DescentBB

Gooberman wrote:

dissent wrote: 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.

Who's talking about just standing by and watching? And I thought we were talking about the influence of corporations, not one political party or the other. As for the alleged all powerful influence of the corporation, I think Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe has your answer. He ends his piece with an interesting observation -

Jeff Jacoby wrote:But even those that do choose to advertise during an election cycle will not make the mistake so many of the court’s detractors are making. They know that Americans are not sheep, easily herded through clever commercials. If corporate advertising was irresistible, after all, we’d all be drinking New Coke.

dissent, here is a more detailed synopsis of what the decision means. It's opened up a whole new Pandora's Box of open ended, undecided and unanswered questions/loopholes and future abuses with campaign contributions by corporate (both foreign and domestic) and union entities by using the "free speech rationale" in their decision. SCOTUS could have narrowly decided on Citizens United vs. The FEC, but they went much farther.

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?tit ... Commission

Read the first 2 sections, 'A Few Open, or Not So Open, Questions After the Ruling' and 'Opinion Analysis: The Personhood of Corporations'.

SCOTUS's ruling is obviously a far more complicated decision than feeble little me can grasp in one sitting, so how are most other people going to know what's going on? It didn't quite overturn the precedences of the 1907 Tillman Act or the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, as I hyperbolically stated previously, but it sure took BIG chunks out of their foundations. And yes, when they made their final ruling, 'free speech' is now 'freedom to spend' on any election or issue. Is that 'free speech' when a corporation now has the freedom with their in-house funds to spend any money on whatever they want on any message in any election that they deem in their own best interest? When is corporate interests in our country's best interest? That's what I meant when free speech has now been separated from the speaker, by MONEY! Unlimited wads of it! Individuals and the people that represent them will be drowned out with corporate $$$$$$$! And the question's still open as to whether foreign corporate influence peddling can be used to influence our elections.

Lyle Denniston from scotuswiki wrote:Another question, and this one the Court explicitly said it was not deciding, was whether foreign corporations with operations in the U.S. — placed under the same restrictions as domestic ones — might now be able to claim the same First Amendment protection if they want to spend large sums to try to influence U.S. federal elections. Perhaps that is one example of the next generation of campaign finance lawsuits.

The Court also did not rule on the flat ban — in effect for corporations since 1907, and for labor unions since 1947 — on donations that they might want to make directly to a federal candidate or a candidate’s campaign organization. That was not an issue in the Citizens United case, and it was discussed only briefly in the Kennedy opinion. With the Court speaking with such fervor about the need for open and robust political spending, one might wonder whether a donation to a candidate is all that different, constitutionally, from paying for an independent ad that says vote for that candidate or vote against the opponent. Does anyone in political finance have a yen to bring that challenge? That is not clear.

The need for "open and robust political spending", sheeesh! Not on the uneven playing field that we have to work with NOW without almost any fair representation for the common person in Washington anymore.

Will, how can the people take back the power to decide who wins elections? HOW? Both parties are run by Corporatist shills now!

Bettina wrote:They sold my vote to the corporations

Just a small clarification here. They didn't sell your vote. They gave the corporations the right to TRY and buy votes. The corps can NOT compel you to sell your vote. But they are welcome to bid as much for it (by purchasing expensive ads) as they want.

This wouldn't be a problem if it hadn't been proven quite conclusively that most Americans are more than willing to sell their vote. Cheap. The candidate with the biggest budget has a greatly increased chance of winning.

It's shameful, and I'm really very sorry that the Supreme Court made such a decision. BUT, it is STILL a case of the people getting what they deserve. All democracies fail when the people become too stupid, too immoral, and too lazy to maintain it.

The situation is analogous to the supreme court legalizing prostitution, and then people complaining when a large number of women (and men), agree to sell their virtue for cash. True, the Supreme Courts decision opened Pandora's Box, BUT, no one forced the people to sell. They just couldn't resist the money.

If the voting population is so incredibly stupid and lazy that 30 second sound bites are what decides their vote, Then I'm not really certain our democracy isn't already in it's death throws.

tunnelcat wrote:..
Will, how can the people take back the power to decide who wins elections? HOW? Both parties are run by Corporatist shills now!

The answer is easy, simple in fact. Getting the law passed to impliment it is harder because it requires people like you and me support reform instead of a party. You have to be willing to throw the party under the bus, I'm there and I'm begging you to join me....

1) outlaw lobbiest.

2) outlaw campaign donations or any material support to a candidate that doesn't come directly from a registered voter and the limit on total amount contributed still applies.
2.1) all donations must be publicized with severe penalties to anyone accepting or giving a contribution beyond the personal contribution of a registered voter
2.2) parties may receive donations to fund their operations but the same rules apply, only registered voters can contribute and the same limits apply. Also, parties are no longer allowed to move their money into the campaign of a candidate they can only spend it on promoting their platform

3) reform the tax code to eliminate the politicians power to create loopholes for special interests. a simple flat tax, the Fair Tax, etc. will work just fine. The tax code is enormous only because it is the magic wand for politicians to buy favor. It is packed full of decades of vote buying! Need a vote? No problem just write an exemption! Obama just exempted unions from his new rules regarding Cadillac insurance plans, did it serve all of us or just them who will return the favor to him come re-election time? If your initial reaction to that fact is to try and rationalize the exemption then you are still sipping the party Kool-Aid.

