I think this ruling just gave the corporations, unions, and the non-profits in this country a free hand in deciding who gets to be elected. The door has been thrown wide open.
Personally, I'd like to see the money taken completely out of the election process. Right now, the politicans are beholden to whoever buys them with contributions. The election process should be tightly regulated and completely funded by the individual states. Each person running for office would be given a set amount of money to use campaigning. That way people would have the chance to evaluate them on a level playing field. Big money, corruption, and special interests would not have the influence they now enjoy.
Replies (36)
Why - get information out there; good, bad, ugly. Businesses and unions are citizens,and citizens have the right to freely express their opinions. The Supreme Court has made a decision to strengthen the Constitution. McCain/Feingold was a shaky law that restricted Americans participation in the process. We're not as dumb as many want us to be.
Well done, Supreme Court, well done.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 12:22 PM
riregrist
Does the Supreme Court ruling force politicians to accept campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
If not, then what does that say about the integrity of the politicians who accept these contributions?
As I see it, the problem isn't corporations and unions, it's the politicians who refuse to do what is right by the people and this country. The politicians who freely allow themselves to be bought off. And what does that say about those of us who continue to vote for said politicians?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 12:31 PM
Money talks therefore qualifies as free speech. Sad but true. Look at what happened to get votes on health care from Nebraska and Louisiana. That was attempted, not with corporate funds, but with your tax dollars. That is the way our democracy works. In November, you can change it, with your vote for new representation. That is priceless.
-- Posted by jadip4me on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 12:37 PM
Businesses and unions are citizens,and citizens have the right to freely express their opinions.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 12:22 PM
That holds true only if businesses and unions have the citizens' best interest in mind. They don't! Corporations make decisions based on what is best for the entity not what's best for the people in general. Personally, I like clean air and water. I like that the FDA and the EPA attempt to control the toxins and food supply.
-- Posted by riregrist on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 12:46 PM
Does the Supreme Court ruling force politicians to accept campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
-- Posted by DTower on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 12:31 PM
The Supreme court ruling does not allow the corporations and unions to directly donate to the politicans. The ruling now lets the corporations, special interests and unions spend as much as they want on their own. They do not have to give to a political party. They can basically, spend as much as they want, to skew any election they want, their way. All limits have been removed. The corporations have just been given the keys to what's left of our government election process.
-- Posted by riregrist on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 12:56 PM
In November, you can change it, with your vote for new representation. That is priceless.
-- Posted by jadip4me on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 12:37 PM
I always vote incumbents out when I have a chance. Sadly, any new representation I could vote for is simply a different skunk than the last one. The system itself needs to changed.
-- Posted by riregrist on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 1:02 PM
Corporations are not citizens and they should not be allowed the same 1st amendment protections. Corporate "personhood" has been taken to far.
-- Posted by Ike on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 3:13 PM
Ike,
How about unions, should they be allowed 1st ammendment rights?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 3:56 PM
Unions are huge supporters of the Democratic Party. Of course Ike believes they should be allowed 1st ammendment rights.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 4:03 PM
DTower,
Ike's political religion does seem to be one of convenience.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 4:16 PM
I just want all politicians, and representatives from any unions, corporations, and non-profits who may be reading this to know that my vote is for sale, and can be purchased by the highest bidder. Just reply here, or you know how to find me. Thanks!
-- Posted by Lumpy on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 4:55 PM
Lumpy,
Could I get a last look at the bids before you sell?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 5:06 PM
When folks are forced to pay union dues and unions make contributions, that is not free speach. If union members all want to send donations to the same candidate seperately, that is free speach. If the share holders of a corporation all want to send money to the same guy, that is free speach. If a corporation contributes to a candidate without a vote of shareholders, that is not free speach. I think the latest decision is right, but I don't think all issues that should be have been resolved. My opinion.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 5:07 PM
Corporations have always been expected to exercise strict fiduciary duties for their stockholders. Now that the Supreme Court has determined that corporations can donate money freely toward political activities, they must carefully consider what they are getting for their money. Obviously, corporations are required to generate the best profits possible for their stockholders and cannot spend money frivolously. So even in the case of political contributions, they would have to be sure that they are obtaining a positive return on the investment. Therefore the object of making a contribution has to be to receive something back (quid pro quo) in the form of favorable legislation, elimination of taxes, reduction in regulation or some sort of similar political action that has a discernible financial value.
