I have the solution to the SCOTUS decision....

[veganlush]

...congress should pass a law that says, yeah, corporations can give all they want to a candidate but the government will be required to match it dollar for dollar for the opponents campaign.

This way, no restriction will be imposed on how much "speech" any candidate can accept-BUT, by requiring tax payers to match it for the opponent, any candidate accepting corporate money will be effectively raising everyone's taxes!

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:


THIS MESSAGE,(AND IT'S ACCOMPANYING TAX INCREASE) BROUGHT TO YOU BY EXXON/MOBIL'S OWN PALIN/BECK TICKET!

[rockymountaindem]

1. Heh, now we're getting creative

File that under crazy enough to work, too crazy to ever become law.

[SpiralHawk]

2. I think they should just declare that individual people are corporations, with...

...all the excuses and loopholes and advantages of corporations.

Then the real human beings, the citizens of these United States of America, can all offshore our operations, hide our tax liabilities, and dump polluted crap in the air and water like a pack of raving republicon corporatists...

[postulater]

3. If a corporation and a person married

would their offspring be a sole proprietorship?

[tblue]

5. Hey! Let's each marry a corporation!!!

Why can't we?

[virgogal]

7. Damn you----I spit coffee all over my screen , Very funny !

[bobbolink]

4. I like the way you think!

:evilgrin: (It takes one to know one)

[angrycarpenter]

6. How about this?

All funds donated above the former limits must be disclosed on the campaign website before those funds can be spent.

[alittlelark]

9. Many voters do not use the internets.....

Perhaps at the beginning of each ad?

[arthritisR_US]

8. have you met Stinky the Clown? You both have great minds. n/t

[veganlush]

10. Stinky's reputation precedes him/her. ...thanks for the compliment!

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[veganlush]

14. but the article also says this:

"At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right."

[veganlush]

15. this poll also underscores what Obermann said...

...that the MSM spent two minutes on this story vs. 30 minutes on John Edwards. The people just don't know enough about it to be properly alarmed. Now do a poll asking how many and what color hair of Tiger's women friends or who won American Idol.

[harkadog]

12. Your solution would not work.

First corporations can't give directly to a candidate. That's not what the decision was about. So no one would be raising taxes because they were taking money but that is not happening. Second what would stop a corporation financing an ad supposedly supporting a Democrat with the idea in mind that the government would then have to give the Republican that same amount of money?

[veganlush]

13. it's true that they can't give directly, but transparency rules

would tell you who is giving, and the content would make it clear who it was intended to hurt and/or help. If the content, on the other hand, WASN'T clear in it's advocacy, then it would be pretty harmless. As for giving to the party you OPPOSE, as a way to reflect badly on them for the increase in taxpayer money being spent, this is where the OTHER deterrent takes effect: campaign matching funds. At least the spending advantage would always be neutralized by the matching funds. unfortunately, It would also neutralize the "raising taxes/spending" stigma, you're right about that.

So all the corporations would be giving generous money to the media to advocate for their enemy, but what would the content of THOSE ads be like-ads that pretend to advocate but are just a device? wouldn't the net effect be neutral? And what kind of signal would it send to employees of the corporations-real people who actually vote- wouldn't they have to figure which side their employer was on in order to side with it?

The congress can legislate rules of engagement for this, they just have to craft it in such a way that it doesn't restrict "free $peech" of corporate "persons".

[Jayberwock]

16. Wouldn't it take one lawsuit to undo this?

The SC has given corporations the same right as individuals...ie "freedom of speech".

The problem is a corporation is not a person. It's a collective of persons, presumedly each with their own opinion and right to free speech.

So does a corporation who exercises this "free speech" essentially provide a blanket override of the rights of all individuals in the corporation?

It seems if someone disagreed with their company, they might have grounds for a misrepresentation lawsuit?

IE...if my workplace endorses a rightwing candidate, and I work for this company making part of this money that goes toward that, aren't they by proxy forcing me to endorse this candidate as well? Unless they disclose this to me and I get a say-so, their speech infringes on mine...and isn't that pretty much the only way you can decide whether speech is protected or not?

True, I don't have to work there, but this would tend to severely impede "pursuit of happiness" as far as being able to make a living.

I'm probably wrong on this, but I just wondered.

[veganlush]

17. that's a really good point I hadn't thought of....

...It seems to me the issue has come up with union members who don't like part of their union dues going to a candidate that they don't like...does anyone here at DU know what came of those disputes?