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... - Page 2

post #51 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Blackwell View Post
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
Thanks for the excuse to use it.
post #52 of 126
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...
No, I'm sure not ALL of them are horrible, but anyone who willingly associates themselves with such a movement has HORRIBLE JUDGMENT.

Quote:
...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?
This populist rage is so misinformed and misdirected as to be laughable. It's not so much that Dems are ignoring it, rather they're trying not to legitimize it. Americans are always angry at something, and usually they're right to be so. However, we are rarely capable of correctly identifying what it is we should be angry at.

Who wants to bet that the raging populists totally ignore those conservative justices and their supporters (read: corporations) who are responsible for this boneheaded decision and instead continue to attack the Obama White House?
post #53 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissZooey View Post
Thanks for the excuse to use it.
Oh, come on. You honestly can't tell me that the "Obama eats babies" and "Palin once slaughtered a village full of nuns" ads won't at least be entertaining.

What can I say? Gallows humor is my coping mechanism of choice...
post #54 of 126
One of my friends speculated that this is one of those "punt it to legislature" situations, but looking at how the Justices voted, I think that's a stretch.
post #55 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Blackwell View Post
Oh, come on. You honestly can't tell me that the "Obama eats babies" and "Palin once slaughtered a village full of nuns" ads won't at least be entertaining.
Yes. Yes, I can tell you that.

Quote:
What can I say? Gallows humor is my coping mechanism of choice...
This I get, but still...
post #56 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
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.
Exactly.

It's shitty that corporations and unions now have the greenlight, but ship had sailed on this long ago.
post #57 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissZooey View Post



This I get, but still...
I know, I know.

My hope is that the ads become so outrageous that more folks will be able to pick up on their ridiculousness and begin to disregard them. That's my hope, mind you, not my expectation.
post #58 of 126
"Hay, did you guyz heer that O'Bama kiled a whole bunch of nuns?"
post #59 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcassady View Post
It's shitty that corporations and unions now have the greenlight, but ship had sailed on this long ago.
Of course, it's just the idea that this is now going to be done without any accountability whatsoever that's sticking in my craw.
post #60 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissZooey View Post
"Hay, did you guyz heer that O'Bama kiled a whole bunch of nuns?"
No, Palin killed the nuns. Obama ate the babies. Get it straight.
post #61 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by dajuice7 View Post
This populist rage is so misinformed and misdirected as to be laughable. It's not so much that Dems are ignoring it, rather they're trying not to legitimize it. Americans are always angry at something, and usually they're right to be so. However, we are rarely capable of correctly identifying what it is we should be angry at.

Who wants to bet that the raging populists totally ignore those conservative justices and their supporters (read: corporations) who are responsible for this boneheaded decision and instead continue to attack the Obama White House?
Yeah, we essentially agree. But imagine this if you will:

Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson and Ron Paul hold a huge rally for auditing the Fed.

Positive action, cross-party possibilities.

I'm talking about infiltrating and harnessing from within, not joining the angry mob we've seen at previous rallies.
post #62 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
Of course, it's just the idea that this is now going to be done without any accountability whatsoever that's sticking in my craw.
I think it sticks in many craws, but we've been headed this way for 40 years now.
post #63 of 126
The random populist rage that infects Americans is usually mindless, based on misinformation, and is seen as a tool by the politico-corporate overlords.
post #64 of 126
post #65 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
I voted for Kodos!
post #66 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
The random populist rage that infects Americans is usually mindless, based on misinformation, and is seen as a tool by the politico-corporate overlords.


Stay true to our roots, one could say.

"To the huddled masses, keep yernin'!"
post #67 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Yeah, we essentially agree. But imagine this if you will:

Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson and Ron Paul hold a huge rally for auditing the Fed. Positive action, cross-party possibilities. I'm talking about infiltrating and harnessing from within, not joining the angry mob we've seen at previous rallies.
Problem is that movements like the Teabagger "movement" totally shift the focus from anything constructive (the positive action and bi-partisan coalitions you mention) and more toward the destructive - racism, xenophobia, religious intolerance - the worst aspects of what can barely even be called a political movement anymore. Somehow, whenever popular sentiment coalesces on the right it quickly becomes a hatefest ala the Teabaggers. This is often aided by political maneuvering on the right and an inability to effectively combat it on the left. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is busy ruling that corporate money is a Constitutionally-protected right to free speech while "populists" are busy still worrying about Obama's birth certificate.
post #68 of 126
Obama's reasoning for voting against Roberts seems more and more eerily prescient by the day. Fuck, these days, he even taunts the person representing the non-right-wing side of cases with this dilemma: "Do you want to lose big or do you want to lose small?" He is the bully and shill for the status quo that then-Senator Obama claimed he was.
post #69 of 126
After reading parts of this decision and looking at related cases, I can see where the five justices get their opinion from. That being said, it spells doom to our democratic process. Let's hope a bi-partisan congress attempts to limit this decision as much as possible.
post #70 of 126
It's not a particularly good nor memorable movie, but for some reason I find myself remembering this speech from American President on a nearly daily basis over the last few months (edited for brevity's sake):

