Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Selling of America is now complete.

Donovan

Donovan

beer, I want beer
In am amazing catastrophic ruling, the US supreme court has struck down spending limits for corporations in elections. I wanted to post a link but in searching for the right one I got depressed watching them.

There is no way to see this as a good thing, no matter what political boat you float in. Corporate money will now decide the presidency more than it has even to now. Don't even bother telling your kids they can grow up to be president, because it ain't happening. Not unless your daddy's the CEO.

Never mind the head job. Imagine how much fun it will be for senators and congresspersons who have to vote on issues, when they know voting "wrong" will bring unlimited firepower from some corporation just to get them out of office. It'll only take one or two to make the rest fall in line.

So much for the land of the free. President Marlboro Man, 2012. Either that or another Bush...I'm moving to fucking Canada.
 
1. Corporations cannot directly contribute to campaigns and haven't since 1907.
2. The McCain/Feingold Act limited corporation advertisements within a certain time frame of an election.
3. Interesting you think corps should stay out of political influence, yet you say nothing about media outlets... corps who, since inception, have influenced elections.
 
CoyoteUgly said:
1. Corporations cannot directly contribute to campaigns and haven't since 1907.
Click to expand...
If you think they have played by this rule you are misguided, and with all monetary restrictions lifted there will literally be nothing holding them back. All of the "hidden funding sources, etc" stuff is just semantics and you know it.
2. The McCain/Feingold Act limited corporation advertisements within a certain time frame of an election.
Click to expand...
Here, read this It describes exactly what part of McCain Feingold was just invalidated by the ruling.
3. Interesting you think corps should stay out of political influence, yet you say nothing about media outlets... corps who, since inception, have influenced elections.
Click to expand...
The media is why this is so dangerous. As the main outlet for influencing elections as you said since the revolutionary war ended, the media has more or less been counterbalanced by its own adversarial nature. For every pro rag there was a con, so to speak, and while it occasionally got nasty, there was at least some way to get opposing views. With this ruling, unlimited funding means unlimited access to media itself. Coupled with the elimination of the limitations in media ownership (1996 telecommunications act, and again in 2003) we're faced with a pretty big fucking nail in our coffin.

This is bad in a lot of ways it never was before. We've lived in a flawed but workable system, where surprises were still possible. Now I think that day has passed...
 
CoyoteUgly said:
Donovan, what do you think corporations did before 2002, before the passage of the Act?
Click to expand...

Tell you what, explain it for me and enlighten me, and I won't think you're just baiting. Not really feeling like arguing with you in a "Geez you're dumb" fashion right now.
 
C'mon, answer the question: what are they going to do now that they weren't doing for DECADES before 2002?

If corporations voicing their opinions on candidates is such a bad thing, then explain to me exactly what edge they're going to have now with the USSC ruling that they didn't have before and exactly how, in your own words:

Donovan said:
Corporate money will now decide the presidency more than it has even to now.
Click to expand...

How does that shit compute? Or is it just some more moo?
 
I would think it's simple. Unlimited cash flow and unlimited caps will allow the corporations to literally buy air time out from under an opposing candidate. They can then saturate the air waves with their own political doctrine. At least before there was some semblance of balance for opposing views.
 
Sarek said:
I would think it's simple. Unlimited cash flow and unlimited caps will allow the corporations to literally buy air time out from under an opposing candidate. They can then saturate the air waves with their own political doctrine. At least before there was some semblance of balance for opposing views.
Click to expand...

Right. Okay. So this was going on wholesale prior to 2002, and the McCain/Feingold Act stopped it, right?

Actually, the MF Act prohibited such advertising only 30 days prior to the actual election, IIRC. So any given corporation could advertise like hell right up to the deadline, and that's not going to influence votes, but advertising within the 30 day period up to the election will... what... influence those fence-sitters? That all?

This sounds like a big puff of hot air over nothing. The USSC was right to strike the MF Act down, because not only was it ridiculous, it was prohibition of free speech.
 
Well, my own opinion is that corporation, businesses, organizations, coalitions and unions shouldn't be allowed to advertise or contribute to campaigns, period. The Constitution says by the people for the people. And that's where the support should come from and where the votes should count.
 
Sarek said:
Well, my own opinion is that corporation, businesses, organizations, coalitions and unions shouldn't be allowed to advertise or contribute to campaigns, period. The Constitution says by the people for the people. And that's where the support should come from and where the votes should count.
Click to expand...

