View Full Version : How are we feeling about this latest court ruling?
So the courts have basically said that corporations are no longer restricted with how much money they can donate to people running for president or congress. How do you guys feel about this? This honestly scares me, but I'm still not made up on the issue. Here is an article:
http://www.newser.com/story/78807/high-court-rips-up-corporate-campaign-donation-limits.html
The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns. By a 5-4 vote, the court today overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision threatens limits imposed on such spending by 24 states.
Lol, watch the movie "Idiocracy". Becoming more true every decade.
Bailey Guns
01-21-2010, 17:50
I'll never forgive John McCain for "McCain/Feingold". I'm a little on the fence on this.
Bailey Guns
01-21-2010, 17:53
Nevermind...
I just saw Chuck Schumer badmouthing the ruling. That's all I need to know to understand this must be a good thing.
And I am in favor of 1st Amend freedoms.
Personally I see this as the wrong direction to go when it comes to campaign finance reform and liberty. Corporations should absolutely be barred from bribing, er I meaning lobbying, government.
While I am very pro 1st Amendment, our entire Constitution applies only to flesh and blood people. Corporations are not people. They aren't citizens. They are a collection of legal documents setup to allow for business transactions and business ownership rights. If the CEO or shareholders of a corporation have a political view they'd like to advocate, let them do it as private citizens without the undo financial influence the resources of a corporation provides. What's next, giving each corporation in the country the right to vote?
The next logical step is giving governmental agencies the right to campaign too.
What they should do is make corporations own up to their own ads. So instead of 'Concerned Citizens for American Growth' supporting Sarah Palin because she'll open up offshore drilling, it should be Exxon or Shell. If people are still too stupid to figure it out after that then they deserve everything they get.
GreenScoutII
01-21-2010, 22:31
Personally I see this as the wrong direction to go when it comes to campaign finance reform and liberty. Corporations should absolutely be barred from bribing, er I meaning lobbying, government.
While I am very pro 1st Amendment, our entire Constitution applies only to flesh and blood people. Corporations are not people. They aren't citizens. They are a collection of legal documents setup to allow for business transactions and business ownership rights. If the CEO or shareholders of a corporation have a political view they'd like to advocate, let them do it as private citizens without the undo financial influence the resources of a corporation provides. What's next, giving each corporation in the country the right to vote?
+1 I'm not sure which I trust less. The government or big business.
I have to say that I am torn on this. From the legal / constitutional side I support it.
Why is one organization more equal than others? If labor unions, non-profits, community organizations and others can pick sides and spend money why not corporations? The corperation I work for is much more likely to further my goals then say SAIU or the local Pipe Fitters union.
I have nothing against the rights of those groups but little in common with the goals. I do not want to take their rights away but I do not want to join a union or political organization to exercise mine.
I would rather see none of these groups involved but I think that it would require a constitutional amendment to get to that place. I am growing very tired of laws being passed that try to get around that unfortunate document. As a friend of mine has said, “Oh don’t start talking about that old thing, it doesn’t matter anymore.”
We forget that we can change the rules if we want to, but we have to work for it. The legislator’s and judges cannot do it for us not should they try!
Why is one organization more equal than others? If labor unions, non-profits, community organizations and others can pick sides and spend money why not corporations? The corperation I work for is much more likely to further my goals then say SAIU or the local Pipe Fitters union.
In my opinion, none of these organizations should be allowed to bribe our government. If people with like views want to organize and pick a single spokesman to be their voice, so be it. That spokesman should wait their turn in line to speak with whomever in government just like any other private citizen. But they should not be allowed to bribe, and that's all lobbying is, govt to get preferred treatment for their views.
Half of the problem with our govt is lack of term limits for Congress and the Judiciary. Letting these people sit in such positions of authority for basically their entire lives breeds a political elite that are corrupted by power. Our fore fathers warned of this danger in various writings. Term limits must be imposed.
