CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Corporations can buy elections even more easily now...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Corporations can buy elections even more easily now...

post #1 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:00pm
Thread Starter 
...thanks to the Supreme Court.


Quote:
Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
January 21, 2010 10:47 a.m. EST

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has given big business, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, a major turnaround that threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court's conservative majority crafted a narrow overhaul of federal campaign spending Thursday that could have an immediate effect on next year's congressional midterm elections.
Hey, just in time for mid-terms! Bye bye, America, it was fun while it lasted.
Reply
post #2 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Bye bye, America, it was fun while it lasted.
That's how it's feeling lately, isn't it?

Which Corporate overlords will you choose to pledge your allegiance to? I'm leaning Disney at this point, though I won't rule out Coca Cola.
Reply
post #3 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:09pm
Fuck conservatives so fucking much.
Reply
post #4 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post
That's how it's feeling lately, isn't it?

Which Corporate overlords will you choose to pledge your allegiance to? I'm leaning Disney at this point, though I won't rule out Coca Cola.
If Coke wants my vote, they'll have to bring cane sugar back to the U.S.. Finally, some leverage!
Reply
post #5 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:14pm
Is there any justifiable public reason for this? Or does the court not even care about permitting blatant abuses of the election process?
Reply
post #6 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:19pm
The justifiable reason is that this is what John Roberts was put on the Supreme Court to do.

This is a huge body blow to Democracy. I would like to see a class action lawsuit against the government arguing against corporate personhood.
Reply
post #7 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriweather View Post
Is there any justifiable public reason for this? Or does the court not even care about permitting blatant abuses of the election process?
Funny how the 1/3 of the 'checks and balances' that aren't subject to the election process don't seem to give a shit about it.
Reply
post #8 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:29pm
Leave the poor corporations alone you meanies! What did they ever do other than make America great and provide for their workers? It sickens me how you gang up on such defenseless targets like a school of communist piranhas.
Reply
post #9 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:30pm
HEY GUYS TIME TO GET A GRIP OK





Yeah, this makes me nauseous.
Reply
post #10 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
Fuck conservatives so fucking much.
eh..it happens on both sides...which is the scary part.
Reply
post #11 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
eh..it happens on both sides...which is the scary part.
Yeah, all those liberal activist judges that put this ruling into effect should be ashamed of themselves.
Reply
post #12 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
The justifiable reason is that this is what John Roberts was put on the Supreme Court to do.

This is a huge body blow to Democracy. I would like to see a class action lawsuit against the government arguing against corporate personhood.
Until then, enjoy.
Reply
post #13 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:38pm
Hey, shock! The Supreme Court is filled with pro-corporatist radicals. The whole "money=free speech" (or better yet "corporation=personhood") is such a slippery slope and not even very good law. Of course, if we had a Congress with a fucking spine, they could just push back on this and make good laws, but we don't so we're stuck with this kind of crap.
Reply
post #14 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:39pm
Fuck it. I'll just vote Activison/Blizzard next time. They're well on their way to global domination anyhow.
Reply
post #15 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
Fuck it. I'll just vote Activison/Blizzard next time. They're well on their way to global domination anyhow.
I'm going to need to see Diablo 3 until they get my vote!
Reply
post #16 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:43pm
Rule of thumb: any 5-4 decision by the Supreme court is going to be uniformly horrible.
Reply
post #17 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
Fuck it. I'll just vote Activison/Blizzard next time. They're well on their way to global domination anyhow.
Fuck no, that would just delay D3 and SC2 even longer.
Reply
post #18 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:50pm
The race to take Senator Dodd's Senate seat here in Connecticut has been and will continue to be entertaining to watch. Democratic and Republican candidates alike have focused on opponent Linda McMahon, claiming that she's too wealthy to be trusted. Of course, she's the one candidate wealthy enough to laugh lobbyists out of the room when they offer her $10,000 here and $20,000 there.
Reply
post #19 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:50pm
When did Kennedy switch from a swing vote to a complete right-wing hack?
Reply
post #20 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
I <3 Alan Grayson!

Please, whoever's reading this, click Seabass's link!
Reply
post #21 of 126
1/21/10 at 1:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
I <3 Alan Grayson!

Please, whoever's reading this, click Seabass's link!
I already signed the petition yesterday, and I urge everyone else to do the same. Don't know how much it will help, but it can't hurt worse than this stupid, short-sighted decision.

