Happy Atheist Forum

The supreme court has ruled that corporations cannot be limited in their political advertisements or commercials, throwing out over twenty years of limiting their ability to create a government by the corporations and for the corporations.

http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/su ... 2F19325879 (http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/supreme-court-rolls-back-campaign-spending-limits/19325879?icid=main%7Ccompaq-laptop%7Cdl1%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Fsupreme-court-rolls-back-campaign-spending-limits%2F19325879)
 

Corporations always got around those laws anyways.  If you had power and lawyers you could give all you wanted through loopholes while the little guy had red tape to hold him back.  This is great news for the american people.

And with that, the idea of campaign finance reform is lost forever.

Vote for Sarah Palin, brought to you by Halliburton, Pepsi, Exxon, and Xe (formerly Blackwater).

Funny how no one mentioned that this benefits labor unions, too. A bit one-sided in our zeal here, aren't we?

Of course it's a bad idea to allow this, but let's be fair about our unfairness. It's not a corporate only thing, neither is it a republican only thing.

We're supposed to be critical thinkers, right?

Labor unions are dwarfed in financial size by corporations by a factor of 17. While it's probable that labor unions could score wins locally by running their own campaigns, there's no way you're going to see unions buying seats in congress, the senate, or the White House the same as corporations. Not only that, but unions are still shrinking, as they have been for years.

Quote from: "Will"Labor unions are dwarfed in financial size by corporations by a factor of 17. While it's probable that labor unions could score wins locally by running their own campaigns, there's no way you're going to see unions buying seats in congress, the senate, or the White House the same as corporations. Not only that, but unions are still shrinking, as they have been for years.

Come on, Will. That's like saying a tactical nuke isn't as bad as a 30 megaton nuke. Labor Unions have tons of political clout, and even local, or state power is important. I'll wager they can also raise money for lobbying very quickly. Corporations are big, but they can't force those who work for them to support a political cause. Unions have always done that. And just what factor larger are unions than individuals? It's the individual, who loses to both corporations AND the unions by this.

Quote from: "McQ"Corporations are big, but they can't force those who work for them to support a political cause.

That's the problem: corporations don't need to force any of their employees to support anything now. Corporations can take millions, perhaps billions of dollars and spend it on campaigns without so much as thinking about the opinions or political beliefs of the corporations vast amount of employees. All the decisions can be made at the very top by a board or CEO. The money spent can go directly to independent campaigns and marketing. At least unions require the support of workers.

Then again, the union angle would be a good way to get conservatives on board a constitutional amendment against corporate/union campaign financing. We need campaign finance reform, and this latest ruling has made that need all the more dire.

Two good points there, Will. CEOs may be able to act more than in the past on political agenda (and, if publicly traded, not many stockholders would complain, since it's in their interests, too). But I don't think that corporations will have more success than they have had already. Sounds odd, but does anyone think that they've really been held at bey? Loopholes galore have made lobbying and political influence full time jobs in corporations.

But we also can't equate all actions by corporations with "evil" or bad intent any more than we should with the actions and intent of individuals (ok maybe some!).

Second point is actually something that would work. But because the union angle would be a legitimate issue. Let's face it. Giving anyone carte blanche with uncapped funding for political gain is bad.

As pro-union as I am, I do agree with you. Campaign finance should be tightly regulated, meaning that only individual citizens can donate and there are limits on how much one person can donate. Democracy means everyone has equal say, at least in theory.

But, as to your point about things already being as bad as they can be (if I'm reading what you wrote correctly, I'm a bit under the weather), I disagree. Let's fast forward to October of this year. You're watching sports on TV and a commercial comes up specifically attacking the congressmen and women in your area with ad hom and false attacks. Brought to you by Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Wait, you think, these specific congress-people are the ones that are pushing for banking reform. Now, imagine this a bit more subtle and filling the airwaves in every market. We don't have anything that bad yet, but it's on the way specifically because of this SCOTUS ruling.

Quote from: "Will"As pro-union as I am, I do agree with you. Campaign finance should be tightly regulated, meaning that only individual citizens can donate and there are limits on how much one person can donate. Democracy means everyone has equal say, at least in theory.