The other half of the problem is the billions of dollars that flows to these political elites via lobbyists. No sane individual can honestly believe that letting such vast sums of money flow through the political system doesn't absolutely corrupt it. Why 'We The People' tolerate this obvious corruption by rationalizing 'that is just how things get done' is beyond me. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
In my opinion a law should be passed that no organization/corporation may contribute money to a politician, period. Contributions from individual citizens may only amount to $100 a year per politician. And that money must be strongly accounted for. If such a law were introduced you'd have the instant effect of
1) The rich and powerful really no longer have more buying power than the common citizen. Voters begin to matter after election day.
2) Politicians, still needing vast sums of money to run campaigns, would be forced to actually engage and listen to the people rather than just giving us lip service. When you need vast numbers of people to contribute to your campaign, you suddenly begin to take an interest in each and every one of them.
3) Politicians no longer become beholden to a few rich individuals/organizations. They aren't forced to pay back bribes via favorable legislation or treatment. At most if they piss off a voter, they lose 1 vote and $100 dollars. Maybe then principles and beliefs would guide their actions rather than perverting their power to ensure the bribes keep coming from a few powerful sources.
But considering Congress would have to pass such a law, don't hold your breath. We have the fox watching the chicken coup.
MuzzleFlash
01-22-2010, 00:00
Mutt
You're playing into the socialist gameplan. You forget the media role. Limiting the ability of people of all stripes and political persuasions to organize and make their voices heard just empowers the mainstream media outlets. Organizing means unions, advocacy groups, political parties, corporations, partnerships, etc. It's un-American to limit who can say what and when about a politician. It's the downhill path to tyranny.
You also seem to assume that the people that spend the most and dominate the airwaves will usually win. There you are very mistaken. Read the book "Freakonomics" for a well done study that totally repudiates this myth.
esabye
Very good points. Points that were not made today on the MSM. You've noted that the decision also unleashes all the liberal special interests including unions.
Anyone watching CBS, NBC, ABC or CNN today heard a very biased version from these left wing wackos. They played down or omitted the part about the shackles coming off leftist groups like ACLU, AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, People for the American Way, VPC, Brady, etc., etc. 90-100% of what we heard about was that the chains came off those evil capitalist corporations. You know, the ones that want to rape, pillage, pollute the planet and take your first born children to sell them into slavery to pay for obscene pay raises for the fat cats that run the boardrooms. Sheesh!
The few network news stories that gave passing mention to unshackling non-corporate entities did so by showing a bubba looking dude with a pickup truck holding a bumper sticker saying "Vote Freedom First!". Oh no, the sky is falling! The NRA and other pro-gun groups are allowed to exercise free speech again!!
Including corporate free speech under first amendment protections allows capitalism to have a much needed voice. It counterbalances the socialist drum beat coming from all the leftists in the media and Democratic party. Like the NRA, corporations are organizations created by their members for a shared purpose - in this case, building wealth. Why can't they take on the people trying to prevent this most American of activities?
Now the NRA, GOA and RMGO will be free to call a spade a spade by buying radio or TV spots any time they deem effective - including the Monday night before the election. West slope oil interests can point out to voters this fall how the Democrats in congress and the Colorado legislature decimated their industry and destroyed jobs. Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley in California can point out how they were completely abandoned by Barbara Boxer when the water was shut off to their land over a stupid 3 inch bait fish called the Delta Smelt. These cowardly politicians won't have a three month holiday from criticism from the people they are screwing.
Other than that weasel McCain, do you see any Republicans wringing their hands and crying over this decision? That should tell you volumes about who the winners and losers are.
GreenScoutII
01-22-2010, 08:59
In my opinion, none of these organizations should be allowed to bribe our government. If people with like views want to organize and pick a single spokesman to be their voice, so be it. That spokesman should wait their turn in line to speak with whomever in government just like any other private citizen. But they should not be allowed to bribe, and that's all lobbying is, govt to get preferred treatment for their views.