Seriously, I'm leaving the country for six months starting in February, and shit like this is making me want to do all I can not to come back. I survived eight years of the Bush Administration, but one year under the Obama Administration (one I that was truly hopeful and positive about) has me considering relocating to another country. When did I wake up on Bizarro World?
Reply
post #22 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post
Fuck no, that would just delay D3 and SC2 even longer.
Great news, the Healthcare Reform Act is getting an expansion pack!

Prior court rulings, which shoehorned compromise solutions into rulings and passed them off as in accordance with the 1st Amendment, fucked the entire system long before this. Today's ruling is just another extension of the mindshit that is Campaign Finance Law.
Reply
post #23 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:15pm
I can rarely bother to get worked up about stuff like this, but woo...awful, awful decision.
Reply
post #24 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:20pm
The problem with 2010 so far compared to all those awesome cyberpunk sci-fi books I read growing up is that we just kinda kept all the shitty, soul-crushing stuff and jettisoned everything else.
Reply
post #25 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:21pm
Yeah, where is my head drive? I want to challenge a talking dolphin!
Reply
post #26 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriweather View Post
Is there any justifiable public reason for this? Or does the court not even care about permitting blatant abuses of the election process?
I guess you can make an argument that this is good for non-profit organizations to get a bigger voice in the political arena.

Of course, the corporations have a much louder and stronger voice.
Reply
post #27 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by the fucking ruling
The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach. The Government has “muffle[d] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy.” McConnell, supra, at 257–258 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). And “the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function.” CIO, 335 U. S., at 144 (Rutledge, J., concurring in result). By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and non- profit, the Government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests.
HHHGGGGGGGGGGwhat
Reply
post #28 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
Fuck it. I'll just vote Activison/Blizzard next time. They're well on their way to global domination anyhow.
"Here are the pre-release patch notes for Constitution 7.3a, scheduled to go live on Tuesday, July 6th. Be advised the government will be down that day from 7:00am to 4:00pm EST to implement this patch."
Reply
post #29 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:39pm
Reply
post #30 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
HHHGGGGGGGGGGwhat
That's some Shadowrun-sounding shit right there.
Reply
post #31 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:42pm
Reply
post #32 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:48pm
Reply
post #33 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:54pm
We are getting closer and closer to Rollerball.
Reply
post #34 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
We are getting closer and closer to Rollerball.
Brought to you by McTiernan. Not even Jewison.

What a travesty.
Reply
post #35 of 126
1/21/10 at 2:59pm
Could this be the long-imagined Chud thread where everyone agrees?
Reply
post #36 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:01pm
From the law-abiding, Constitution-oriented justices in the minority opinion, i.e. the side that lost:

Quote:
If taken seriously, our colleagues’ assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government’s ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by“Tokyo Rose” during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could “‘enhance the relative voice’” of some (i.e., humans) over others (i.e., nonhumans). Ante, at 33 (quoting Buckley, 424 U. S., at 49).51 Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.

In short, the Court dramatically overstates its critiqueof identity-based distinctions, without ever explaining why corporate identity demands the same treatment as individual identity. Only the most wooden approach to the First Amendment could justify the unprecedented line it seeks to draw.
Also, where are the tea partiers on this? Also from the minority opinion, the footnote from this section:
Quote:
—————— 51
The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at “preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.” Ante, at 46–47. Such measures have been a part of U. S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers, whose “obsession with foreign influence derived from a fear that foreign powers and individuals
had no basic investment in the well-being of the country.”Teachout, The Anti-Corruption Principle, 94 Cornell L. Rev. 341, 393,
n. 245 (2009) (hereinafter Teachout); see also U. S. Const., Art. I, §9, cl. 8 (“[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust . . . shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State”). Professor Teachout observes that a corporation might be analogized to a foreign power in this respect, “inasmuch as its legal loyalties necessarily
exclude patriotism.” Teachout 393, n. 245.
Source

via Thom Hartmann
Reply
post #37 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Also, where are the tea partiers on this?
Too busy scrawling "1-20-09 THE DAY DEMOKRASEE DIDE NOBAMA" on a bunch of shitty pit-stained white T-shirts.
Reply
post #38 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:07pm
Yeah, if you think the Tea Partiers care about anything other than Obama, and how he's black, you've been watching some very different spokesmen than me.
Reply
post #39 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post
Yeah, if you think the Tea Partiers care about anything other than Obama, and how he's black .
It's like he's flagrantly black!
Reply
post #40 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rando View Post
It's like he's flagrantly black!
Rubbing it in everyone's face even, that bastard.
Reply
post #41 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:13pm
Reply
post #42 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:15pm
Welp, I guess the American experiment was fun while it lasted. Time for you guys to pack up and go to England.
Reply
post #43 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
eh..it happens on both sides...which is the scary part.
?

