Roberts Court Overturns Yet Another Precedent in Favor of Corporate Campaign Cash

Nero, pgabs is definitely intelligent; I'm not sure a statement like "I'm not sure what this uproar is about" is either unintelligent or intelligent. It's just a statement of opinion.

As for my cute scenario, I have a nice google doc link of Chevron's official, comprehensive 2008 political contributions. The total? I doubt it totals $1M, playing by the old rules. Here's the link. -- it's from Chevron's own site.

Now, their corporate earnings in 2008 were what exactly? You don't think they could benefit their bottom line with now a limitless ability to spend on politics, directly?

Yes, getting $ out of politics is like getting all dice out of Vegas. I understand. But not since 1906 would a company be able to so directly funnel funds to achieve policy outcomes. Period.

EDIT: the post below is a better encapsulation, but I'll add this to mine. If you are a Chevron share holder, you would be *pissed* if they didn't do everything they could to maximize profits -- getting alaska and all the offshore they want, with lower fuel efficiency standards for autos, would be a GREAT start. They are stupid if they don't make it happen in 2010. ... They are NOT stupid.

 

It's not the influence the money brings in swaying people that bothers me to be honest. It will sway people as advertising works. Ok...that's an evil we live with.

It's the obligation the candidate has to the corporations AFTER the election has been decided.

Essentially, we've created a system where companies can bribe public officials. That's what this is...plain and simple. Corporations are giving money to gain influence. That's pretty much the definition of a bribe.

The companies that benefit most will be the companies that make the most. It's not a liberal vs. conservative thing you know. It's corporate interests versus citizen's interest.

Yes, many consumer interests are aligned with the Democratic party...but what you will see is the following:

1. More bank and credit card transaction fees. More telecom fees. More fees everywhere and anywhere. Business will have much more ability to suck your money out of your wallet through hidden fees, charges, and penalties

2. worsening in environment standards. Clean air and water - good luck. Hello Cancer Incidence and Clusters! Whoopee!

3. Worsening in safety standards and work rights

basically, gov't will be more on the side of companies, and less on the side of people. Afterall, money can buy you votes, but votes can't get you money.

 

Funny that the same crowd that gets ants in their pants over Spanish-speaking immigrants want to make us more into the image of the country they are fleeing.

 

Let me see if I have this straight: You are trying to compare breaking some other existing law and its subsequent enforcement as being equivalent to censorship of political speech.

You really think that holds water? No government official would be saying 'You can't say these words', but merely 'Lower your volume so that it is not a public nuisance.'

Ok, true, the neighbor could then conceivably go berserk and cry 'Censorship!', bring lawsuits, insist on bothering people at maximum volume, etc etc, all the while proclaiming that it was somehow 'political speech'.

But since the whole argument is about the SC decision allowing undue favorable influence over voters, at this point with the noisy neighbor, it loses its legs as an argument, as no reasonable person could expect such annoying and reprehensible behavior to exert favorable political influence on the listeners.

Long and short of it - it is not an infringement on his rights simply to insist my own rights not be infringed upon. And any 'quieting him down' would have nothing to do with the content of his speech, and everything to do with the volume. And that's not censorship.

Then I suppose there is also the issue that the neighbor would be 'forcing' me to listen to his 'political speech', which is not any kind of an analogy to the SC decision either.

I mean, I am all for actual debate, but is that the best you can come up with?

Or am I just not understanding your question?

Come to think of it, why do you feel the need to make a ridiculous analogy that would never happen in the first place?

Why not use something a little closer to reality? Say, you are the CEO of a company, you have done quite well, nice and profitable, you have very strong political beliefs, enough people on your board share your beliefs, and you decide to go ahead and spend a million bucks on a commercial with Al Franken insulting Inhofe ten days before an election. Um, ok. Feel free. It's your money. You think I, or anyone else, should have the right to tell you you CAN'T do that?

 

I love the fact that these people screaming “1st amendment!” And “free speech at last!” are the same people that had no problem ****ting on the constitution when it came to torturing people and denying rights to brown people.