Taking power away from the party returns the power to the people. Right now we are seeing the democrat party dictate to their members in congress to vote contrary to the constituents wishes because they depend so much on party support to be re-elected. That is not the way our system was designed to work and the two big parties dirty hands on so much of the process is a big problem, example: who decided Ralph Nader can't be in the debate? The two parties did...it didn't serve the people to have Ralphs voice silenced it only served the two parties. Why the hell do the two entities being judged in the debate get to write the rules?!?!

While listening to one of the lawyers who was present at the hearings, he brought up what was perhaps the turning point in the judges deciding as they did. The question came up that if someone wrote a book either pro or neg about a candidate and was going to have it published during the 60 day period just before the election, one of the Supremes asked a pro Feingold lawyer if the present law would permit the publishing of the book. The pro lawyer said that the book could not be published as the law was written as it would fall under the agis of presumed political corporate (by the publisher)influence. Don't remember if it was a judge or the anti lawyer who then asked if that didn't amount to book banning. The pro lawyer responded that it could be construed so.

Once the term book banning entered the discussion is when some of the judges leaning perhaps to the pro Feingold side, switched to the other. Point here is the McCain Feingold law enveloped much more than just paying for adverts on TV.

Will Robinson wrote:The answer is easy, simple in fact. Getting the law passed to impliment it is harder because it requires people like you and me support reform instead of a party. You have to be willing to throw the party under the bus, I'm there and I'm begging you to join me....

1) outlaw lobbiest.

2) outlaw campaign donations or any material support to a candidate that doesn't come directly from a registered voter and the limit on total amount contributed still applies.
2.1) all donations must be publicized with severe penalties to anyone accepting or giving a contribution beyond the personal contribution of a registered voter
2.2) parties may receive donations to fund their operations but the same rules apply, only registered voters can contribute and the same limits apply. Also, parties are no longer allowed to move their money into the campaign of a candidate they can only spend it on promoting their platform

3) reform the tax code to eliminate the politicians power to create loopholes for special interests. a simple flat tax, the Fair Tax, etc. will work just fine. The tax code is enormous only because it is the magic wand for politicians to buy favor. It is packed full of decades of vote buying! Need a vote? No problem just write an exemption! Obama just exempted unions from his new rules regarding Cadillac insurance plans, did it serve all of us or just them who will return the favor to him come re-election time? If your initial reaction to that fact is to try and rationalize the exemption then you are still sipping the party Kool-Aid.

Taking power away from the party returns the power to the people. Right now we are seeing the democrat party dictate to their members in congress to vote contrary to the constituents wishes because they depend so much on party support to be re-elected. That is not the way our system was designed to work and the two big parties dirty hands on so much of the process is a big problem, example: who decided Ralph Nader can't be in the debate? The two parties did...it didn't serve the people to have Ralphs voice silenced it only served the two parties. Why the hell do the two entities being judged in the debate get to write the rules?!?!

For once I agree on most of your points, but how do you get incorruptible people voted in that will not be seduced by the Washington power and money atmosphere? Humans are easily seduced by money, power and prestige.

Also, my husband and I are warming up to the Far Tax Act idea too after seeing our uber-complicated tax returns we'll have to be filling out this year. What a mess! It's getting more and more convoluted and complicated every year! Once in the past, we only had ONE page to fill out come tax time!

Even though I believe in unions for giving workers a voice, giving them special consideration in this health care mess is unfair to the rest of society. It smacks of favoritism and won't garner a solution in my book. The pain must be spread around to all, fair and square. However, the rationing of health care by wealth and private insurance, which is what we have now in this country, is twisted and broken.

tunnelcat wrote:dissent, here is a more detailed synopsis of what the decision means. It's opened up a whole new Pandora's Box of open ended, undecided and unanswered questions/loopholes and future abuses with campaign contributions by corporate (both foreign and domestic) and union entities by using the "free speech rationale" in their decision. SCOTUS could have narrowly decided on Citizens United vs. The FEC, but they went much farther.

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?tit ... Commission

Read the first 2 sections, ...

I'll spend some time at your link (as time permits).

In the meantime, Nick Gillespie gives three reasons not to sweat the Citizen's United ruling.

Next episode in the continuing saga:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... -congress/

A corporation says it is going to run for congress!

Roflmbo

Kilarin wrote:Next episode in the continuing saga:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... -congress/

A corporation says it is going to run for congress!

Too late, Gray Lady. The Onion already has this beat covered.