News Stories

[james0246]

^Corporations can support whomever they wish...they just can't give their candidate unlimited funds...or at least they couldn't....

Besides, what happens if the corporation is actually owned by non-Americans? There are various corporations that are stationed in America that are actually owned by foreign businesses. Now, those foreign business owners (even if directed by an American shareholder) can use any amount of money they wish to help which ever candidate they desire...

In the end, the SC decision just seems so unnecessary...

[mg1942]

problem here is that in a 5-4 decision, the SC determined what was constitutional and what was not. That's the criteria.

It's not a matter of "what was at stake". It's a matter of what is or is not constitutional.

[MeoTwister5]

I imagine that in future American elections with this ruling, candidates will be prioritizing corporate meeting rooms rather than public support rallies.

[Autumn Demon]

The first amendment shouldn't, and doesn't, solely apply to individuals. A newspaper is a company and they've been endorsing candidates forever.

It's fair to assume the workers in a coal company would be opposed to legislation banning coal mining. So if lawmakers are campaigning to ban coal mining, coal companies should be able to spend money on the campaign in protest.

Just as civil liberties NGOs should be able to spend money on campaigns to support human rights.

[justinstrife]

This is from a Moderator on a political section of the corvetteforum I'm a member of. He is extremely intelligent when it comes to U.S. Political matters and far more experienced with higher credentials than I am about this topic. He's also a Libertarian and doesn't belong to either major political party.

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by mhill0531

Corporations are individually owned, by this thing called shareholders. Shareholders have a vote. Money from the corporation used for political donations is shareholder profit, otherwise known as individual money.

If the board of directors decides while at a golf outing to each give $1 million to their fave candidate's campaign, why should they not be able to spend their money as they see fit.

Lobbying happens all the time. If I start a thread on PRC and get everyone to do a phone campaign to their reps about something, am I not lobbying? No, I didn't use real money, but I peddled the influence of my vote currency. If I write a book on how to not only spot a politician's lies, but how to effectively counter them in order to defeat that politician, and that book sells really well, am I not influencing things?

Corporations spending money on campaigns already happens in so many other forms, but that one specific form was demonized and marginalized because it served the ends of one party over the other, and that one party has a cozy relationship with the media.

But real $$ does not elect you. Vote currency does. If you are a scumbag politician who ignores the majority of the vote currency and sides with the $$, the vote currency will be what sacks you and sends you packing.

The people are ultimately responsible for enforcing campaign and political ethics rules. If the scumbag pol does ya wrong, hook them up at the next election with a vote for their opponent.

Originally Posted by mhill0531

A corporation can spend $1 trillion on a candidate, and it will increase the number of votes that anyone in that corporation can cast by exactly 0.

A politician can be elected and based on receiving $1 trillion for one specific corporation, can vote only in favor of things that benefit that corporation, yet annoy the other voters. The voters will then show how vote currency trumps $$.

And fwiw, unions already spend money on politicians, and their influence is used to destroy corporations. If a corporation can influence a politician, would this not balance things out?

Originally Posted by mhill0531

Here's why this will piss off the Democrat politician:

Because now private corporations can bankroll campaigns like unions do.

Here's why this will piss off Democrat voters:

Because they think the money the DNC gets comes from individuals who are fighting for their liberty and raised the money at bake sales where handicapped kids sold homemade muffins, and the money the RNC gets comes from Exxon, Rupert Murdoch and WalMart, who get the money by hiring Mexicans at $0.30 an hour while stabbing old ladies in the head for their SS checks.


Fact - the AFL/CIO, NEA/AFT, and Trial lawyer lobbies OWN the Democrats. But since these organizations use "member donations" which is basically the coffers paid by the members' dues and are "non-profit" it is all bunnies and kittens to hear the DNC tell the tale. They are just as big money, do-my-bidding, dance monkey dance as any private corporation, they just get better press and have a squeakier cleaner image.

