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

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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?

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.

I was responding to the original comment about when did America die. America, as this grand experiment started in 1776 has never been the America that gets talked about. Land of the Free? HA!

It's not about nostalgia, I'm not longing for the 'good old days', I'm saying that there weren't 'good old days'. Since its inception this country has been held hostage by powerful minorities focused on making money. Why was Ben Franklin a politician? Was it A) Because he was a good man and wanted the 'freedom for all', or B) Because he was a businessman and wanted the 'printing contracts for himself'?

When America began, it was freedom for White Male Landowners. Then, kicking and screaming they let White Females in, then a little minority here, then one there... and we're still fighting over 'who' should be covered by 'freedom for all'.

Face it, the 'America' we learned about in School is a lie, a positive, hopeful, beautiful lie... but a lie nonetheless.

Look at the past two years... The People rose up, they got energized for the first time in ages, they volunteered, they canvassed, they believed in Hope and Change... and now they are just as fucked as they were before, except that the President is capable of using the English language as intended.

It's not rape if you call 'Surprise'
vs
It's not rape if you call "Surprise me once shame on you, surprise me twice,er, uh,  you can't be raped again..."

And Requia, a corporation is not a Person* and fucking Ohio Coal or Nike are not a printing presses.




* no matter what some idiot in a robe says

[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.

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?

[LMNO]

Requia, please understand that this decison goes far beyond the DVD which started this whole thing.


The SC used that as an excuse to reverse an entire pile of previous laws and rulings.  If they said, "sure, it's ok for a company to release a character assasination of a political figure a week before elections" and left it at that, I'd probably be ok with it.  But they decided to dismantle most of the framework behind campaign finance reform.

That's what I'm pissed about.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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?

Speaking out for them?  No.

Giving them shitpiles of cash?  Ask John Kyl.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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?

It is when post-election you can say "Hey Senator, remember when I made all those awesome attack ads for you? Vote no on that bill, or next year, I'm making them for your competitor."


Assuming they aren't just promoting the candidate that they hand picked as a loyal schlub already.

[Requia ☣]

Ok, I found the law that was actually overturned

SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR
           ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

   (a) In General.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``or for any
applicable electioneering communication'' before ``, but shall not
include''.
   (b) Applicable Electioneering Communication.--Section 316 of such
Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
   ``(c) Rules Relating to Electioneering Communications.--
           ``(1) Applicable electioneering communication.--For purposes
       of this section, the term `applicable electioneering
       communication' means an electioneering communication (within the
       meaning of section 304(f)(3)) which is made by any entity
       described in subsection (a) of this section or by any other
       person using funds donated by an entity described in subsection
       (a) of this section.
           ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the term
       `applicable electioneering communication' does not include a
       communication by a section 501(c)(4) organization or a political
       organization (as defined in section 527(e)(1) of the Internal
       Revenue Code of 1986) made under section 304(f)(2)(E) or (F) of
       this Act if the communication is paid for exclusively by funds
       provided directly by individuals who are United States citizens
       or nationals or lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as
       defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality
       Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20))). For purposes of the preceding
       sentence, the term `provided directly by individuals' does not
       include funds the source of which is an entity described in
       subsection (a) of this section.
           ``(3) Special operating rules.--
                   ``(A) Definition under paragraph (1).--An
               electioneering communication shall be treated as made by
               an entity described in subsection (a) if an entity
               described in subsection (a) directly or indirectly
               disburses any amount for any of the costs of the
               communication.
                   ``(B) Exception under paragraph (2).--A section
               501(c)(4) organization that derives amounts from
               business activities or receives funds from any entity
               described in subsection (a) shall be considered to have
               paid for any communication out of such amounts unless
               such organization paid for the communication out of a
               segregated account

[[Page 116 STAT. 92]]

               to which only individuals can contribute, as described
               in section 304(f)(2)(E).
           ``(4) Definitions and rules.--For purposes of this
       subsection--
                   ``(A) the term `section 501(c)(4) organization'
               means--
                         ``(i) an organization described in section
                     501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
                     exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such
                     Code; or
                         ``(ii) an organization which has submitted an
                     application to the Internal Revenue Service for
                     determination of its status as an organization
                     described in clause (i); and
                   ``(B) a person shall be treated as having made a
               disbursement if the person has executed a contract to
               make the disbursement.
           ``(5) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in
       this subsection shall be construed to authorize an organization
       exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal
       Revenue Code of 1986 to carry out any activity which is
       prohibited under such Code.''.

