Supreme Court Rolls back finance rules

[exactaplayer]

The conservative majority in the Supreme Court gave approval for unlimited Corporate campaign spending.
And the move to Fascism continues.

[GaryG]

And the move to Fascism continues.Last time I looked there was a socialist in the WH.

[exactaplayer]

Last time I looked there was a socialist in the WH.
Could you give us one example of any socialist program put forth by the dude in the WH ?
As far as I am concerned we may as well have left Bush in there. The health care bill out of the Senate was written by the health care lobbyists. Come on Gary pay attention to what is going on in this country.
BUT !! What about the topic of this thread ? More power to the corporations.

[ArlJim78]

Does anyone recall when did George Bush tried to cram down on us a healthcare bill written by the insurance industry?
anyone, anyone?

Of course we'd have been better off leaving Bush in office. It looks like you're finally catching on.

[exactaplayer]

Does anyone recall when did George Bush tried to cram down on us a healthcare bill written by the insurance industry?
anyone, anyone?

Of course we'd have been better off leaving Bush in office. It looks like you're finally catching on.
I did not say better off, I said it would not have made any difference. Bush and company jammed the prescription bill down on us. The phamas are tickled pink. And laughing their asses off every time they count their profits.

[ArlJim78]

I did not say better off, I said it would not have made any difference. Bush and company jammed the prescription bill down on us. The phamas are tickled pink. And laughing their asses off every time they count their profits.
If you are a Libertarian, then you are not better off under Obama. It's worse, much much worse.

[ArlJim78]

by the way, why would a libertarian such as yourself, disagree with this supreme court ruling? Do you feel its the role of government to dictate what corporations do with their money?

freedom of speech and freedom from government censorship and control of the private sector I believe are hallmarks of the Libertarian identity.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Of course this is Libertarianism! Everybody incorporate now!!

[exactaplayer]

by the way, why would a libertarian such as yourself, disagree with this supreme court ruling? Do you feel its the role of government to dictate what corporations do with their money?

freedom of speech and freedom from government censorship and control of the private sector I believe are hallmarks of the Libertarian identity.
My original note was concern that the corporations that already have control of our government now have the freedom to spend any amount they want on advertising for political reasons.
And based on the number of faux believers in this country, this action does note bode well for the American public.
ps
I am not a libertarian, that was the only option available in Mass. not in control of the corporate powers.
second ps
It is neat how you have skirted around all the points i have brought up in this thread.

[delayjf]

I did not say better off, I said it would not have made any difference. Bush and company jammed the prescription bill down on us. The phamas are tickled pink. And laughing their asses off every time they count their profits.
__________________
Don't blame me, I voted for Al Gore

Gore's presciption plan was much more robust than Bush's. One way or another a presription plan was going to be inacted.

[ArlJim78]

My original note was concern that the corporations that already have control of our government now have the freedom to spend any amount they want on advertising for political reasons.
And based on the number of faux believers in this country, this action does note bode well for the American public.
ps
I am not a libertarian, that was the only option available in Mass. not in control of the corporate powers.
second ps
It is neat how you have skirted around all the points i have brought up in this thread.
Congress is the target, not corporations. Corporations should have the right to spend any amount at any time on political advertising. what is the problem with that? you have not made clear what your point is. you say it doesn't bode well for the country, WHY? what happens when we have more points of view, more access for people to get their messages out?

I haven't skirted anything, you simply have not made any kind of clear argument. For example what is meant by "faux believers"?

[bigmack]

SEIU bought Obama for $60Mil. What's new?

[Black Ruby]

SEIU bought Obama for $60Mil. What's new?

Here's what's new with this ruling, the ability of foreign interests to wield even more power and influence in America. From Greg Palast.com:

"Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns, but a foreign government can, veiled behind a corporate treasury, dump money into ballot battles.

Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-people, as opposed to corporate-people, may only give $2,300 to a presidential campaign. But hedge fund billionaires, for example, who typically operate through dozens of corporate vessels, may now give unlimited sums through each of these "unnatural" creatures.

And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best democracy money can buy.

In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama's health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!

The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, "Who are these guys?"
We'll never know.

Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is the new venom that the Court has injected into the system by its expansive decision in Citizens United."

[BenDiesel26]

Let's be honest. The law didn't stop Soros from getting money to Obama in the last election to help get an overall total of 750+ million dollars. Changing the law isn't going to do much. It was already a given that the next Republican candidate will not be stupid enough to agree to public financing.