McCain-Feingold was tyranny and incumbency insurance masquerading (like always) as populism. Rich people, individually and in groups, are protected by the exact same 1st Amendment as that poor, struggling union worker whose thugocracy bosses give more to the DNC than most corporations make in a year.

That's why this pisses of Obama and Schumer.

Originally Posted by delong

You have a very valid argument. There is a catch.

People (for the most part) don't involve themselves with the news cycles very well. They absolutely should not vote. They are ignorant.

Now here is where money is King. Companies and other large entities can control the airwaves and print with their message while ignoring the reality of the situation. This "press" takes hold of the ignorant voter and with such an overwhelming view, they foolishly think that this may be in their best interest.

Originally Posted by mhill

Which right now is largely done by the media corporations under the guise of "objective reporting" which is 90% in the tank for the Democrats, which is why Schumer and Obama are mad.

Now, a corporation with a marketing budget can simply tell their marketing folks to buy some air time and make an ad for a candidate...which is what the NY Times and WaPo editorial pages, Times/Newsweek magazine, and the alphabet networks do daily...but call it "journalism."

George Soros does it through a 527 and his MoveOn.org front and channels $billions to Democrat campaigns, but it's all good because it's called "grassroots."

Unions do it through member dues, and it's called "labor rallying behind a platform."

But you're right. Ignorant people vote, much to the nation's dismay, but they always have. Don't be mad because the Left's monopoly on influencing them has been busted and now the Right can offer their perspective in the propaganda wars.

Originally Posted by delong

If the debates were balanced and free from persuasion of money, logic or at least critical thinking would need to be used to decide on ones vote.

Originally Posted by mhill

Debates are already unfair. The alphabet network cabal controls them, and they are always hosted by glaringly obvious Democrat supporters and always lean toward Democrat talking points. How many debates have been hosted by Fox News?

And they aren't true debates anyway. A true debate has a central issue, with the two sides arguing their position with actual assertions and rebuttals, and a panel of judges evaluates who proves their case the best. The last political debate anywhere close to that was Lincoln-Douglas.

Originally Posted by delong

Right now, the people with influence and money control almost all facets of life. The common man, for the most part has bought into the same line of BS that Corporate America has fed them. aka (failed banks)

Originally Posted by mhill

In politics, most of that control where campaigns and propaganda are concerned goes to the Democrats. By severely restricting private corporations and individual contributions, but setting up separate rules for unions, non-profits, PACs and 527s to funnel money through, the Democrats have had the propaganda tilted their way for decades. Just the mainstream media alone is clear campaign chicanery, and Fox News and AM radio get vilifed for having the gall to challenge the Left's hegemony over media.

Even now, you're all about piping up now that Rupert Murdoch might be able to toss some $$ at the campaigns, but I can't recall seeing you too fluffed up over people like Soros coming flat and saying he will spend whatever it takes to buy Bush out of office.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Originally Posted by delong

If we continue this path of greed, it will come down to a 2 class society. It will then be too late for an "easy fix" at that point.

Freedom of speech is one thing........................ Big Corporations Drowning out individuals with this "Free Speech" is bad.

Originally Posted by mhill

Again, you don't seem to mind that the entire mainstream media drowns out the opposition, and does so with private money under the banner of "journalism." The teachers unions use lots of money and abuse of their position with a captive audience to drown out opposition in the academic world. Any outrage there, or is it cool since they shill for the Left?

Lot of angst with the private corporations actually being allowed to play the game like all the other big money folks do. Strange how the one sided domination for the Democrats thus far was never considered "drowning out" by anyone.

Hmm...

Originally Posted by mhill0531

So much angst, and the media does what you guys fear every single day. They take their unique power to influence a discussion and do it. Should we no longer have freedom of the press?

George Soros dumped $billions into defeating the GOP in 2004, 2006 and 2008....before this decision. He came out and said why he was doing it and that he wouldn't stop until the GOP was out of power. Why no outcry then?