Half of the problem with our govt is lack of term limits for Congress and the Judiciary. Letting these people sit in such positions of authority for basically their entire lives breeds a political elite that are corrupted by power. Our fore fathers warned of this danger in various writings. Term limits must be imposed.
The other half of the problem is the billions of dollars that flows to these political elites via lobbyists. No sane individual can honestly believe that letting such vast sums of money flow through the political system doesn't absolutely corrupt it. Why 'We The People' tolerate this obvious corruption by rationalizing 'that is just how things get done' is beyond me. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
In my opinion a law should be passed that no organization/corporation may contribute money to a politician, period. Contributions from individual citizens may only amount to $100 a year per politician. And that money must be strongly accounted for. If such a law were introduced you'd have the instant effect of
1) The rich and powerful really no longer have more buying power than the common citizen. Voters begin to matter after election day.
2) Politicians, still needing vast sums of money to run campaigns, would be forced to actually engage and listen to the people rather than just giving us lip service. When you need vast numbers of people to contribute to your campaign, you suddenly begin to take an interest in each and every one of them.
3) Politicians no longer become beholden to a few rich individuals/organizations. They aren't forced to pay back bribes via favorable legislation or treatment. At most if they piss off a voter, they lose 1 vote and $100 dollars. Maybe then principles and beliefs would guide their actions rather than perverting their power to ensure the bribes keep coming from a few powerful sources.
But considering Congress would have to pass such a law, don't hold your breath. We have the fox watching the chicken coup.
Again, +1.....
McCain-Feingold never should have happened.. That said, MuzzleFlash said it better than I can.
Mutt
You're playing into the socialist gameplan. You forget the media role. Limiting the ability of people of all stripes and political persuasions to organize and make their voices heard just empowers the mainstream media outlets. Organizing means unions, advocacy groups, political parties, corporations, partnerships, etc. It's un-American to limit who can say what and when about a politician. It's the downhill path to tyranny.
You also seem to assume that the people that spend the most and dominate the airwaves will usually win. There you are very mistaken. Read the book "Freakonomics" for a well done study that totally repudiates this myth.
I love how today's battle cry for some is 'socialism'. You disagree with me, you're a 'socialist'. You don't like Politician A or Party B, you're a 'socialist'.
It's almost like the McCarthy days when the same types used the word 'communist'. I really hope we don't decide to have hearings on whose a 'socialist'...
I am not forgetting the media role and I am not advocating limiting 'The People' from organizing and letting their collective voices be heard. I explicitly said "If people with like views want to organize and pick a single spokesman to be their voice, so be it.".
My view is these organizations should be forbidden from giving money directly to politicians. Money should be from actual citizens and limited per citizen to ensure no one has undue influence other than representing a majority view. Now if people want to pool their resources and run ads saying what they stand for and who they support, awesome! Welcome to America. But those ads should explicitly state who they are and the fact they have nothing to do with said politician/party other than a group endorsement.
And I never said anything about dominating airwaves and overall campaign spending. My issue is the fact the winners are invariably indebted to a few people/organizations if they do win. No one gives someone millions upon millions of dollars without expect something in return. The scariest part of our current system are the groups/individuals who give vast sums of money but never ever run an ad or openly endorse a candidate. What are they getting? What are we losing?
Allowing unlimited funds to flow into our system from rich corporations, special interests and wealthy individuals is the downhill path to tyranny and it's already begun. If being opposed to that makes me a 'socialist', so be it.
I think this is a good debate and I'm going to quote, copy, and paste it on another site. I'll leave the names out though.
Corporations are not people. They aren't citizens. They are a collection of legal documents setup to allow for business transactions and business ownership rights.
Response to this from another board.
No they aren't just a set of legal documents, they are legal entities. That's why they are double taxed and taxed specifically as a separate entity from the income of the owners of the firm. Taxation without representation? Shareholders' political interests do not need to align with the interests of the firm.
