This law apparently let George Soros advertise for a book against George Bush in Oct of 2004. But did not allow a group of citizens to advertise for a movie against Hillary Clinton in 2008. Do you believe that a law should allow one millionaire more of a voice than a group of people, just because those people needed corporate money to match the millionaires money?
Hearing a Conservative argue about "collective" interests is...well...a new one.
Hey look its a fascist.
We are at a standstill, I don't see how a group of people made up entirely of citizens cannot enjoy the rights of citizens as a group. I believe they have been considered "legal persons" since before they had constitutional rights. Your problem is that they were granted constitutional rights, but I don't think you want to take away our right to sue a corporation, nor the governments right to punish them for crimes, which is part of their being "legal persons." I believe a group of people should enjoy the same constitutional protections they do as individuals, and I don't think we can go anywhere else on this.
If only you could find the root of the problem and simply remove the reason there is so much incentive for companies or special interests to contribute.... say by limiting the resources the federal government has to redistribute in the first place?
The vast majority of large corporate/special interest donations are bribes, plain and simple. By helping secure the political career of an individual they are to cement the support of a person in political power in a way that will ultimately justify the expense by providing access to grants, contracts, etc... We can play the campaign finance game like we have the income tax game and turn it into a morass of impossible to understand regulations and loopholes or simply work to reduce the concentration of federal power and eliminate the incentive that makes it an issue at all.
If only you could find the root of the problem and simply remove the reason there is so much incentive for companies or special interests to contribute.... say by limiting the resources the federal government has to redistribute in the first place?
The vast majority of large corporate/special interest donations are bribes, plain and simple. By helping secure the political career of an individual they are to cement the support of a person in political power in a way that will ultimately justify the expense by providing access to grants, contracts, etc... We can play the campaign finance game like we have the income tax game and turn it into a morass of impossible to understand regulations and loopholes or simply work to reduce the concentration of federal power and eliminate the incentive that makes it an issue at all.
If they can afford it at a federal level, what convinces you that they can't at a local or state level?
So how come when a decision is made by the CONSERVATIVE wing of the SCOTUS that invalidates a law passed by congress, all the righties on ATPN hail it as a blow for freedom, but when a decision is made by the LIBERAL wing of the SCOTUS that invalidates a law passed by congress, all the righties accuse the liberals of engaging in judicial activism.
Please, righties, tell me what principle you're invoking in these two situations. I really, really want to know how you keep it all straight.
If they can afford it at a federal level, what convinces you that they can't at a local or state level?
So how come when a decision is made by the CONSERVATIVE wing of the SCOTUS that invalidates a law passed by congress, all the righties on ATPN hail it as a blow for freedom, but when a decision is made by the LIBERAL wing of the SCOTUS that invalidates a law passed by congress, all the righties accuse the liberals of engaging in judicial activism.
Please, righties, tell me what principle you're invoking in these two situations. I really, really want to know how you keep it all straight.
Another huge area is regulation - the government allowing the corporations to harm the public interst. Dont regulate Enron. Don't require extensive drug testing. Don't limit Wall Street's leveraged risk taking.
What's cheaper - bribing one federal politician, or 50 state ones?
The mistake you make is imagning it's all about the corporations simply gettin money from the government.
THat's wrong and simplistic.
A certain amount is that - Medicare Part D, for example - but that's a minority.
Another huge area is regulation - the government allowing the corporations to harm the public interst. Dont regulate Enron. Don't require extensive drug testing. Don't limit Wall Street's leveraged risk taking.
There are other areas as well.
THe problem is ideologues with fantasies of the libertarian small government, as you sound like, think it's all about small government and freeing the corporations. It's a recipe for catastrophe.
The basic issue isn't to cripple government - which is what corporations want and you play in to their hands - it's about who the government represents - the pubiic or the powerful.
How is that even honest? Was the Enron scandal about an unregulated corporation, or a corporation that violated laws and regulations already in existance? Passing laws does NOTHING to protect the public - enforcing laws does. Neither party has much interest in the kind of follow-through that enforcement requires.
Read the last part of my last post on this - the issue is who the government represents.
In the case of our current president:
RankIndustryTotal1
Lawyers/Law Firms$43,071,1292
Retired$42,934,2783
Education$22,915,4624
Misc Business$16,558,9995
Securities & Investment$14,808,875
Specifically:
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
If I pay each of you $500,000 will you never post here again?
Apparently a lot of the posters here are under the impression that the ban on corporate campaign spending arose with the McCain-Feingold Act of 1992. In fact the Supreme Court essentially made new law by overturning almost 100 years of precedent and statutes.
I thought conservatives were supposed to hate activist judges. But I guess they are activists only when you disagree with the rulings.
Personally I predict that the next election season will be both longer and more crammed full of negative, over the top ads than you could even imagine. Congrats to the Supreme Court for making such a major contribution to the quality of our lives, all in the name of Constitutional rights for entities that exist as a matter of legal fiction.
Conservatives love The Constitution and free speech which is what this ruling was all about.
Bullshit. If a ruling about free speech benefited liberals you'd be full of outrage.
Conservatives love The Constitution and free speech which is what this ruling was all about.
If a group of people, to re-use my analogy, are sitting and talking about the issue of mountaintop mining, they are citizens who can look at the issue and weigh the environemntal benefits of not doing it against the economic benefits of doing it, and discuss and reach an opinion. THese same people running a public corporation are ordered by the law not to ask any questions about society. However bad the issue is for society, they are legally mandated to only ask what's best for the profits of stockholders.