[America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. ... I've known Bob [OR, INSERT JUST ABOUT EVERY POLITICIAN, PARTICULARLY REPUBLICANS] for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character ...

Or, how about this quote:


Random Staffer: People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.
post #71 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
After reading parts of this decision and looking at related cases, I can see where the five justices get their opinion from.
They got their opinion there:


Quote:
Rectum
n pl , -tums, -ta

The lower part of the alimentary canal, between the sigmoid flexure of the colon and the anus
post #72 of 126
So, I'm watching TV news today, and there's so far been no coverage of this. Nada. We're talking about the Massachusetts fallout and Jon Edwards fathered a bastard, and occasionally they'll talk about a nice speech Obama made about penalizing banks, but nothing about this at all.

How bad is this country gonna get, in our lifetimes?
post #73 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcassady View Post
I think it sticks in many craws, but we've been headed this way for 40 years now.
Exactly.

Once you equate free speech with cold hard cash, and corporations with individuals, I can see how it’d be difficult to justify campaign finance legislation that targets any specific type of “person.”
post #74 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post
So, I'm watching TV news today, and there's so far been no coverage of this. Nada. We're talking about the Massachusetts fallout and Jon Edwards fathered a bastard, and occasionally they'll talk about a nice speech Obama made about penalizing banks, but nothing about this at all.

How bad is this country gonna get, in our lifetimes?
I'd hate to guess, but I'll keep my passport current, let's put it that way.
post #75 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post
So, I'm watching TV news today, and there's so far been no coverage of this. Nada. We're talking about the Massachusetts fallout and Jon Edwards fathered a bastard, and occasionally they'll talk about a nice speech Obama made about penalizing banks, but nothing about this at all.

How bad is this country gonna get, in our lifetimes?
It was being covered in MSNBC (which I play in the background). They actually had a good discussion of it ...
post #76 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post
So, I'm watching TV news today, and there's so far been no coverage of this. Nada. We're talking about the Massachusetts fallout and Jon Edwards fathered a bastard, and occasionally they'll talk about a nice speech Obama made about penalizing banks, but nothing about this at all.

How bad is this country gonna get, in our lifetimes?
Networks are the very corporations that won today, and their victory is best savored outside the glare of public scrutiny and discussion.

... Better we all just focus on forking the evil eye at John Edwards and worshipping the abs of Senator-Elect Brown.
post #77 of 126
Maybe I imagined Senator Feingold on TV criticizing the ruling.
post #78 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Maybe I imagined Senator Feingold on TV criticizing the ruling.
A few seconds on MSNBC is great. I'm sure Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann will cover it too ... versus probably 24 hours times the number of news networks and programs that will shower airtime on Edwards, Brown, whatever else.
post #79 of 126
Always love Dahlia Lithwick's reports on the Court. This one is short but I like that Rehnquist quote.

http://www.slate.com/id/2242208/

Quote:
But you can plainly see the weariness in Stevens eyes and hear it in his voice today as he is forced to contend with a legal fiction that has come to life today, a sort of constitutional Frankenstein moment when corporate speech becomes even more compelling than the "voices of the real people" who will be drowned out. Even former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is "to confuse metaphor with reality." Today that metaphor won a very real victory at the Supreme Court. And as a consequence some very real corporations are feeling very, very good.
post #80 of 126
Or, it could just be that Supreme Court rulings that don’t involve abortion, or gay marriage, do little for the Nielsens.
post #81 of 126
America steps further towards actual, state-sponsored fascism. Scary stuff. The tea party groups fit into this so well, too. Except the scapegoat, of 'liberals', is still too vague. Unless, and I can see this possibly happening in the future, black Americans are made out to be the elite, along with other folks who aren't white. White Americans who don't seem as 'loyal', well...they can be scapegoated as well. And let's not forget that white people will possibly be in the minority by 2050 - thereby adding fuel to the delusions of poor white folks. I can see why Hunter S. Thompson offed himself. I'm going to have a drink!
post #82 of 126
If anyone's read the entire ruling (I gave up pretty fast), does it say anything about how this applies to foreign-owned companies with a presence in the U.S.?
post #83 of 126
Olbermann is set to do a "Special Comment" about this tonight.
post #84 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dranbon View Post
Olbermann is set to do a "Special Comment" about this tonight.
Which will probably be five minutes of him staring into the camera in disbelief followed by him throwing up his hands and walking off the set.
post #85 of 126
I haven't had cable in months. How many Special Comments has he done lately? Have they been worthwhile? I used to love them.
post #86 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dranbon View Post
I haven't had cable in months. How many Special Comments has he done lately? Have they been worthwhile? I used to love them.
You can watch Countdown and Maddow on MSNBC's site.