Corporations have been bribing governments for hundreds of years, the ruling is just the john putting an engagement ring on the whore.
Response to this from another board.
Originally Posted by myshtern http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?p=960382#post960382)
No they aren't just a set of legal documents, they are legal entities. That's why they are double taxed and taxed specifically as a separate entity from the income of the owners of the firm. Taxation without representation? Shareholders' political interests do not need to align with the interests of the firm.
Last I looked a legal entity wasn't a living and breathing American Citizen with the right to vote. While I'm well aware a Corporation is a 'person' when it comes to legalities, they do not qualify has someone to be represented.
Taxation without representation? That gave me a good chuckle. First of all the shareholders indeed pay the tax on corporate earnings. Since the tax levied on corporate earnings directly diminishes the value of dividends paid to the shareholders, or reduces the value of their shares, they do pay the tax. Just because it doesn't show up on their tax filings doesn't change the fact it's income deprived from them by their govt. That's a tax.
Now if the shareholders, officers and employees feel such a corporate tax is unfair or an undue burden; they have the right, as real citizens, to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see how preventing 'legal entities' from influencing govt is in any way bad for liberty.
I don't see how preventing 'legal entities' from influencing govt is in any way bad for liberty.
So that means we can and should restrict all legal entities? Would that not extend well beyond the evil corporation that I work for but also SAIU, ACORN, NRA, the AG lobby and all others?
Maybe that is the answer, it is even handed but it might just violate my right to free association and free speech. Seems that if I would choose to associate I would have to sacrifice some of my free speech rights.
I know it is a muddy issue but we must look at it from a different perspective. If we sanction taking rights away from one group then they will come for the next group. We know as gun owners that we are on that list. We must hold the line at the constitution, no more and no less. We can change the constitution if we want too, that is the correct method.
On a side note, if we want to make health care a right, we also need to add it to the constitution.
When we start to ignore our own laws for populist reason (many examples available if you want them) we enable our government to further oppress us by dividing us.
Let me make this very clear, I am that Corporation, and so are many of you. Many others on the forum are the Union. We all shoot together and talk together. We all value our freedoms. Now they start to divide us and suddenly we are ready to take each other’s rights away based on positions we think the other holds. The only thing that can prevent the populist rage pushed by politicians on both sides is the constitution.
OK, rant over.
[Beer]
So that means we can and should restrict all legal entities? Would that not extend well beyond the evil corporation that I work for but also SAIU, ACORN, NRA, the AG lobby and all others?
Maybe that is the answer, it is even handed but it might just violate my right to free association and free speech. Seems that if I would choose to associate I would have to sacrifice some of my free speech rights.
I know it is a muddy issue but we must look at it from a different perspective. If we sanction taking rights away from one group then they will come for the next group. We know as gun owners that we are on that list. We must hold the line at the constitution, no more and no less. We can change the constitution if we want too, that is the correct method.
On a side note, if we want to make health care a right, we also need to add it to the constitution.
When we start to ignore our own laws for populist reason (many examples available if you want them) we enable our government to further oppress us by dividing us.
Let me make this very clear, I am that Corporation, and so are many of you. Many others on the forum are the Union. We all shoot together and talk together. We all value our freedoms. Now they start to divide us and suddenly we are ready to take each other’s rights away based on positions we think the other holds. The only thing that can prevent the populist rage pushed by politicians on both sides is the constitution.
OK, rant over.
[Beer]
Maybe I'm not being clear - I am in no way against the association of like minded citizens who chose a 'legal entity' to be their common voice. I have no problem with these common voices taking out ads, flooding TV, and petitioning govt about their beliefs and causes. Those are activities protected by The Constitution.
