They're a PR firm. They are now the envy of the entire PR world, because anyone who tries to copy this stunt will come off as a johnny-come-lately. They're also performing a valuable service to the American public by pointing out how fundamentally idiotic the ruling was.
They're a PR firm. They are now the envy of the entire PR world, because anyone who tries to copy this stunt will come off as a johnny-come-lately. They're also performing a valuable service to the American public by pointing out how fundamentally idiotic the ruling was.
A corporate person can still get in a bit of the action by trying to absentee vote in the 2010 elections.
They're a PR firm. They are now the envy of the entire PR world, because anyone who tries to copy this stunt will come off as a johnny-come-lately. They're also performing a valuable service to the American public by pointing out how fundamentally idiotic the ruling was.
I feel like a broken record here, but 1) their site claims that the ruling allows unlimited donations to election campaigns, which is completely incorrect, and 2) it tries to make it all about the dramatic attention-grabbing notion of corporate personhood, which is not in the ruling at all.
Nothing in this case should logically have prompted them to do this. This case did not make any change at all to the notion of corporate personhood. Though as a misleading, uneducated stunt; sure.
They're a PR firm. They are now the envy of the entire PR world, because anyone who tries to copy this stunt will come off as a johnny-come-lately. They're also performing a valuable service to the American public by pointing out how fundamentally idiotic the ruling was.
I feel like a borken record here, but 1) their site claims that the ruling allows unlimited donations to election campaigns, which is completely incorrect, and 2) it tries to make it all about the dramatic attention-grabbing notion of corporate personhood, which is not in the ruling at all.
It's a PR stunt. That much is clear.
if they go through with it, it may allow a ruling, which would give a better idea of what the SC ruling means going forward.
if they go through with it, it may allow a ruling, which would give a better idea of what the SC ruling means going forward.
My problem is that it only furthers misinformation about what the Court recently heard and ruled on. As did BHO with his nonsense about "overturning 100 years of law" or whatever he said.
if they go through with it, it may allow a ruling, which would give a better idea of what the SC ruling means going forward.
My problem is that it only furthers misinformation about what the Court recently heard and ruled on. As did BHO with his nonsense about "overturning 100 years of law" or whatever he said.
Well, we'll see what it leads to. You have to admit that it was rather departed from previous precedent.
I fear a slippery slope, but that's all contingent on what subsequent courts decide. I hope this eventually goes to trial, if only because it'll give us a better idea of what will come.
You know my position, and I know yours. It's all in the theoretical at the moment.
You have to admit that it was rather departed from previous precedent.
No, it overturned a ruling that originally overturned another ruling.
As a stunt, I don't think it will go too far. I'm sure that the requirements to run will include something like "a natural-born or naturalized citizen of the U.S." which the coporation will be unable to show proof of.
You have to admit that it was rather departed from previous precedent.
No, it overturned a ruling that originally overturned another ruling.
As a stunt, I don't think it will go too far. I'm sure that the requirements to run will include something like "a natural-born or naturalized citizen of the U.S." which the coporation will be unable to show proof of.
It would be p. funny if the courts opened the door for Ahnold to run for Pres. with the decision though.
Robman on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
You have to admit that it was rather departed from previous precedent.
No, it overturned a ruling that originally overturned another ruling.
As a stunt, I don't think it will go too far. I'm sure that the requirements to run will include something like "a natural-born or naturalized citizen of the U.S." which the coporation will be unable to show proof of.
It would be p. funny if the courts opened the door for Ahnold to run for Pres. with the decision though.
I think the point they were trying to prove with this is "we are a really good PR firm, look at all the cheap publicity we got. perhaps you would like to hire a really good PR firm with innovative ideas"
You have to admit that it was rather departed from previous precedent.
No, it overturned a ruling that originally overturned another ruling.
As a stunt, I don't think it will go too far. I'm sure that the requirements to run will include something like "a natural-born or naturalized citizen of the U.S." which the coporation will be unable to show proof of.
Yeah, it's not like the majority opinion said that they were disregarding previous rulings because they weren't unanimous or anything.
Posts
*Ahem*
Told you so.
We'll see if this craziness gets further than a statement. One will have to assume a legal ruling is necessary.
They're a PR firm. They are now the envy of the entire PR world, because anyone who tries to copy this stunt will come off as a johnny-come-lately. They're also performing a valuable service to the American public by pointing out how fundamentally idiotic the ruling was.
A corporate person can still get in a bit of the action by trying to absentee vote in the 2010 elections.
Nothing in this case should logically have prompted them to do this. This case did not make any change at all to the notion of corporate personhood. Though as a misleading, uneducated stunt; sure.
It's a PR stunt. That much is clear.
if they go through with it, it may allow a ruling, which would give a better idea of what the SC ruling means going forward.
Well, we'll see what it leads to. You have to admit that it was rather departed from previous precedent.
I fear a slippery slope, but that's all contingent on what subsequent courts decide. I hope this eventually goes to trial, if only because it'll give us a better idea of what will come.
You know my position, and I know yours. It's all in the theoretical at the moment.
As a stunt, I don't think it will go too far. I'm sure that the requirements to run will include something like "a natural-born or naturalized citizen of the U.S." which the coporation will be unable to show proof of.
It would be p. funny if the courts opened the door for Ahnold to run for Pres. with the decision though.
Only if he becomes Arnold Incorporated.
It's no deeper than that. It's a showreel.
Yeah, it's not like the majority opinion said that they were disregarding previous rulings because they weren't unanimous or anything.