Author Topic: Corporations now have the right to spend money directly to influence elections  (Read 31194 times)

Cainad (dec.)

  • Houseplant Supreme
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 10741
  • The Emperor's Hairy Right Hand
    • View Profile
    • Internet Forum Safari
I'm actually gonna have to agree with the conservative judges on this one (Note to self, you just agreed with Scalia, get a lobotomy)  Free speech is free speech, if we allow restriction corporations this way, then that opens the door to restrict corporate use of other media as well.

They've been restricted that way for over 100 years. Hasn't stopped the corporations from spending money on media, now has it?

Freeky

  • Can't breathe anymore.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15035
  • wat
    • View Profile
My response to the OP was "Wait, what? WHAT?!"  But then I read the article, and I had a wishful thinking moment, which was "So now people will figure out that they'll have to start paying fucking attention during elections, and see who wants what, because this will easily be the most obvious way of telling who is going to do some good vs. who is going to give big business moar moneys. Right?"

If someone does the “Fine, you’re right, I’m clearly a terrible person, I’m Satan, I’m the worst person alive, I should just die” thing in response to criticism of their harmful behavior, they are trying to manipulate people and flip the situation around so that they look like a victim.

As a neuroscientist I have to disagree with the perception that anyone is doing mathematical modeling of cognitive intelligence, yet; intelligence as an economist defines it, yes, but economists are worlds away from actual cognition.


Although it is outside the purview of this organization to offer personal advice, we can say -- without assuming any liability -- that previous experience indicates (and recent market studies corroborate) that given the present condition of the marketplace, continuing with your present course of action is likely to result in substantial in

Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 5848
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Nah, we already know what businesses give to politicians, the executive donations tell us that.  In truth campaign money isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be (you need to double money spent in order to gain 1% in the polls).  What we really need is to explain to the politicians that loses a corporate sponsor or three won't cost them the re-election.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Captain Utopia

  • Social Justice Warrior
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 2818
  • Futurologue de Prétention
    • View Profile
I'm actually gonna have to agree with the conservative judges on this one (Note to self, you just agreed with Scalia, get a lobotomy)  Free speech is free speech, if we allow restriction corporations this way, then that opens the door to restrict corporate use of other media as well.
If it means that online speech of forums (blogs and forums) will no longer be threatened, then I'm all for it.  I'm not convinced that particular justification is valid though.

Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 5848
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Online speech is threatened now?
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Captain Utopia

  • Social Justice Warrior
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 2818
  • Futurologue de Prétention
    • View Profile
The example I've seen bandied about was comparing "Fahrenheit 911" to "Hillary: The Movie"

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which sided with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that Hillary: The Movie could not be shown on television right before the 2008 Democratic primaries under the McCain-Feingold Act. Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called it “one of the most important First Amendment cases in years.”

why this is relevant:

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

I'd rather a government have no control in determining where the line should be, since they will abuse it later, if not sooner.

It's wouldn't necessarily be their fault either.  If that part of the bill was left in place you'd have a situation where if a contentious movie could not be shown whenever the creators wish, what about a text script of it which becomes a chain-email, or an inflammatory rant which suddenly goes viral at just the right moment?  When you don't have the luxury of time to properly follow the money, how do you determine grassroots from astroturf?

Since everything is trending online, this would have inevitably affected popular blogs and forums within a few election cycles.

Baron Von Stevenstein

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 686
  • Hail to the king baby
    • View Profile
the implications are terrifying, something straight out of a distopian novel.
how long do you think it will be until the franchise wars starts like in demolition man or the corporate wars from rollerball?
heard the decision compared to the dred scott decision, saying that its worse.

well at least we can all say we remember when lady liberty got ass raped by ronald mcdonald and that aol guy
Floppy-ear'd Order of the Cthulhu
(\ /)
(0.o)
(>D)>=I====>

Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 5848
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Aha!  I finally found the judicial opinion.  I don't think the reporter read it.

The bit Thomas dissented from in the majority opinion was joined by all 8 other judges, so disclosure of campaign finances stays up (yes he could have singlehandedly undone that if the other 4 hadn't agreed to partly join the majority).

This is even less substantial than I thought, According to the opinion corporations are already forming their own PACs in order to get around the law, one of the cited reasons for the decision was that the law effectively discriminates against corporations that don't have the resources to deal with the red tape involved.

It has nothing to do with spending money on campaigns, and everything to do with political speech, its the 2002 McCain Feingold act, not the 1907 law mentioned.  This has to do with being allowed to publish material in the runup to an election.

They cited Morse v Frederick (bong hits 4 Jesus) as a *defense* of free speech.   :lulz:

The specific facts of the case are very disturbing.  The plaintiffs were trying to put a movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton up, not on TV, but on video on demand services, the FCC was expanding enforcement of the law, FP is right to have called this a threat to the internet.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 08:32:12 am by Requia ☣ »
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Jasper

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15897
  • Pull-Start Enema Wasteland
    • View Profile
Corporations are too powerful and too able to ignore the law.  They are The Enemy, and anything that diminishes them is good news for me.


Cain

  • Alea iacta est
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 63235
    • View Profile
Erm, wouldn't corps still be limited to the same 5000 dollars private individuals have under this?

On direct donations: yes.

However they can spend everything they have on political advertising, if they so wish.

The implications for this are going to be hilarious.  I cant wait until Chinese and Russian-backed corporations get in on the game.  Gazprom is practically minting roubles nowadays.

Reginald Ret

  • 'Miserable Atrocianthrope'
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4168
  • Interweb Gloryhole QC Inspector #23
    • View Profile
Quote
In a 5-4 decision, the {supreme court of the USA}court's conservative bloc said corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending freely to influence the outcome of federal elections.
This is what makes me want to puke.
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62357
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Requia:

Two things bother me about this.  One, as Regret said, it says that a corporation is a person, and is entitled to the rights of a citizen in this country.  Except, of course, when taking responsibility; then, it's an LLC, a Limited Liability Company, which is subject to more beneficial tax rules and legal protections. 

The other is that they have decided that money is speech.  Therefore, the people (which includes milti-billion corporations, mind you) with more money have "more" speech.  Now consider the economic divide, where the top one percent of the population controls roughly 50% of the nation's wealth.  And that's before you add in the corporations. 

So, the only messages you will be hearing during an election will be from that one percent who have all the money.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62357
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
So, let's look at mid-term elections.

In November, 36 seats are up for election: 19 Dems, 18 Republicans.

With the conjunction of Scott Brown winning, and the elimination of spending regulation, corporations will be spending millions to oust the Dems.

Democratic seats up for election are basically the entire west coast, some of the rust belt, and parts of new england.  Look for most of them to be won by Republicans.

After that happens, Obama may as well declare himself a muslim and spend the rest of his term in Kenya, listening to Jeremiah White.

"Yes, we can... provided the skittish voters aren't duped into a xenophobic frenzy."

Dysfunctional Cunt

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 6271
    • View Profile
Horrormirth to follow?

Can you imagine the commercials?  I mean most candidate commercials are to the edge nasty, but they will still have to work with the other party 98% of the time so they keep them this side of the line.  If corporations are producing those commercials the mud slinging will be of epic proportions.

This law, it lets the corporate monkeys fling the poop far and wide at whicever candidate they wish right?

We should start a parent corporation then sub corp each of us individually then put all kinds of shit on the web.  What could they do?

Nevermind, I forgot where I was for a moment...   :x

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62357
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
If you're one of those people who want to see the house of cards fall, it's gonna be hilarious.



LMNO
- Reconsidering that move to Buenos Aires more seriously.