PWNED!

[Tunnelcat]

Well peons, all hope of ending Corporate influence in Congress and returning it to the common people just died in a 5-to-4 decision!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/po ... cotus.html

[Duper]

\"corporate influence\".. phaa..

How about any/all special interest. Take those rose colored glasses off. the Dems showed through the Clinton years that they aren't for the people any more than the Reps.

If you want government for the people, by the people, you're going to need to employ both the first and second amendments as they were meant.

[Nightshade]

Both political parties have been shown to care little for the actual citizen and more about retaining power...

However, the democratic left has been the most rabid and bold faced about it. Cheat? So what? It's for the greater good!

[Krom]

Yeah, at this stage all of these rulings and legislation are simply formalities and ceremony. The real power in this country is already firmly in the hands of the corporate royalty.

Too bad they will never figure out that the more dollars these major corporations and ultra wealthy individuals horde, the less those dollars are worth, so no matter what party is put in charge economic ruin is the inevitable future.

[Will Robinson]

As if corporations not being able to run ads was the barrier between congress and corporate influence.... heh!
As long as we have lobbiests armed with piles of money allowed to access congressmen the ads they run are nothing.
I can see why a bunch of liberals would be upset because now their 521 organizations aren't the only groups with deep pockets that will be running ads....but that wouldn't be the real reason behind the outrage would it? Lol!

[woodchip]

Well peons, all hope of ending Corporate influence in Congress and returning it to the common people just died in a 5-to-4 decision!

Yet in your view it is o.k. the corporate news organ like msnbc were exempt because their influence was deemed "news" ?

[Kilarin]

The problem is a population of sheeple so stupid and uncaring that they really are frequently swayed by the campaign that spent the most money on advertising.

If that weren't true, the lobbies would have much less influence.

[Tunnelcat]

Corporations and yes, Unions, defined as essentially 'people' with all the rights of free speech according to the Supreme Court. They aren't even living beings and they have infinitely deep pockets. And it was right-wing judges that gave them that power yesterday. What would the Founding Fathers think of this development?

[SilverFJ]

What would the Founding Fathers think of this development?

The process by which this problem is remedied involves a lot of hanging and shooting. I think that's what they'd think.

[Krom]

The process by which this problem is remedied involves a lot of hanging and shooting. I think that's what they'd think.

While it is true that "government" of any form only ever improves when it is burned to the ground and rebuilt fresh, Americans are far too lazy and occupied chowing down on another big mac while watching reality TV to be bothered with tedious tasks such as correcting their corrupt government. So long as the public is being pacified by their greasy burgers things will continue to deteriorate.

[Insurrectionist]

Good one Krom.

[SilverFJ]

It's completely true. I think in order to get some government change, a few metropolitan areas have to sink into the ocean as well... But we can only dream, huh?

[flip]

Heh dude your living to far in the future, so at the moment that kinda makes you useless .

[Cuda68]

It's completely true. I think in order to get some government change, a few metropolitan areas have to sink into the ocean as well... But we can only dream, huh?

New Orleans - 1 down

[Kilarin]

I think in order to get some government change, a few metropolitan areas have to sink into the ocean as well

There are plenty of sheeple in the country as well. Sheeple is the majority class everywhere that I have been.

It's not a country mouse vs city mouse kinda thing. It's a most people are very stupid kinda thing. The problem with government is that it is by and for humanity, and humanity is stupid. It's not a problem that you can really fix here on earth.

[aaronb]

Corporate control is directly proportional to the size of the government. If you want less corporate control, vote for smaller government (e.g. less regulation, less social programs, etc).

[Krom]

Corporate control is directly proportional to the size of the government. If you want less corporate control, vote for smaller government (e.g. less regulation, less social programs, etc).

That's almost completely wrong.

A great deal of the problems we are having are the result of either ineffective, woefully inadequate or flat out reverse regulation to begin with. The main problem with the government being so large is that its power ends up being so diluted that corporations can run the show and do whatever they want. It is also easier to hide corruption in a huge bureaucracy than in a smaller efficient system. Course it isn't like the major branches are particularly trying to hide their corruption anymore, more like they just legalize it so they can get away with it.

[SilverFJ]

You can't argue that most metro areas are predominantly liberal.

[Spidey]

Corporate control is directly proportional to the size of the government. If you want less corporate control, vote for smaller government (e.g. less regulation, less social programs, etc).

