Ban on corporate political spending removed
I bet you thought this was an Obamanism thread!
Anyway, go <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp" target="_blank">here</a> to read about it.
In essence the supreme court ruled that there is no longer a ban on money that a corporation can spend in support of a political candidate. If the problem with this doesn't strike you instantly let me lay out a possible scenario.
Exxon mobile decides that all this global warming related legislation is hurting their business, so they find a candidate who denies the existence of global warming. To make this example even more potent lets say this candidate also opposes net neutrality. Now two hugely powerful companies, in this case Exxon and Comcast or IBM (or both) will be able to freely donate money to his campaign, say some conservative number like $45 billion dollars. With this kind of support his campaign will be able to inundate the media (in every form) with advertisements and every other kind of expenditure you could imagine. Essentially a candidate without corporate backing (a candidate who does not support their agendas) will in no way be able to compete with the exposure the other candidate will enjoy.
I feel that I'm being alarmist about this whole situation and that maybe it's not as bad as I and so many other people seem to think it is. The government was the only check on corporate growth and controls, and this ruling has given large corporations the ability to override this check allowing them to potentially control the direction of legislation. I cannot think of an upside to this other then the potential humor of having to choose between President CokeMcdonalds or President PepsiBurgerking.
Anyway, go <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp" target="_blank">here</a> to read about it.
In essence the supreme court ruled that there is no longer a ban on money that a corporation can spend in support of a political candidate. If the problem with this doesn't strike you instantly let me lay out a possible scenario.
Exxon mobile decides that all this global warming related legislation is hurting their business, so they find a candidate who denies the existence of global warming. To make this example even more potent lets say this candidate also opposes net neutrality. Now two hugely powerful companies, in this case Exxon and Comcast or IBM (or both) will be able to freely donate money to his campaign, say some conservative number like $45 billion dollars. With this kind of support his campaign will be able to inundate the media (in every form) with advertisements and every other kind of expenditure you could imagine. Essentially a candidate without corporate backing (a candidate who does not support their agendas) will in no way be able to compete with the exposure the other candidate will enjoy.
I feel that I'm being alarmist about this whole situation and that maybe it's not as bad as I and so many other people seem to think it is. The government was the only check on corporate growth and controls, and this ruling has given large corporations the ability to override this check allowing them to potentially control the direction of legislation. I cannot think of an upside to this other then the potential humor of having to choose between President CokeMcdonalds or President PepsiBurgerking.
Comments
It's kind of like wire-tapping. It's not scary that it's being done. Even when it was illegal, you know the NSA and CIA and so forth were doing it. But you also know it was less likely they were doing more heinous things, because those are even MORE illegal. But you make wire-tapping legal, and now those heinous things aren't so heinous anymore. And if the CIA gets caught doing illegal wire-tapping, then they screwed up and need punished for it hard to keep them "honest."
One of the ways our system works is by tolerating certain amounts of this kind of behavior. Checks and balances are really just there to keep people on their toes and make them question their actions before taking them, not to prevent these kinds of things. Combine that with a strong, penetrating media that can align the population and the fact that every government in the world at every point in history has derived it's power from the consent of the people, and you get a shaky balance.
<!--QuoteBegin-Article+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Article)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per" target="_blank">President Obama</a> called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.â€<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, apparently it did.
F### Democracy! Political power should follow money and the people who possess it, not the voice of the populous at large.
[/sarcasm]
-George Carlin, god knows how many years ago.
Money is power. It's only a matter of how open the rich can be about it, depending on whether public is completely or only near completely ignorant of it: deep down we all know it's how it's always been and how it always will be. Not exactly a big leap in logic.
Only thing we really have to worry about is having EVEN MORE damned annoying political ads on TV before elections with higher production values...
unless they wouldn't want their interference known publically and tried to cover it up anyway; the question is would they be more or less likely to be suspected of doing behind the scenes dealings if it's legal anyway :P
Only thing we really have to worry about is having EVEN MORE damned annoying political ads on TV before elections with higher production values...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another thing to remember is that up until now there's been PLENTY of ways to subvert this particular ban.
For example, just prop up some "scientist" to release their opinions.
Or, perhaps those uber corporations of the media should be able to print whatever crap they want without opposition?
Frankly, yes the edge cases are pretty darn scary. At the same time, the lobbying system has ALWAYS been in place and most of the large corporations already had plenty of ways to get around this already. It's really the smaller groups that win since now they can pump their smaller amounts and they can add up to counter the big boys.
Buying votes is typically more expensive than simply buying appointed positions of power in government. However, if your pony will get you lots of appointments as a package deal, it's worth it to bet your purse on him. And on his opponent, too.
