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

[Requia ☣]

My point is that it doesn't affect campaign contributions.

That sad, I never got an answer, did what you're describing ever happen (more than it did last election anyway) before 2002 when this law was passed?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Requia's right, of course.

What could allowing Exxon to purchase some congressional whores hurt?

What could go wrong?

It's just freedom of speech, Rog.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  Move along.

I, for one, welcome our new corporate masters.

[Cain]

I'm wondering what corporations are "backing" the teabaggers lately.  (lmnuendo?)

FreedomWorks, an organization that specialize in creating legitimate looking grassroots organisations and has previously aligned itself with conservative and libertarian causes, one major health insurance company (forgot the name) and the Koch brothers, who are among the wealthiest men in America and previously bankrolled Bush Jr's political campaigns.

[Captain Utopia]

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.

Freedom of the press is stated implicitly in amendment I.

Freedom to buy government officials is not.

These are two very different things.

So coming out in support (or against) a given candidate is bribery?

Look at this pragmatically.  It is clearly demonstrated that the amount of money spent on a campaign is correlated with the success of the campaign; the majority of the time, the candidate who has had more money spent on their behalf usually wins.

Now, take a race in state X, where candidate A is against dumping toxic waste in the public water supply, and candidate B is against regulating business that produce toxic waste.

There is strong support for candidate A from scientists and activists, who manage to raise an unprecidented $5 million for Candidate A from many, many donors.

However, Corporation FUCKEM inc, who produces toxic waste, made $100 billion dollars last year, and has decided to spend $50 million in support of candidate B.

So, while candidate A has both science and sanity on their side, candidate B is much more likely to win.

Candidate B, sponsored/bribed by Corporation FUCKEM absolutely deserves to win in that scenario.  If the people, upon being informed of the connection, choose to still vote that way, then what exactly is wrong with that?

[Jenne]

I'm wondering what corporations are "backing" the teabaggers lately.  (lmnuendo?)

FreedomWorks, an organization that specialize in creating legitimate looking grassroots organisations and has previously aligned itself with conservative and libertarian causes, one major health insurance company (forgot the name) and the Koch brothers, who are among the wealthiest men in America and previously bankrolled Bush Jr's political campaigns.

I see.  So the one to "legitimize" the crazies, the health insurance I can't explain just yet (hasn't percolated), and the last one seems too obvious to mention.

[Jenne]

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.

Freedom of the press is stated implicitly in amendment I.

Freedom to buy government officials is not.

These are two very different things.

So coming out in support (or against) a given candidate is bribery?

Look at this pragmatically.  It is clearly demonstrated that the amount of money spent on a campaign is correlated with the success of the campaign; the majority of the time, the candidate who has had more money spent on their behalf usually wins.

Now, take a race in state X, where candidate A is against dumping toxic waste in the public water supply, and candidate B is against regulating business that produce toxic waste.

There is strong support for candidate A from scientists and activists, who manage to raise an unprecidented $5 million for Candidate A from many, many donors.

However, Corporation FUCKEM inc, who produces toxic waste, made $100 billion dollars last year, and has decided to spend $50 million in support of candidate B.

So, while candidate A has both science and sanity on their side, candidate B is much more likely to win.

Candidate B, sponsored/bribed by Corporation FUCKEM absolutely deserves to win in that scenario.  If the people, upon being informed of the connection, choose to still vote that way, then what exactly is wrong with that?

How do you know they know?  I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.

How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?

[Jenne]

My point is that it doesn't affect campaign contributions.

That sad, I never got an answer, did what you're describing ever happen (more than it did last election anyway) before 2002 when this law was passed?

Um, the bottom line is certainly in play here if THEY AREN'T PAYING FOR THEIR OWN ADS any longer.

That's where the bulk of campaign $ is spent.

[Requia ☣]

How do you know they know?  I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.

How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?

The law would require a 'paid for by fuckem' at the end of every ad.

[Captain Utopia]

I'm wondering what corporations are "backing" the teabaggers lately.  (lmnuendo?)

FreedomWorks, an organization that specialize in creating legitimate looking grassroots organisations and has previously aligned itself with conservative and libertarian causes, one major health insurance company (forgot the name) and the Koch brothers, who are among the wealthiest men in America and previously bankrolled Bush Jr's political campaigns.

Obviously this will change over time - but do you have a rough idea of what ratio exists of money associated with uncovered grassroot organisations (e.g. FreedomWorks) vs. astroturfers who are successfully appearing to be grassroot?  For example - if FreedomWorks was formed in 2005 and was only uncovered in 2008, then you could get an idea of the trend at least.

It seems to me to be increasingly harder to keep secrets, but you can only definitively tell with the benefit of hindsight or paranoia.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

OK, I'm gonna do it...



UUUUNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Candidate B, sponsored/bribed by Corporation FUCKEM absolutely deserves to win in that scenario.  If the people, upon being informed of the connection, choose to still vote that way, then what exactly is wrong with that?

Except that 'the People' see 1 commercial for Candidate A, where he's trying to inform the public and 20 commercials from Candidate B's corporate pay boys which questions Candidate A's patriotism, honesty, credibility and gender.

for fucks sake, just go ask Max Cleland how easy it is to fuck over a candidate with bullshit "questions"....

[LMNO]

FP, with enought spending, FUCKEM Inc can buy up every commercial spot in the media.  Remember, "equal time" was struck down last year.  Most people would never be aware of the connection.


Plus, please note all the people who still believe the "Death Panel" lie.  It has been repeatedly been shown to be false, but they still believe.  "The Facts" no longer matter in politics, if they ever did.

[Captain Utopia]

How do you know they know?  I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.

How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?

You don't know that they know.  Eternal vigilance and all that.  I don't have much sympathy for people getting screwed over by corporations if they sit back and expect a perfect self-correcting democratic system to be handed to them upon a silver platter.

If enough people don't continue to keep tabs on those who pull the strings of power, then everybody will get screwed.  I can't think of any time when this hasn't, or will not be true.

[Cain]

I'm wondering what corporations are "backing" the teabaggers lately.  (lmnuendo?)

FreedomWorks, an organization that specialize in creating legitimate looking grassroots organisations and has previously aligned itself with conservative and libertarian causes, one major health insurance company (forgot the name) and the Koch brothers, who are among the wealthiest men in America and previously bankrolled Bush Jr's political campaigns.

I see.  So the one to "legitimize" the crazies, the health insurance I can't explain just yet (hasn't percolated), and the last one seems too obvious to mention.

I believe the insurance company in question also urged their employees to attend teabagger protests and in particular agitate against any moves towards a Canadian or British health care system.

[LMNO]

How do you know they know?  I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.

How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?

You don't know that they know.  Eternal vigilance and all that.  I don't have much sympathy for people getting screwed over by corporations if they sit back and expect a perfect self-correcting democratic system to be handed to them upon a silver platter.

If enough people don't continue to keep tabs on those who pull the strings of power, then everybody will get screwed.  I can't think of any time when this hasn't, or will not be true.

Ah.  An idealist.  You should have said.

[Requia ☣]

Ok, seriously,  has any of what you people are describing ever happened, above and beyond what happened anyway while 203 was in effect?  As far as I can tell it means we might see more corporation names at the end of political ads instead of the names of corporate owned PACs, the only people this changes anything for are those corps too small to form their own PAC.