The End of Democracy

[Idog1976]

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.

Pretty sure corporations own the airwaves now that we switched to digital instead of analog airwaves. It's the part of the 1996 telecommunications that Bob Dole called the biggest corporate give away in US History. Previously, under analogue they were technically renting from the people, at absurdly low prices, but theoretically and legally the people held ownership. Not anymore.

Anyone who isn't horrified by the increase of corporate and government merger simply isn't paying attention. Yes, government dictating the economy and corporations dictating government is a HUGE problem. By the way BOTH parties brought us this.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

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.

Agreed 100% All this ruling does it treat everyone the same. How can that be so bad?

 

[drexlersdad]

Anyone who isn't horrified by the increase of corporate and government merger simply isn't paying attention. Yes, government dictating the economy and corporations dictating government is a HUGE problem. By the way BOTH parties brought us this.

should be pretty obvious to everyone, but for some reason it isnt.

 

[Sug]

So these "free market" folks in here, along with the "Government is too big" folks do realize that the private sector is the one pushing for the big government so they can control it right? Every major corporation wants regulation, because they want to control it. Once they control it, they can hold onto their monopoly, in fact the best way to maintain a fortune 500 company is to control regulation and block entrance into the market place. So people say don't tax the rich, and the rich say thanks for the extra money now I can spend it on my federal regulator lobbyist too make sure that I make more money and get taxed less at the same time. All the while they cry about regulation while the hand them money through the backdoor. Yet people still support the free enterprise system and praise these two faced douche bags.

 

[blazerboy30]

So these "free market" folks in here, along with the "Government is too big" folks do realize that the private sector is the one pushing for the big government so they can control it right? Every major corporation wants regulation, because they want to control it. Once they control it, they can hold onto their monopoly, in fact the best way to maintain a fortune 500 company is to control regulation and block entrance into the market place. So people say don't tax the rich, and the rich say thanks for the extra money now I can spend it on my federal regulator lobbyist too make sure that I make more money and get taxed less at the same time. All the while they cry about regulation while the hand them money through the backdoor. Yet people still support the free enterprise system and praise these two faced douche bags.

You know, I never thought of it that way.

Capitalism sucks! Down with free market! Grow the government! More regulation! I hate the rich! Spread the wealth!

 

[rocketeer]

Again...

he's saying that if given the money, the campaigns would use it for advertising. in this case, the campaigns don't actually get the money but if it serves the purpose the campaign would have wanted it to serve anyway, what's the difference?

 

[Stevenson]

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.

As I see it, the Constitution generally, and the Bill of Rights specifically, give and limit rights to people and the government. It says nothing about businesses. This ruling essentially says that businesses are the same as individuals under the Constitution.

A strange, strange conclusion for a bunch of strict constructionists.

Bad for the Constitution, bad for politics, bad for the country.

 

[Denny Crane]

As I see it, the Constitution generally, and the Bill of Rights specifically, give and limit rights to people and the government. It says nothing about businesses. This ruling essentially says that businesses are the same as individuals under the Constitution.

A strange, strange conclusion for a bunch of strict constructionists.

Bad for the Constitution, bad for politics, bad for the country.

The ruling doesn't say that businesses are the same as individuals at all.

The court ruled that restrictions against corporations being able to contribute to candidates may stand.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st amendment, protect speech and importantly, political speech from recrimination from the government.

Whether we like it or not, corporations do have interests and they do have a right to speech of all kinds. The alternative is chilling.

The problem with government restricting anyone or any entity's speech is that those who are in power have an interest in staying in power. They could legislate against anti-war speech or anti-Obama (or Bush) speech or anti-tea party speech, and so on.

I felt from the getgo that the anti-free speech provisions of McCain-Feingold were certain to be overturned by the court. The ruling is no surprise, and a refreshing restraint on govt. power.

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought [Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority]. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

All this aside, I don't see why it's in the interest of shareholders to have the companies they own spend money on political ads. At least it shouldn't be. Address this and the rest sorts itself out.

Consider that neither you nor I may have enough spare cash to buy a TV ad because we're unhappy about something the govt. is doing and we want everyone to know. Together, with enough like minded folks, we can get enough money together to buy those ads. We're not "individuals" in this scenario, but an association of like minded folks. Do we want govt. to proclaim us a "corporation" and force us to pull our ads?

 

[maxiep]

Let's go to the actual opinion:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

: "the FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, theymust either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11 factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech."

 

[MARIS61]

Corporations "exist" solely for the purpose of shielding money from taxation, and business practices from regulation. They are an unfathomable drain on our capitalist system and the reason it will never succeed as originally planned.

They are "anti-citizenry" if they are anything at all. They wantonly pollute, they support governments which are enemies of our country, they support slavery, forced hard labor...there's no actual legitimate reason for their existence other than to give their wealthy owners power over individuals.

An American's chances of being killed by a terrorist are minute when compared to the likelyhood he/she will die as a direct result of a corporation's practices.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Corporations "exist" solely for the purpose of shielding money from taxation, and business practices from regulation. They are an unfathomable drain on our capitalist system and the reason it will never succeed as originally planned.

They are "anti-citizenry" if they are anything at all. They wantonly pollute, they support governments which are enemies of our country, they support slavery, forced hard labor...there's no actual legitimate reason for their existence other than to give their wealthy owners power over individuals.

An American's chances of being killed by a terrorist are minute when compared to the likelyhood he/she will die as a direct result of a corporation's practices.

Da, commrade! Vee shall gater at noon for zee book burning!

 

[MARIS61]

Whether we like it or not, corporations do have interests and they do have a right to speech of all kinds.

No, they don't. They are just an idea, a mental concoction, much like the Constitution is but invented to thwart it by disrupting the balance of power in government.

They don't physically exist anymore than minotaurs exist.

Their "speech" is nothing more than the "speech" of the single or few people who have "CONTROLLING INTEREST" (Ultra-wealthy) and is never ALL the voices of ALL the people who make up the corporation.

Forget about separation of church and state.

To save this country we need separation of business and state.

 

[blazerboy30]

No, they don't. They are just an idea, a mental concoction, much like the Constitution is but invented to thwart it by disrupting the balance of power in government.

They don't physically exist anymore than minotaurs exist.

Their "speech" is nothing more than the "speech" of the single or few people who have "CONTROLLING INTEREST" (Ultra-wealthy) and is never ALL the voices of ALL the people who make up the corporation.

Should the government also not let those evil news corporations publish news?

Gotta love censorship.

China might have a spot for you.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

No, they don't. They are just an idea, a mental concoction, much like the Constitution is but invented to thwart it by disrupting the balance of power in government.

They don't physically exist anymore than minotaurs exist.

Their "speech" is nothing more than the "speech" of the single or few people who have "CONTROLLING INTEREST" (Ultra-wealthy) and is never ALL the voices of ALL the people who make up the corporation.

Forget about separation of church and state.

To save this country we need separation of business and state.

Und after zee book burning, vee shall go und set fire to all dose who will not submit to the unions. HAIL UNIONS! HAIL UNIONS! HAIL UNIONS! All power to zee commies!

Maris, I have no axe to grind with you, but do you really support your communistic viewpoints or are you just putting us on?

 

[Denny Crane]

No, they don't. They are just an idea, a mental concoction, much like the Constitution is but invented to thwart it by disrupting the balance of power in government.

They don't physically exist anymore than minotaurs exist.

Their "speech" is nothing more than the "speech" of the single or few people who have "CONTROLLING INTEREST" (Ultra-wealthy) and is never ALL the voices of ALL the people who make up the corporation.

Forget about separation of church and state.

To save this country we need separation of business and state.

I agree that govt. should do no favors for business, but I think you're absolutely wrong about what corporations are about (as well as other business types).

Without the legal concept of a corporation, people like you could not raise money to start a business. The people you take in as partners might be worth $1M and invest $1, but could be sued for their whole $1M since there'd be no liability protection without the corporation. So they wouldn't even give you the $1.

Corporations hire about 25% of the workforce, so without them we'd have unemployment far worse than during the depression.

Businesses and corporations are the tax collectors. They withhold from your paycheck and send money to the govt. periodically to pay for all those services you seem to love.

Businesses and corporations provide health care insurance and retirement plans for just about all the people in the country that have these things. If there are 35M without health insurance, then the corporations are paying for it for 90% of the people.

I really love it when progressives spout this kind of crap. I always ask, "progress towards what?" The answer seems to be "back to the stone age" and I literally mean everyone living in caves and hunting with sticks.

 

[Ed O]

Corporations "exist" solely for the purpose of shielding money from taxation, and business practices from regulation. They are an unfathomable drain on our capitalist system and the reason it will never succeed as originally planned.

There's never been a "planned capitalist system".

Corporations predate modern democracy, so it's not like they are some recent invention and drain upon it.

Ed O.

 

[maxiep]

[video=youtube;PeGlzEavpTM]

 

[BlazerBenner]

Vote for Chris Dudley, a Yale Graduate with an Economics Degree, who only wants the best for Oregonians, not his own political career. He wants to fix this mess that the Oregon Legislature has put this State in the last 25 years.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Vote for Chris Dudley, a Yale Graduate with an Economics Degree, who only wants the best for Oregonians, not his own political career. He wants to fix this mess that the Oregon Legislature has put this State in the last 25 years.

Lol... Chris Dudley. An inexperienced former ball player who can only spout Republican talking points.

But I do have respect for anyone who majored in Economics. Taking those classes, they are hard as hell (IMO).