I'm baffled by this statement. Who were the liberal judges that voted with the majority?


I knew this was coming and was dreading it for a long time. I'm waiting for the Republican chewers to come in and tell us why this is a good thing for America.
Reply
post #44 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:19pm
Quote:
the Government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests.
Holy fucking shit. First, nothing any corporation does is done in my interest, second, I don't look for them to tell me who and what are hostile to my interests, and third, if a corporation has anything to say they can buy air time for commercials or set up a billboard. Or issue a press release, that happens all the time.

Do these guys really believe what they say? Corporations have to be able to buy politicians so they can tell me what's in my interest? I thought you had to be smart to be a lawyer and stuff, but Scalia's justification is clearly a stupid thing to say.
Reply
post #45 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by capinkevey View Post
I'm waiting for the Republican chewers to come in and tell us why this is a good thing for America.
I think my head will explode if that happens. I don't think there's any measure of hyperbole that can properly state just how irredeemably fucking screwed we are as a nation based on this ruling.

EDIT: Please note, head-exploding will not happen if said Republican chewer introduces some dumbass false dichotomy like "WELL THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE WITH THE GOVERNMENT DICTATING WHAT VOTERS CAN AND CAN'T DO IS BLABBITY BLAH".
Reply
post #46 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:23pm
I don't want to derail this thread but while you guys are totally right about the creepy, douchey, racist, xenophobic side of the tea partiers, all of them can't be that horrible and the "movement" as a whole is tapping into a populist rage that the Democratic party is ignoring. I'm pissed off. Aren't you?

I think the key difference is that Fox News and therefore the rest of the corporate media loves to cover them while any other type of citizen that tries to protest could be on fire and would still not get on TV.
Reply
post #47 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:24pm
Guys, I think I read too much Margaret Atwood and it leaked out into the real world.

Sorry.
Reply
post #48 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
I don't want to derail this thread but while you guys are totally right about the creepy, douchey, racist, xenophobic side of the tea partiers, all of them can't be that horrible
All of them can't be that horrible, absolutely, but I'm not going to plan on them acting rationally whenever the mob mentality takes over and suddenly your sweet, generally pretty sensible Aunt Martha's screaming "NIGGER!" along with the guy who flips burgers and deep-fries chicken wings for free drinks at the local bar.

EDIT: And before someone jumps on this howling about how I'm unfairly profiling right-wing protestors, give me a break. I have the exact same problems with these guys that I do with people like the dipshit Latino kid in Communist black and red garb who was fucking with the cops during an anti-war rally a couple of years back while his GRANDMOTHER was trying to pull him away. People act stupid, innocent people get dragged in and possibly hurt. It sucks, yeah, but it's herd mentality on a base level.
Reply
post #49 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by capinkevey View Post
?

I'm baffled by this statement. Who were the liberal judges that voted with the majority?


I knew this was coming and was dreading it for a long time. I'm waiting for the Republican chewers to come in and tell us why this is a good thing for America.
What I think Nick was saying (if I may be so bold), is that both sides will benefit at least a little in terms of funds in their coffers come election time. Will the Republican Party benefit more? Without a doubt.

As a very moderate conservative (probably a bit left-leaning overall), I have to say this is extraordinarily disheartening. However, I am somewhat interested to see the ads that will be generated by this. You just know there are going to be some classics...
Reply
post #50 of 126
1/21/10 at 3:33pm
All this ruling does is make what was already happening on a grand scale even easier. The real problem is that now there's zero chance of passing a campaign finance reform bill (though there was almost zero chance anyway) that might actually be effective.

Other than federalizing the campaign costs of candidates, I see no way to improve this situation.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Corporations can buy elections even more easily now...