Yeah, unfortunately, it seems like it's very much in theory still.

Quote from: "Will"But, as to your point about things already being as bad as they can be (if I'm reading what you wrote correctly, I'm a bit under the weather), I disagree. Let's fast forward to October of this year. You're watching sports on TV and a commercial comes up specifically attacking the congressmen and women in your area with ad hom and false attacks. Brought to you by Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Wait, you think, these specific congress-people are the ones that are pushing for banking reform. Now, imagine this a bit more subtle and filling the airwaves in every market. We don't have anything that bad yet, but it's on the way specifically because of this SCOTUS ruling.

I definitely don't think things are as bad as they can be. I didn't write that very clearly. I was trying to say that I doubt that the removal of the contributions caps will make them more successful at lobbying, mainly because of the loopholes already in place. Corporations that really want to influence congress join PACs and other interest groups that are outside of their own corporations, and donate money through them indirectly. An example is PhRMA. On the surface, it looks so nice and pro-patient. Though patient access to drugs is a goal of PhRMA, it really exists almost entirely to protect and empower the pharmaceutical industry. From an insider's perspective, it is very clear (I won't go into how against it I am, or how against so many other things within PhRMA I am). http://www.phrma.org/ (http://www.phrma.org/)

Here's their mission statement:
"PhRMA's mission is winning advocacy for public policies that encourage the discovery of life-saving and life enhancing new medicines for patients by pharmaceutical/biotechnology research companies.
To accomplish this mission, PhRMA is dedicated to achieving in Washington, D.C., the states and the world: 1. Broad patient access to safe and effective medicines through a free market, without price controls; 2. Strong intellectual property incentives, and; 3. Transparent, efficient regulation and a free flow of information to patients."

What isn't stated is the lobbying efforts that go on are largely aimed at keeping the government off their back and keeping congress in their pocket.

And my point with this (which was what I wasn't being clear on before) is that they've been really successful without the ban on contributions. Hugely successful. Lifting the ban isn't going to make them more successful at lobbying, but only allow them to do it in plain sight. My opinion only.

Quote from: "Will"As pro-union as I am, I do agree with you. Campaign finance should be tightly regulated, meaning that only individual citizens can donate and there are limits on how much one person can donate. Democracy means everyone has equal say, at least in theory.

I didn't realize that advertising meant that you HAD to vote a certain way.  As far as I know, you still get your vote.  Or do you not believe that people are capable of independent thought when faced with propaganda?  If that's the case then you should give up on believing in democracy right now.

Quote from: "andrewclunn"

Quote from: "Will"As pro-union as I am, I do agree with you. Campaign finance should be tightly regulated, meaning that only individual citizens can donate and there are limits on how much one person can donate. Democracy means everyone has equal say, at least in theory.

I didn't realize that advertising meant that you HAD to vote a certain way.  As far as I know, you still get your vote.  Or do you not believe that people are capable of independent thought when faced with propaganda?  If that's the case then you should give up on believing in democracy right now.

So you don't think that being able to control the messages of both your own campaign and your opponents through by having a monetary lock on all forms of communication affects the opinions of us unwashed masses?

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"

Quote from: "andrewclunn"

Quote from: "Will"As pro-union as I am, I do agree with you. Campaign finance should be tightly regulated, meaning that only individual citizens can donate and there are limits on how much one person can donate. Democracy means everyone has equal say, at least in theory.

I didn't realize that advertising meant that you HAD to vote a certain way.  As far as I know, you still get your vote.  Or do you not believe that people are capable of independent thought when faced with propaganda?  If that's the case then you should give up on believing in democracy right now.

So you don't think that being able to control the messages of both your own campaign and your opponents through by having a monetary lock on all forms of communication affects the opinions of us unwashed masses?

Having a lock?  You can buy air time, but you can't unbuy opponents' air time.  people have real choices in media now with the internet.  They don't have to go through a controlled media source.

Quote from: "andrewclunn"I didn't realize that advertising meant that you HAD to vote a certain way.  As far as I know, you still get your vote.  Or do you not believe that people are capable of independent thought when faced with propaganda?  If that's the case then you should give up on believing in democracy right now.

