Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

... If that doesn't show where the power lies then I just don't know what else to say.

Right.

And that's where the power has always been.

This decision just puts it out in the open, hopefully we will be able to see who's paying how much for what.

Given the speed and pervasivness of things like twitter and facebook, grassroots campaigns have a lot more power than ever. (look at Iran)

Like I said above, if there is a huge ad campaign by Citgo (for example) there will probably be a fairly big reaction by a lot of folks who will make it very clear that Citgo is a Venezualan government owned corporation, controlled by Hugo Chavez, who probably doesn't have the best interests of the US close to his heart.
That campaign could easily backfire, and cause whatever candidate or issue that Citgo is supporting to fail, based on who was financing it.

Or the "useful idiots" could go "Look at the pretty commercials" and vote a corporate shill into power. I can see that happening too, but as a less likely outcome.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

This decision just puts it out in the open, hopefully we will be able to see who's paying how much for what.

Given the speed and pervasivness of things like twitter and facebook, grassroots campaigns have a lot more power than ever. (look at Iran)

Like I said above, if there is a huge ad campaign by Citgo (for example) there will probably be a fairly big reaction by a lot of folks who will make it very clear that Citgo is a Venezualan government owned corporation, controlled by Hugo Chavez, who probably doesn't have the best interests of the US close to his heart.
That campaign could easily backfire, and cause whatever candidate or issue that Citgo is supporting to fail, based on who was financing it.

Or the "useful idiots" could go "Look at the pretty commercials" and vote a corporate shill into power. I can see that happening too, but as a less likely outcome.

I'd like to think that you're right about the power of social media and the potential for the internet to shine some sunlight on our political decisions. I'm not optimistic however. The Iraq war is a good example of how difficult it is for accurate information to make it through the gauntlet of noise and into the national dialog. Political appointees doing last minute editing of scientific conclusions or filing the teeth out of tobacco lawsuits are examples of how industry representatives are able to thwart the effectiveness of the departments the oversee.

I hope you're right and our politicians are held accountable but it's not likely to happen before some real and lasting damage is caused. Multinational corporations only have allegiance to their profits. They really don't care where they're made. And unlike human citizenry, corporate citizens live for a long time, getting wealthier and wealthier, thereby giving them the ability to secure more "access" to our government as well as the quantity and quality of our media content.
Put us in a snuggie and show us something shiny and they're likely to get whatever they want.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Again, you're right.

But again, the Iraq war and the tobacco settlement happened under the old rules.
The political spin and obfuscation along with the corporate lobbying and influence are not new.

I would like to think this decision will make that behavior a little bit more open and obvious.

A few people (both in this thread and in the "real world") have made the joke about giving the politicans NASCAR style suits. So we can see who their sponsors are. Would that change how the voting would go? I don't know.

But I really believe that everyone (corps, lobbyists, unions, et al) being able to say what they wish is fundamentally good.

Going back to 08, (and back to guns - I'm not a single-issue voter, but guns are the one I'm most conversant on) Obama ran an ad shortly before the election claiming to support the 2nd Amendment.

His voting record in the Illinois senate and the US senate was completely opposite. The Repubs didn't bother to respond, and the NRA was barred from doing so. While I don't believe it would have changed the outcome of the election, it would have exposed a blatant lie by the Obama campaign.

And that would be a good thing.

And not all "corporate wishes" are bad things.
While there are many who think only of short-term profits, and some are genuinely hostile to the US, there are others who do think long-term. And who realize that destroying the US's society will hurt them in the long run.

Oooh look - something shiney!

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Amazon 7]

Just think.....soon we might have some cool corporate Rollerball teams... I wonder how many chickenhawks will join up for those.

[lawrocket 3]

Re: NASCAR suits to see the sponsors


I can see this ruling actually preventing this to some extent. Instead of giving money to a candidate - who can then talk all he wants - it means that the corporation can voice it's support for a candidate or issue.

Why give a candidate money to say what you hope when you can merely say what you want?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

And not all "corporate wishes" are bad things.
While there are many who think only of short-term profits, and some are genuinely hostile to the US, there are others who do think long-term. And who realize that destroying the US's society will hurt them in the long run.

I don't want to come across as completely anti-corporation. I'm anti-corporate abuse. Capitalism is a great thing and it has made our country strong. But if not kept under control it can be the source of ruin. Even too much water can kill. Sadly, it seems that the current business models that are lauded by the business community are destructively parasitic. You're right in that most businesses realize that destroying the basis of our consumption based economy is a lousy idea. But those businesses are getting harder and harder to spot these days. And unfortunately those businesses will be the ones which suffer because they can't afford to "speak" to their legislators effectively.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Re: NASCAR suits to see the sponsors


I can see this ruling actually preventing this to some extent. Instead of giving money to a candidate - who can then talk all he wants - it means that the corporation can voice it's support for a candidate or issue.

Why give a candidate money to say what you hope when you can merely say what you want?

Actually, that's kind of how I meant it.

Clearly "marked" ads (marked meaning it says who paid for it) for or against candidates.

Exxon ads for GWB (or Haliburton).

Smith and Wesson ads against Diane Feinstein or Charles Schumer.

Viagra ads for Bill Clinton

Seriously, knowing who is supporting (or opposing) a candidate would tell me a lot more about where they really stand on issues than any crap they promise from the podium.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I mentioned the 'equal access' stuff above - nobody seems to have a response.

You're ignoring the responses then.

No, I'm not - you're ignoring the question, however.

Quote

I'll use the superbowl example again. You are not denied access to the ad time. Could you take advantage of that access in order to voice an opinion or advertise a product?

Sure could, on both sides of the issue.

Quote

I have access to my Congressman and Senators. Do you think my letter complaining about the health care bill will be noticed when "my" representative's attention is being diverted by the $300 million/wk that PhARMA has been throwing at Congress? The health care industry has (I think) about 6 lobbyists PER congressman.

We're talking about political speech, not lobbying, sorry.

Quote

Pharmaceutical companies spend about $13 Billion/year pushing their products. Even though opposing voices have access they will never have the actual access that the wealthiest entities do. Money controls our government, not the constituency. I mean look at Obama. He's the President of the United States and he had to cut a deal with PhARMA and the insurance industry before he could even bring his reform ideas to the table. If that doesn't show where the power lies then I just don't know what else to say.

You're confusing lobbying and political ads/speech. The two are not the same.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

I'll use the superbowl example again. You are not denied access to the ad time. Could you take advantage of that access in order to voice an opinion or advertise a product?

Sure could, on both sides of the issue.

Wow, I'm impressed. At $2.5 million for a 30 sec spot you'll HAVE to argue both sides because I sure can't.
The forum is all yours.

Quote

You're confusing lobbying and political ads/speech. The two are not the same.

Yes and no. Much of the billions that the pharmaceutical industry spends is on direct to consumer advertising. Political advertising is no different. Where lobbying is different however is in that it frequently boils down to bribery and or prostitution. Political ads are just a way to get your prostitute in the door. Maybe I should narrow down my argument. I do not believe that money is the free speech that the Framers wrote about.

[Ron 10]

I don't agree with this one.

And it will make the chances of a third party candidate less than it is now, and that is already zero.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I don't agree with this one.

And it will make the chances of a third party candidate less than it is now, and that is already zero.

Not sure I agree with you
But in any event this was the right decision for THIS law

As for third party, I would rather take the parties (both of them) back from those who would have the US go in directions most people know go against the constitution

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

I don't agree with this one.

And it will make the chances of a third party candidate less than it is now, and that is already zero.

Quote

You're confusing lobbying and political ads/speech. The two are not the same.

Replying to a couple different people here:

Ron - Not necessarily on the 3rd party candidates.

If a group (or collection of groups and companies) doesn't like either of the major party candidates, they can now spend their own money for ads for the outsider. Far more money than they would be able to donate to a campaign.

I'm not sure if it will happen, mainly because 3rd party candidates won't have the "Party Machine" behind them after they are in office, but I think it's at least a little more likely.


Mnealtx - While lobbying and political ads/speech are not the same, they do have the same objective. Getting access to the person in office. Lobbying is gaining access after the election, campaign donations (and now the ads/speech) are done with the expectation of access after the election. A lot of the major players donate to both sides in an election. That way, no matter who wins, they have the ability to say "We gave you XXX, we now expect you to listen to what we want you to do".