This is true, the the bigger the government the more control those who run government have. (money)

You don’t need big government to have the “proper” regulations in place. But you do need big government to make sure every bug has a foot ready to crush it.

[Tunnelcat]

There are plenty of sheeple in the country as well. Sheeple is the majority class everywhere that I have been.

It's not a country mouse vs city mouse kinda thing. It's a most people are very stupid kinda thing. The problem with government is that it is by and for humanity, and humanity is stupid. It's not a problem that you can really fix here on earth.

You need to coin the word 'stuples' or 'stooples' for stupid people that base their vote on the advertising propaganda they see in the media. There are quite a few of those in this country too.

I see that since McCain is no longer running for pres that he has given up, for now, on his little corporate-campaign reform fight.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/ ... 6386.shtml

[Lothar]

Corporate control is directly proportional to the size of the government. If you want less corporate control, vote for smaller government (e.g. less regulation, less social programs, etc).

That's almost completely wrong.

A great deal of the problems we are having are the result of either ineffective, woefully inadequate or flat out reverse regulation to begin with.

With "flat out reverse regulation" being one of the largest culprits, making aaronb almost completely right. The more government regulation you vote for, the harder corporations will work to make that regulation favorable to themselves. The more programs you vote for, the harder corporations will work to position themselves to profit from them. Simple rules from small government means fewer loopholes; 2000 page bills written by industry insiders means loopholes and payouts and corporate influence.

[AlphaDoG]

Well peons, all hope of ending Corporate influence in Congress and returning it to the common people just died in a 5-to-4 decision!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/po ... cotus.html

As a "libertarian" this strikes me as not too far off center. Any individual that belongs to a group SHOULD be able to exert their influence upon the political scene. The problem occurs when leadership of said group has disdain and/or ignores the will of the group.

Mark my words, heads will roll. (figuratively)

Unregulated, commerce sorts itself out.
Unregulated, banking ( another form of commerce ) sorts itself out.
Unregulated, the FREE will of the people, will sort itself out.

I'm for the constitution, it speaks for itself.

[Bet51987]

.

[Will Robinson]

..The republican party not only owns the supreme court but stole any chance of my future vote having any meaning. They sold my vote to the corporations...

So just exactly which corporation is going to show up at the polling place with your voter registration in hand and use your vote?

Could you have packed any more melodrama into your rant?!

And I wonder if it even matters to you that Obama was lying when he described what the court did which caused the judge to react that way? Probably not.

[woodchip]

Bee, while the president nominates a person for SCOTUS, congress has to approve them. You might want to take a look at who controlled the Senate when the justices were approved.

While the left has no problem vilifying big business and voice loudly their disapproval of the SCOTUS decision lets look at 2 things:

1) The left has no problem with crime ridden big labor being able to run all the ads they want and

2) Don't forget that there are very liberal controlled big corporations like GE that will be presenting their views also.

In the end it all balances out. I'd rather see free speech as defined by the latest SCOTUS decision where all may take part in the election process as opposed to what we had where a select few get to present their view to the exclusion of all others.

[Krom]

Bee, the correct wording is \"The republicans sold out too.\". Both parties are all crooks and traitors, the system is built to keep honest people out or to corrupt them before they get in.

[dissent]

I wasn't going to comment on this until I saw Judge Alito's display during the State of the Union. The republican party not only owns the supreme court but stole any chance of my future vote having any meaning.

Wow. Did I miss the thread where they announced the Tunnelcat Sound-Alike Contest??

Bee, Alito was responding to Obama's Shameless Demgoguery

Yes, once again it seem like the Republic and the Constitution are still alive and functional, in spite of the hysterical protestations of lefty bloggers. You may continue to make plans for the future. Tell them I said it was OK.

[Bet51987]

.

[Dedman]

I would personally like to see only those who are eligible to vote be allowed to donate money to the political process.

[dissent]

... because my individual vote was taken away by five republicans who have absolute power to change things for the worse.

So just how did this magical transformation occur?

[Gooberman]

Yes, once again it seem like the Republic and the Constitution are still alive and functional....

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

People here often complain about our two party system, but we don't have a two party system, we only have two parties that can afford to run enough adds to compete against one another.

Ads win elections.