Who did you vote for in 2008? What are your broad political beliefs? I'll bet $5 you voted against not only you own beliefs but your own self-interest because you were caught up in propaganda.

Quote from: "Will"Who did you vote for in 2008? What are your broad political beliefs? I'll bet $5 you voted against not only you own beliefs but your own self-interest because you were caught up in propaganda.

Typically I overlook grammatical errors, but I'm not entirely sure what you meant to say by that statement.  

Quote from: "andrewclunn"

Quote from: "Will"If that's the case then you should give up on believing in democracy right now.

I already have, the stupidity of the general populace never ceases to amaze me. According to this (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm), only 13 percent of Americans have opinions I would deem worth hearing about.

Quote from: "andrewclunn"

Quote from: "Will"Who did you vote for in 2008? What are your broad political beliefs? I'll bet $5 you voted against not only you own beliefs but your own self-interest because you were caught up in propaganda.

Typically I overlook grammatical errors, but I'm not entirely sure what you meant to say by that statement.  

Try saying it out loud.

Quote from: "Will"Try saying it out loud.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "andrewclunn"

Quote from: "Will"Who did you vote for in 2008? What are your broad political beliefs? I'll bet $5 you voted against not only you own beliefs but your own self-interest because you were caught up in propaganda.

Typically I overlook grammatical errors, but I'm not entirely sure what you meant to say by that statement.  

Try saying it out loud.

Ah, either you must have edited it right before I quoted you, or I misread it at the time.

Either way, I voted for Bob Barr for president in 2008.

Quote from: "andrewclunn"

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"So you don't think that being able to control the messages of both your own campaign and your opponents through by having a monetary lock on all forms of communication affects the opinions of us unwashed masses?

Having a lock?  You can buy air time, but you can't unbuy opponents' air time.  people have real choices in media now with the internet.  They don't have to go through a controlled media source.

I'm no super genius, but there's no rule that says a politician cannot try to buy up more air time than his or her opponents.

I'm pretty sure there is no law (at least not at the federal level) that requires the arbiters of the public airwaves (TV, Radio, etc) to provide equal time for each politician or political cause.

I'm also pretty sure that there is no law that requires those same arbiters to provide a free platform for each side to display their own propaganda.

So think of it this way.  Who is going to have the money to buy air time?  The scrappy populist nobody from the backwoods who is tired of the way things are being done or the seated incumbent with his/her own well maintained support structure for fund raising and dissemination of messages?  My bet is on the incumbent, at least as far as who has the best access to resources.

Now take this one step further.  If a politician sits on a committee that creates/reviews/removes the laws regulating international trade, and that politician has a track record of not being an isolationist (pro reducing trade barriers to international trade) then would it not be in the best interest of a corporation that wants to get into international markets to dump as much money as possible into that politician's campaign coffers?  

Now its not guaranteed that a wealth or access to resources will instantly mean victory but its definitely a leg up over opponents without the same access to resources.  Just look at all of the "third" party's on the US ballots.  No matter how organized, they never seem to get the same traction or coverage by the media as the Demorepublicratician party.  

Without the resources of the "big two" the little folks aren't even registering on the political radar.

Now as far as the internet is concerned, its really easy to get a message out but at the same time its really easy for your opponent to counter anything you do put out.  With the speed that a video or online editorial or letter-to-the-editor can be sent a rebuttal will be just as fast.  SO who is going to be able to have a staff that does nothing but fill the interwebs with their message?  The little guy with a bunch of volunteers (most of them probably have jobs and other responsibilities that will slow down response time) or the well funded guy with a paid staff (which can be paid for due to the generous contribution of Merk, Exxon, Microsoft, or some shell company owned by a foreign country)?

I voted for Turd Sandwhich ya stupid Dueshbags.  

Anyone else see that episode of southpark? It sums up my feeling on the subject. We are only really given two presidential choices each term. The indipendants never really stand a chance. The two leading candidates are always in someones pocket and have their own agendas. As far as I can tell significant positive change rarely occurs in the U.S. I could name of a dozen bold and obvious moves which would benefit our nation right now.

Quote from: "Prometheus"I voted for Turd Sandwhich ya stupid Dueshbags.   :yay: