If you thought the US Government was being bought before

[Mark L Holland]

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
 

[andrewclunn]

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.

[Will]

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).

[McQ]

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?

[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.

[McQ]

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.

[Will]

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.

[McQ]

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.

[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.

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.

[McQ]

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.

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/

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.

[andrewclunn]

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.

[Jolly Sapper]

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?

[andrewclunn]

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.

[Will]

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.

[andrewclunn]

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.