 

[Denny Crane]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...561248784550.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

Democrats Seek to Counter Court Ruling on Political Spending

WASHINGTON—Democrats are exploring ways to counter a Supreme Court ruling that threw out a century of limits on corporate political spending, hoping it will hand them a populist issue to stem a Republican tide rising on public anger.

President Barack Obama devoted his weekly address to the decision, calling it a victory for "special interests and their lobbyists." He cited "one of the great Republican presidents, Teddy Roosevelt," who "warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending" on elections.

Possible legislation includes requiring corporations to obtain shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and blocking companies from deducting election spending as a business expense on their taxes.

Another proposal, borrowed from existing rules for political candidates, is requiring "the CEO of the corporation to make a declaration at the end of an ad saying, 'I'm the CEO of X Corp. and I approved this ad,' " said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who heads the House Democrats' campaign committee.

On Thursday, justices split 5-4 along their ideological divide to grant corporations and unions the right to make unlimited expenditures promoting or attacking candidates.

Democrats had anticipated the Supreme Court's decision for months, and quickly rolled out both political rhetoric and legislative proposals.

 

[Denny Crane]

While I completely agree with the SCOTUS decision, I also like the ideas in bold and don't see that they're unconstitutional in the least.

The bottom line is that govt. simply must not be allowed to decide who can speak in favor of, or especially against, the government. Particularly when it's inconvenient for the incumbents or the two entrenched parties.

It is quite important, however, that people know the source of the ads.

 

[maxiep]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...561248784550.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

Democrats Seek to Counter Court Ruling on Political Spending

WASHINGTON—Democrats are exploring ways to counter a Supreme Court ruling that threw out a century of limits on corporate political spending, hoping it will hand them a populist issue to stem a Republican tide rising on public anger.

President Barack Obama devoted his weekly address to the decision, calling it a victory for "special interests and their lobbyists." He cited "one of the great Republican presidents, Teddy Roosevelt," who "warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending" on elections.

Possible legislation includes requiring corporations to obtain shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and blocking companies from deducting election spending as a business expense on their taxes.

Another proposal, borrowed from existing rules for political candidates, is requiring "the CEO of the corporation to make a declaration at the end of an ad saying, 'I'm the CEO of X Corp. and I approved this ad,' " said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who heads the House Democrats' campaign committee.

On Thursday, justices split 5-4 along their ideological divide to grant corporations and unions the right to make unlimited expenditures promoting or attacking candidates.

Democrats had anticipated the Supreme Court's decision for months, and quickly rolled out both political rhetoric and legislative proposals.

I actually like the idea of corporations, organizations or unions having to plainly announce they're responisble for the ad. There's no disinfectant like sunshine.

 

[Denny Crane]

I actually like the idea of corporations, organizations or unions having to plainly announce they're responisble for the ad. There's no disinfectant like sunshine.

I agree, but I also have no issue with the other proposals. Why not enact them all?

As I posted earlier, why is it in the shareholders' interest for a corporation to spend money on political ads? The only downside I see in forcing a shareholder vote is that for the largest corporations, these things are typically done with proxies, so management basically will get these things passed. Though it would provide a forum for shareholders to voice their displeasure.

I also don't see why anyone should get tax benefits for politicking.

 

[maxiep]

I agree, but I also have no issue with the other proposals. Why not enact them all?

As I posted earlier, why is it in the shareholders' interest for a corporation to spend money on political ads? The only downside I see in forcing a shareholder vote is that for the largest corporations, these things are typically done with proxies, so management basically will get these things passed. Though it would provide a forum for shareholders to voice their displeasure.

The problem is expediency. Theoretically, public corporations are like representative democracies. Shareholders elect the Board of Directors, who appoint executives to run the company. The shareholders meet once a year; the BOD meets once a quarter or once a month. It's not frequent enough to micro-manage where a corporation may choose to put its political money.

That request would be akin to having a national election to decide how much the Federal Government should spend on those commercials that tell you how to order a brochure from Pueblo, CO. It's simply too small.

If there is a shareholder revolt over the decision to politic for a certain issue, the BOD can be removed by vote. If the BOD revolts, they can remove the executives responsible or vote to change the direction.

I also don't see why anyone should get tax benefits for politicking.

Isn't it just treated as an expense? I don't think there should be a specific tax deduction for lobbying, but I don't see any reason it shouldn't be treated as an ordinary expense, no different from advertising or purchasing paper clips.

 

[Denny Crane]

Depends on the by-laws of the company. In any case, if there's a shareholder meeting every year (required!), then the shareholders could be required to vote to allow any portion of the budget to be spent on political advertising.

They may be treated as an expense, but they could be charged a tax - or the beneficiary of the ad charged.

 

[maxiep]

Depends on the by-laws of the company. In any case, if there's a shareholder meeting every year (required!), then the shareholders could be required to vote to allow any portion of the budget to be spent on political advertising.

They may be treated as an expense, but they could be charged a tax - or the beneficiary of the ad charged.

Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree.