dajo9;842300757 said:

---

Are you dense or something? You keep talking about the content of speech as if that is the issue and then turn around here and talk about everybody getting to exercise free speech equally.

There is nothing equal about free speech when a billionaire gets to spend unlimited funds in comparison to a regular stiff. The liberal side is about preventing an overwhelming quantity of speech from one side (either side of the political spectrum) to inundate the electoral process. It's about preserving the marketplace of ideas by making sure their is room for all voices to be heard. Stop talking about content of speech. The whole dispute is about quantity. Literally every argument you've made is a strawman.

---

I believe in equality of opportunity, you apparently believe in equality of outcome (or "quantity"). Every citizen has equal opportunity to exercise free speech, be it through money expenditures or other means. The internet has only made it easier for people of limited means to have their voices heard.

The Constitution - as it is written and was intended (read the Federalist papers) - does not place limits on the exercise of free speech or guaranty equal "quantity". If you want to prevent "an overwhelming quantity of speech" from one side by force of law, then why don't we restore the fairness doctrine, regulate editorial pages (I would certainly like to "balance" the NY Times editorial page), and require "equality" in all media, including music, film, and radio. We don't do that because its inconsistent with the First Amendment and, until recently, liberal values. We don't do that because, as a practical matter, the government should never be the arbiter of what is "equal" or "correct". Unfortunately, you don't see the danger in asking the government to ensure "equal quantity". That is very dangerous thinking - how will you feel about Republican's exercising such powers and discretion? Think about it.

And for the record, there are billionaires on both sides (Soros, Tom Steyer, Katzenberg on the left, Adelson and others on the right, and the Koch's somewhere in the libertarian middle). The so called "little people" have unions, Moveon.org, trade associations, the internet, and direct giving campaigns like President Obama's (which was very successful). The bottom line is that money is only one factor and if your are going to limit money, then you are tipping the scales and opening the door for limits in other areas.

BearGoggles;842300918 said:

---

And for the record, there are billionaires on both sides (Soros, Tom Steyer, Katzenberg on the left, Adelson and others on the right, and the Koch's somewhere in the libertarian middle).

---

Kochs are in the middle? That's interesting.

BearGoggles;842300918 said:

---

The so called "little people" have unions, Moveon.org, trade associations, the internet, and direct giving campaigns like President Obama's (which was very successful). The bottom line is that money is only one factor and if your are going to limit money, then you are tipping the scales and opening the door for limits in other areas.

---

Yes, the labor unions and the power they wield are truly fearsome to behold. With them balancing the scales, there's no need for liberals to unleash their WMD Moveon.org.

Say Hello to McCutcheon

dajo9;842300754 said:

---

Actually I disagree with you that the 1st Amendment needs to be re-written. I agree with the others. But since conservatives insist on pushing the asinine view that money is speech I figure an amendment would put the nail in that coffin.



You have a double standard here in favor of corporations. The CEO is in charge. If a corporation has the intent than the head of the corporation gets an orange suit. It's only fair. With great rights comes great responsibility.



One person one vote without a few wealthy people being able to overwhelm the discourse through money so all people can be heard. Yes, even so that thousands of $20 contributions can be heard. I'm a capitalist too, btw. A low-level 1% even. But democracy comes first. It's good for business too.

---

You are speaking in terms of what you wish the law was and what you think is "fair".

I am speaking in terms of what the law is and has been for many years (requiring criminal intent and viewing the expenditure of money in support of candidates as a free speech issue). These are not legal principles decided by a cabal of conservatives - they are long held doctrine that, in many if not most cases, were developed by liberal justices. Its fine for you to disagree, but don't mischaracterize the situation by claiming that the recent decision is at odds with established (liberal) precedent.

HaasBear04;842300919 said:

---

Kochs are in the middle? That's interesting.



Yes, the labor unions and the power they wield are truly fearsome to behold. With them balancing the scales, there's no need for liberals to unleash their WMD Moveon.org.

---

I'm not an expert on the Kochs, but generally they have supported "small government" libertarian causes. They founded the CATO institute that is the leading libertarian think tank. Libertarian views probably align more closely with the right when it comes to fiscal matters (small government, less regulation, market oriented) and more with the left on social issues (less government regulation of personal matters). That is why I place them in the middle though no doubt in the current climate, they clearly oppose the big government polices of the president, Pelosi and Reid. Perhaps you should read this:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286.html

Mock it if you like, but the power of labor unions is substantial and not really subject to dispute. Look no further than the public employee pension crisis, the bailouts of GM and Chrysler, and the exemptions from Obamacare as recent examples. Not sure what your point is about moveon - there are lots of other liberal action groups I could have mentioned. Do you deny that such grass roots organizations exist and have influence to varying degrees?

Citizen's United and now this.

The mega-rich needed absolutely NO help from the Supreme Court, yet they're handed even MORE political influence! Truly amazing. All under the protective guise of "First Amendment" protection of free speech.

How ironic that this occurs right when Michael Lewis shines a light on YET MORE WALL STREET ABUSE in his new book "Flash Boys." Big money has corrupted our political and economic systems. Just a few years after the economic meltdown, we find Wall Street fixing the system even more in favor of those with money. How can we tolerate this? We shouldn't. But when the top court in the land decides the wealthy need FEWER restrictions on access to power, elections and the political process, get ready for more of the same!

Level playing field? Hardly.

Strict regulation? What a joke!

The SEC couldn't bring down an obvious and MASSIVE ponzi scheme that was Bernie Madoff, even after being handed all the evidence they needed by quantitative analyst Harry Markopolos not once, but EIGHT TIMES! So you think they're going to uncover behind-the-scenes, pretty well hidden, unfair trading practices? Not a chance. Especially when it benefits the few with money and screws those "not in the know."

But the right goes on and on about "burdensome, excessive" government regulation - and win elections on this platform!

What does this mean to me and you, who aren't "big players on Wall St.?" It means money from your retirement accounts has been stolen and handed to the big players on Wall St. Did you hear the recent statistic NPR announced last week? Half of all private retirement accounts have less than $10k. What does it say when citizens of this "wealthy" country can't even afford to retire? Sure, blame it on "poor life decisions" or whatever you need to so you can vilify the average Americans who do not happen to be YOU!

And even if you HAVE saved more responsibly, you're likely being ripped off as well. How? Mutual fund "administrative" fees. A seemingly paltry 2% fee on a mutual fund erases SIXTY PERCENT of a fund's earnings over its lifetime. YOU and I front the financial institutions the capital, take all the risk, lose it when the markets tank, yet THEY take the majority of the growth? Wow, what a system! Frontline's "Retirement Gamble" is a great watch for all Americans.

Anyone who attended Cal owes themselves and society by reading the works of David Cay Johnston ("Perfectly Legal," "Free Lunch," and "The Fine Print"), Ellen Schultz ("Retirement Heist"), Robert Reich, Jacob Hacker, and seeing what Frontline and Bill Moyers have to say on the status of American society and economy.

I mean if this were a Furd board, I'd expect to hear all the right-wing, knee-jerk condemnations of unions, regulations and liberal politics and leanings. But from Cal alumni? Graduates of a PUBLIC school? Shocking!

So, when will Americans finally "Pick up the brick?" (David Simon, Bill Moyers 1/31/14)

/end rant

Go Bears!

BearGoggles;842300930 said:

---

I'm not an expert on the Kochs, but generally they have supported "small government" libertarian causes. They founded the CATO institute that is the leading libertarian think tank. Libertarian views probably align more closely with the right when it comes to fiscal matters (small government, less regulation, market oriented) and more with the left on social issues (less government regulation of personal matters). That is why I place them in the middle though no doubt in the current climate, they clearly oppose the big government polices of the president, Pelosi and Reid.

---

Maybe they hold some socially-liberal views, but when it comes to where they put their money it is almost exclusively to right-wing causes. In my book that makes them right-wing, at least in terms of their impact on American politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

BearGoggles;842300930 said:

---

Look no further than the public employee pension crisis, the bailouts of GM and Chrysler, and the exemptions from Obamacare as recent examples.

---

How do the last two things serve as examples of labor union power?

"1940's era taxation fixes ALL our budget woes."

All the so-called crises at the local, county and state level can be quickly remedied through tax reform - instituting taxation levels that built this country's public infrastructure. We also happened to have strong unions, healthy middle class wages and affordable housing and public education back then. One middle-class salary raised a family, bought a house and sent the kids to college. Not so any more. Union membership nationwide is at historic lows, yet the "evil unions" are to blame for budget shortfalls!

The "public pension crisis" is a result of a lack of tax revenue, not excess at the public pension level. Ellen Schultz makes clear that the private "pension crisis" was wholly and completely manufactured by corporate executives wanting to raid over-funded pension plans. Private enterprise sold worker pensions down the river to meet quarterly revenue goals at companies like AT&T, Lucent, etc. Ironically, while raiding worker pensions, executives installed their own bonus pension plans, giving them premium plans while blaming worker pensions for "bleeding the company dry." The hypocrisy is truly astounding. And don't forget, they took money from vulnerable retirees at a feeble time of their lives while suffering health problems and couldn't possibly put up much of a fight. Repugnant behavior.

Public education as a whole - and our beloved UC - is failing due to lack of adequate taxation. If anyone wants to contradict Paul Krugman and Robert Reich is free to do so. Just please cite your sources.

TandemBear;842300962 said:

---

Public education as a whole - and our beloved UC - is failing due to lack of adequate taxation. If anyone wants to contradict Paul Krugman and Robert Reich is free to do so. Just please cite your sources.

---

Though I am generally sympathetic to this argument, don't expect Paul Krugman's name to help convince any of the more conservative-leaning folks here.

TandemBear;842300940 said:

---

Citizen's United and now this.

The mega-rich needed absolutely NO help

And even if you HAVE saved more responsibly, you're likely being ripped off as well. How? Mutual fund "administrative" fees. A seemingly paltry 2% fee on a mutual fund erases SIXTY PERCENT of a fund's earnings over its lifetime. YOU and I front the financial institutions the capital, take all the risk, lose it when the markets tank, yet THEY take the majority of the growth? Wow, what a system! Frontline's "Retirement Gamble" is a great watch for all Americans.

Anyone who attended Cal owes themselves and society by reading the works of David Cay Johnston ("Perfectly Legal," "Free Lunch," and "The Fine Print"), Ellen Schultz ("Retirement Heist"), Robert Reich, Jacob Hacker, and seeing what Frontline and Bill Moyers have to say on the status of American society and economy.

I mean if this were a Furd board, I'd expect to hear all the right-wing, knee-jerk condemnations of unions, regulations and liberal politics and leanings. But from Cal alumni? Graduates of a PUBLIC school? Shocking!

So, when will Americans finally "Pick up the brick?" (David Simon, Bill Moyers 1/31/14

Go Bears!

---

Well Billly-Ray, the good news is that no matter whether our clients make money or lose money, Duke and Duke gets their commission.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0SO8xZsSz9TKBkAjVBx.9w4?p=trading+places+duke+and+duke&fr=onesearch&fr2=piv-web&psqn=2

(Hey, at least Charles Keating is dead)

BearGoggles;842300930 said:

---

I'm not an expert on the Kochs, but generally they have supported "small government" libertarian causes. They founded the CATO institute that is the leading libertarian think tank. Libertarian views probably align more closely with the right when it comes to fiscal matters (small government, less regulation, market oriented) and more with the left on social issues (less government regulation of personal matters). That is why I place them in the middle though no doubt in the current climate, they clearly oppose the big government polices of the president, Pelosi and Reid. Perhaps you should read this:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286.html

Mock it if you like, but the power of labor unions is substantial and not really subject to dispute. Look no further than the public employee pension crisis, the bailouts of GM and Chrysler, and the exemptions from Obamacare as recent examples. Not sure what your point is about moveon - there are lots of other liberal action groups I could have mentioned. Do you deny that such grass roots organizations exist and have influence to varying degrees?

---

I do believe that he believes that, but the gap between his rhetoric and reality is dramatic. I would think the dussonance would cause his head to explode. Pictures are worth 1000s of words:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0SO80PXTT9T1VEA
1u9x.9w4;_ylu=X3oDMTB1MnN0NmFtBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlk
A1BSRFVTMDFfMQ--?_adv_prop=image&fr=onesearch&va=koch+tar+sands

BearGoggles;842300918 said:

---

I believe in equality of opportunity, you apparently believe in equality of outcome (or "quantity"). Every citizen has equal opportunity to exercise free speech, be it through money expenditures or other means. The internet has only made it easier for people of limited means to have their voices heard.

The Constitution - as it is written and was intended (read the Federalist papers) - does not place limits on the exercise of free speech or guaranty equal "quantity". If you want to prevent "an overwhelming quantity of speech" from one side by force of law, then why don't we restore the fairness doctrine, regulate editorial pages (I would certainly like to "balance" the NY Times editorial page), and require "equality" in all media, including music, film, and radio. We don't do that because its inconsistent with the First Amendment and, until recently, liberal values. We don't do that because, as a practical matter, the government should never be the arbiter of what is "equal" or "correct". Unfortunately, you don't see the danger in asking the government to ensure "equal quantity". That is very dangerous thinking - how will you feel about Republican's exercising such powers and discretion? Think about it.

And for the record, there are billionaires on both sides (Soros, Tom Steyer, Katzenberg on the left, Adelson and others on the right, and the Koch's somewhere in the libertarian middle). The so called "little people" have unions, Moveon.org, trade associations, the internet, and direct giving campaigns like President Obama's (which was very successful). The bottom line is that money is only one factor and if your are going to limit money, then you are tipping the scales and opening the door for limits in other areas.