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Darius11 12]

This is the beginning of the end welcome to America Inc.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[rushmc 23]

Quote

This is the beginning of the end welcome to America Inc.

while not perfect I would say this is the beginning of the end (or could be) of the US's precipitous slide to the left

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Darius11 12]

Last I checked the conservatives goal was not to hand over the country to corporations. I think you need to look at the bigger picture passed right and left once in a while. Please realize the country is more important then both.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Last I checked the conservatives goal was not to hand over the country to corporations. I think you need to look at the bigger picture passed right and left once in a while. Please realize the country is more important then both.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DUDE.. you dont REALLY expect some of these people to actually realize that do you???

Unless Much Lamebarf comes out against this.. it aint gonna happen amoung the Teabagging Party of NO

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

Last I checked the conservatives goal was not to hand over the country to corporations. I think you need to look at the bigger picture passed right and left once in a while. Please realize the country is more important then both.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DUDE.. you dont REALLY expect some of these people to actually realize that do you???

Unless Much Lamebarf comes out against this.. it aint gonna happen amoung the Teabagging Party of NO

I always have some hope.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Last I checked the conservatives goal was not to hand over the country to corporations. I think you need to look at the bigger picture passed right and left once in a while. Please realize the country is more important then both.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DUDE.. you dont REALLY expect some of these people to actually realize that do you???

Unless Much Lamebarf comes out against this.. it aint gonna happen amoung the Teabagging Party of NO

I always have some hope.

Sorry I am old and decrpit.. and HOPE has left the room long long ago for me to believe that.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Last I checked the conservatives goal was not to hand over the country to corporations. I think you need to look at the bigger picture passed right and left once in a while. Please realize the country is more important then both.

Agreed
That is why this ruling is so important

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Last I checked the conservatives goal was not to hand over the country to corporations. I think you need to look at the bigger picture passed right and left once in a while. Please realize the country is more important then both.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DUDE.. you dont REALLY expect some of these people to actually realize that do you???

Unless Much Lamebarf comes out against this.. it aint gonna happen amoung the Teabagging Party of NO

I always have some hope.

Sorry I am old and decrpit.. and HOPE has left the room long long ago for me to believe that.

But but, but, you voted for hope and change

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Darius11 12]

Educate me man how is this better for the average citizen and our country?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Last I checked the conservatives goal was not to hand over the country to corporations. I think you need to look at the bigger picture passed right and left once in a while. Please realize the country is more important then both.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DUDE.. you dont REALLY expect some of these people to actually realize that do you???

Unless Much Lamebarf comes out against this.. it aint gonna happen amoung the Teabagging Party of NO

I always have some hope.

Sorry I am old and decrpit.. and HOPE has left the room long long ago for me to believe that.

But but, but, you voted for hope and change

Well the change is slower than I would like.. but starting out by butt fucking some of the Friends of the Bush Administration.... like Blackwater..... who ripped YOU off for BILLIONS of tax dollars is a good start.. I think all of the officers of THAT corporation need some serious time in Federal POUND EM IN THE ASS prison. Halliburton is next.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Educate me man how is this better for the average citizen and our country?

Freedom of speech is a bad thing?

Unless you think the FEC picking a choosing who speaks or who doesnt

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Educate me man how is this better for the average citizen and our country?

Freedom of speech is a bad thing?
Unless you think the FEC picking a choosing who speaks or who doesnt

Absolutism applied to situations outside the scope of original intent is usually a bad thing. It usually warps the original intent. I can not in my wildest dreams imagine the framers of the U.S. Constitution ever thought for a moment that a company would have the same legal rights as individual voters; especially a document that begins, "We the People . . . "

Nowhere is it mentioned that companies have the same rights as people. What's next? Are we going to give corporations the right to vote? Can a company run for the Oval Office?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Nowhere is it mentioned that companies have the same rights as people. What's next? Are we going to give corporations the right to vote? Can a company run for the Oval Office?

Either you believe in free speech, or you don't. Sorry you're in the latter category. Most decent liberals pick at least one of the 1st and 2nd.