Corporate independent expenditures now legal in Massachusetts

Corporations have been unable to participate in the electoral process? (0.00 / 0)

And you say that with a straight face?  As if you've never tracked the employers on OCPF reports and the level of corporate donors!  Listen Rob, I've even earned praise from even you (as Frank) for my pointed criticism of unions at BMG, so don't given me any jizz on union abuses.   But don't cry me a river for the poor corporations that get deprived of their rights to influence elections.  Just as Goldman Sachs has raped America, you will live to regret this insane decision by the Supreme Court.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:19:31 AM UTC

There shouldn't have been a prohibition to start. (5.00 / 1)

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee freedom of speech, it is a limitation on Government.  Specifically, the Government cannot Censor speech.  "Congress shall make no law..."  

Whatever the source of that speech is, or it's funding is irrelevant.  Whether it's $5,000,000 from Mega Corp, $5,000,000 from Big Labor, or $0.50 by Paul R. Ferro, the government cannot censor, or restrict speech, most importantly Political Speech, which is the "core speech" that the founders where trying to protect when the first amendment was added.

The Bill of Rights is misnamed, because it doesn't re-grant rights already granted by God.  It should be called a Bill of Limits, because it limits the power of the Government over the people.

That is why it was such a revolutionary concept.


Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:52:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where does the Constitution grant "rights" to anything other than people...? (0.00 / 0)

It doesn't.  You can twist your logic all you want about a group of people forming a corporation and therefore the corporation should have "rights".  But that is clearly a judicial activists view of how the constitution should be interpreted (as a "living" document).  

You never struck me as a judicial activist, but you apparently are.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 13:03:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's go over this again Simply Festus Skeffington Pogo (0.00 / 0)

Corporations are a legal grouping of people.  People own corporations.  Therefore the people who own corporations have the same rights as people that don't own corporations.  Corporations aren't some monolithic entity you and I in our 401(k)'s are corporations because we own them.  

It's quite simple really Simply Festus Skeffington Pogo.  It's not that corporations are people, it's that they are made up of people and those people still have rights.


Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 13:15:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And where in the Constitution does it say... (0.00 / 0)

That "legal grouping" has constitutional rights?  If you believe that, then you believe in an activist interpretation of the constitution, like an Earl Warren.  

Also, based on your comment, should the people who own the company--stockholders--be the ones who decides what the company "says".  Therefore, every "speech" made should be voted on by the owners and not proxies (or do you want to stretch the interruption of the constitution even further, you closeted constitutional activist?

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 17:19:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Simple (0.00 / 0)

The stockholders do decide what the company "says."  The stockholders vote in the board of directors.  And if you and the rest of the stockholders don't like what one of the members of the board have to say you vote in someone else.

---

by: HalifaxRepublican @ Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:54:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry I'm reality based and understand... (0.00 / 0)

...that stock holders have very little impact on the direction of a company.

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 13:34:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not if you (0.00 / 0)

Own a lot of the stock

---

by: HalifaxRepublican @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 00:51:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Particularly like union pension plans do (0.00 / 0)

One of the dirty little secrets is that Union Pension plans both public and private are as an aggregate the largest stockholders in America.  Kind of throws the whole labor vs. management thing out the window huh?

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 21:15:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a rarity (0.00 / 0)

Since this is likely the closest I'll come to agreeing with Festus/Simple/etc., I feel the need to add my 2 cents.

My interpretation of the constitution is that no organization (company, union, issue group, etc.) should be able to contribute in any way to a campaign. It's the individuals that should have the voice and not the organization. 1/2 of Union members routinely vote Republican; however, the vast majority of Union dues go in support of Democrat candidates.  

Where I diverge with Festus is that I also believe the Constitution doesn't allow for a limit on donations from individuals. I guess I'm of the Alan Keyes persuasion on this one.

Obviously, the Courts disagree with me on both accounts. It's not the first time and it certainly won't be the last.    

On twitter @bfrivers

---

by: brivers @ Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 16:01:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Judicial activists write new laws (5.00 / 1)

There is no judicial activism here.  There is no new law being written.  There is no new program being created.

The power of judicial review gives the supreme court the power to strike down laws that directly violate the Constitution.  That is what has been done here.

Bob Hedlund for Minority Leader.

---

by: Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie @ Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 17:35:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who said anything about "rights" granted by the Constitution? (0.00 / 0)

Rights are given by God.  The Constitution is a set of Limitations on Government.

Perhaps you missed it the first time I said it, so I'll repeat here"

The Bill of Rights is misnamed, because it doesn't re-grant rights already granted by God.  It should be called a Bill of Limits, because it limits the power of the Government over the people.

That is why it was such a revolutionary concept.

Whatever the source of political speech, the Government cannot censor it, whether it comes from corporations or individuals.

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 20:27:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah... (0.00 / 0)

...Now I guess they are a little more on par with the unions.

But at least corporations wont make thousands of phone calls to their employees and tell them if they don't hold signs for a candidate or make a donation, or staff a phone bank they will lose their jobs.

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:25:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huffing and Puffing (0.00 / 0)

This is just a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The fact is that corporations have continued to influence the process, they've just done it under the guise of "bundling" and a lot of hocus-pocus in order to comply with the stupid law.

At least now they'll be doing so under their own names, so people will know who's who and what's what.

Don't try to tell me that George Soros doesn't fund all of his political activity from his corporate interests. The tragedy of it is that so few people in this country know what they are or how his activity affects them.

527's - independent. Hah.

---

by: smallfish @ Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:36:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]