I am against the bribing of public officials. That is what lobbying (in its current form) is, bribery. Preventing corporations, unions, stamp clubs, or whatever 'legal entity' you can think of from buying and selling our govt in no way prevents real, voting citizens from participating in their govt. If anything it ensures their wishes and heard and obeyed.
Wonder why illegal immigration is such a problem? Look at the special interests. Very powerful business groups have a vested interest in keeping a steady flow of cheap, exploitable labor. They 'vote' with campaign contributions. The American people cry out for reform, but we are drowned out by an ocean of bribes.
Wonder why your job is getting off shored? Or why we sign illogical free-trade agreements that flood our country with cheap foreign goods that destroy our domestic industries? Look to the lobbies. Look at the flow of 'contributions' from a few very powerful interests that stand to make vast sums of money by destroying your livelihoods. Do you think your votes stand a chance against all that money?
And for those techies out there, how do think the ridiculous Digital Millennium Copyright Act ever got passed? Yup, special interest and corporate lobbies. In the name of bribes, our govt threw out basically all of our fair use rights to appease their corporate masters.
Maybe I'm not being clear - I am in no way against the association of like minded citizens who chose a 'legal entity' to be their common voice. I have no problem with these common voices taking out ads, flooding TV, and petitioning govt about their beliefs and causes. Those are activities protected by The Constitution.
I am against the bribing of public officials. That is what lobbying (in its current form) is, bribery. Preventing corporations, unions, stamp clubs, or whatever 'legal entity' you can think of from buying and selling our govt in no way prevents real, voting citizens from participating in their govt. If anything it ensures their wishes and heard and obeyed.
Wonder why illegal immigration is such a problem? Look at the special interests. Very powerful business groups have a vested interest in keeping a steady flow of cheap, exploitable labor. They 'vote' with campaign contributions. The American people cry out for reform, but we are drowned out by an ocean of bribes.
Wonder why your job is getting off shored? Or why we sign illogical free-trade agreements that flood our country with cheap foreign goods that destroy our domestic industries? Look to the lobbies. Look at the flow of 'contributions' from a few very powerful interests that stand to make vast sums of money by destroying your livelihoods. Do you think your votes stand a chance against all that money?
And for those techies out there, how do think the ridiculous Digital Millennium Copyright Act ever got passed? Yup, special interest and corporate lobbies. In the name of bribes, our govt threw out basically all of our fair use rights to appease their corporate masters.
First, these are the good and necessary conversations we as Americans should be having. I am very happy we do discuss because every issue has both sides.
So let me understand, You do not have a problem with a ‘legal entity’ but just against those who would ‘bribe’ . That works just fine while you are the one judging the difference between the two.
So let me ask few questions…
How many cheap goods did you buy? Why, you know better, you should have paid a local union shop for that loaf of bread or that tv.
Did you buy your energy from the local options or did you pay market rate and get what was available?
Not happy the job got offshored, did you call all the reps 10 years ago and complain about the HB1 numbers?
So do I like the idea that a Company might be able to bribe a politician, no. Do I like the idea a politician would accept a bribe, no.
Do I understand that some people have uneven access or ability to influence the conversation based on past experience and current status, yes. It happened in 1772-1778 just as an example.
We are all created equal, then we must find our own ways. Look how far we have come from the original issue.
We try to justify reduction of rights of a small group who we think is not us.
If it is not us now it will be soon.
So let me understand, You do not have a problem with a ‘legal entity’ but just against those who would ‘bribe’ . That works just fine while you are the one judging the difference between the two.
I'm not deciding the difference between anything. If a 'legal entity' or an individual tries to influence a govt official with money or gifts, it's a bribe. It doesn't matter that we've institutionalized it and called it lobbying, it's still a bribe. If you see no problems with groups or individuals 'donating' millions of dollars to politicians in order to influence govt, then we really have nothing to discuss. We'll just agree to disagree.
How many cheap goods did you buy? Why, you know better, you should have paid a local union shop for that loaf of bread or that tv.