One of many dictionary definitions of a "bribe" is "anything given or serving to persuade or induce." Other definitions include references to "corrupt" behavior, but it is not an indispensable element. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that this manner of bribery is now legal, it may be advisable for our members of Congress to have to wear Corporate Patches (similar to NASCAR drivers) so everyone will know which politician belongs to which corporation.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 6:33 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of extortion. Just think about Goldman-Sachs asking for another bailout. "Help us or else we're spending $10 million to unseat you." Very, very spooky.
-- Posted by riregrist on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 7:04 PM
This is off thread but did anyone else notice that the Faux News Channel is the only major network that did not allow Hope for Haiti any airtime. Ahhh, more right wing compassion. They must not let the Dittoheads. Tea Baggers, and Caribou Barbie worshippers view things like that. Their conditioning might break.
-- Posted by riregrist on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 7:59 PM
It's not on the Disney Channel either, but I am not surprised. Mickey Mouse is a facist creep.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 8:16 PM
Rire, Watch closely and report if you see any wardrobe malfunctions.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 8:28 PM
If Rush donated, I say Thank You. Wiff, you should watch. You're missing some good music. Even the two most shallow channels on TV, MTV and E! are showing it. Lumpy, only the 10 and younger crowd think Disney is a major network. Walt didn't like Jewish people very much but he wasn't fascist. Scrooge McDuck is the dangerous one. He's a republican AND the CEO of a major corporation. I shudder to think of the evil influence he'll have on the election process.
-- Posted by riregrist on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 9:07 PM
Republican won this one. Unions no longer have carte blanche influencing elections. Corporations have been restrained for about 100 years. Goes back to the progressive era early 20th century.
Observe who is making the biggest noise in opposition to the Supreme Court ruling. Liberals like Schumer of New York and his elk.
It been a week of huge loses for Obama et. al.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 9:40 PM
Ahhh, leaping forward with progress by going back 100 years. Everyone misses the good ol days of the robber barons.
-- Posted by riregrist on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 10:21 PM
We are about to miss the good old days of dictorial union bosses and thugs and the recipients of their largess, Liberal politicians. Why do think old Chucky Schumer squealed louder than a herd of stuck hogs?
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 10:53 PM
Wiff,
Don't be so hard on poor Theorist. She's had a really bad week of politics. Her hero, Obama's Karma wasn't flowing at all.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 11:51 PM
For the same reason you are upset, Ike. You know it and you know that I know it, so stop wasting time and smart azzing around. Why do you continually exhibit such childishness?
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 9:52 AM
You're welcome, Theorist. I am so glad that I can do some good for the opposite party which is in terrible need of all the help it can get.
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 1:41 PM
But make no mistake about it, he's no conservative. He's another rockefeller republican from the northeast.
-- Posted by Ike on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 10:53 AM
Ike, you are correct that he is no true conservative. But his win was a definite slap in the face to Obama and his policies.
His win will be worth it just to kill health care in it's current convuluted format so far as I am concerned. And his win will scare the crap out of the rest of the sheep in Washington, at least through the next election.
If what took place Tuesday can happen in Mass. it can happen elsewhere, but in Spades.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 4:41 PM
And how our little Lefties hate to hear it by poo pooing it. They know what is coming and know they can do nothing.
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 5:37 PM
Aw Wheels, don't worry about me. I had a great week! If you are referring to the Massachusetts senate seat (and I am sure you are), I actually was/am not a fan of Martha Coakley. I think time will tell...