Buying votes is typically more expensive than simply buying appointed positions of power in government. However, if your pony will get you lots of appointments as a package deal, it's worth it to bet your purse on him. And on his opponent, too.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As long as the opponent supports the corps suggested policies. Otherwise they'll never get the capital to make it out of the primaries.
What corporation would lobby against corporate tax cuts? Government investing in them? Government commissioning work from them? Government giving monopoly over something to the business?..
<!--quoteo(post=1749015:date=Jan 25 2010, 02:20 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 25 2010, 02:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749015"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As long as the opponent supports the corps suggested policies. Otherwise they'll never get the capital to make it out of the primaries.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As long as *majority* supports the policy. So whoever buys the majority gets to make the rules...
<!--quoteo(post=1749019:date=Jan 25 2010, 02:37 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jan 25 2010, 02:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749019"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Corporations are big, bad, and evil!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah. They just have to pursue profit regardless of public interest, while the government has to pursue public interest regardless of profit.
I'm confused. Corporations already hire security companies like the venerable Blackwater to handle VIPs and and guard facilities and so forth. There's not much small-unit-wise the US Army can do that Blackwater can't. Combined forces in support of special operations groups is different, but even then it's not hard for a group like Blackwater to get eyes in the sky during a mission or find specialists in intel and counter-intel.
If this is our dark day, it's been a very long and equally dark dawn.
2) Is money equivalent to voice power (speech)? Close enough for Supreme Court
Therefore, according to 5 out of 9 justices, corporations spending money to voice opinions are valid.
Seriously. Read the dissension opinions. They basically say, "revoking free speech is OK as long as it works"
Damn straight.
If you go back not too far in history the laws were enacted because of the terrible abuses of the system at the turn of the 20th century. Look up "the senator from Standard Oil" or just read about the <a href="http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/contested_elections/089William_Clark.htm" target="_blank">copper mine senator</a>.
As can your rights to freedom of expression and speech. That doesn't change anything.
I fail to see the relevance of corporate fall guys to this discussion. What are you trying to say there?
I don't see why extending constitutional rights is a necessary evil to encourage the economy. The US economy has managed fine without the corporate right to free speech up until now. In fact, one would say that the lack of a leash on corporations has put America into recession and this change exacerbates the problem. When legislation and oversight is needed to fix a broken economy the Supreme court has handed corporate America a mechanism to rig the system even more.
and on a sidenote of the great Obama setups, earlier this week:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgSdlZL-tI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgSdlZL-tI</a>
This was a ruling made by the supreme court. The president cannot over-ride the judiciary on interpretation of the legislation or constitution.
I'm not saying anything about whether Obama delivered or not, I'm just saying that this Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with him.
If you want to check on Obama's campaign promises, try here: <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/" target="_blank">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/</a>
Well, they don't HAVE to pursue profit... they can go bankrupt and get bailed out, keeping the winnings for themselves.
And the government doesn't HAVE to pursue public interest. They can, for example, go around bombing and invading random countries and killing innocent civilians, and still make a profit on it.
And the government doesn't HAVE to pursue public interest. They can, for example, go around bombing and invading random countries and killing innocent civilians, and still make a profit on it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A winner is you.
I fail to see the relevance of corporate fall guys to this discussion. What are you trying to say there?
I don't see why extending constitutional rights is a necessary evil to encourage the economy. The US economy has managed fine without the corporate right to free speech up until now. In fact, one would say that the lack of a leash on corporations has put America into recession and this change exacerbates the problem. When legislation and oversight is needed to fix a broken economy the Supreme court has handed corporate America a mechanism to rig the system even more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bleh, anyone who says they <b>know</b> why this recession happened is full of it. An economy is too complex a system to understand so fully. Not even House could do it.
But the establishment of LLC (limited liability corporations) is key to small business. If the business owner was the only party responsible for liabilities in its operation, we'd have less businesses because the cost of a single failure would be catastrophic to the owners life. Think of a medical hardware company whose product misdiagnosed patients because of a software bug resulting in the death of even one patient. This is an entirely practical scenario, and anyone who would say it's unacceptable has obviously never worked long enough in software to know that mistakes will happen and sometimes they are of this magnitude. It's not entirely the owner's fault, but a lawsuit about this could easily bankrupt him for life. UNLESS he has an LLC to hid behind. A corporation that is basically sued into oblivion, losing any assets it has, but leaving the people behind it intact.
Some would call this an abuse of power, but I think it's a recognition of human error and an attempt to compensate for it.
Here's a nice <a href="http://links.org.au/node/794" target="_blank">link</a> to a lecture with someone I think can at least partially explain the underlying problem.