[bigmack]

Here's what's new with this ruling, the ability of foreign interests to wield even more power and influence in America. From Greg Palast.com:

"Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C. says corporations will now have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or influence campaigns
$3.38Mil to Obama from foreign countries. What's new?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1_21_10_16_18_19.png

http://newsmax.com/Politics/OSEIU

[chickenhead]

not a big fan of this, never have been. Legal entities are creations of law, they don't exist outside of the legal realm. They are different than people.

we the people, who at some point in time created the government, should not have to compete with legal entities that government created for control of the government itself. I don't know what the analogy is, Skynet maybe. You create government, they create non people "legal entities", then the non-person "legal entities" steal the government. It gives me a headache just thinking about it.

Solutions? I dont have any....

[bigmack]

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.
Barack Obama 1/21/10

PAC money to Obama Camapaign:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1_21_10_16_52_28.png

[ArlJim78]

I would rather err on the side of more access, especially now that most big media sources are in bed with political parties. Its all speech, corporations or other entities are merely the funding vehicle.

[exactaplayer]

Congress is the target, not corporations. Corporations should have the right to spend any amount at any time on political advertising. what is the problem with that? you have not made clear what your point is. you say it doesn't bode well for the country, WHY? what happens when we have more points of view, more access for people to get their messages out?

I haven't skirted anything, you simply have not made any kind of clear argument. For example what is meant by "faux believers"?
faux believers = those that listen to glen beck etc. and believe what he says.
This country has been under control of the k-street lobbyists for years. the general public has bought into the bs being spread by faux etc. example the tea baggers. with increased power to the corporate powers there will be an ever increasing move toward fascism. We will lose any semblance of a "government of, by and for the people."
The problem with this is you and I as individuals have little to compare with the bankrolls/power of corporations in America.

BIG MACK
I have stated in this thread Obama is no better then Bush. He is also in the tank to these corporate powers.

[chickenhead]

I would rather err on the side of more access, especially now that most big media sources are in bed with political parties. Its all speech, corporations or other entities are merely the funding vehicle.

I think the change here was it used to be limited to PACS, like Mack posted above, those are funded by individuals, just grouped together. A PAC at least has a real relation to real people contributing money, many many individuals have to contribute to those PACS their own take home money to get those amounts.

If I'm reading this correctly, now unions and corps can do the same thing directly, using their treasury funds. It just further removes things from living breathing people. At least making individuals contribute to PACS and pool their power there you make sure their is some linkage with individual imperatives.

I'm sure the ruling is probably constitutionally correct, I just have my doubts this is gonna improve anything.

[Tom]

I think campaign contributions should be limited to documented citizens only and a rather low limit....$500? be imposed, with the candidate liable to document and prove every single dollar he spends as to where it came from.
Maybe with that kind of regulation, the winning candidate would actually have some math ability.

NO contributions from any organizations, corporations, governments, whatever.

Free speech is when we vote, not when we bribe.

[GameTheory]

This ruling actually upholds the corporate restriction against giving directly to campaigns with their general funds. That hasn't changed.

What it does is allow them to spend as much as they like to make their own ads.

[Valuist]

Could you give us one example of any socialist program put forth by the dude in the WH ?
As far as I am concerned we may as well have left Bush in there. The health care bill out of the Senate was written by the health care lobbyists.

OK, if you aren't going to count the health care bill, which the rest of us counted, how about c(r)ap and trade? How about the anti-bank comments made today that didn't address the source of the problem? The problem was bad lending; not proprietary trading or hedge funds.

[newtothegame]

All the more reasons for campaign financing reform......!!!!

[bigmack]

Cuckoo for Coco Puffs feels that it's the end of the world.

4gUWiz_MUS4
1UMHXTXvWSA

THE CHUBB GROUP!! :lol:

Where is it written the one with the most loot wins? If I were running I'd get a truck, drive around grippin' & grinin' with locals and if my opponent took corporate lettuce, deride the bejesus out him/her for doing so.

Don't incumbents have a huge advantage with the money they're given?

[LottaKash]

"NWO" is getting closer, and it will be getting here, much faster now...,:eek: ...much

best,

[BenDiesel26]

We will lose any semblance of a "government of, by and for the people."

Hasn't that already been lost with our current government of, by and for the unions? (60 million in labor and donations)

[Tom]

With the dirt-bag-dems, it is government in spite of the people.

[bigmack]

This ruling actually upholds the corporate restriction against giving directly to campaigns with their general funds. That hasn't changed.

What it does is allow them to spend as much as they like to make their own ads.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1_21_10_19_18_02.png

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1_21_10_19_22_22.png

[Boris]

Where is it written the one with the most loot wins?

Certainly not in Massachusetts. I think Coaknuts was out-spending Brown something like 4X.

Looks like the libs have all the predictable boogey men lined up.