Nice attempt at trying to simplify a very complicated issue. Maybe I'll cede the high ground to you if you can honestly claim you have zero foreign goods in your household. I try to buy American goods when I can, and when it makes financial sense. That's probably why I like AR's so much. At least those are still made here.
Did you buy your energy from the local options or did you pay market rate and get what was available?
I don't see how that even has any bearing here but I'll answer anyways. I live in the metro area. I get my energy from xcel just like the vast majority. It's not like I really have a choice. As far as I know that electricity is produced domestically.
You use solar panels made in the USA? You distill your own ethanol? Only burn wood from American trees to heat your home? Good for you.
Not happy the job got offshored, did you call all the reps 10 years ago and complain about the HB1 numbers?
And I'm sure you did. How'd that work out for ya? I can guess not so good considering how many bribes, sorry I mean contributions, Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco, etc gave to your representatives and senators. Last I looked around my office there were plenty of Hindus doing jobs my unemployed friends were far more qualified to do. But hey, at least those 'legal entities' had their voices heard. My unemployed friends' voices and votes, not so much.
We are all created equal, then we must find our own ways. Look how far we have come from the original issue.
We try to justify reduction of rights of a small group who we think is not us.
If it is not us now it will be soon.
Again, last time I looked non-human 'legal entities' weren't citizens. They don't have any rights to get reduced.
I think some people support this because it means their favorite group, corp, social club, etc can now bribe govt in new and exciting ways (or in old ways that we're outlawed for a while). Hurray! And what's the harm so long as the bribes come from 'the good people'? Right?
Be careful, you may find 'good' getting re-defined when the other side can out bribe you.
roman gnome
01-23-2010, 09:09
I may be wrong but it was my understanding that Corps could buy ads for or against an issue or candidate,not straight to their funds.if that's the case I would like to know who's paying for what.
To me it just evens the playing field a little.
That and I don't choose who or what to vote on by TV or radio ads,cause they all lie!
Let Soros spend all his money with his name on it, not hiding behind some phony PAC's.
RMGOdirector
01-23-2010, 22:29
RMGO has the only Colorado pro-gun PAC.
I would think most on this list would be happy to have a PAC like this involved in Colorado politics (you should, as we've played a role in electing all of the best pro-gun leaders in Colorado).
And, with an organization's PAC, it dramatically favors groups with large numbers (like gun owners).
The problem is that some "pro-gun" PACs give money to our enemies (NRA's PVF does it regularly).
Those gun owners who suggest broad limitations on campaign donations need to re-think their stance....
Well all I can say is that is Stevens doesn't like it, I will more than likely be opposite of that view.
If people want to blow all their money supporting an issue or a candidate, they are going to do it. Soros has been mentions by others. they is no mistaking that he gives more than the legal limit is other ways.
I can see this issue as both helpful and hurtful, but I don't see that a limit need be placed.
Stevens said he doesn't want the integrity of elected institutions to be undermined but they already are, even with the limits that were set in place.
Those gun owners who suggest broad limitations on campaign donations need to re-think their stance....
Just because organizations and causes I support may benefit from this situation, it still doesn't make it right. Mixing vast sums of money and politics is just asking for eventual disaster. I understand the pro-gun lobby has no choice but to play this game since the anti-gun lobby will use the system to their advantage. But everyone involved should be asking if this game of legalized corruption should even be played at all? I realize I'm advocating some Utopian view of how a perfect system should work, but I will stand by the belief that this is simply wrong.
I think we can agree that most Americans citizens, real flesh and blood voters, were against the TARP and government bailout of the banking sector and Wall Street. Many people asked why our Government continued down this path when so many were vehemently opposed to it.
In 2008 alone the Finance industry spent $476 million dollars lobbying our government. Of that almost $58 million was in the form of direct contributions to Congress. While they slightly favor Republicans, they were more than happy to buy Democrats as well. They hedge their bets so to speak. The top contributors reads like a who's who of TARP recipients. Since 1990 the industry has pumped $2.3 billion dollars into the political system. Do you still wonder why Govt bailed them out against our wishes?
