But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 22 Jan 2010 18:12
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 165
Join Date: Nov 2009
No what the supreme court ruled was that a group of individuals do not lose their right to speech just because they are joined in a group.
Contribution limits remain in place, though now corporations can contribute up to those limits. However what a corporation now can do that it couldn't before is directly advocate for a cause, the same as a wealthy individual can.
Although every one likes to imagine that Exxon Mobile will empty their treasury to elect their board of directors to congress, such an activity would not only be foolish, but likely would enrage the stock holders to the point of revolt.
Congress can defang this monster tomorrow by making all corporate political action be subject to a share holder vote.
Once you do that, the beast is defanged. Does exxon mobil's share holders really want thier dividends used to elect some straw man politician who might just turn on them the second he's in office?
Could a person even get elected with an exxon mobil logo running at the bottom of their ads?
On paper it might look bad, but in practice this ruling changes almost nothing.
Posted: 23 Jan 2010 12:56
Registered User
Posts: 3675
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: in practice this ruling changes almost nothing.
I'm highly skeptical of this. Take the climate change issue for example. What won't the coal industry resort to just to protect themselves? They don't need their own politician if they can control public opinion. I'm thinking this ruling is a little closer to capitalism unleashed than a harmless throwaway. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 24 Jan 2010 17:28
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 165
Join Date: Nov 2009
Well, but you see for issue advocacy, they can already can spend unlimitedly, fund various fraudulant science and publish it. This ruling doesn't change or make worse this function.
What they now can do is run an add that says "Green Mountain Coal Cooperative says vote yes on prop 3, or vote for Congressman Pogo."
The only thing this ruling changes is the vote for rule, which previously said they couldn't specifically say "vote for" or "vote against" something. They could go right up to the line, but they couldn't specifically advocate for something. What the supreme court essentially is saying is, it is foolish and dangerous to draw that line. That once you establish that congress has the right to limit specific speech "for the public good" it could then start limiting other speech for the public good.
Granted the personhood of corporations is a sketchy issue, but once you arrive a notion that corporations have this right, the public good argument fails.
What the supreme court left in place are donation limits (which prevent corproations from forming other corporations to run campaigns) and disclosure laws (meaning that we will know what corporation is advocating for a politician).
Likewise given the fact that congress has the right to controll the ethics of it's own population, the effect of this ruling is fully deminishable by the rules congress sets for elections.
Essentially, corporations now have to follow the same rules as everyone else, so what laws with regard to electioneering congress puts on everyone goes for corporations too.
Where you likely do have issues is with referndums and local politicians, but in these places corporations have always had this kind of influence just by the nature that they employ the voters. So if Ford lets it be known that assemblyman Smith is hurting the auto industry he's not going to get relected in Michigan. They don't have to specifically advocate for the cause.
Posted: 26 Jan 2010 16:55
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4107
Join Date: Jul 2007
I'm not crazy about corps spending millions unless it's my guy of course they are spending on, but it's freedom baby, yeah! The more the government tries to make rules on who can support what or whom the less freedom we have. I just don't trust the government to have too much power.
Besides all the corps can do is spend money. The people still have the power to vote and make up their own minds. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 26 Jan 2010 17:15
Registered User
Posts: 3675
Join Date: Aug 2007
I trust people making up their own minds about as much as I trust the government with power- most of our population is the direct result of our public education system. A system which is better known for instilling the ability to take orders instead of the ability of critical thinking in it's students. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 26 Jan 2010 20:21
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4107
Join Date: Jul 2007
Well ok, you got me about the public school system being inadequate. Politicians think throwing more money at it will make it better. That's like taking a a bag of money and burying it in the yard hoping the grass will grow greener. It takes hard work to get things done.
But at the same time the only defense our system of governing has is that it falls back to the people being governed to take responsibility for what happens in our government. At least we have a chance at maintaining freedom and prosperity for ourselves that way. Commies don't have that option. If the government fails or succeeds they have no dog in the race. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 26 Jan 2010 22:02
Registered User
Posts: 3675
Join Date: Aug 2007
I really wanted to respond, but it just seems so monumental a task and I'm not sure I want to do one of those kinds of posts right now, mainly because I'm not sure where to begin.
We do have a problematic education system.
We have a citizenry fed nonsense under the umbrella of NEWS.
We have a bastardized version of the government we were supposed to never let get too powerful or bogged down.
We have people who decry the government and still seek their entitlements and professions from the same monster at the same time.
To tackle these things, the few who actually do anything aren't accomplishing anything; it's an aggregate orchestra of white noise where people are holding their own personal civil wars focusing on distractions. We're probably the worst of the bunch, sitting here just talking about it like it accomplishes something.
