The End of Democracy

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Sug said:
Because there were limits on spending before.
Click to expand...

Then the public needs to step up their efforts. More watchdog sights. Better grassroots. If a guy is voting in favor of corporations and now the people, vote his ass out.
 
Sug said:
Essentially the end of the United States as you know it.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/supreme.court.analysis/index.html

Corps are now private citizens and can give as much money as they want to candidates. This basically means that elected officials we be employees of the largest corporations. This will be the end of the United States.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should do research before you whine?

Corporations still can't give money directly to federal campaigns.

Now they can simply post billboards and media ads. I don't see what the big problem is.

Two significant prohibitions on corporations were left standing. Corporations, and presumably unions, cannot give money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates. These "contribution" restrictions were not challenged in the case decided today. And secondly, the court affirmed current federal rules which require the sponsors of political ads to disclose who paid for them.
Click to expand...

link
 
Last edited:
blazerboy30 said:
Perhaps you should do research before you whine?

Corporations still can't give money directly to federal campaigns.

Now they can simply post billboards and media ads. I don't see what the big problem is.
Click to expand...

So they can only provide direct media campaigns for the candidates? What the fuck else do you think the campaign would use the money for? :dunno:
 
Sug said:
So they can only provide direct media campaigns for the candidates? What the fuck else do you think the campaign would use the money for? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Again...

Corporations, and presumably unions, cannot give money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates.
Click to expand...
 
hoojacks said:
Does this even matter now that we're living in a socialist nazi dictatorship?
Click to expand...

That was the funniest thing I've read in awhile..

Sug, if it makes you feel any better - and it won't because it doesn't for me - it was decided long ago by the court that corporations are essentially people. In fact the history surrounding the decision is quite interesting, but I'll leave that to your personal research.

In my mind that is one of the greatest mistakes/flaws that the court has made and couldn't be further from the intention of the framers. But..here we are.
 
Newspapers and news channels could spend as much time as they wanted endorsing a candidate (explicitly or not)... but organizations founded for political reasons could not? It is ridiculous.

Greenpeace and the NRA and Nike and the Wall Street Journal and whatever other corporations should all play by the same rules.

I have no problem with today's ruling and I think it makes the law much more consistent for entities of different types.

Ed O.
 
I hate politics. Having worked on local campaigns, I am convinced that the canidate with more money has a huge advantage in elections.

Allowing corporations to do this is so wrong in my opinion.
 
People have a 1st amendment right of free association to petition the government. A corporation or a union or a PAC is an organization of free association (well, arguably unions). I don't see how the supreme court could rule otherwise.

In fact, if govt. is allowed to limit speech (and spending), you end up with guys like Ted sitting in the Senate for 40+ years.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Perhaps you should do research before you whine?

Corporations still can't give money directly to federal campaigns.

Now they can simply post billboards and media ads. I don't see what the big problem is.



link
Click to expand...

IMO, it doesn't matter if the corporation/special interest is or isn't giving money directly to the campaign. The candidate is beholden to their interests either way and that sucks. And really, it's no different than it's ever been, so whatever. Just makes me even more disgruntled and makes me care about politics even less......again.
 
it's_GO_time said:
I hate politics. Having worked on local campaigns, I am convinced that the canidate with more money has a huge advantage in elections.

Allowing corporations to do this is so wrong in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Do what, exactly?
 
The problem isn't that corporations can influence the candidates, it's that the govt. is too big that it's worth trying to buy a candidate.
 
Denny Crane said:
The problem isn't that corporations can influence the candidates, it's that the govt. is too big that it's worth trying to buy a candidate.
Click to expand...

I am confused by your definition of "government too big" do you mean there are a disproportionate amount to the population of the country? That their powers are too strong for the people who are suppose to be in charge of writing laws? Or that they need to go on a diet?:devilwink:
 
westnob said:
I am confused by your definition of "government too big" do you mean there are a disproportionate amount to the population of the country? That their powers are too strong for the people who are suppose to be in charge of writing laws? Or that they need to go on a diet?:devilwink:
Click to expand...

I mean too few people have vast power to benefit the corporations or unions or whoever.
 
The problem with corporations is their duties are to the shareholders and basically to make money. Maybe a few corporations actually show some morality, but that isn't their job. The majority of corporations are in exsistence to make money. So they will support the canidate that will help them achieve this goal. Tabacco corporations advertise to the youth not because they care about teh youth, they care getting that youth addicted to tabacco.

They say corproations are people . . . bullshit.
 
it's_GO_time said:
I hate politics. Having worked on local campaigns, I am convinced that the canidate with more money has a huge advantage in elections.

Allowing corporations to do this is so wrong in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I'd support some sort of publicly financed campaigns and/or hard caps on how much can be spent by campaigns. By far the most effective method of reaching the voters is TV commercials and those cost a bundle. The amount that is currently needed to keep pace financially in a major campaign makes it near impossible for someone not beholden to special interests to compete, so only a very few voices end up mattering. Limiting the TV time $$$ requirement puts issues and the character of the candidate ahead of their ability to raise cash/indebt themselves.

STOMP
 
Denny Crane said:
The problem isn't that corporations can influence the candidates, it's that the govt. is too big that it's worth trying to buy a candidate.
Click to expand...

This.

If the government was there to provide a safety-net, and not to try to dictate our economy, there would be much less incentive for corporations to try to influence the candidates.
 
The airwaves belong to the people.

For a couple of months every 2 years, the tv stations can give away the airtime needed. I would rather see people get such free airtime by getting enough signatures on a petition.
 
[video=youtube;aF-buPwsovc]
 
As I think about it, if I secretly let the tabacco corporations know I will vote for anything that is pro-tabacco and write bills in favor of their product, do you think they would put some commercials out for me if I ran for office?

I mean I could potentially save them millions in taxes . . . just put a few of us in positions of power and those neverending increase taxes on tabacco will stop . . . along with all the strict regulation.

:devilwink:
 
Denny Crane said:
The airwaves belong to the people.
Click to expand...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-119429033.html
Jul. 17--VICTORVILLE, Calif. -- The Federal Communications Commission has slapped the operator of a local pirate radio station with a $20,000 fine, officials said.
The FCC fined Stanley "Daddy Cool" Mayo for willfully and repeatedly broadcasting without a license on KRSX, a low-wattage station broadcast on AM 660 and 91.3 FM from a small studio on D Street in Old Town.
Click to expand...
 
this is a silly argument, no one actually thinks corporations buying off politicians is a good thing....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top