Corporation is the property of it's shareholders, and so is the money.

The flag is someone's property as well.

Unless you actually believe that if I buy and/or make a flag, that it isn't considered property. Unless you actually believe that when I receive a paycheck from work every two weeks, that the money therein isn't my own money.

Yes and the supreme court ruled in favor of freedom of speech, which this isn't.

You can't support one supreme court decision for one piece of property, then turn around and not support the same ruling on another piece of property just because you don't like it.

The point that we are talking about the exchange of property makes your argument moot because the Supreme Court claimed that this was a freedom of speech issue, which it isn't.

Even if it isn't a form of Free Speech by giving your own money to a political candidate with specific views on Government... it would still be the individual's property; of which, they can do as they wish.

I never claimed anything about any of this. You are assuming things. I said I wasn't going to talk about those issues or give a position and as of yet I haven't. You're still being an idiot.

But you do support flag burning. Why else would you respond with such a tone? Why else would you "refuse to speak about it"?

If you really didn't support flag burning, you wouldn't have called it a "separate issue" and you would've immediately came out against it to rub it in my face.

Point still remains: My money is my property. My flag is my property. And as such, I can do as I wish with either.

---

At 1/25/10 11:13 AM, Memorize wrote:

Yes and the supreme court ruled in favor of freedom of speech, which this isn't.

You can't support one supreme court decision for one piece of property, then turn around and not support the same ruling on another piece of property just because you don't like it.

THE SUPREME COURT MADE ITS RULING BASED ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOT PORTIONS OF THE LAW THAT DEAL WITH PROPERTY.

Even if it isn't a form of Free Speech by giving your own money to a political candidate with specific views on Government... it would still be the individual's property; of which, they can do as they wish.

Fine if you really want to go down this road...

So, if I have a gun, I'm allowed to give you the bullet by pulling the trigger, right? Because its my property and I can do with it whatever I want?

If you really didn't support flag burning, you wouldn't have called it a "separate issue" and you would've immediately came out against it to rub it in my face.

Memorize, why did you RAPE AND MURDER A GIRL IN 1990?~?~?~?~?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

---

At 1/25/10 11:22 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Memorize, why did you RAPE AND MURDER A GIRL IN 1990?~?~?~?~?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

If Memorize really hadn't raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 he would have come out and denied it already. His silence proves his guilt.

---

At 1/25/10 11:13 AM, Memorize wrote:

Point still remains: My money is my property. My flag is my property. And as such, I can do as I wish with either.

That can only go so far. You can't literally do whatever you want with your money. Should I be allowed as an American citizen to use my own money to fund terrorist organizations that are enemies of the state? I mean, it's my money, I earned it, and I'm not directly harming anyone, I'm just giving my money to someone else, right? I can't control how they spend their money or the money I give them.

Another issue should be considered here as well: how will this affect lobbyists in government? If spending money is free speech, why couldn't lobbyists give congressmen shit tons of money and gifts in order to sway public policy? Corporations that donate to candidates are doing something similar. By funding candidates with views that would benefit the corporation, isn't that attempting to sway public policy, if only in a slightly less direct way? Who's to say we can restrict lobbyist spending if we can't restrict corporate spending for political means?

---

At 1/25/10 11:22 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

THE SUPREME COURT MADE ITS RULING BASED ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOT PORTIONS OF THE LAW THAT DEAL WITH PROPERTY.

So would you support their ruling if it's premise was different?

Fine if you really want to go down this road...

So, if I have a gun, I'm allowed to give you the bullet by pulling the trigger, right? Because its my property and I can do with it whatever I want?

What a piss poor analogy.

Heh, you're taking advantage of the fact that I took the idea of "victimless crime" for granted.

Obviously you can't do anything that would directly harm, injure, or take away the rights of another.

But I suppose only you would come up with the idea that freely giving out money and shooting someone are the same thing.

Memorize, why did you RAPE AND MURDER A GIRL IN 1990?~?~?~?~?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Well then, let us all know.

Do you support flag burning as a form of free speech?

At 1/25/10 04:28 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

That can only go so far. You can't literally do whatever you want with your money. Should I be allowed as an American citizen to use my own money to fund terrorist organizations that are enemies of the state?

I assumed that the law of "as long as it harms no one else or takes away their rights" was a given.

