Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment;

[Craig234]

And the Dems have shown that they put the poor ahead of their donors?

They are both the same coin.

Progressive Dems have for the most part. Others have not and are 'the same coin' in ways.

But I'm referring to facts - are you interested only in your own pre-determined ideological view?

Do you have any use for the actual position and votes?

Or are they a threat?

 

[Mursilis]

The pattern across many politicians of our nation proves you wrong. For one example, Republicans put the interests of wealthy donors ahead of their poor constiuents every day.

So do the Democrats - you just choose not to see it.

Remember my post a few months back that you took issue with, when I stated that any thinking person dislikes democracy, and only tolerates it because no one's come up with a less-terrible alternative yet? I find it ironic that you'll rush to the defense of democracy, and yet remain so afraid of the results.

 

[dphantom]

The pattern across many politicians of our nation proves you wrong. For one example, Republicans put the interests of wealthy donors ahead of their poor constiuents every day.

You may not have seen what I have quoted many times:

"Politicians have to LOOK good to voters, and DO good for donors."

You are posting as a voter to whom your politician 'looks good'. He's doing his job.

The issue isn't that every politician is 'corrupt', that's not true. Maybe you're one of the lucky ones.

The issue is that you ADVOCATED for the system to let money dominate it and make the rich control it and the public be netrayed. You asked for that to happen in your post.

You would be better served by not making sweeping generalizations that dissprove your thesis. Doing so simply indicates your ignorance and unwillingness to honestly examine the issues.

I advocate for the freedoms articulated in the Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers.

 

[Craig234]

Does this act inhibit the NRA from petitioning the government?

No, But I'm speakig of the larger principle.

It's not black and white - it's a combination of things. Sometimes the people organize and win.

The thing is, the worse the system is at letting money dominate, the less often that hapopens, and the hard it is to do.

The NRA is an effective organized lobby, uncommon. We don't see its contrpart for healthcare, Wall Street Reform, etc.

 

[Craig234]

You would be better served by not making sweeping generalizations that dissprove your thesis. Doing so simply indicates your ignorance and unwillingness to honestly examine the issues.

I advocate for the freedoms articulated in the Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers.

You would be better served by backig up your sweeping generalizations abuot sweeping generalization with an argument supporting your claim, not merely a baseless broad attack.

 

[Mursilis]

Looks like free speech won a bit of a victory today.

 

[Craig234]

So do the Democrats - you just choose not to see it.

Remember my post a few months back that you took issue with, when I stated that any thinking person dislikes democracy, and only tolerates it because no one's come up with a less-terrible alternative yet? I find it ironic that you'll rush to the defense of democracy, and yet remain so afraid of the results.

Some do. I said "for example", not "only". You did not read it very well.

With all due respect, you are posting gibberish on your next point - to have opinions is anti-democracy?

One minute, someone says "I disagree with you strongl, but strongly defend your right to say it", and people nodi approvingly.

The next someone says "I defend democracy and disagree with your opinion", and you are attacking it as 'afraid of the results'.

 

[Craig234]

Looks like free speech won a bit of a victory today.

Free speech s the enemy of money dominating the democracy. You can have only one.

 

[daishi5]

No, But I'm speakig of the larger principle.

It's not black and white - it's a combination of things. Sometimes the people organize and win.

The thing is, the worse the system is at letting money dominate, the less often that hapopens, and the hard it is to do.

The NRA is an effective organized lobby, uncommon. We don't see its contrpart for healthcare, Wall Street Reform, etc.

I am unclear on this act, so feel free to correct any mistake I make. Corporations are groups of people, with a shared pool of resources. Their are no decision making entities in a corporation that are not human beings. When a group of people work together, why should they as a group not be allowed to petition the government on their behalf? I understand trying to level the playing field, but it sounds like this act removes corporations entirely.

 

[Craig234]

I am unclear on this act, so feel free to correct any mistake I make. Corporations are groups of people, with a shared pool of resources. Their are no decision making entities in a corporation that are not human beings. When a group of people work together, why should they as a group not be allowed to petition the government on their behalf? I understand trying to level the playing field, but it sounds like this act removes corporations entirely.

Daishi, read a summary of the provisions, it'll clear a lot up. Corporations are not just 'people with resources'; the corporate resources are not the personal resources of people.

There are rules for individuals that are the same for people with corporations or not.
There are different rules for organizations such as corproations and labor unions.

If Company X wants the law changed in a way that will profit it $10 billion, it might have its managemet approvae spending $20 million to make that change as an investent.

This is an interest. A competing interest might be the public, who stands to benefit fro the rule - which might be a safety regulation or a right to sue for negligence - kept in place. But it's not an organized group like the corporation is; there's no lobby for the public to keep the regulation in place that can nearlyu match the money the corporation can spend.

The CEO can donate - but his personal donation of his personal money, a right as an individual, is not the same thing as the corporation donating its resources.

The bill tries to reduce the excessive domination of elections by massive group money overwhelming the public's representation.

It's inadequate; and even part of it have been ruled unconstitutional.

For example, there are spending limits. The constitution protects a candidate's right top spend unlimited sums of his own money, giving rich people an advantage.

The bill raised the limits for people running against a rich opponent spending large sums, but the court ruled that unconstitutional.

The conern here is that the court might make a ruling preventing the major reform we need tolimit money, by protecting broadly the right of big corporate money to be free to control the system and prevent reform.

 

[CPA]

This is a very important issue; big money in politics is the top problem breaking our democracy, thwarting the public and giving a small group the power to run things and get around the vote.

