News:

Everyone who calls themselves "wolf-something" or "something-wolf" almost inevitably turns out to be an irredeemable shitneck.

Main Menu

Corporations now have the right to spend money directly to influence elections

Started by BabylonHoruv, January 21, 2010, 09:55:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
However, I will disagree with Roger on the 1800's... I mean I wasn't there like he was, but it doesn't seem to me that it was all that great for the 'people' either.

I was specifically talking about the court case that gave corporations the same rights as individuals.

Feh, that just affirmed it. They were buying politicians long before then.


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap.  We had some good years.

I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.

Meh, I lived through at least two good decades.

Or were you after perfection?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Captain Utopia

Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap.  We had some good years.

I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.
We had some good times.  Some years had more good times than others.  Relatively speaking, we had some good years.  At least, that's how I read it.

Requia ☣

I kinda like the way the 60s and 70s get described.  Not because things were good, but because people actually did something about making them better.  It was upward movement.  Now people mostly roll over and take it.  And they wjine that the Wrong Person might get elected if you don't follow suit.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
However, I will disagree with Roger on the 1800's... I mean I wasn't there like he was, but it doesn't seem to me that it was all that great for the 'people' either.

I was specifically talking about the court case that gave corporations the same rights as individuals.

Feh, that just affirmed it. They were buying politicians long before then.


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap.  We had some good years.

I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.

Meh, I lived through at least two good decades.

Or were you after perfection?

Not perfection...

Which decades?
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 07:11:03 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap.  We had some good years.

I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.
We had some good times.  Some years had more good times than others.  Relatively speaking, we had some good years.  At least, that's how I read it.

Some good years? Years where the government and corporations weren't playing the same game they're playing now?

Man, there must have been some pages stuck together in my book ;-)
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 07:16:21 PM
I kinda like the 60s and 70s.  Not because things were good, but because people actually did something about making them better.  It was upward movement.

I think that a small minority of people tried to move things upward... we finally got civil rights for some people, so thats a win... except that we didn't ya know actually learn from that and recently at least some in that minority has shown that it doesn't think about Civil Rights, but rather Civil Rights for Them.

I thought the 60's and 70s were pretty good too, but only when I choose to look at some things and not others. But, we can do that sort of selective viewing for any decade including this one. For fucks sake, the US just elected a non-white non-old man as President. That's great... as in great for a key exciting plot point in the TV drama. But it didn't change anything, not really.

- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Jenne

Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 01:22:28 PM
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.

This ruling has nothing to do with money.  That's the reporter being a fucking moron.  The 'speech' in question was a movie, not cash.  Corporate personage was not directly invoked either*, they just said that corporations have first amendment rights, that would be why it includes freedom of the 'press', no corporate free speech means the government is allowed to control what the New York Times or MSNBC says.

*One of the cases used as precedent might have had corporate personage in it, haven't read all of those.

Oh hell yes it was:  it was about the corporate BACKING of now-to-be-constantly-blasted-opinions on politics, politicians and policy.

We are now not going to be deaf to the wishes of corporations (though we have always and ever been at their lobbying mercy), and instead will hear them ad nauseum.  When politicians run, they can sit back and let their corporate backers make all their ads for them.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:21:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
However, I will disagree with Roger on the 1800's... I mean I wasn't there like he was, but it doesn't seem to me that it was all that great for the 'people' either.

I was specifically talking about the court case that gave corporations the same rights as individuals.

Feh, that just affirmed it. They were buying politicians long before then.


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap.  We had some good years.

I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.

Meh, I lived through at least two good decades.

Or were you after perfection?

Not perfection...

Which decades?

70s and 90s were the best, overall.

But 2000-2009 was by far the FUNNIEST.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:21:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
However, I will disagree with Roger on the 1800's... I mean I wasn't there like he was, but it doesn't seem to me that it was all that great for the 'people' either.

I was specifically talking about the court case that gave corporations the same rights as individuals.

Feh, that just affirmed it. They were buying politicians long before then.


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap.  We had some good years.

I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.

Meh, I lived through at least two good decades.

Or were you after perfection?

Not perfection...

Which decades?

70s and 90s were the best, overall.

But 2000-2009 was by far the FUNNIEST.

Well, I'll agree with you on the last bit... As Sjaantze Harbinger of Distraction said yesterday "If Bush hadn't been so dangerous, he would have been my favorite president, just from the absurdity of it."

And fuck you Rain God. I used to be an optimist about this shit until I hung out around you.  :lulz:
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO

Requia, the original case was about a movie.  However, the conservatives on the supreme court grabbed it, and ran with it in ways that had nothing to do with the original case.  Roberts, Alito, et al had been wanting to do away with campaign finance reform for years.  Their ruling ignored stare decisis and reversed previous decision upholding spending limits on campaigns.  They upheld the idea that donations were a form of free speech.  I repeat: Giving a politician money is an act of free speech, not commerce.  Therefore, money is speech.  So, a corporation (now a person) who spends a billion dollars in the name of a candidate to win an election is excercising free speech.

Keep in mind that the fact you as an individual can't come close to matching this is considered "fair".

Cain

LMNO, while I agree with your general point, it doesn't seem to be about direction donations, but instead having no upper limit on the funds a corporation can use to make attack adverts and other forms of highly targeted political media, and no limits on when these attacks can be used.

Which is of course an indirect donation, but I'm sure there is some slight technical difference.

Captain Utopia

Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:21:42 PM
I thought the 60's and 70s were pretty good too, but only when I choose to look at some things and not others. But, we can do that sort of selective viewing for any decade including this one. For fucks sake, the US just elected a non-white non-old man as President. That's great... as in great for a key exciting plot point in the TV drama. But it didn't change anything, not really.
So what is your criteria for a "good year" or a "good decade" or a "good any period of time" if it isn't some subjective measure of good events outweighing bad?


Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 07:16:21 PM
I kinda like the way the 60s and 70s get described.  Not because things were good, but because people actually did something about making them better.  It was upward movement.  Now people mostly roll over and take it.  And they wjine that the Wrong Person might get elected if you don't follow suit.
The 60s and 70s had a lot of people out on the streets, meeting other people, organising forms of protest, planning on how to get enough of the public mindshare to actually enact some form of change.  Historically, that's how it's always been done.

But if you substitute being out on the streets for spending time on an internet forum, then we don't look so passive any more.  What percentage of all protests in that period made an actual difference?  And I don't think they were any less wrong-headed about a lot of things than we undoubtedly are.  The thing is, even gardening forums discuss politics and ways to improve the human condition in their favour.  I think we have more potential to forge a new form of politics than ever, the tools to do so (e.g. http://metagovernment.org/ ) are being written as we speak.  Fuck the corporations, and fuck our elected leaders, they're still focussed on playing shuffleboard as the boat sinks, and in the end it'll be their short-sightedness which dooms them to have their place in history written for them.

Fact is, I can't think of a better fucking time to be alive.  Fuck nostalgia.

In the ass.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:32:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:21:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
However, I will disagree with Roger on the 1800's... I mean I wasn't there like he was, but it doesn't seem to me that it was all that great for the 'people' either.

I was specifically talking about the court case that gave corporations the same rights as individuals.

Feh, that just affirmed it. They were buying politicians long before then.


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap.  We had some good years.

I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.

Meh, I lived through at least two good decades.

Or were you after perfection?

Not perfection...

Which decades?

70s and 90s were the best, overall.

But 2000-2009 was by far the FUNNIEST.

Well, I'll agree with you on the last bit... As Sjaantze Harbinger of Distraction said yesterday "If Bush hadn't been so dangerous, he would have been my favorite president, just from the absurdity of it."

And fuck you Rain God. I used to be an optimist about this shit until I hung out around you.  :lulz:

Again, it is not the job of a Holy Man™ to tell you pleasing lies.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Requia ☣

Doing some checking, this will probably meant that corporations will be allowed to give money to politicians, since the part that says they can't buy ad space also says they can;'t give money directly, that money is still limited to 5000 dollars, by things not related to 441b, depends on whose responsible for amending the code.

Also, for all you doomsayers, was it like what you describe in 2001 before the law that was just overturned was passed?
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

LMNO

@ Cain:  I know, I decided to make it more of a polemic at some point.  My bad for not being clear on the details.


You know, normally I can take this sort of shit in stride, but this one has really stuck in my craw.  I think I'm gonna jump off the wagon for a bit.



Requia, this wasn't just the law that was overturned.  They reversed previous decisions that went back decades.

Cain

Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 07:59:24 PM
Doing some checking, this will probably meant that corporations will be allowed to give money to politicians, since the part that says they can't buy ad space also says they can;'t give money directly, that money is still limited to 5000 dollars, by things not related to 441b, depends on whose responsible for amending the code.

Also, for all you doomsayers, was it like what you describe in 2001 before the law that was just overturned was passed?

So your position is because corporations already have undue influence in D.C., they should be allowed even more?

That is essentially what you are saying, isn't it?

Requia ☣

Erm, this is more complicated than i thought, this only effects the 2002 ammendment to 441b.  I have no idea if it'll effect direct donations or not at this point.

Um no, I'm saying corporation have a fucking right to publish things.  Freedom of the press and all that.  because if you uphold that this can be done, then the government can proceed to censor the TV and newspapers at will.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.