Which is why I make frequent the age old saying: Your rights end where the tip of my nose begins.

Another issue should be considered here as well: how will this affect lobbyists in government?

Not the issue.

Freedom of Speech protects rallies and protests by the KKK, and yet it's protected.

If spending money is free speech, why couldn't lobbyists give congressmen shit tons of money and gifts in order to sway public policy? Corporations that donate to candidates are doing something similar.

But isn't that why everyone, from the poor to the middle class and the rich, give individual money contributions to political candidates? To, you know, sway public policy?

---

At 1/24/10 04:33 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: From a political standpoint, what's the difference between a union and a corporation?

One give spend their money as they see fit and the other can't.

Because unions are people and corporations aren't.

---

At 1/25/10 05:27 PM, Memorize wrote:

Another issue should be considered here as well: how will this affect lobbyists in government?

Not the issue.

It is related, however, in that there is legislation involving it and it involves contributing money to political causes/politicians via large organizations.

Freedom of Speech protects rallies and protests by the KKK, and yet it's protected.

If spending money is free speech, why couldn't lobbyists give congressmen shit tons of money and gifts in order to sway public policy? Corporations that donate to candidates are doing something similar.

But isn't that why everyone, from the poor to the middle class and the rich, give individual money contributions to political candidates? To, you know, sway public policy?

Yes, but the capacity of the individual to sway public policy using monetary means is easily dwarfed by that of the corporation. The main means of affecting public policy that the individual possesses is the ability to vote, as it is the responsibility of the elected representatives to reflect the views of those who elected them. One person is given one vote, and therefore, the issue of uneven political impact is addressed and evened out. However, while there is a limit on voting, there is no limit on contributions. Representative democracy works on the basis of votes, not monetary contributions. By allowing corporations to spend as much as they like in order to influence representatives, the process is perverted.

If the corporation is not a political entity, it is a business entity. A business should not be able to use unlimited amounts of money from its collective coffers to push its views into the political realm. If the people who own a corporation all feel that they want to contribute financially to a campaign, then they may do so with their personal assets at any time. That is free speech, as they are acting as individuals. Using the money that belongs to the collective stakeholders of the corporation, however, is using money on a scale that few, if any, individuals can hope to equal. This gives the corporations too much power. It is at this point where ethics come into question.

Allowing corporations to contribute to political campaigns in any amount may be considered exercising free speech, but if the contributions are potentially limitless, doesn't that give them too much? As an individual, I have a right to free speech, but there are also limits. Free speech is not infinite; you know the whole "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" story, free speech has limits. If it is reasonable to limit my free speech in this way, why is it unreasonable to set a maximum amount of money a corporation can contribute using free speech? Isn't the potential for politicians to be more easily bought off by corporations considered a danger?

---

At 1/25/10 05:27 PM, Memorize wrote: So would you support their ruling if it's premise was different?

Since you've finally given me as much acknowledgement as you are going to...

I don't know. It would depend on the case, the circumstances, what was being argued and property laws, which do exist and limit what you can and can't do with your property based on what is good for the people as a whole. There's a reason the clause reads as it does:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A note on due process (a loose definition from Wiki)

"Due process alternatively due process of law or the process that is due, is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state.

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has often proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions. It is also stated that the government shall not be unfair to the people."

It would be up to the interpretation of Court to determine whether courts can place limits on the use of some property. Additionally, it could be considered harmful to individuals, freedom of speech, etc to allow corporations to flood the media and politics with their money in order to sway elections. In fact, it has been for the last 100 years.

Now, the other argument you have is the depriving of property. It has been ruled in the past that money is property and can be obtained, kept or disposed of by any individual. The question here is, is limiting the exchange of property in this manor unconstitutional. My answer: Maybe.

The actual clause says you can't deprive people of property. Making laws which prevent corporations from donating money to campaigns and financing them does not deprive the corporation of money, IF you extend this right of property to cooperations, which most legal definitions do.

On the other hand, you have to consider whether cooperations would be using their money to deprive the people of the state of representation. And I would say in many circumstances this is a legitimate concern that the government should protect against.

Since corporations are not their people, the people would still be free to make donations out of their own pocket, without the huge bank of the corporation behind their back.

What a piss poor analogy.