Unfortunately, most people seem to expect the radical right on the court to rule in favor of big money.

This issue lies behind trillions being shifted fro the public to the top and the danger to our economy.

That sounds all well and good, but most companies contribute through PACs which allows employees to contribute as well. How can you argue that it breaks democracy when individuals are contributing.

I will agree that too much money is needed in today's political environment, it's the limiting of the money that gets sticky when you try to balance it with market economies and free speech.

 

[Craig234]

That sounds all well and good, but most companies contribute through PACs which allows employees to contribute as well. How can you argue that it breaks democracy when individuals are contributing.

I will agree that too much money is needed in today's political environment, it's the limiting of the money that gets sticky when you try to balance it with market economies and free speech.

I don't think employee contributions are that much of a problem, but perhaps there should be limitations of corporate organzaing on the collection of those, while the people are free to do so on their own.

I agree with you this is a bitch of an issue to regulate the right way, and I don't have the answers.

But I do see it as the biggest threat our democracy faces and one that will not only possibly, not only probably, but almost inevitably lead to a lot of destruction of democracy if unchecked.

We had banks too big to fail ruin the economy, and corporations too big to fail threaten democracy.

It's all well and good while the interests of corporations and the pulic are aligned - effiecient goods consumed.

It's an entirely different matter where those interests differ, and the public finds itself without protection.

The protection of the public interest with each citizen getting power from a vote is why we ave democracy.

This is completely thwarted when the same interests can get the same ruling power with money.

 

[Blackjack200]

Voted to overturn (Majority):

Scalia
Alito
Roberts
Kennedy
Thomas

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."

"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."

Voted to uphold (Dissenting):

Stevens
Ginsburg
Breyer
Sotomayor

"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others.

"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

Another decision that breaks purely along ideological lines. Does it just seem like the nation is as polarized as ever?

 

[spidey07]

No, it just means we have 4 traitors in the Supreme Court.

 

[Blackjack200]

No, it just means we have 4 traitors in the Supreme Court.

Thanks. Illustrates my point perfectly.

 

[Mursilis]

But I do see it as the biggest threat our democracy faces and one that will not only possibly, not only probably, but almost inevitably lead to a lot of destruction of democracy if unchecked.

The biggest threat faced by our, or any, democracy, is fiscal foolishness, such as we currently see coming out of Washington now, with endless deficits as far as the eye can see, and absolutely no plan to close them. Of course, blaming the politicians is too simplistic, since they're only doing what we elected them to do - reward us with other people's money, and when other people's money runs out, with money taken from future generations. That will be our downfall.

As for people like you, demanding limits on political speech lest big-money special interests become too powerful, I ask this: If money's influence is so over-powering and persuasive, why hasn't it affected you? Despite the big $$ corporations and their political arm, the GOP, have spent, you and others like you, Craig234, are still progressives, and are seemingly immune to this effect, aren't you? Why is that?

 

[GTaudiophile]

I actually am saddened by the ruling.

While it was indeed the people who spoke up in Massachusetts on Tuesday, I firmly believe that once our representatives are in office, they listen to everyone BUT the people. This latest ruling will only enforce the fact that our elected representatives will listen to corporate interests ($$$) first, lobbyists second ($$/more of the former), and the People last.

 

[Sinsear]

no, it just means we have 4 traitors in the supreme court.

lol

 

[TimT]

Welcome to the age of Crony Capitalism:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/34974502

George Carlin summed it up best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

 

[BeauJangles]

This is such bullshit. The SC says we can't have spending limits because they restrict the 1st Amendment, but all it really does is create a situation where only the voice of the rich, well-connected, and well-funded can be heard.

 

[theeedude]

Russification of America continues.

 

[Craig234]

As I said in the other thread, I think this is the single biggest threat to our country and our democracy.

It's just not that obvious to people to appreciate the problem.

It's hard to see what to do now short of a constitutional amendment.

And there's a certain catch-22 in getting the corruption of the governmetn fixed by asking the government to fix it by approving an amendment.

This might have the worst effect of any court decision of many harmful ones in years if not decades.

What we needed was to REVERSE the Santa Clara decision and acknowledge that calling corporations people was an error by an insane, ideological court under a campaign from corporations.

This is cementing a road that is paved over the public interest. The very nature of our nation is how to protect the public from the powerful, and this declares surrender in that war.

 

[spidey07]

If you knew anything about the history of this ruling you would notice it's still on the first page a few threads down. Welcome to the forums.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2043727

 

[Blackjack200]

I ask this: If money's influence is so over-powering and persuasive, why hasn't it affected you? Despite the big $$ corporations and their political arm, the GOP, have spent, you and others like you, Craig234, are still progressives, and are seemingly immune to this effect, aren't you? Why is that?

I hope you don't mind if I answer this question for myself, as I consider myself a progressive.

The answer is that I do not consider myself immune in the least to corporate persuasiveness. I am, after all, wearing a Brooks Brothers shirt, typing this post on a Dell Computer, working for a Fortune 100 corporation, driving a Saab, and making monthly payments to Wells Fargo. I'd say that as far as the corporations go, I'm a good citizen. Just because I read some different things and have my own set of opinions, does not mean that I have immunized myself from corporate influence.

I also typically vote for Democrats, who are nearly as beholden to corporations as the Republicans are.

 

[ayabe]

Looks like free speech won a bit of a victory today.

Nope, every one of our voices just became immeasurably smaller. This is a loss for every American.