North Carolina Keeps Losing Events From HB2 (1 Viewer)

[guidomerkinsrules]

I find it funny that political liberals want to make films made by nonprofits that talk about a candidate illegal because of "corporate influence" but cheer this type of direct corporate influence on the political process.

speak plain, man

 

[Saint Jack]

I find it funny that political liberals want to make films made by nonprofits that talk about a candidate illegal because of "corporate influence" but cheer this type of direct corporate influence on the political process.

 

[daybreaker]

speak plain, man

He thinks there's some kind of hypocrisy in people not wanting corporations to influence elections with large donations, and specific companies taking their business to different states because they dont like state laws.

 

[superchuck500]

He thinks there's some kind of hypocrisy in people not wanting corporations to influence elections with large donations, and specific companies taking their business to different states because they dont like state laws.

I think he's more specifically referring to the position that the Obama administration and others (including Hillary) took in the Citizens United case. Everyone refers to the case as standing for the premise that corporations can fund campaign activities including direct donations to campaigns and to PACs. But the actual dispute related to whether a law that prohibited nonprofit group from airing a movie critical of Hillary Clinton (and advertising the movie) was unconstitutional.

The Obama administration defended the law and Jim has long taken issue with that position, not so much as it relates to corporate "personhood" for purposes of campaign finance, but as it relates to the First Amendment. I don't disagree with his view on that.

 

[JimEverett]

He thinks there's some kind of hypocrisy in people not wanting corporations to influence elections with large donations, and specific companies taking their business to different states because they don't like state laws.

you are wrong on the specifics. I am talking specifically about nonprofits showing a film during a "campaign season" - which a good many liberals want to make illegal and is, in fact, a plank of the Democratic Party platform. Has nothing at all to so with donations.

So being against THAT, while cheering for what is pretty much corporate punishment for legislative action seems worse than hypocritical - it seems downright bizarre. I mean is pressure on legislative action or inaction somehow different from pressure/support/opposition in the electoral process? If anything, the former should have more "protection."

 

[Saint Jack]

you are wrong on the specifics. I am talking specifically about nonprofits showing a film during a "campaign season" - which a good many liberals want to make illegal and is, in fact, a plank of the Democratic Party platform. Has nothing at all to so with donations.

So being against THAT, while cheering for what is pretty much corporate punishment for legislative action seems worse than hypocritical - it seems downright bizarre. I mean is pressure on legislative action or inaction somehow different from pressure/support/opposition in the electoral process? If anything, the former should have more "protection."

What film?

 

[superchuck500]

What film?

Hillary: The Movie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary:_The_Movie

 

[SystemShock]

you are wrong on the specifics. I am talking specifically about nonprofits showing a film during a "campaign season" - which a good many liberals want to make illegal and is, in fact, a plank of the Democratic Party platform. Has nothing at all to so with donations.

So being against THAT, while cheering for what is pretty much corporate punishment for legislative action seems worse than hypocritical - it seems downright bizarre. I mean is pressure on legislative action or inaction somehow different from pressure/support/opposition in the electoral process? If anything, the former should have more "protection."

"Punishment"?
Or simply a desire to not be associated with such a place?

BTW, I live in "such a place", NC. I'm not down with HB2, but all things considered, great place to live.

 

[mt15]

The part about the nonprofit making and showing a film intended to sway an election that sticks out to me is this: why is the corporation a non-profit? Why should this corporation, who is trying to influence an election, not be taxed like any other entity, person or other corporation who wants to donate money to a political cause? It seems to me that nonprofit status should be reserved for entities who function for the public good, rather than political operatives. Other than that, go for it.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

His point makes little sense in context, but he has veered the conversation off course so it's a win I guess

 

[JimEverett]

The part about the nonprofit making and showing a film intended to sway an election that sticks out to me is this: why is the corporation a non-profit? Why should this corporation, who is trying to influence an election, not be taxed like any other entity, person or other corporation who wants to donate money to a political cause? It seems to me that nonprofit status should be reserved for entities who function for the public good, rather than political operatives. Other than that, go for it.

Should the ACLU lose non-profit status? AARP?

And we are not talking about donating money at all. We are talking about speech.

 

[JimEverett]

His point makes little sense in context, but he has veered the conversation off course so it's a win I guess

So you think there is little sense in comparing corporate action designed to influence a particular vote or a group of particular votes with non-profit corporations engaged in [advocacy] speech during an election season?

I admit that by celebrating the former while at the same time trying to make the latter illegal not much sense is being made - but I don't think that is what you meant.

 

[crosswatt]

has Dabo Swinney weighed in yet?

There's a pretty big lesson in Swinney's comments the other day, and some of the responses to that. We have some telling Swinney to "Take MLK’s name out your mouth" and others advocating that black kids not go play for him and that more people were interested in being American than being Christian.

Why? All because he answered a question asked of him with honesty and clarity. And it was his opinion, declaratively so ( It’s just my opinion. That’s Dabo’s opinion), and it was in no way meant to offend or denigrate anyone. If we can't express, without even a hint of any ill intent, our honest opinion on controversial subjects, than what in the world are we trying to accomplish anyway? We may as well as a society turn the lights out and go our separate ways.

The actual centerpiece of Dabo's comments:

(The Bible) says, Love the Lord with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul. The second one is, love your neighbor as you’d love yourself. It doesn’t say love your neighbor from the same religion. It doesn’t say love your neighbor if they’re the same color as you. It doesn’t say love your neighbor if they pull for the same team as you. It doesn’t say love your neighbor if they’re the same gender as you, or whatever. (It doesn’t say) love your neighbor if they have the same sexuality as you. It just says, love your neighbor as you’d love yourself. If we all lived by that in this country, we wouldn’t have near the problems we have.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I hate Clemson with a burning passion usually reserved for self important drivers and people talking loudly in theaters.)

 

[superchuck500]

The part about the nonprofit making and showing a film intended to sway an election that sticks out to me is this: why is the corporation a non-profit? Why should this corporation, who is trying to influence an election, not be taxed like any other entity, person or other corporation who wants to donate money to a political cause? It seems to me that nonprofit status should be reserved for entities who function for the public good, rather than political operatives. Other than that, go for it.

There's a difference between the non-profit operating with a political agenda and the corporations providing funding to the non-profit. Corporations and non-profits have fundamentally adverse purposes - corporations exist for profit, and non-profits exist to advance a function that the tax code treats differently as long as the organization follows accounting and spending rule.

I think you might be confusing the two. But under 501(c)(4), "social welfare" organizations like Citizens United are treated as non-profits under certain rules and those rules include a cap on "political activity" at 50% of the organizations expenditures. Of course, if you have huge donors, that can still be quite a bit of political activity.

 

[Superfan]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U_cs2pGXneA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>