Corporation To Run For Public Office!

Page 1 of 3  
Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Incorporated, a diversifying corporation in the
Washington, D.C. area, has filed to run for U.S. Congress in the Republican primary in Maryland's 8th Congressional District....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-klein/supreme-court-ruling-spur_b_437871.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Their Youtube ad... ( "It's our democracy," Murray Hill Inc. says, "We bought it, we paid for it, and we're going to keep it.")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRKkXtxDRA

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Was he referring to the government Unions, the ones who REALLY own the government? LOL

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

Are you serious???? That's just idiotic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31/01/2010 10:35 PM, Bill wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-klein/supreme-court-ruling-spur_b_437871.html That will be the next step, get bakers and corrupt corporations to sit in the senate and congress....
But it isn't like that isn't already true.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You need to do a bit more research! The Supreme Court had ruled, if I recall correctly, way back in 1922 that "corporations are "People," who can be sued in the courts.
The current Court simply REAFFIRMED that ruling, thus the law banning their "RIGHT to political speech," was not Constitutional.
If you study election law you will discover only an "individual" can seek elective office.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-klein/supreme-court-ruling-spur_b_437871.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are wrong, do some homework before you chose to comment, search the historical record, WBMA.
One can READ the Courts opinion on the net, that sites the "corporations are People," in the majority ruling. It is also mentioned in the minority opinion.
One thing is for sure, BO nor the New York Times Editors, apparently did NOT read the opinion that came down from the court or he and they would not have made that goofy assertion that FOREIGN corporations can now spend money in US elections.
The law forbidding foreigners from participating in US elections is still in effect. That fact is listed in the majority opinion, as well.
I just made a quick search found this, from the Law Review, in less than two minutes:
"President Barack Obama and other critics say the court's decision to let corporations spend their money to directly influence elections opened the floodgates to foreign involvement. In last week's address to Congress and the nation, Obama asserted that the court had allowed special interests, "including foreign corporations, to spend without limit on our elections."
That was a step too far, foreign corporations may NOT spend any money in U.S. elections under a provision of federal election law that was UNTOUCHED by the high court.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's even sillier than that. US corporations still cannot directly support politicians. They can express an opinion, even if they aren't a "news organization". Free speech for others than the media, fancy that.
<snip>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"...the more complicated question is how, under the new ruling, to treat U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies or American corporations that are controlled by foreign investors..."
Above from...
High Court Allows Foreign Campaign Finance... http://globaleconomy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/01/30/high-court-allows-foreign-campaign-finance /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hog wash, the ruling clearly let current law stand on contribution from FOREIGN Corporations. I.E. A first year law student would easily discover that although Toyota has holding companies, incorporated in various states in the US, the Toyota CORPORATION is Japanese and thus excludes the holding companies from supporting candidates for ANY elected office, period.

http://globaleconomy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/01/30/high-court-allows-foreign-campaign-finance /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mrs Irish Mike wrote:

Not even that. Pure fantasy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd like to suggest that policical campaign contributions be taxable, by all taxes applicable to the region or any part of it voting for that office. This would include individual income tax, corporate income tax, sales tax (for national elections, the sales tax of all 50 states), inheritance tax, property tax, all those odd taxes you see on your phone bill, the SEC tax on stock trading, Social Security taxes, Obama's health care tax if and when it becomes effective, gasoline tax, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The latest ruling that opens the gate for company "donations" to political campaigns is just a way for industry (or other wealthy interest groups) to BUY congress.
Now, surely enough, congress has pimped itself for years, but this brings pimpdon to a holy acceptable status.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bullshit. You really should learn something before spouting such nonsense.

Ditto.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I dont need to learn anything about this bill, and I cant believe you would respond in such an ignorant way. Now businesses can donate to campaigns at essentially unregulated levels..
If you have a point, make it, but dont just spout crap.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong. They cannot donate to campaigns at all. They may state their opinions, but not give one thin dime to a candidate.

Read the decision, is my point. You clearly have been listening to Obama, not reality.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But they can spend millions on TV commercials is my understanding. Same thing the candidate would do with the money.
And if you can trash an opponent, true or not, this can influence an election as people get their information from TV these days.
I recall that Nixon won an early election (not for President) by trashing his opponent with untruths... (Detailed in one of the biographies on Nixon - A book - Not on TV.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill wrote:

Correct.
Nope, its much less likely to be properly coordinated with them doing their own commercials.

But arent necessarily stupid enough to believe everything they see in an election TV commercial.

Yes, those who wrote the consitution did not allow for that.
If you dont like that, amend the constitution again.
ALL the supremes said was that the CURRENT constitutional amendment prevents the govt from controlling how corps advertise on TV.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is the decision of the Court. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
It is a bit broad, in a place or two, about expenditures of political action committees. It IS couched in terms of free speech and communication, and frees organized to spend in these areas - in other words to get the candidate of advantage by the juridical "person" elected.
I still say it is a way for big money interests to buy a candidate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.