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

Well kinda but there were so many ways around it the law was essentially toothless.
Some examples please? Suppression of free speech tends to run the gamut from places like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Iran (not run by business interests) to China and Saudi Arabia (kinda run by business interests). Historically, most people get their history wrong.

All good examples SS. I know it seems that atm China seems to have a new censorship law or ban every week lately.

Where--exact quote, please--did I define corporations as being different with regard to campaign contributions, from "organizations such as unions"?










As for the rest of your post, at times you seem to be saying pretty much what I've been saying (without conceding such, of course!). At other times, the opposite. The only point that seems consistent is "unlimited spending on political campaigns--by any entity or individual--is good."

If that IS your position, I have to say I think it is a mistaken one.

Humans are easily corrupted. If any person or entity is given the power (by the SCOTUS in this case) to make clear to a candidate 'I will spend ANY amount necessary to make sure my interests are catered to by the person who wins this political contest'--------then we have corruption. Pure and simple.

My opinion is that the only way to counteract this human tendency to corruption is to have in place restrictions on campaign spending. And these restrictions must apply to every individual AND to every collection of individuals: corporations, unions, religious bodies, PACs...all of them.

The issue of undue influence by media is an important one to address, too.

The folks at Fox News wouldn't like this any more than the folks at MSNBC (or SNL) would, but: some sort of restrictions on their content, for some number of days ahead of an election, would level the playing field. This would eliminate the objection that 'Tina Fey can influence elections but the makers of an anti-Hillary documentary are prohibited from so doing', etc.

I do NOT support restrictions on the freedom of any individual to voice his or her opinions about candidates.

But the reality is that human corruption is a constant. And the reality of our time, in contrast to the time of the Founding Fathers, is that this is a world in which an opinion voiced on television has massively greater force than an opinion voiced on a street corner.

So my opinion is: yes, Tina and Rush should face equal restrictions---not on their ability to say whatever they want---but on their ability to say it on broadcast media. For, maybe, three days before an election. During those three days, they can report immediately verifiable facts about what candidates say and do--only.

This would level the playing field.



In this summary post, I'd like to say: I still think that SL will be negatively effected by the 'unlimited spending for corporations' decision. But as the field reporters say: time will tell.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to learn the lessons of history.

You kind of started to answer your own challenge as to examples. I'd add that ANY political system (whether it caters to business interests or not) that penalizes those who speak criticism of that system, is ultimately doomed.

But that doesn't mean that humans in power will stop trying to suppress and oppress those not in power. That will never stop.

As for the example that I had first in mind: Italian Fascism, with its emphasis on suppressing unions, the influence on the government of powerful business interests, and explicit philosophy that peace is a foolish fantasy and that it is natural and normal for a nation to be always at war.

We may have arrived at the root of our disagreement (not all the disagreement but one of the biggest parts). I have very consistantly stated that the Supreme Court's decision is good. The reason should be obvious but apparrently it is not (in your view). The Constitution is a document drawn up and ammended to create and make a firm base upon which all the laws of this country MUST abide by............good, bad or indifferent. Anytime the Supreme Court finds any law that runs contrary to the Constitution and strikes down that law IT IS A GOOD thing. It puts into check law makers ability to run rough shod over the citizens it's tasked to serve..........that document is our (US citizens) guarantee that it is US who hold the final word on what's going to happen to our way of life. It puts the power into OUR hands........not Barrack Obama's, Nancy Pelosi's, Joe Biden's, or Harry Reid's (or any other politician of power past, present or future). And when the Supreme Court does as it did last week IT IS ALWAYS GOOD.

The Constitution can (and has been) amended........but not by laws enacted by our Congress. It must go through many specific steps to even get considered. Once considered it must be ratified a half dozen times, at least, before it goes to the states for another set of very speciific steps to ratified indfividually by each state...........and 3/4 of all the states that make up the United States of America must approve of it. Then and only then, does our Constitution change. As defined by our Constitution now, monetary contributions are a form of free speech........which cannot be limited by any law. That makes unfettered contributions perfectly within our Constitution. I said you (or even me) do not have to like it, we don't have to think it's fair......but we can not (and should not) change it.....unless we amend our Constitution. I happen to think because, now, the field is level again (for the deep pockets guys.......not us little folks) that it is better now than 2 weeks ago. Should the Constitution get amended to include restrictions upon corporations, union, PAC's, churches, charities or any other organization then, and only then, would it be A BAD thing to allow unrestricted campaign contributions to political insterests.

I'm positive now that you are not a US citizen........you just don't understand what this country's foundation is based upon.

And, since I don't think I've stated it yet, I do not believe this decision will effect SL one small spit on a at dirty sideway.

And it would seem that any society trying to live under government rules, must be made up of a band of angels. Government power is the problem, not corporations, not us scary libertarians. You do realize that in Italy, the GOVERNMENT called the tune for the corporations, not the other way around. Government is the biggest mass murder machine out there. Microsoft has no power over my life. They can't take my house, my earnings or my life. The damn government can.

In a for-profit corporation said purpose is rarely either explicitly or even implicitly to promulgate any form of political speech, especially speech to endorse a particular candidate for election to office. This was one of the points in Stevens' dissenting opinion and one the Court opinion did an extremely poor job of addressing and which displayed a stunning amount of ignorance and naivete about the realities of corporate governance and how there is no correlation between the political expressions of corporate management and its constituents, i.e. its shareholders.