This is the *only* thing that is affected.

[LMNO]

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.

[Jenne]

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.

Right on the money (sorry this is as far as I've been able to read in the thread lately.)

[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?

If by support you mean buying all his air time for him and doing all his paper campaigning for him so he doesn't have to tap into his by-now billions from corporate backers but will only vote according to their now-bought dictates?

YOU BETCHA

[Jenne]

By the way, anytime you want to judge what you should be "happy" about in government, take a look at what Fox News is celebrating.  You don't want to be toasting with them, just saying.

[Jenne]

Ok, I found the law that was actually overturned

SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR
           ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

   (a) In General.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``or for any
applicable electioneering communication'' before ``, but shall not
include''.
   (b) Applicable Electioneering Communication.--Section 316 of such
Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
   ``(c) Rules Relating to Electioneering Communications.--
           ``(1) Applicable electioneering communication.--For purposes
       of this section, the term `applicable electioneering
       communication' means an electioneering communication (within the
       meaning of section 304(f)(3)) which is made by any entity
       described in subsection (a) of this section or by any other
       person using funds donated by an entity described in subsection
       (a) of this section.
           ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the term
       `applicable electioneering communication' does not include a
       communication by a section 501(c)(4) organization or a political
       organization (as defined in section 527(e)(1) of the Internal
       Revenue Code of 1986) made under section 304(f)(2)(E) or (F) of
       this Act if the communication is paid for exclusively by funds
       provided directly by individuals who are United States citizens
       or nationals or lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as
       defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality
       Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20))). For purposes of the preceding
       sentence, the term `provided directly by individuals' does not
       include funds the source of which is an entity described in
       subsection (a) of this section.
           ``(3) Special operating rules.--
                   ``(A) Definition under paragraph (1).--An
               electioneering communication shall be treated as made by
               an entity described in subsection (a) if an entity
               described in subsection (a) directly or indirectly
               disburses any amount for any of the costs of the
               communication.
                   ``(B) Exception under paragraph (2).--A section
               501(c)(4) organization that derives amounts from
               business activities or receives funds from any entity
               described in subsection (a) shall be considered to have
               paid for any communication out of such amounts unless
               such organization paid for the communication out of a
               segregated account

[[Page 116 STAT. 92]]

               to which only individuals can contribute, as described
               in section 304(f)(2)(E).
           ``(4) Definitions and rules.--For purposes of this
       subsection--
                   ``(A) the term `section 501(c)(4) organization'
               means--
                         ``(i) an organization described in section
                     501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
                     exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such
                     Code; or
                         ``(ii) an organization which has submitted an
                     application to the Internal Revenue Service for
                     determination of its status as an organization
                     described in clause (i); and
                   ``(B) a person shall be treated as having made a
               disbursement if the person has executed a contract to
               make the disbursement.
           ``(5) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in
       this subsection shall be construed to authorize an organization
       exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal
       Revenue Code of 1986 to carry out any activity which is
       prohibited under such Code.''.

This is the *only* thing that is affected.

Aaaand this makes your argument how?

I see nothing here to negate what those of us see as an egregious potential for now-certain abuse are saying and have been saying...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Requia's right, of course.

What could allowing Exxon to purchase some congressional whores hurt?

What could go wrong?

[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?

It is when post-election you can say "Hey Senator, remember when I made all those awesome attack ads for you? Vote no on that bill, or next year, I'm making them for your competitor."


Assuming they aren't just promoting the candidate that they hand picked as a loyal schlub already.

That's an interesting point, since "going rogue" has taken on a new flavah lately.

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

[Jenne]

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.