[boxcar]

The conservative majority in the Supreme Court gave approval for unlimited Corporate campaign spending.
And the move to Fascism continues.

Name the "conservatives" on the SC, EP. I see that Mosty's counting problems have rubbed off on you, too.

Boxcar

[sandpit]

I think campaign contributions should be limited to documented citizens only and a rather low limit....$500? be imposed, with the candidate liable to document and prove every single dollar he spends as to where it came from.
Maybe with that kind of regulation, the winning candidate would actually have some math ability.

NO contributions from any organizations, corporations, governments, whatever.

Free speech is when we vote, not when we bribe.

This solution would go further to solve all our problems than anything else IMO. It will never happen, because of the love of money; i.e., the root of all evil, is what controls our politicians. I've said it before, the late William Natcher should be the standard for everyone in congress: never took a campaign contribution, never missed a vote, and had the smallest staff of anybody on the hill.

[boxcar]

My original note was concern that the corporations that already have control of our government now have the freedom to spend any amount they want on advertising for political reasons.
And based on the number of faux believers in this country, this action does note bode well for the American public.
ps
I am not a libertarian, that was the only option available in Mass. not in control of the corporate powers.
second ps
It is neat how you have skirted around all the points i have brought up in this thread.

You have it backwards. The government has control over the corporations.

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

This ruling actually upholds the corporate restriction against giving directly to campaigns with their general funds. That hasn't changed.

What it does is allow them to spend as much as they like to make their own ads.

I'm glad to hear the former. I have much less problem with the latter, so long as they are forced to say who's paying for the ads. I want it to say "Paid for by Chevron" or "Paid for by the SEIU", not "Paid for by the Crippled Widows for Peace and Integrity Foundation".

[chickenhead]

Don't incumbents have a huge advantage with the money they're given?

Incumbents win a ridiculously high percentage of races, something like 98% in the House, 90% in the Senate. And yes they generally have much more money, 2 or 3X to 1.

[mostpost]

I think campaign contributions should be limited to documented citizens only and a rather low limit....$500? be imposed, with the candidate liable to document and prove every single dollar he spends as to where it came from.
Maybe with that kind of regulation, the winning candidate would actually have some math ability.

NO contributions from any organizations, corporations, governments, whatever.

Free speech is when we vote, not when we bribe.
I hope you're sitting down. We kind of agree on this. There should be limits on what someone can contribute to a campaign. $500 may be a little low, but nobody should be able to contribute so much money that the contribution gives him/her/it undue influence on the votes of the politician.

[mostpost]

This ruling actually upholds the corporate restriction against giving directly to campaigns with their general funds. That hasn't changed.

What it does is allow them to spend as much as they like to make their own ads.
And therein lies the problem. It doesn't matter if corporations contribute directly to a campaign to help the campaign pay for ads which it produces, or if corporations pay to produce their own ads extolling the virtues of their candiates; the effect is the same. Their candidate gets a paid for ad. Their is the added benefit that should a corporate ad exceed boundaries or honesty or good taste, the candidate can disavow the ad. Yet the false information is still out there.

[mostpost]

Name the "conservatives" on the SC, EP. I see that Mosty's counting problems have rubbed off on you, too.

Boxcar
Since my name is being taken in vain; the Conservatives on the Supreme Court are Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia. Kennedy is a conservative also, but he is more reasonable than the other four,

[newtothegame]

THE CONSERVATIVES: Scalia (appointed by Reagan) , Thomas (appointed by George Bush, Sr.), Alito (appointed by George W. Bush), and C. J. Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush).

"SWING JUSTICE": Kennedy (appointed by Reagan). Justice Kennedy is more moderate of than the conservative justices. His views tend to be more libertarian than, for example, those of Chief Justice Roberts.

THE LIBERALS: Stevens (appointed by Ford), Breyer (appointed by Clinton), Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton), Sotomayor (appointed by Obama).

[boxcar]

Since my name is being taken in vain; the Conservatives on the Supreme Court are Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia. Kennedy is a conservative also, but he is more reasonable than the other four,

Kennedy is no conservative. He's a fence a straddler. He runs neither hot or cold. His kind of lukewarm kool-aid is strictly puke material. Therefore, it cannot be truthfully said that the SC is a conservative court -- certainly not consistently.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

THE CONSERVATIVES: Scalia (appointed by Reagan) , Thomas (appointed by George Bush, Sr.), Alito (appointed by George W. Bush), and C. J. Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush).

"SWING JUSTICE": Kennedy (appointed by Reagan). Justice Kennedy is more moderate of than the conservative justices. His views tend to be more libertarian than, for example, those of Chief Justice Roberts.

THE LIBERALS: Stevens (appointed by Ford), Breyer (appointed by Clinton), Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton), Sotomayor (appointed by Obama).
Well said.

[Hank]

And therein lies the problem. It doesn't matter if corporations contribute directly to a campaign to help the campaign pay for ads which it produces, or if corporations pay to produce their own ads extolling the virtues of their candiates; the effect is the same. Their candidate gets a paid for ad. Their is the added benefit that should a corporate ad exceed boundaries or honesty or good taste, the candidate can disavow the ad. Yet the false information is still out there.

Bingo,they can also swoop in and buy up all the ad time at crunch time.:ThmbDown:

[Robert Goren]

The only people who really like this are the TV stations. Just what we need, more ads close to an election. It so bad that you hate to turn your TV.

[lamboguy]

the supreme court did the right thing. now this country is totaly governed by the corporations and for the corporations. and its going to be out there in black and white.

[exactaplayer]

If you like the idea of corporations, wall street bankers and others of this ilk gaining more power in our government then continue supporting and voting for Republicans. The Republicans will continue to appoint conservative judges and the results will please you.

[lamboguy]

If you like the idea of corporations, wall street bankers and others of this ilk gaining more power in our government then continue supporting and voting for Republicans. The Republicans will continue to appoint conservative judges and the results will please you.what do you think democrats are any better? they just tried to ram the worst health insurance bill right down your throat. 80% of the people in this country were whole heartily against it and they still tried to jam it. just to give the republicans some credit, they knew the deal stunk and they just sat back and watched the democrats crash. if the republicans could have gotten away with it they would have supported it too, lock stock and barrel.

[newtothegame]

If you like the idea of corporations, wall street bankers and others of this ilk gaining more power in our government then continue supporting and voting for Republicans. The Republicans will continue to appoint conservative judges and the results will please you.

And democrats will consistently appoint liberal judges...so whats your point???

[DJofSD]

The conservative majority in the Supreme Court gave approval for unlimited Corporate campaign spending.
And the move to Fascism continues.
I guess the fact that labor unions fall under the same treatment is irrelevant.

[Robert Goren]

Judges are only lawyers who can't make a living practicing law.;)

[ArlJim78]

right now corporations are involved heavily with congress, because they are the only game in town so they concentrate all their efforts buying off congresspeople. instead of having to send lobbyists to washington to wine and dine congresspersons at exculsive resorts, now corporations will be also be able to take their message directly to the people. the country won't be run by corporations any more than it is now.

in my view this gives more power to the public, and shifts power away from congress. why do you suppose Schumer's hair plugs were on fire yesterday?
I thought he was going to blow a gasket. They don't want the conversation pushed out into the public arena, they want to do it behind the scenes because it makes them more powerful.

this helps level the playing field. sure it gives access to people to push a point of view that you may not agree with, but thats the name of the game.
I think this will also make it easier to take down incumbents which for the most part has been nearly impossible. People are going to have to work harder and their feet will be held closer to the fire.

this is a great decision.

the one thing that bothers me is when you see ads and you don't know who is doing the real funding. They come up with frontnames like The American Family Council, or The Council of American Families. I want to see right on the ad all the names of the various parties who provided the funding up to the top level. not merely some obscure council that nobody heard of.

[lsbets]

I guess the fact that labor unions fall under the same treatment is irrelevant.

Don't confuse him, the talking points don't address that.

[ceejay]

Like this decision or not, it seems to me that this decision was the epitome of an activist court legislating from the bench.

[DJofSD]

AJ: you mean as unambigous as CAIR?

[boxcar]

I think campaign contributions should be limited to documented citizens only and a rather low limit....$500? be imposed, with the candidate liable to document and prove every single dollar he spends as to where it came from.
Maybe with that kind of regulation, the winning candidate would actually have some math ability.

NO contributions from any organizations, corporations, governments, whatever.

Free speech is when we vote, not when we bribe.

Exactly right, Tom! I have long advocated the idea that only registered voters should be allowed to make campaign contributions. Corporations don't quite fit this description. But the fact that no politician on either side of the aisle has ever promoted or supported this idea (that I know of, anyway) speaks volumes as to what politicians hold dearest to their dark little hearts -- and it isn't the best interests of the people, as so many libs think. For this reason alone (and God knows there's a host of others), no citizen should give their blind trust to any politician. Politicians should be distrusted 100X more than a used car salesman.

This is a fundamental problem with our political system and until it's fixed, things will only trend for the worst in this country.