The sickening thing is the Finance industry is just one lobby amongst countless others.
I don't need to re-think my stance.
Mutt, your points are well made and I understand where you are coming from.. I also do not like the special interests impact on policy.
So here is the problem, how can I trust congress to muzzle special interest groups in a fair and even method? To answer my own question, I can’t. I have no reason to believe that these representatives could or would enact a law that would prevent excessive influence while not infringing on my rights to lobby my representatives and to do so with any association I would like including Corporations or Non Profits.
I also do not see the constitutional basis for it and thus cannot support it. I would like to see us amend the constitution if we need to, but not pass laws that skirt it in the hope that the populist support will carry it thru.
I think that mutt and I must agree to disagree.
MuzzleFlash
01-25-2010, 01:15
I love how today's battle cry for some is 'socialism'. You disagree with me, you're a 'socialist'. You don't like Politician A or Party B, you're a 'socialist'.
It's almost like the McCarthy days when the same types used the word 'communist'. I really hope we don't decide to have hearings on whose a 'socialist'...
I am not forgetting the media role and I am not advocating limiting 'The People' from organizing and letting their collective voices be heard. I explicitly said "If people with like views want to organize and pick a single spokesman to be their voice, so be it.".
My view is these organizations should be forbidden from giving money directly to politicians. Money should be from actual citizens and limited per citizen to ensure no one has undue influence other than representing a majority view. Now if people want to pool their resources and run ads saying what they stand for and who they support, awesome! Welcome to America. But those ads should explicitly state who they are and the fact they have nothing to do with said politician/party other than a group endorsement.
And I never said anything about dominating airwaves and overall campaign spending. My issue is the fact the winners are invariably indebted to a few people/organizations if they do win. No one gives someone millions upon millions of dollars without expect something in return. The scariest part of our current system are the groups/individuals who give vast sums of money but never ever run an ad or openly endorse a candidate. What are they getting? What are we losing?
Allowing unlimited funds to flow into our system from rich corporations, special interests and wealthy individuals is the downhill path to tyranny and it's already begun. If being opposed to that makes me a 'socialist', so be it.
A socialist is one who promotes heavy intervention of government in the free market and government forced redistribution of wealth and government ownership of capital. Let's see, TARP, STIM-1, Banking regulation growing by 300%, takeover of GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, mortgage bailouts, etc. Sorta sounds like socialism to me. There is nothing disingenuous about calling Obama and his supporters socialists. They are.
McCain Feingold is all about limits on free speech. It limits what can be said, by whom and when and using what media to do so. Laws that limit direct and indirect contributions to candidates were not invalidated by this week's SCOTUS decision. By 8-1 margin, SCOTUS upheld current transparency laws including those on who is paying for independent advertising. However, McCain Feingold's limits on uncoordinated advocacy advertising that criticizes candidates by name was struck down. Now unions, non-profits and yes, corporations are free to buy air time and make their case to the American people as to why Politician X is bad and Y is good. Note that some corporations have been allowed to do this always - newspapers, radio and television networks, etc.
Having said all this, one would have to put their head in the sand to think a politician is somehow more indebted to IBM for directly donating $25K through their PAC than say, IBM spending $25K for effective commercials telling everyone how the politician stood up for American values, jobs and mom's apple pie and needs to be reelected.
I hope congress gets serious now about instant transparency for hard and soft money as well as uncoordinated advertising expenditures. No more hiding the money trail.
tackspitter
01-26-2010, 20:24
Nevermind...
I just saw Chuck Schumer badmouthing the ruling. That's all I need to know to understand this must be a good thing.
And I am in favor of 1st Amend freedoms.
+1 Anything Chuck U hates I AM ALL FOR .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.