And in my opinion, I should rule absolutely as philosopher-king, but that's not happening either.

The question is: to what effect was the McCain-Feingold Act keeping entities from influencing elections? Specifically, what effect was the 30-day limit having? Additionally, what's the big cry over the USSC striking down parts of this Act? Donovan's yet to come back and explain why we should all be upset over this.
 
Well, I don't agree with the free speech aspect of your argument. Free speech is a right guaranteed individuals. Corporations and the like are an entity, not an individual.
 
Actually Sarek's doing a pretty good job of explaining it, I didn't feel the need to repeat what he's been saying. The short version is that the limitations on corporate money and Union/corporate involvement has been limited by law for a lot longer than just 7 years, your focus on M/F seems to be deliberate obtuse myopia. Without any restrictions in place, any entity with an axe to grind or an agenda to push can directly bring its resources to bear against individuals in positions to make votes, thereby scaring elected officials into supporting untenable or downright bad legislation. Not at all surprising that the Republican hard right are the ones strongly in favor of this, while the dissent comes from the left.
We already have enough corruptive influence from moneyed interests in Washington. The fucked-up health bill is a good example of what powerful lobbies can do even under current restraints. Now imagine what the insurance industry or others like it could do with free reign.

Not a real good day...
 
I'm assuming (and I say that because I don't know) that air time is treated just like any other commodity on the market. Meaning, there's a set amount for time increments that the media outlets sell to the public. If this is the case, how long before it turns into more of an auctioning process where the high bidder takes all? If that happens, with the corporations already having a strangle hold on the money in this country, it won't be long before the voices of the little people will be stifled forever.
 
Donovan said:
Actually Sarek's doing a pretty good job of explaining it, I didn't feel the need to repeat what he's been saying. The short version is that the limitations on corporate money and Union/corporate involvement has been limited by law for a lot longer than just 7 years, your focus on M/F seems to be deliberate obtuse myopia. Without any restrictions in place, any entity with an axe to grind or an agenda to push can directly bring its resources to bear against individuals in positions to make votes, thereby scaring elected officials into supporting untenable or downright bad legislation. Not at all surprising that the Republican hard right are the ones strongly in favor of this, while the dissent comes from the left.
We already have enough corruptive influence from moneyed interests in Washington. The fucked-up health bill is a good example of what powerful lobbies can do even under current restraints. Now imagine what the insurance industry or others like it could do with free reign.

Not a real good day...
Click to expand...

Speaking of being obtuse, you're missing the point I've tried to make. Yes, there have been campaign finance laws long before M/F, but that's not my point.

Here it is again: what are corporations, unions, etc going to do that:

a) they weren't doing for decades before the M/F Act (in other words, if such entities didn't have significant influence over elections before 2002, then what's going to change now?) and

b) what sort of damage are they going to do within the 30 day window prescribed by the M/F Act?

IOW, we lived for decades with such entities voicing their opinions on candidates and political issues close to elections. Why the fuck are you panicking now about it?
 
A. They can institute monopolies on the air time.

B. Much like product advertisement, last minute ads can influence decision making the same way product ads can influence shopping habits.
 
Sarek said:
A. They can institute monopolies on the air time.
Click to expand...

Was anyone doing that prior to 2002?

B. Much like product advertisement, last minute ads can influence decision making the same way product ads can influence shopping habits.
Click to expand...

Only for the percentage that haven't made up their minds on their own vote.

M/F Act only covered the 30 days prior to a primary (or 60 days before a general election)... IOW, Corporation A could advertise like hell right up to the limit, and then had to shut up... whereas PACs got a pass. Looks useless to me, and the USSC made a good call for once.
 
Campaign donations are a protected form of free speech. Well, if that doesn't cement the 'money talks' adage of old, I don't know what does.
 
Two words...unlimited. spending. For most of the entities involved, that's a fuck of a lot, and when you add in the lack of alternative news/information sources we currently are faced with, that can have a tremendous catastrophic impact. And I think we all know how much truth there is in the statement "The average american makes up his own mind free of television influence".
 
So... what's the difference between now and prior to 2002? Are you saying that public opinion was unfairly swayed by private interests for the bulk of American history due to media advertisements and economic pressure/influence from those with money?

If that's the case, then that's the standard American approach to democracy, and M/F Act fucked with that.

If not, then I would like to see evidence that the mean ol' corps and unions are going to go apeshit with this sort of behavior NOW as opposed to pre-2002.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top