---

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not for equality of outcome. Campaign finance reform hardly establishes equality of outcome. I am for limits at the upper end for money's ability to corrupt our political process just as was established by the Buckley decision in 1976. Again, you and your strawman arguments.

BearGoggles;842300924 said:

---

You are speaking in terms of what you wish the law was and what you think is "fair".

I am speaking in terms of what the law is and has been for many years (requiring criminal intent and viewing the expenditure of money in support of candidates as a free speech issue). These are not legal principles decided by a cabal of conservatives - they are long held doctrine that, in many if not most cases, were developed by liberal justices. Its fine for you to disagree, but don't mischaracterize the situation by claiming that the recent decision is at odds with established (liberal) precedent.

---

You misrepresent what the liberal justices established again by confusing content with quantity. Because liberal justices many years ago said the KKK has the right to speak doesn't have anything to do with the recent decisions.

The recent rulings have overturned laws that have been in affect for a long, long time. It is incorrect for you to say they are reaffirming laws that have been on the books for a long time. In fact, the Buckley decision explicitly said it was ok to put caps on campaign contributions.

Strawman and an inaccurate representation of history is what I keep hearing from the conservative side on this issue. What else is new?

wifeisafurd;842300432 said:

---

Well SCOTUS thinks its wrong. Starting with I believe the Buckley case, that says a candidate's right to spend money is a first amendment right, SCOTUS has continued to expand the the first amendment to strike down laws restricting donations for candidates. This case is hardly a surprise. And the court has gone further. For example, SCOTUS even prohibited the CPUC from permitting consumer groups to include their "materials" in San Diego Gas & Electric bills in a unanimous opinion (written by relatively liberal court in a decision by Thurgood Marshall) because it violated the corporation's first amendment rights. The problem is that you only thing first amendment rights should apply to people that think like you. Moreover, there seems to be shocking development that corporations are protected by the Constitution, even thought this has long been the case. You can really tell who has never taken a constitutional law class here.

The Constitution is a "anti-majority" document from the standpoint it protects minority rights from the laws passed by the majority. Sometimes those minorities are the wealthy and corporations. Sometimes its other people that the majority may not like but you may, such as immigrants, blacks, gays, women who want abortions, etc. You will just have to get used to the idea the Constitution protects in essence everyone at some time or another, and thus can lead to unpopular SCOTUS decisions.

---

The Buckley case explicitly said it was ok to put caps on campaign contributions. Did you not know that or did you choose not to mention it, counsel?

.. (and once more puh-lease) Don't move this thread to the OffTopic cybers bbs.

Humbly submitted by the now and forever showrunner for OT's eternal top thread "vid cam@north pole":
http://bearinsider.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16

BearGoggles;842300918 said:

---

I believe in equality of opportunity, you apparently believe in equality of outcome (or "quantity").

If the outcome is tyranny, and it is, then I am against it.

And for the record, there are billionaires on both sides (Soros, Tom Steyer, Katzenberg on the left, Adelson and others on the right, and the Koch's somewhere in the libertarian middle). The so called "little people" have unions, Moveon.org, trade associations, the internet, and direct giving campaigns like President Obama's (which was very successful).

I think you believe that those for campaign spending limits are all Democrats. No, they are people opposed to excessive influence.

---

-----------------------------------

that pretty much says it ALL .. remember most of its workers are on government aid ie food stamps due to the wages being so little ie below a living wage


great job capitalism w/ no HEART

Go!Bears;842300903 said:

---

I use the term in its second meaning

jurisprudence (ˌdʒʊərɪsˈpruːdəns) n
1. (Law) the science or philosophy of law
2. (Law) a system or body of law

I am referring to the body of law surrounding the court's treatment of corporations. That treatment was a choice. Given that important aspects of that choice (Santa Clara) were made more than a century ago, you cannot argue (as has been done here in this thread) that those choices were made by a liberal US Supreme Court.

My argument is that sometimes the Court is wrong. This is a political, not legal issue and should be left to the political branches of our government, which have decided it. This activist court has, by the smallest possible margin, inserted itself where it does not belong. In doing so, they have stripped the public of its ability to defend our political system from corruption by the wealthy. They have hastened the development of oligarchy. We can only hope they have also hastened a political backlash.

I blame Buh.:p

---

Other than the comment about Buh, I have no idea where your coming from. The Buckley case and several other cases dealing with contributions and the first amendment were opinions drafted by Justices Brennan and Marshall, hardly conservative firebrands, and concurred in by the Warren and Burger courts, when they were controlled by admitted liberal judges. Since this really is a SCOTUS driven doctrine such as the right to privacy, SCOTUS can change its mind, and change the law. The same is not true for corporate personage.

The decisions on corporations date back to 18 century England, and US courts at various levels have been recognizing corps as "persons" since the early days of the country. Its just not the concept of SCOTUS changing its mind, but every state court changing its mind, changing treaties since other countries expects its corporations to have personage status when operating in the US and we expect our corporations to have the same rights when they go abroad, and on and on. How you can state that the treatment of corporations is a "political issue" is just mind blowing to anyone who has practiced law.

sycasey;842300942 said:

---

Maybe they hold some socially-liberal views, but when it comes to where they put their money it is almost exclusively to right-wing causes. In my book that makes them right-wing, at least in terms of their impact on American politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers



How do the last two things serve as examples of labor union power?

---

The bailouts of GM and Chrysler were structured in a way - contrary to typical bankruptcy resolutions - that benefited unions to the prejudice of creditors. In effect, the Obama administrations took creditors who would have had priority claims over the unions and put their claims behind. Regardless of whether you feel that is good or bad, is was an obvious example of union power and influence.

Per the Affordable Care Act, unions and other employers - including my small business with 4 employees - were supposed to pay a surcharge on health insurance plans as well as a tax on so called "Cadillac" plans. The unions lobbied for and were granted a variety of exemptions from these provisions - again demonstrating their influece and power.

TandemBear;842300962 said:

---

"1940's era taxation fixes ALL our budget woes."

All the so-called crises at the local, county and state level can be quickly remedied through tax reform - instituting taxation levels that built this country's public infrastructure. We also happened to have strong unions, healthy middle class wages and affordable housing and public education back then. One middle-class salary raised a family, bought a house and sent the kids to college. Not so any more. Union membership nationwide is at historic lows, yet the "evil unions" are to blame for budget shortfalls!

The "public pension crisis" is a result of a lack of tax revenue, not excess at the public pension level. Ellen Schultz makes clear that the private "pension crisis" was wholly and completely manufactured by corporate executives wanting to raid over-funded pension plans. Private enterprise sold worker pensions down the river to meet quarterly revenue goals at companies like AT&T, Lucent, etc. Ironically, while raiding worker pensions, executives installed their own bonus pension plans, giving them premium plans while blaming worker pensions for "bleeding the company dry." The hypocrisy is truly astounding. And don't forget, they took money from vulnerable retirees at a feeble time of their lives while suffering health problems and couldn't possibly put up much of a fight. Repugnant behavior.

Public education as a whole - and our beloved UC - is failing due to lack of adequate taxation. If anyone wants to contradict Paul Krugman and Robert Reich is free to do so. Just please cite your sources.

---

This is shear silliness. "Our expenses aren't too high, we just don't happen to have enough money." Seriously?

The massive growth of public employee benefits in California is well documented and beyond dispute. California's tax rates are higher than ever and revenues have grown much faster than the rate of inflation over the past years. One reason there is less money for UC is that public employee salary and benefits - particularly retirement benefits - have taken a larger and larger percentage of the overall budget.

The federal tax rates in the 1940s were as high as 80-90%. However, nobody actually paid those rates given the various loopholes, exemptions, tax shelters etc. Krugman and his ilk are comparing apples and oranges. More importantly, do you really think tax rates that high are good for the economy? Not many people do. People adjust their behavior when tax rates are that high and there is less investment and productivity. Simply put, people are not going to accept investment risk when 90% if the upside goes to the government.

dajo9;842301018 said:

---

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not for equality of outcome. Campaign finance reform hardly establishes equality of outcome. I am for limits at the upper end for money's ability to corrupt our political process just as was established by the Buckley decision in 1976. Again, you and your strawman arguments.

---

Whether you choose to admit it or not, you are advocating for equality of outcome. Your exact words, lest you raise the fallacious strawman argument once again:

"The liberal side is about preventing an overwhelming quantity of speech from one side . . . . The whole dispute is about quantity"

You want all people to have the same "quantity" (or perhaps "access or influence) regardless of their wealth. All people have the right to buy tv/medial time in the exercise of free speech ("equality of opportunity"), but not all people can afford to do so (there is not an equal outcome - the actual result varies by wealth).

You want to enact laws that limit the rights of people to financially support their chosen candidates/issues so that the wealthy have no more "quantity" than the non-wealthy. That is advocating for an equal outcome regardless of means.

And this takes me back to my original point that liberals like free speech as long as you agree with it. Those who oppose "greedy and rich corporations/republicans" want to limit the "quantity" of their speech. Not once have you suggested that limits should be placed on unions or other special interest groups that accumulate massive funds for political purposes. Perhaps you feel that way, but it is not evident in this thread.

BearGoggles;842301093 said:

---

"The liberal side is about preventing an overwhelming quantity of speech from one side . . . . The whole dispute is about quantity"

---

Yes, let's use my quote. Where in that quote does it say anything about equal outcomes? Where does it say "same"?

And when I say limits for "all" parties, which I said above, how does that mean I want to exclude unions to you?

You are so invested in your dogmas about what the liberal side believes that you refuse to actually comprehend new data even when you type it down with your hand.

wifeisafurd;842301073 said:

---

How you can state that the treatment of corporations is a "political issue" is just mind blowing to anyone who has practiced law.

---

Of course it is. The idea that the people, collectively, thorough their democratic institutions, should be above nine unelected lawyers, is mind-blowing. I'll give you that. Also pretty common, world-wide.

I do not come at it from a legal perspective. That is clear. The law (including the Constitution - just another law) is what we make. It can be changed. My beef is that currently it is being changed by 5 yahoos who are out of control. If you know Supreme Court history, as it appears you do, you know that this court - almost always by a majority of 5-4 - has overturned many areas that are "settled law" Heller is just one example. To go to the original point that started this sub-topic: if the legal position were so evident, why was the decision not 9-0? The answer is evident: because this is a political, not legal question and the politics of the court are split, 5-4.

As for the question of corporate personhood, I understand the convenience of doing so and the complications arising from change, but that does not mean we should not change. Corporations did not exist as they do now at the time of our Constitution's adoption. It is impossible to say what our Framers might have thought of the modern corporation, and should also be irrelevant. What we think of them is what is important - and what our Congress has said is that there should be limits on their influence on the political process. What the Court has said is there should not.

In my view, this is not the Court's place. It is a political question. The Court has inserted itself through the device of corporate personhood and the 14th Amendment, which is where Santa Clara comes in (for convenience sake - its more complicated, I know, but I am not writing a paper on this - if anyone wants one, I recommend Thom Hartman's book)

Corporations do not have all of the rights of a person - they do not vote, for example. Santa Clara set us on the wrong path, the presumption that corporations should have the rights a person would have. It should be the opposite. The presumption should be that corporations only have the rights our legislature chooses to give them. Corporations are an artificial creation of the legislature, the legislature should be able to control them.

This does not impair the rights of any actual person. A billionaire can still exercise their freedom of speech, they just need to step outside the corporate veil to do so.

Now to Buckley. Many Supreme Court decisions are a compromise (think Roe v Wade) Buckley was decided with the presumption of some limits on contributions. It is impossible to say what the liberal justices who decided Buckley would think or do if they knew a later court would obliterate the limits. And it doesn't matter (to me) because this is none of their business - it is a political question.

FYI, I think Britain's parliamentary system is superior to our Constitutional system, but if you are going to have a Constitutional system with Judicial Review, it is much better to limit the power of the constitutional jurists as Germany has done. Otherwise you get nine unelected yahoos who think they are demigods.

BearGoggles;842301091 said:

---

The bailouts of GM and Chrysler were structured in a way - contrary to typical bankruptcy resolutions - that benefited unions to the prejudice of creditors. In effect, the Obama administrations took creditors who would have had priority claims over the unions and put their claims behind. Regardless of whether you feel that is good or bad, is was an obvious example of union power and influence.

Per the Affordable Care Act, unions and other employers - including my small business with 4 employees - were supposed to pay a surcharge on health insurance plans as well as a tax on so called "Cadillac" plans. The unions lobbied for and were granted a variety of exemptions from these provisions - again demonstrating their influece and power.

---

Legitimate question: do you have citation links that describe how this was done, and perhaps the reasons behind? I could see a practical reason for doing so and also a political one.

wifeisafurd;842301073 said:

---

How you can state that the treatment of corporations is a "political issue" is just mind blowing to anyone who has practiced law.

---

Not to give you homework, but as an articulate spokesperson for a view which runs counter to my own, i'd love to know what you think of this: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/hobby_lobby_and_corporate_personhood_here_s_the_real_history_of_corporate.html

BearGoggles;842301092 said:

---

This is shear silliness. "Our expenses aren't too high, we just don't happen to have enough money." Seriously?

The massive growth of public employee benefits in California is well documented and beyond dispute. California's tax rates are higher than ever and revenues have grown much faster than the rate of inflation over the past years. One reason there is less money for UC is that public employee salary and benefits - particularly retirement benefits - have taken a larger and larger percentage of the overall budget.

The federal tax rates in the 1940s were as high as 80-90%. However, nobody actually paid those rates given the various loopholes, exemptions, tax shelters etc. Krugman and his ilk are comparing apples and oranges. More importantly, do you really think tax rates that high are good for the economy? Not many people do. People adjust their behavior when tax rates are that high and there is less investment and productivity. Simply put, people are not going to accept investment risk when 90% if the upside goes to the government.

---

Perhaps there is a middle ground to be found here? Federal tax rates are the lowest they have been in more than a century, and we are having trouble funding our government. Perhaps there is room for raising taxes to help pay for things? It doesn't have to go back to 1940s levels, but when people who have been enjoying the lowest tax rates in more than a generation start to complain about raising taxes it starts to look selfish to me.

California is not the nation; the state probably could stand to cut spending on various programs (though this would include all programs, not just the liberal ones -- our prison system is pretty bloated, for example). But Krugman was not making an argument about California, rather about the United States as a whole.

BearGoggles;842301091 said:

---

Per the Affordable Care Act, unions and other employers - including my small business with 4 employees - were supposed to pay a surcharge on health insurance plans as well as a tax on so called "Cadillac" plans. The unions lobbied for and were granted a variety of exemptions from these provisions - again demonstrating their influece and power.

---

Actually, never mind, I looked this up. The first articles I could find were editorial-type pieces from sites with a clear editorial slant: Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News. They all claimed that Obamacare was giving unions a big break. Then I found this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/06/unions-cant-get-an-obamacare-win-but-insurers-are-getting-help/

Looks like the supposed exception isn't actually happening. So how does this demonstrate union power again?

BearGoggles;842301091 said:

---

The bailouts of GM and Chrysler were structured in a way - contrary to typical bankruptcy resolutions - that benefited unions to the prejudice of creditors. In effect, the Obama administrations took creditors who would have had priority claims over the unions and put their claims behind. Regardless of whether you feel that is good or bad, is was an obvious example of union power and influence.

---

Oh heck, let's fact-check this one too.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/did-president-obama-hand-_b_1317910.html

Again, doesn't really seem like this was a huge win for unions. They got priority to help cover for concessions they had already made to try helping the companies return to profitability. And even then they didn't exactly get control over GM and Chrysler. So again, how does this prove union power?

The only antidote for this toxic decision is the common sense of the electorate. We have to take solace in the fact that Meg Whitman outspent Jerry Brown by $140 million and she still was unable to purchase the governorship. She ended up paying $50 per vote received.

BearGoggles;842301092 said:

---

One reason there is less money for UC is that public employee salary and benefits.

---

No, there's less money for UC because it's receiving 10%, yes, TEN PERCENT (approximately) of its revenue from the state! The state of CA used to actually fully fund UC. Now a tiny percentage of its funding is from the state. Really, do you want to make that rediculous claim? It's actually a false equivalency because UC could actually receive full public funding AND have most of it go to pensions. But it doesn't. And they don't. Specious argument.

And yes, the rich did pay high marginal tax rates. That's right, when their income went through the roof, the vast majority of it went to taxes. That's what the founding fathers indended - to PREVENT concentration of wealth. Again, I'm referring to David Cay Johnston's works, specifically "Perfectly Legal." Look it up.

Before you contradict the economists I mention, perhaps you might want to back it up with more than unsubstantiated "pure silliness" statements. Anyone can make any assertion they want without actually backing them up.

I brought my sources. Why don't you provide a few?

BearGoggles;842301092 said:

---

California's tax rates are higher than ever

---

California's REGRESSIVE tax rates are higher than ever...

There, that's more accurate. Marginal tax rates have gone down, down, down over the last five decades. The estate tax also has dropped over time - almost to the point of elimination.

And conversely, California's progressive tax rates are lower than ever.

The country's founding fathers saw exactly what happens when you don't have estate taxes: landed royal wealth which grows and grows unchecked. The rich owned EVERYTHING. They fled Europe to escape this stranglehold on capital the wealthy exerted on the population. You realize in Europe, many people STILL CANNOT PURCHASE land still to this day? Try buying land in Italy for example. Nope, you'll get to purchase a house, but lease the land.

The result is limited economic opportunity for the vast majority of the population. Funny how concentration of wealth over the last four decades has coincided directly with stagnant middle class wages. When unions were strong, our economy was an unstoppable powerhouse. When middle class wages were growing WITH the economy, we were unstoppable. These high wages didn't squelch business or innovation. These things flourished when EVERYONE got ahead.

I realize correlation does not equal causation, bu the parallels are just too strong to ignore. The "job creators" argument is offensive. If tax cuts at the top encouraged economic opportunity for the middle class, we'd be luxuriating in wealth right now. Nope. We are not.

Any business owner, if given the opportunity or new technology, will eliminate half his/her workforce if he can. Jobs are simply a necessary evil to the business owner. If robots could run a company, trust me, they'd be running companies. Business owners don't pay salaries out of the goodness of their hearts (which the term "job creators" implies), they do it out of sheer necessity and will eliminate them whenever possible.

You realize that 90% of the wealth created since 2008 has gone to the top 1%. How is that even possible? How can this representative democracy even begin to accept that? I can't.

Unfortunately, globalization is only furthering concentration of wealth world wide. The top 85 wealthiest people in the world own more than the bottom half of the globe's population.* Wow, what a utopia we've created - for the top 85 people in the world!

*The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-worlds-85-richest-people-are-as-wealthy-as-the-poorest-3-billion/283206/

Given all this information, how can ANYONE (other than the ultra wealthy protecting their riches) support the SCOTUS decision?

dajo9;842301100 said:

---

Yes, let's use my quote. Where in that quote does it say anything about equal outcomes? Where does it say "same"?

And when I say limits for "all" parties, which I said above, how does that mean I want to exclude unions to you?

You are so invested in your dogmas about what the liberal side believes that you refuse to actually comprehend new data even when you type it down with your hand.

---

I you can't see that advocating for equal "quantity" of speech by force of law is equivalent to advocating for an equal outcomes, I can't help you.

I'm not invested in "dogma" - I get my news and opinion from both sides of the aisle. I'm quite confident that I spend much more time watching MSNBC and reading Mother Jones, Slate, Huff Po, etc., then you do watching/reading conservative sources.

What I am doing is commenting on what I see, which is the left repeatedly trying to limit speech and expression of those they disagree with. Brendan Eich is only the latest example of the thought police (and yes, I realize his circumstances do not present a First Amendment issue).

Interestingly, you have not responded to my question about what will happened under your approach when Republicans are in power? When the right can use the power of government to decide what quantity of speech is equal and fair. That will happen at some point - and when it does I will oppose it. You however, seem to ignore the risks to freedom and liberty when we cede that power to government (or majorities). The First Amendment is supposed to protect all of us from that.

sycasey;842301143 said:

---

Actually, never mind, I looked this up. The first articles I could find were editorial-type pieces from sites with a clear editorial slant: Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News. They all claimed that Obamacare was giving unions a big break. Then I found this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/06/unions-cant-get-an-obamacare-win-but-insurers-are-getting-help/

Looks like the supposed exception isn't actually happening. So how does this demonstrate union power again?

---

The unions did not get the "big and permanent" exemption they wanted (yet - wait until after 2014). However, they (and lots of big corporations who also have interest) did get lots of other exemptions the were not offered to the general public (people like you and me).


http://www.dailypaul.com/296870/list-of-729-companies-and-unions-with-obamacare-exemptions

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/01/06/how-many-businesses-are-exempt-the-final-number-of-obamacare-waivers-is-in/

sycasey;842301132 said:

---

Legitimate question: do you have citation links that describe how this was done, and perhaps the reasons behind? I could see a practical reason for doing so and also a political one.

---

Here is a longer article that goes into a fairly detailed and technical discussion of the bankruptcies. In particular, see the discussion of how the secured creditors were treated.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto-bailout-and-the-rule-of-law

"Of the two proceedings, Chrysler's was clearly the more egregious. In the years leading up to the economic crisis, Chrysler had been unable to acquire routine financing and so had been forced to turn to so-called secured debt in order to fund its operations. Secured debt takes first priority in payment; it is also typically preserved during bankruptcy under what is referred to as the "absolute priority" rule since the lender of secured debt offers a loan to a troubled borrower only because he is guaranteed first repayment when the loan is up. In the Chrysler case, however, creditors who held the company's secured bonds were steamrolled into accepting 29 cents on the dollar for their loans. Meanwhile, the underfunded pension plans of the United Auto Workers unsecured creditors, but possessed of better political connections received more than 40 cents on the dollar."

If you google "treatment of creditors in gm and chrysler bankruptcy" you'll get a variety of articles that discuss this from different viewpoints.

sycasey;842301147 said:

---

Oh heck, let's fact-check this one too.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/did-president-obama-hand-_b_1317910.html

Again, doesn't really seem like this was a huge win for unions. They got priority to help cover for concessions they had already made to try helping the companies return to profitability. And even then they didn't exactly get control over GM and Chrysler. So again, how does this prove union power?

---

The article you linked only confirm what I said. The unions - holding unsecured claims - achieved priority over secured creditors who under long standing prior law should have been paid first. The secured creditors should have been paid 100% before the unions received a penny. I never said the unions got control of the companies - only that by virtue of their political power, they did better than they should have under the law.