Giving a man, or a corporation, the right to spend unlimited amount of money is not giving him his constitutional rights, it is making him King.

[Will Robinson]

...

Giving a man, or a corporation, the right to spend unlimited amount of money is not giving him his constitutional rights, it is making him King.

If this ruling was singling out one man or one corporation to have an advantage you might be on to something but it doesn't.
However letting one party's supporters have a stronger voice than any other is what the democrats are really mad about....mad that they will not be able to keep that advantage!

I'm all in favor of forcing special interests into appealing to the public instead of concentrating their money into the campaign coffers of incumbents and their parties.
So go ahead and let the special interest groups all run ads asking us to believe their crap. If at the same time we would outlaw lobbiests and the media would shine a light of truth upon the ads our electoral process would be improved drastically.

However, there should be NO MONEY allowed to be given to the campaign or the party by ANY ENTITY other than a registered voter and this also means democrats stop having donations given to them by union bosses that are automatically deducted from union workers paychecks! If a union member wants to donate he will after he cashes his check and he won't be pressured by his union boss to do so or be afraid to ask them to stop taking the money out for political purposes because the union will no longer be allowed to give money to a candidate/party...only voters can do that and only on an individual basis.

I do think these ads run by special interests should be limited to commentary on policy, no more last minute character assassination allowed.
If a candidate has driven drunk off a bridge and left his date to drown in the car while he stumbles home and mixes himself another drink instead of calling 911.... or had a DUI excused by his rich daddy's friends back when he was in college or went AWOL without punishment.... or wrote himself recommendations for Purple Hearts while he was shooting up his own boat in VietNam by mistake.... then that is the job of the media to tell that story not the National Rifle Association's or MoveOn.Org's....

[Insurrectionist]

You all act like the Government is corrupted and takes bribes from people or corporations, or the people are dumb can't make up their own mind. It's not like the last guy who ran for president had a billion dollars for commercials on everything from Xbox to televisions to buy the presidential seat.

[dissent]

Ads win elections.

Giving a man, or a corporation, the right to spend unlimited amount of money is not giving him his constitutional rights, it is making him King.

But the corporation doesn't have a vote; it can only attempt to influence votes. If people (who do vote) are swayed by false advertising, then they will get the government that they deserve. Just ask Peggy Joseph; I'm willing to lay a modest bet that she still has to pay for her own gas and mortgage. Every election is full of lies, and half-truths and some truths, and the electorate has to decide which is which.

The solution is not to restrict free speech - better to require that the sources of the speech identify who they are, so that people can make their own assessment of the quality of the ads or claims being made. Transparency is better that having whichever party is in power call the shots by telling us which kind of political speech is allowed.

[Spidey]

The solution is not to restrict free speech - better to require that the sources of the speech identify who they are, so that people can make their own assessment of the quality of the ads or claims being made. Transparency is better that having whichever party is in power call the shots by telling us which kind of political speech is allowed.

X2

[Tunnelcat]

The problem is that 'free speech' has been essentially separated from the 'person' or 'individual' by this decision. Foreign-owned subsidiaries of United States-incorporated companies now have the ability to influence U.S. voters with propaganda funded by their unlimited pocketbooks. A good example is Citgo Petroleum, technically a U.S. gas company that is owned by the Venezuelan government and good ol' crazy Chavez. Scare you yet? Forcing some kind of identification requirements about the source of any 'free speech' in any campaign ads will be VERY important in the future.

Here's a funny but unfortunately spot on take by the local university newspaper's forum commentator about the issue. The inside joke here, if you're not from Oregon, is that Phil Knight and Nike essentially own and run the University of Oregon and the writer is from The Daily Barometer, which is the Oregon State University student newspaper.

Middle School Politics

We now have proof of right-wing activist judges in this broad, sweeping, SCOTUS decision. The case could have been decided narrowly in this particular instance, but the ruling was broad and sweeping, overturning a hundred years of precedent! AND, Roberts and Alito lied to Congress when they stated in their conformation hearings that they would rule narrowly without precedent. Alito testified with this little nugget under oath to Congress:

\"The role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. It has to do what it is supposed to do vigilantly, but it has to be equally vigilant about not stepping over its bounds and invading the authority of Congress\"

[dissent]

The problem is that 'free speech' has been essentially separated from the 'person' or 'individual' by this decision.

By this decision? How so?

