USA now officially a Plutocracy, huzzah! Effect on SL?

I don't have fewer rights than Microsoft. I don't have the funds that Microsoft has for sure...........but I can start a busines and if I get as successful as Microsoft I can now contribute equal amounts to my candidate of choice. We know that is a ridiculous comparison but what I can do is do my homework, listen to everyone (you know, all those huge contributers) to hear what they say or advocate and make my decision on how I want to vote. But that requires me to do a little "work"........not sit and listen mindlessly to what people say and believe what they say. I'm sure the majority of people are like me........we do think before we jump. The real issue with campaigns is not the money so much as the truthfullness of the candidates and their advocates..........that's where campaign reform is based. The McCain Feingold bill focused on the money.........they focused on the wrong part. It's now but to where it was 10 years ago........which is good because we no longer are restricting free speech by limiting what a company or group can contribute to any candidate.

Campaign reform really does need to be done...........but you can't do it the "easy" way. Somehow there needs to be some sort of restriction on how big a lie you can tell the public. By both the candidate and their contributers. Lying is not protected by the Constitution.

And, yes I'm an American citizen...........a misplaced die in the wool, backwoods, redneck from the Ozarks in the state of Arkansas. Learned ot shoot a rifle before I learned to ride a bicycle (dirt roads are hard to learn to ride a bike on ).

Did you happen to watch the NBC nightly news on Monday evening? A nice segment on the Dem running for Senate in Mass. Nice personal interview. Just a mention in passing of her opponent. Constantly referring to the seat as "The Kennedy Seat" implying that only a Demorat could fill it. That wasn't worth money?
As for the 08 election. The MSM was basically an arm of the Obama campaign. Tina Fey and SNL didn't do hit piece after hit piece against Palin?
ACORN didn't spend money on Obama?
The SEIU didn't spend money on Obama?

Yeah, what are you smoking if you think they didn't.

How much did Rupert Murdock contribute to any candidate?

"Journalistic bias" is definitely worthy of discussion. It's an important topic.

But it's not on point for the issue at hand: the decision giving UNLIMITED spending power to corporations shopping for candidates who will legistate-to-order.

I'm unconvinced by your talk about ACORN and Tina Fey, etc. You genuinely believe that ACORN is going to outspend ExxonMobil? You really think ACORN has that kind of treasure chest?

REally??

When? What are you talking about? The SCOTUS decision happened only yesterday.

Just picking up on all those questions you asked Chris . I know when the decision came down from the Supreme Court. You're the one who mentioned Murdock in your initial post.

OH, so "Journalists" get a pass when they use corporate money. I see.

You mean like Hasbro and Mattel did when they got Congress to pass the latest consumer safety law. You know, the one that makes it a crime to sell old toys at a yard sale. The one that is pulling old books out of libraries. The one that is running small toymakers out of business. That happened before this decision.

ACORN and the SEIU are both just as dangerous as any corporation. Add in the government employee unions and we are really screwed.

Right. The corporations Hasbro and Mattel were able to buy the legislation they wanted. Even with existing-at-the-time limits on election spending.

How is THAT an argument for dropping all limits on corporate spending on elections?!?

Right, but his argument---in its entirety---was this (post 22):



In my reply I was trying to point out that an argument that seems to boil down to 'ACORN spends massive amounts to influence elections, why shouldn't Verizon?' makes little sense, since ACORN does NOT spend massive amounts to influence elections. Nor do CNN or NBC as news entities.

I was pointing out that his argument didn't really hold water since its premises were false.



edit: grammar

The argument for dropping the monetary limits was the Constitution of this country. You're finding fault with the Constitution of the United States.........only way you an change that is to change the Constitution. That's not an easy thing to do.....usually takes years (like double digits).

The answer is not limiting money. It's more in line to what I believe Chris is speaking.......an informed electorate. That's what the press is tasked to do........they have failed miserbly in the last 20 years or so. It's not up to corporations to decide who we elect to our elected offices........it's up to the citizens. But we are handicapped when we don't get straight, truthful information. Corporations will end up wasting their money if we had the facts........the practice would remedy itself pretty quickly.

A bias press is extremely more damaging than how much any corporation spends for legislation. That's where campaign reform needs to focus........a way to give facts. Unbiased, uncensored facts.

My argument is to reduce the powers of government until it makes no sense to buy them.


So news organizations get a pass when they endorse a certain viewpoint? The fact that they are corporations doesn't matter?

Spending money, providing "volunteers" is there a difference?

You do realize that Planned Parenthood, HCI (or whatever they call themselves today), and the SPLC are all corporations who lobby. Should they have spending limitations?

Yeah, it's based on the part of the Constitution that says "A corporation is a person."

Remind me, where was that part, again???












(I do agree with you 100% about the importance of having an informed electorate. Heck, it's worth a try! )

SEIU gave Obama's campaign $13.53 million dollars. But that is o.k., right?

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/the_state_worker/2008/10/column-extra-your-money-and-pr.html

It is about time that free speech restriction was lifted and the playing field leveled.

I don't follow your reasoning--you seem to be saying that under the before-yesterday rules, unions were permitted to give more than corporations?

That unions had more freedom of speech than corporations?

???

You keep acting surprised at some specific answers to questions your ask in the first place. I believe Briana was answering the question you asked Chris in post #25 about any big union contributing money a candidate. You allowed Chris to pick one....he picked SEIU. Briana answered you.

You keep coming back to this crap about a single individual not being able to match what a corporation can (and often does) contribute to campaigns. That's pretty ridiculous. But, corporations are made up of human beings........and most are individuals. Corporations look for themselves......AND their investors plus their customer base. If they don't they usually go under........though with our present administration that seems to be not necessarily true.

So now employees won't have to be compelled to donate to the right candidates (that service the corporate execs) or not be on the promotion watch list. Oh well they will still be compelled to donate or never get promoted. The corp(ses) can now donate billions too.

Since it will all be out in the public people will be able to boycott companies that support the Maoist DNC party now so it is great.

I'm a lot more worried about AIG or Phillip Morris or Exxon or the Pharma industry dropping a few billion US$ into congressional campaigns. US$13M is now "pocket change."

Specifically at election times. I guess you did not know that.

That is easy to say now, after the fact. But AFSCME gave Obama $50 million in support, SEIU $13.5 million, various unions gave $7.5 million - over $70 million without a full disclosed list delineating ALL the union donations. That made a huge difference in his campaign. At the same time SEIU was giving Obama $13.53 million, they were spending $3 million in campaigns against McCain, so a full on $16.5 million dollar asymetrical support of Obama. You can't just discount it now because the floodgates are open. Liberals sure don't mind Unions giving $70+ million but sure as hell mind a single corp donating that - though AFSCME did pump $50 million into him...more than many many corps could ever give.

The fact of the matter is the playing field is leveled. For half a decade liberal media corporations and Unions have run roughshod over the election process with their money and now that the 800lb frakking Gorilla has just stepped in the ring and everyone has started crooning Iron Maidens "Run to the Hills".

REPULBLICAN!!!

Guilty!!!

But more in line with the principals that USED to be what the party stood for........not the present Republican Party. Call me a Conservative.......or Tea Partier. However, when it comes to bad and badder.........I'll take bad everytime.

LOL!

No.

Conservative.

Well i have done lobbying in Illinois. My husband took my job and i stepped down from it, so i have a different perspective as to what is going on with the government and corporate/union interest. I am still a registered lobbyist because i do overflow things for the firm.

You should have a cabinet level jig in the Administration then.

Same here. Both parties have staryed so far from their roots that I can't claim allegiance to either. I'm too conservative to be a Democrat and too liberal to be a Republican.