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 10:46 AM
Theorist
Are we to assume this means you would have voted for Scott Brown if you had the opportunity?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jan 23, 2010, at 6:58 PM
Shapiro: I think the concern about corporations is misplaced. Most corporations are not Exxon. They are smaller companies or non-profits. With the disclosure rules that are in place, voters will still be able to judge which candidate is in the pocket of some corporation, whether it's the ACLU or the Sierra Club, or the Cato Institute for that matter. We still have laws in place going back to 1907 that prevent direct contributions to candidates.
To the extent that there has been a diminution in the public's faith in the democratic process, the government is probably more to blame than the corporations. Earmarks, special tax breaks, the dispersal of government goodies and baddies -- these types of actions harm democracy much more. McCain Feingold was never about regular citizens. It was a creature of the Beltway. There was no great call from the hinterland to get money out of politics.
I don't think democracy will be diminished as a result of the ruling. What we could see is more ads like the Swift Boats ads during the 2004 presidential campaign or the Hillary movie. But the way the law stood, some government bureaucrat could have simply banned books that were critical of a political candidate in an election year. That would have been far worse.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Sun, Jan 24, 2010, at 7:20 AM
So to answer the question this thread posed: We shall find out this coming November.
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, Jan 24, 2010, at 1:14 PM
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech. It does not matter whom is doing the speaking or what the speech is about, Congress shall make no law prohibiting that speech.
Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of the press. It does not matter whether it is 6 months prior to an election or 6 hours or even 6 minutes, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the press from disseminating information.
Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble. It does not matter whether the people are loosely organized as a peaceful mob, or if they are organized in a more "official" capacity such as an association, corporation, union, etc. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the people to peaceably assemble.
Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the right of the people to petition their government for a redress of grievances. It does not matter if the people are peaceably assembled as they petition the government or do so individually. It also does not matter if the people petition the government privately through letters and phone calls to their elected representatives or publicly through paid advertisements in the press. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the people from petitioning their government.
The Supreme Court got this one right. If you don't like seeing the ads, change the channel when they come on.
-- Posted by dixietrucker on Tue, Jan 26, 2010, at 10:48 PM
Dixie, You express your opinion well!
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 26, 2010, at 11:04 PM
It is pretty bad. Putting money into Politics is why our country is in a politcal mess. This just makes that problem worse.
And I don't think the 1st amendment gave free speach to corporations, pretty sure it was given to citizens.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 3:09 AM
Futile,
Corporations are made up of people, just like unions are, and those people ALL have a right to free speech.
The corporation (group of stockholders/people) exercise their right to speak out for what is in their best interest. The unions (group of members/workers/people) exercise their right to speak out for their best interests. Is this not the American way?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 9:13 AM
yes the people in the corporation, not the corporation itself.
why dont we get rid of all free speech exceptions then. Such of curse words, nudity on public tv, hate speech, libel, slander, and other laws that stop companies from saying misleading things.
Not to mention the fact that the people of a corporation might not know what their corporation is paying for since there is no transparency
-- Posted by futile_rant on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 12:32 PM
Stop worrying about it, futile. There ain't gonna be no more elections.
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 3:27 PM
Sounds like Voyager is still trippin' on the new madrid fault! ;o)
-- Posted by Turnip on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 4:30 PM
Menu
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/campaign.finance.ruling/index.html?hpt=Sb...
I think this ruling just gave the corporations, unions, and the non-profits in this country a free hand in deciding who gets to be elected. The door has been thrown wide open.
Personally, I'd like to see the money taken completely out of the election process. Right now, the politicans are beholden to whoever buys them with contributions. The election process should be tightly regulated and completely funded by the individual states. Each person running for office would be given a set amount of money to use campaigning. That way people would have the chance to evaluate them on a level playing field. Big money, corruption, and special interests would not have the influence they now enjoy.
Replies (36)