We now have proof of right-wing activist judges in this broad, sweeping, SCOTUS decision. The case could have been decided narrowly in this particular instance, but the ruling was broad and sweeping, overturning a hundred years of precedent!

What century of precedent are you referring to? You mean starting with the 1907 Tillman Act?
from here - http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/28/the ... ns-united/

First of all, the 100-year claim is completely wrong. In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act that banned direct contributions by corporations to federal candidates – there was no ban on independent political expenditures in the law. “Contributions” are funds given directly to candidates for their election campaigns; independent expenditures are funds spent by third parties on things like political advertisements without any coordination with the candidate.

The Tillman Act was sponsored by South Carolina Senator Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman, probably the most vicious racist to ever serve in Congress. Tillman was a Democratic segregationist who was chiefly responsible for the imposition of Jim Crow in South Carolina after the end of Reconstruction when he was governor. This federal law, that so-called “progressives” like the President are constantly praising, was intended by Tillman to hurt the Republican Party – the party of abolition and Abraham Lincoln – because many corporations contributed to the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. These corporations did not like segregation in the South – it cost them money and made it more expensive to sell their goods and services.

Congress did not ban independent political expenditures by corporations and labor unions until 1947. For three decades after the passage of that law, the Supreme Court went out of its way to avoid upholding its constitutionality, and the Court actually struck down a separate ban on independent expenditures as well as a state law prohibiting corporate expenditures on referenda. It was not until 1990 in the Austin case that the Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld a state ban on independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation (a trade association) in a case completely at odds with prior precedent. The actual electioneering communications provision at issue in the Citizens United case was part of the McCain-Feingold amendments to federal campaign finance law in 2002.

[Gooberman]

But the corporation doesn't have a vote; it can only attempt to influence votes. If people (who do vote) are swayed by false advertising, then they will get the government that they deserve.

More often then not, its the same thing. When was the last time a President won who wasn't a D or an R? Shrugging it off as "you get what you deserve," may be a fitting expression for any man or entity about to self distruct, but that doesn't make one morally justified to just stand by and watch.

If this ruling was singling out one man or one corporation to have an advantage you might be on to something but it doesn't.
However letting one party's supporters have a stronger voice than any other is what the democrats are really mad about....mad that they will not be able to keep that advantage!

Perhaps a more accurate assertion was that it allows them to become King of their own corporate domain. I am not concerned with many of the more public social debates like pro-life and pro-choice, or gay marriage, each side has big enough guns that they will continue to fight it out to a draw.

But often there isn't an opposition party organized enough to put up a fight, which is why they have been handicapped. Lets take credit card companies or car dealers who prey on ~18 year olds. They offer the kids more money then they have ever spent, nicer cars then any of their friends....and some of them bite and end up in a self-imposed slavery for the next ~40 year of their life. Are they getting what they deserved? No. They don't deserve the car at 18, and 10 years down the road they don't deserve to be in debt while trying to start a family.

You honestly think any individual, or the electorate will be able to put up a stand against VISA? I can already see the commercials, "restricting your FREEDOM", "insulting your intelligence.", etc, etc.

I don't think union bosses should be allowed to funnel large amounts of money either, but these two wrongs wont make it right.

[Spidey]

Who is to say all corporations have either a “D” or an “R” stamped on them? Who can say this won’t give more voice to moderate views?

[Will Robinson]

..

You honestly think any individual, or the electorate will be able to put up a stand against VISA?..

My gut reaction is if we stop special interests like VISA from being able to contribute to party's or candidates and their only hope to get legislation that suits their interests was to appeal to the public to support the candidate they want then their impact would be minimal because there will be hundreds of other special interests all running ads promoting one of the few candidates over the other.
People might vote single issue over abortion but they aren't going to vote single issue over Bank advertising legislation so VISA's ads, no matter how tricky, will be diluted by all the other equally neutered factions trying to sway our votes.
and politicians will be safe to vote down bad legislation without fear of losing re-election because the two parties won't be as big of a factor without all those millions of corporate and special interest donations. Only registered voters should be able to donate to parties or candidates and it will be limited to low amounts like it is now.

The two parties have way too much power right now and they are the ones who control the process. They are the reason we get bad candidates and why politicians vote party interest over public interest so often because the party can be the deciding factor on re-election of the candidate.



It's time the people were given back the power to decide who wins.