 

I am not convinced that that was not already the case all along. The money has always been spent, it was just clandestine before.

In any case, this sort of thing was much easier prior to 1990, because most mass information was carefully controlled by a complicit media, but that is no longer the case. The politicians, no matter what else, will always know that they are still answerable to the voters. This is why I say that transparency is vital along with this SC decision.

Another thing I predict we will see in the coming months: a movement by the now-empowered people of Massachusetts to actually do away with Romney-Care. Once that happens, it will dawn on the voters that not only do they still crack the whip on their elected officials, but that we can also undo their offenses while in office.

I know Reagan said the closest thing to immortality is a government program, but it does not have to be the case.

Political backlash is going to have a whole new meaning, and these politicians who place personal greed over at least some shred of ethics will not remain in office, and then the whole campaign finance problem takes care of itself.

Yeah I know, it's pollyanna-ish. But who would have thought only a month ago that Obama-Care would have been torpedoed from the very seat of Mary Jo's Date himself? Once the voters start to believe that they actually have some real power, anything can happen.

 

or arresting people for wearing anti-bush shirts.

it's the same bunch who for 8 years told people they were traitors if they dared disagree with the president.

 

Um, no it's not.

You're confusing two different concepts.

Ok I guess that IS the best you can do.

Listen carefully: I will defend forever your right to say any political speech you want to say. And I know you know better than to ignore the concept of 'the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins'. But you are equating a verbal assault with the content of that speech, which is disingenuous at best, and outright dishonest at worst. Why not answer the more realistic scenario?

 

iow, censoring political speech because of the circumstance.

 

Nero, you're complaining about your dialogue quality but ignoring the Chevron data. Not trying to pile on, but it's interesting which argument you chose to engage. "Enter Sandman for the win, please."

Corporate control of government, on a whole new level, is what interests most of us who're unhappy with this radical shift.

 

No, not in other words. How many times must a person say that I would never be in favor of censorship of political speech?

Seriously, is this ridiculously absurd scenario the best you guys can come up with?

You know what's sad? There are people in history who have actually fought and given up their very lives for this freedom, who were not trying to annoy their neighbors with loud stereos, but who were just trying to SPEAK POLITICAL SPEECH, and because the governments they lived under did not allow that freedom, they were killed for it.

And now people are arguing in FAVOR of allowing governments to censor political speech by coming up with absurdly trivial arguments, and expecting them to be taken seriously.

What an appalling mockery.

 

Nope sorry, I am not conceding anything, no matter how much you insist. You are mistaken, but I would like to thank you for being entirely predictable, in that I was absolutely positive that you would next pull out the child p*rn card and try to equate THAT with political speech. So, let's see, assault, then child p*rnography, what's next?

Is there any possibility that you will actually include, oh, you know, actual political speech in your political speech argument?

I'm not holding my breath.

Oh, and shame on you.

 

Sam, not to derail this thread, but i have a question for you regarding our legal system. It's my understanding that in federal cases of the US govt vs. individuals (such as tax, insider trading for instance), prosecutors have a conviction rate in the ~87-93% range. Can you confirm if this is an accurate stat? Thx..

 

Ok, well, I can see now it was a mistake trying to engage in some honest discourse with you. I am talking about getting the government out of the business of stepping on the free-speech rights of 300 million+ Americans, and you insist on coming up with insane exceptions to try to disprove the rule.

So never mind.

But in case you don't know, that kind of a tactic doesn't even work in junior-high debates, much less when you are speaking with an actual grownup.

But the fact that that is the best you can do is pretty much all anyone really needs to know.

Have a great weekend

 

guess it was ok for unions to give tons of money to campaigns, but when corporations are also allowed to do it, it is the end of our democracy

How about we hold our politicians on both sides of the aisle accountable for not taking bribes. Anyone including corporations should be allowed to give whatever they want to campaigns, but it is up to the elected officials to not take them as bribes and if they do favor campaign contributors and not others, they should be in jail for life.