He's down a few special comments in the last months, btw. And they have been good, espeically the whole episode one about HCR.
post #87 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
espeically the whole episode one about HCR.
I remember my dad RAVING about this one. I'll check it out, thanks.
post #88 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
If anyone's read the entire ruling (I gave up pretty fast), does it say anything about how this applies to foreign-owned companies with a presence in the U.S.?
I don't know if the majority opinion addressed it but the four sane judges who vehemently opposed it said this (bolded for the tl;dr crowd):
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 critique of 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.

—————— 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,
post #89 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
I don't know if the majority opinion addressed it but the four sane judges who vehemently opposed it said this (bolded for the tl;dr crowd):
I think this in part this is some of the stuff the Tea baggers hate, from taking to some of them. They just want smaller government. They see the government as to corrupt and the only way to control it is starve it to death. The government has a cancer in it, and it need to be kill and rebooted.

We have been on this road since 1914. The Constitution is dead long live the new king.
post #90 of 126
Eenin, the government is the people. "Starve it to death" and what fills the void is private corporate forces that can't be voted out of office or forced to disclose or change anything, that can set up an economy that shuts you out and has its own private armies. You want a preview of what you seem to want, take a look at Pinochet's Chile or Mussolini's Italy.

Where are the tea partiers on this Supreme Court ruling? Fox has been largely silent on it. I imagine Limbaugh, Beck, etc. quietly support it (since they're corporate and therefore on the side that's winning) but publicly will not even address it. This should be somewhat of a litmus test for tea partiers--are they serious about protesting what's rotten in Washington, or are they solely motivated by what Fox News, Limbaugh et al tell them they should be angry about?
post #91 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Where are the tea partiers on this Supreme Court ruling? Fox has been largely silent on it. I imagine Limbaugh, Beck, etc. quietly support it (since they're corporate and therefore on the side that's winning) but publicly will not even address it. This should be somewhat of a litmus test for tea partiers--are they serious about protesting what's rotten in Washington, or are they solely motivated by what Fox News, Limbaugh et al tell them they should be angry about?
Is this a rhetorical question?
post #92 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Is this a rhetorical question?
LOL, no, it's actually a serious question, since Eenin said he's in touch with tea partiers.
post #93 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Eenin, the government is the people. "Starve it to death" and what fills the void is private corporate forces that can't be voted out of office or forced to disclose or change anything, that can set up an economy that shuts you out and has its own private armies.
This brings up an interesting idea. Exactly how far will conservatives follow this metaphorical "personhood" that we've bestowed on corporations? The next step, as I see it, is establishing citizenship, which would allow corporations to run for public office directly. General Electric for president!
post #94 of 126
Blackwater for Defense Secretary!
post #95 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
This brings up an interesting idea. Exactly how far will conservatives follow this metaphorical "personhood" that we've bestowed on corporations? The next step, as I see it, is establishing citizenship, which would allow corporations to run for public office directly. General Electric for president!
"I'd like you to meet my lovely wife, Chipotle McDonald."
"Ooh, how exotique!"
post #96 of 126
Hey remember when RoboCop was cool and funny and satire and not OUR ACTUAL DAILY LIVES?
post #97 of 126
Yes, Brad. I would buy back that time for a dollar.
post #98 of 126
I heard that the Supreme Court even threw in a Blaupunkt.
post #99 of 126
I think that all massive sources of money should be kept out of politics. That includes corporations and unions.

Put a cap on personal donations--high enough to let Soros and Gates give generously. But no more money from these massive bodies.

Let's hope the five bills dealing with this before Congress will pass quickly. But then again, with the leadership we have in Congress at the moment, what's the chances of this.
post #100 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
Hey remember when RoboCop was cool and funny and satire and not OUR ACTUAL DAILY LIVES?
Wait. You ran with your car into a guy who just came out of a toxic spill and he exploded in a splosh of fluids?

I WANNA LIVE THERE!
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...