Heh, you're taking advantage of the fact that I took the idea of "victimless crime" for granted.

Is it victimless? Really? Were the colonies not separated from england for a lack of representation? If corporations are allowed unfettered exchanges of money for favors, which is what this would be, I think it would be very easy to argue the representation of the people was in question. So, at the very least you could argue that this would be against the spirit of the founding fathers (if you ignore all the old white men and limits on voting) [AND] (if you ignore that the colonies actually did have representatives in England at the time they claimed they were being taxed with out representation, albeit it was only 2 representatives and that may have been under representation).

But I suppose only you would come up with the idea that freely giving out money and shooting someone are the same thing.

I never said they were the same thing. But you likened giving money to politicians to a burning of the american flag. Those ideas aren't congruous either.

---

At 1/25/10 06:31 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

It is related, however, in that there is legislation involving it and it involves contributing money to political causes/politicians via large organizations.

My point was in reference to the KKK. The point is that although you may not like it: They're rights are still guaranteed.

Yes, but the capacity of the individual to sway public policy using monetary means is easily dwarfed by that of the corporation.

Then why do we allow the middle class to have the ability to outspend the poor?

One person is given one vote, and therefore, the issue of uneven political impact is addressed and evened out.

But yet, one individual can donate more than another individual.

Under your twisted logic: No one should be able to contribute more than another. Since having 1 vote + more money > 1 vote + less money.

However, while there is a limit on voting, there is no limit on contributions. Representative democracy works on the basis of votes, not monetary contributions.

We're not a democracy.

By allowing corporations to spend as much as they like in order to influence representatives, the process is perverted.

Only if you actually believe this makes any difference. Obviously McCain-Feingold didn't do jack shit to stop the wealthy from donating huge sums of money, even during the 60 day period.

If the corporation is not a political entity, it is a business entity. A business should not be able to use unlimited amounts of money from its collective coffers to push its views into the political realm.

A business is still property. It is owned by by either 1 or various individuals. As a result, the business and all money associated with it, is an individual's property.

If the people who own a corporation all feel that they want to contribute financially to a campaign, then they may do so with their personal assets at any time.

Congrats, you just found out why the entire bill didn't do a damn thing to stop the wealthy from influencing politicians.

That is free speech, as they are acting as individuals.

If I own a business and have money invested in that business, which is my property. Who are you tell me that I can't contribute from my business?

Allowing corporations to contribute to political campaigns in any amount may be considered exercising free speech, but if the contributions are potentially limitless, doesn't that give them too much?

It doesn't matter because rights are still guaranteed for everyone.

That's why I find it so ironic that you don't support spending limits on the middle class since they can obviously far outspend the poor.

How is that fair?

As an individual, I have a right to free speech, but there are also limits. Free speech is not infinite; you know the whole "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" story, free speech has limits.

"Your rights end where the tip of my nose begins."
"As long as what you do does not harm, injure, or attack my rights."

Shouting fire in a crowded theatre obviously violates this. Contributing money does not.

If it is reasonable to limit my free speech in this way, why is it unreasonable to set a maximum amount of money a corporation can contribute using free speech?

Because their spending money doesn't impede on your own ability to spend your own money.

Isn't the potential for politicians to be more easily bought off by corporations considered a danger?

A little fucking late for that.

And why is it that you and Gum have only talked about Corporations?

Where the fuck are Unions? Oh right... that's apparently different.

---

I was trying to find more information, but I'd say this opinion is fairly persuasive as to why coorperations shouldn't be doing what they are:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010 010322/how-end-corporate-domination-gove rnment-and-our-lives

And I agree that there should be a law restricting for-profit corporations from donating money to anything. If the money isn't being used for profit it should be given to the shareholders and/or taxed.

---

At 1/25/10 06:59 PM, Memorize wrote:

Then why do we allow the middle class to have the ability to outspend the poor?

The ability for a middle-class person to outspend a poor person is not an even ratio, yeah, but the ability for corporations to outspend others is far higher.

By allowing corporations to spend as much as they like in order to influence representatives, the process is perverted.

Only if you actually believe this makes any difference. Obviously McCain-Feingold didn't do jack shit to stop the wealthy from donating huge sums of money, even during the 60 day period.

At least it was something. We haven't had a chance to see how corporations will adjust their contributions since this new ruling. The next contributions could easily eclipse the contribution amounts of past elections, and I find that worrisome.