I agree that in this regard there is a significant difference between a for-profit corporation and a not-for-profit corporation formed largely with purposes of political expression in mind, and Court opinion did address this but ultimately resolved that under the current workings of the statute, one could not meaningfully distinguish between not-for-profit corporations that receive funding from individuals and entities such as corporations and unions which would fall under the statute and those which would not. Ultimately it didn't matter as the court applied the unconstitutionality to all forms of corporations using an extremely fact flawed analysis which equated corporations with individuals with regards to means, manner and timing restrictions on speech.

If you read the opinions there is a lot of looking back on Buckley, which provides much of the foundation for arguments in both the Court and dissenting opinions as well as the analysis of McConnell and Austin. It is to Buckley I was referring when I stated earlier that this ultimately may boil down to whether one believes that the governmental interests against corruption are a legitimate basis for placing means, manner and timing restrictions such as caps on contributions on anyone or any corporation.

While the Buckley Court ruled that such an interest is a legitimate basis for placing restrictions on direct contributions, it ruled it was not a legitimate basis for placing restrictions on indirect political expenditures. The Court opinion relies on the latter while the dissent relies on the former with the position that the latter should have been reexamined by the court (and found no longer sound). A position that was not explored in the Court Opinion or the dissent was whether the former position should also be subject to reevaluation (neither opinion could touch that issue since it was not before the Court although it is pretty clear what the dissent's position would have been).
I get your point about the dangers of government restricting liberties on any front, but at the same time unless you've been living under a rock for the past 2 years, you cannot honestly assert that corporations have no power over your life. Don't forget that the banking, insurance, and the auto industry are all composed of corporations and it was in no small part their influence which caused both the prior and the current administration to spend our tax money to create and maintain TARP and its progeny.

Nice tactic............completely irrelevant to campaign contribution (or lack of). A completely different subject not even remotely connected to what was decided last week.

When in doubt, change the subject.

Not a tactic. Simply an observation about a statement which was also not connected to the decision last week. When in doubt show your ignorance and cluelessness in attacking an aside statement in a post.

You were responding to Chris's statement about how a corporation could not cause the same harm to him as a government could...........but the context was due to a corporation's campaign contribution. His was, at least, remotely related.......yours was not.

Next round

Under the laws of the United States, for the most part, they are treated the same. It's what makes corporations (and their officers) subject to lawsuit and allows them to enter into contracts and own property.

Italian Fascism was way too complex and garbled with random philosophies to ever be used as a poster child for corporate influence over state policy. The state exerted far more control and influence over the corporations than the other way around. A socialistic/communistic model more than anything. It even oddly pitted rural farmers against union workers.

Asserting that corporations have no influence in his life is in no way contextual (or relevant) to his argument. His point was not that corporation political contributions do not ultimately exert any influence on his life but that whatever impact they might have pale (into insignificance) compared to concerns of how government restrictions on civil liberties, including corporate political speech, impact on his concerns and life. If you actually read my response in whole I was largely deferential to that point and merely pointing out he was engaging in unnecessary hyperbole to which I don't think he actually subscribes.

In the play Clarence Darrow: a one man play, Darrow counsels against saying more than is absolutely necessary to prove one's point and recalls one lawyer in a trial cross-examining a witness in a trial for assault where it was alleged that his client bit the victim's ear off. He asks the key witness whether he saw the defendant bite the ear off the victim to which the victim responds that he did not. His point established he should have stopped there but he decided in his zeal to press the witness on the matter and hammer him as to how the witness could be sure his client bit the victims ear off to which the witness replied "well sir, I saw him spit it out."

Which are already heavily regulated by the government and INSURED by the government. I think the fail blame game can be applied equally. Don't forget, one of the biggest donors in modern politics turned out to be Fannie Mae. GM & Chrysler were bailed out to save union pensions. At between $1,000,000 - $2,000,000 per job saved, it seemed a bit extravagant to me. Don't forget too, the auto industry is already subject to intense "central" planning by the Feds & the states. Fuel economy, safety, emissions, etc.

Regulation is almost never done well or equitably.

That is a vast oversimplification and misstatement of how United States laws treat corporations. On many many levels they are not treated the same which was something that was addressed by Stevens' dissenting opinion.

And how is this related to corporations being freed of the financial restrictions that were put on them in 2002..........that part of campaingn finance law that was overturned?

Thanks for tid bit about Clarence Darrow in his one man play......that sure relates to the topic, too.

I read your post in full. I also noted that you took no stand firmly on one side or the other. Willy nilly, rambling thoughts, sage statements are sometimes interesting.....but what exactly did you say that either supports the decision or objects to the decision? I suppose that would get you a nice comment from your professor at the university........so thoughtful and middle of the road. Inclusive. Safe. Politically correct.

Maybe changing the subject was a poor choice for sarcasm......how about "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit"?

It was wholly pertinent to the discussion Dagmar was having with Snickers. Those incapable of understanding the ideas involved would miss the point, of course, just as anyone incapable of understanding a joke told in Swedish would, naturally, miss the point of that joke.





Vide supra.

Every government in history is or was complex--yes, even the purest dictatorships. No dictator can do everything on his own.

No 'un-complex' government exists (or has existed) for us to study, in preference to studying complex ones.

So the implication that we should not examine Italian Fascism for lessons because it is "too complex" is not logical. By that standard we should never attempt to learn anything from the past, because all human endeavor is complex.