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Exactly right, Tom! I have long advocated the idea that only registered voters should be allowed to make campaign contributions. Corporations don't quite fit this description. But the fact that no politician on either side of the aisle has ever promoted or supported this idea (that I know of, anyway) speaks volumes as to what politicians hold dearest to their dark little hearts -- and it isn't the best interests of the people, as so many libs think. For this reason alone (and God knows there's a host of others), no citizen should give their blind trust to any politician. Politicians should be distrusted 100X more than a used car salesman.

This is a fundamental problem with our political system and until it's fixed, things will only trend for the worst in this country.

Boxcar I actually agree with you on this. It may be time to re-think my position. :D

[boxcar]

I actually agree with you on this. It may be time to re-think my position. :D

No need to do that. Instead, you should be rejoicing because it shows there's some hope for you. :D

Boxcar

[Tom]

Anyone got a link to actual text of the decision and the story of the case itself?

[DJofSD]

I think this is the one: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

[bigmack]

I think this is the one: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Pretty tough for a layperson to comb through that. It would be nice to have it broken down in a more understandable fashion.

Anybody have a link?

[Black Ruby]

It seems that this 183 page opinion will make it more likely that we'll have single issue candidates, since a corporation or an industry can drop a snitload of money on people who'll sell out to do their bidding. Say the Chinese want some sort of restriction relaxed, corporations, who's stockholders can remain unknown, find their candidates and buy those elections.

[boxcar]

It seems that this 183 page opinion will make it more likely that we'll have single issue candidates, since a corporation or an industry can drop a snitload of money on people who'll sell out to do their bidding. Say the Chinese want some sort of restriction relaxed, corporations, who's stockholders can remain unknown, find their candidates and buy those elections.

You mean in the same way politicians also sell out to Big Labor to do their bidding?

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Keith is having a bad week..............


And I am having a great one..................
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[exactaplayer]

And democrats will consistently appoint liberal judges...so whats your point???
Liberal judges will not give corporate powers a freedom to do as they please.

[exactaplayer]

You mean in the same way politicians also sell out to Big Labor to do their bidding?

Boxcar
Big Labor is a thing of the past.

[boxcar]

Big Labor is a thing of the past.

Yeah, right. That's why BO and his henchman in the senate cut a sweetheart deal behind closed doors with Union Bosses. Big Labor is alive and well and with the aid of the government will grow as fat as Nanny.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Big Labor is a thing of the past.

It will be if they keep throwing 50 billion an election behind losers like Obama

[bigmack]

Big Labor is a thing of the past.
You don't have to itemize the pending doom. We watched KO's rant and know you feel likewise.

It's the end of the world as we know it.

And I feel fine.

[BenDiesel26]

Still lost in the discussion of this thread is how George Soros, a foreign investor and billionaire, has owned the Democratic Party for the better part of the last decade. Literally. He has more or less privatized it to his liking. That was before this ruling. So what's new?

[exactaplayer]

sorta like Australian Murdoch owns the Republican party.
50 billion is a pittance compared to what corporations put behind their agenda.
Bo cut an even bigger deal with Pharma.

[Tom]

Liberal judges will not give corporate powers a freedom to do as they please.

Forget about card check? An obvious ploy to force unions on people.

[Tom]

Well, you have to have someone to take the bribes, and for the last three years, congress is dem controlled, and the last one, all of the government is dem. So we have no identified the current whores. What is the next step?

[Black Ruby]

You mean in the same way politicians also sell out to Big Labor to do their bidding?

Boxcar

If you look at the bailouts of the automakers the terms weren't particularly friendly to the unions.

[Tom]

If you look at the bailouts of the automakers the terms weren't particularly friendly to the unions.

Duh???????
They got HANDED GM on a silver plater!

[boxcar]

sorta like Australian Murdoch owns the Republican party.
50 billion is a pittance compared to what corporations put behind their agenda.
Bo cut an even bigger deal with Pharma.

How much do "evil" corporations put behind the Dem's agenda?

Boxcar

[BenDiesel26]

sorta like Australian Murdoch owns the Republican party.
50 billion is a pittance compared to what corporations put behind their agenda.
Bo cut an even bigger deal with Pharma.

Really? I said literally. Soros put hundreds of millions behind a push to prevent Bush from getting elected in 2004. He put hundreds of millions more through various pathways to get Obama elected, and more or less won him the primaries when he decided to endorse him. How much did Murdoch push to get McCain elected? Moveon.org has openly stated before that they own the democratic party. Murdoch is a media guy that more or less endorsed Obama in the last election. I'm sure his endorsement was somewhat in knowing he would make more money if Obama was elected, but he certainly did not have a dog in the D vs. R fight as Soros openly does.