If the corporation is not a political entity, it is a business entity. A business should not be able to use unlimited amounts of money from its collective coffers to push its views into the political realm.

A business is still property. It is owned by by either 1 or various individuals. As a result, the business and all money associated with it, is an individual's property.

A corporation is not a typical business. A corporation is generally owned by the shareholders and generally run by a board of directors. It's not like some small business with one easily identified owner. The people who run the corporation do not own the corporation, they merely manage it in order to serve the shareholders, who are the real owners.

If the people who own a corporation all feel that they want to contribute financially to a campaign, then they may do so with their personal assets at any time.

Congrats, you just found out why the entire bill didn't do a damn thing to stop the wealthy from influencing politicians.

That is free speech, as they are acting as individuals.

If I own a business and have money invested in that business, which is my property. Who are you tell me that I can't contribute from my business?

No single person owns a corporation. A corporation is owned by multiple people. The money in a corporation should go towards running the business, not for pursuing political goals.

Allowing corporations to contribute to political campaigns in any amount may be considered exercising free speech, but if the contributions are potentially limitless, doesn't that give them too much?

It doesn't matter because rights are still guaranteed for everyone.

That's why I find it so ironic that you don't support spending limits on the middle class since they can obviously far outspend the poor.

How is that fair?

To be honest with you, I wouldn't have too much a problem in limiting the maximum amount the middle class can contribute to campaigns.

As an individual, I have a right to free speech, but there are also limits. Free speech is not infinite; you know the whole "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" story, free speech has limits.

"Your rights end where the tip of my nose begins."
"As long as what you do does not harm, injure, or attack my rights."

Shouting fire in a crowded theatre obviously violates this. Contributing money does not.

If it is reasonable to limit my free speech in this way, why is it unreasonable to set a maximum amount of money a corporation can contribute using free speech?

Because their spending money doesn't impede on your own ability to spend your own money.

But it does impede on my ability to influence the people in government that represent me. I don't want some out of state corporation to be able to dump a shit ton of cash into one of my senator's laps and have that outweigh how I, the constituent of that senator, think they should behave. If someone with a lot of money in my state decides to dump that cash in the senator's lap as an individual, then that's fine with me. I just don't like the idea of a corporation being able to use as much money as they like to influence a politician they wouldn't even be eligible to vote for.

Isn't the potential for politicians to be more easily bought off by corporations considered a danger?

A little fucking late for that.

I'd at least like to make it harder for them to be bought.

And why is it that you and Gum have only talked about Corporations?

Where the fuck are Unions? Oh right... that's apparently different.

I don't think Unions should be able to contribute in unlimited amounts either.

---

Obama: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests . . . to spend without limit in our elections.I dont think American elections should be bankrolled by Americas most powerful interests. . . . "

Obama's second largest campaign contributor was.....GOLDMAN SACHS

hahahaha

---

The Supreme Court overturning McCain Feingold was about the part of the law which said that Citizens groups are not permitted to make political statements during a campaign, it made it illegal for them to make political advertisements within 60 days of an election. Citizens groups are considered (By the Tax laws) As a kind of corporation, even though we as people would not think of citizens groups as being corporations like McDonalds or Walmart.

Remember that Corporation has a different meaning on the law books than what we understand it as. The law prohibited all corporations including non-profit corporations.

That Obama and his blatantly corrupt corporatist congress are upset about the overturning of this part, and using the argument that it will allow corporate influence to gain a hold in the government, Should suggest to you that the exact opposite is true.

For those of you Morons who are afraid of corporations influencing your political opinions, it's Too fucking late for you to complain or even fear that sort of thing. Corporations already influence your Opinion, Fox News, MSNBC, the NYT, etc. etc. are all corporations.

And certainly having someone like the CEO of Goldman Sachs openly endorsing Obama is MORE HONEST than donating 1 million dollars to his campaign.

---

So people are OK with the 1st Amendment being violated as long as it's against the "right" people? Sad.

---

At 2/11/10 05:10 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So people are OK with the 1st Amendment being violated as long as it's against the "right" people? Sad.

Of course, such has been the case since the beginning of the idea of free speech. Most people i bet would not lift a finger if the government passed a ban on speech involving racial separatism.