Good thing I didn't go off on a rant, yes? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 28 Jan 2010 18:28
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4107
Join Date: Jul 2007
Yeah. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 28 Jan 2010 19:52
Registered User
Posts: 3675
Join Date: Aug 2007
Don't tempt me. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 28 Jan 2010 19:54
Registered User
Posts: 3675
Join Date: Aug 2007
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 29 Jan 2010 15:12
Registered User
Posts: 3675
Join Date: Aug 2007
Another voice heard from:
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 11 Feb 2010 07:32
Registered User
Posts: 3675
Join Date: Aug 2007
This one's for you Matches:
Completely backs up what you were saying about it being a speech issue, and he brings up a very valid point toward the end about not allowing the media to be the only corporations with a monopoly on speaking about certain political items. I see your points more clearly now.
That being said, I still have my reservations about how positive a move this was. Yes, everyone should have the right to free speech preserved. No, this should not affect the voting process. To make a happy compromise here, I believe we need a reform of the election process itself- make it pay for itself via a reality show framework like American Idol maybe. Here are two examples of why I still retain my reservations, from the same source.
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 11 Feb 2010 19:48
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 165
Join Date: Nov 2009
You know...it's an intersting thing I recently heard in a discussion of this issue on the radio.
Essentially, that Corporations by and large were never that interested in giving to politicians, but that many a politician had essentially extorted money from them to avoid regulation.
I am unsure if this is a real way to look at the issue, but it makes for something I've always felt, that really, lobbying, and bribes only get you so far. Corporate entities know that, they know that if the political will is there, it doesn't matter how much money they spread around, politicans are still going to make their choices based on one thing, will they get reelected.
I don't worry about exxon mobile buying congress because, if that were possible or practical, they'd have already done it.
That's the thing, at the end of the day, it's just not practical for a corporation to get dug too deeply into this business in an upfront way. The blowback can be significant, the rewards will be nominal at best, and the chances of politicians turning on them is just too high.
I think this is what the court basically realized in making this decision. That the laws in place at the moment are a figleaf at best, and a bad precident for stiffeling the source of speach at worst.
What this opens the flood gates to is for more poorly produced low production value attack films that likely do little other than rally the base. I doubt anyone who was seriously considering voting for Hillary Clinton would change their minds because of Hillary the Movie. And I don't see having a Soros Produced extravaganza starring Alec Baldwin will change the likely hood of national single payer healthcare.
In the end, it is just noise, and people really aren't that stupid. One of the biggest things that have hurt the left on issues like Global Warming, Health Care, and Tax Reform has often been not being willing to get into the details of the policies.
Most polls show when you get into the details and the facts people laregly favor the left's agenda. But if you don't have enough respect for the electorage to communicate these policies to them, well then they aren't going know they agree with you.
What kills the left in this country is that the right is correct in branding them out of touch ellitists. Not because their policies aren't in keeping with mainstream america, but because the left doesn't trust that mainstream america really is with them. They are out of touch, if they were in touch they'd be doing much better.
Posted: 11 Feb 2010 23:54
Registered User
Posts: 3675
Join Date: Aug 2007
As in those two examples above, Gore and pals aren't going directly after the politicians, but the people who vote and can affect their bottom line by forcing policy change. Control the people's collective mind and the politician worried about that vote will fall in line. With that we have exactly the case of money equaling the voice, and the squeakiest wheel getting the oil.
You're 100% correct about >everyone< needing to be more aware of the details of such policies. I don't agree with that just being a problem on either side, left or right or center for that matter. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 12 Feb 2010 21:39
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 165
Join Date: Nov 2009
Of course the only problem with that Pak, is such issue advertising is already fully legal for corporations and never entered into the debate.
So for example, Exxon Mobile can put a billion or two dollars to debunking global warming and then telling people about it, or spend a billion dollars telling people how they aren't causing global warming, and there is nothing in place to stop them. It's there money and they can spend it however they want, even before the rulling.
What the ruling specifically refers to is corporate giving to candidates, and corporate purchase of Vote for X ads.
Simply put I don't think there is much return for corporations in those kinds of purchases, so I don't see it becomeing a problem.
There is nothign stopping them from influencing our opinions.
Mostly they do this by reminding us to simply think about how fun it is to drive our cars, and not mention global warming at all.
That's advertising, and is their primary motivation, because it makes money.
It's not really clear how telling people how to vote (which may cause them to vote for the other guy) will be profitable for a corporation. Likewise it's not really clear how giving to a candidate will ensure their loyalty once they become an incumbant and have that advantage, and having Exxon Mobil on their stationary suddenly becomes a liability.