The Clintons got funding from China for the 1996 election.

How about instead of placing restrictions on the free citizen on how to support a candidate, we have job rules for the candidates themselves? How about enforceable ethics rules for the politician instead of taking away freedom of speech for the voter?

Arguing that citizens should be limited in their ability to take part in the political process because politicians are shady is akin to outlawing consumers from buying used cars because some dealers are shady. The citizen commits no crime when they support a candidate. The crime occurs when the campaign support turns into a vote that goes against the will of the majority votes that elected the official. The politician commits that crime, not the person who gave them money.

This decision favors freedom for the average citizen. There are downsides to liberty, like some people abusing what liberties they have, but we either are for liberty or against it.

I agree with him in a lot of ways, but I still feel uneasy. I don't really know where I stand on this issue.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Corporations SHOULD be able to defend themselves politically - The government drums up support for taxes / regulations, they should be able to support whomever they wish. Corporations also have a built-in set of checks and balances - stockholders and consumers, both can vote with their feet in reaction

So... if a US corporation that is majority held by foreign interests influences an election... this is a Good Idea?

We've already seen the only way shareholders can usually say anything is to sell/buy. They're pretty much herded by Boards of Directors.

Modern multi-level corporations simply buy their competition... try boycotting a corporation and you'll usually find the alternatives are owned by the same corporation.

A corporation can spend $1 trillion on a candidate, and it will increase the number of votes that anyone in that corporation can cast by exactly 0.

There is an established direct correlation between money spent and the electoral results... its about inundating the airwaves with FUD and misinformation. And frankly... the George Soros types bother me as much as the megacorps.

[justinstrife]

As I said at the end of my post, I'm still uncertain where I stand on this. In the end though, we still have to abide by the Constitution. And if the Supreme Court rules this way, there isn't much you can do without a Constitutional Amendment. Which is to say, rather difficult to pass.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

So... if a US corporation that is majority held by foreign interests influences an election... this is a Good Idea?

foreign countries already hire platoons of lobbyist and PR people in the US to influence congress

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

foreign countries already hire platoons of lobbyist and PR people in the US to influence congress

my guess is Israel and PRC are @ the top of the list

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by mg1942

my guess is Israel and PRC are @ the top of the list

I highly doubt that Israel would be at the top of the list.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

The first amendment shouldn't, and doesn't, solely apply to individuals. A newspaper is a company and they've been endorsing candidates forever.

It's fair to assume the workers in a coal company would be opposed to legislation banning coal mining. So if lawmakers are campaigning to ban coal mining, coal companies should be able to spend money on the campaign in protest.

Just as civil liberties NGOs should be able to spend money on campaigns to support human rights.

Except human rights are fundamentally given to humans, whereas political clout in corporate matters aren't, unless your saying that human rights are not fundamental rights at all.

@justinstrife... Actually the israel lobby is one of the top contributors to American politician, in fact most policies that benefit Israel are the fundamental reasons why arab's and the west have such a strained relationship.

[Autumn Demon]

Originally Posted by Vexx

So... if a US corporation that is majority held by foreign interests influences an election... this is a Good Idea?

As someone who isn't a nationalist, I see nothing wrong with this. What's so bad about foreigners?

I would love it if the Afghan and Iraqi people influenced elections in America actually.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

As I said at the end of my post, I'm still uncertain where I stand on this. In the end though, we still have to abide by the Constitution. And if the Supreme Court rules this way, there isn't much you can do without a Constitutional Amendment. Which is to say, rather difficult to pass.

Agreed there.... problem is I think the majority subverted the intent, stare decisis, and basically toasted whatever was left of this 200+ year experiment. All because they decided give an undying, artificial entity with sociopathic traits the status of personhood. Undying corporate overlords.... whee.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by mg1942

problem here is that in a 5-4 decision, the SC determined what was constitutional and what was not. That's the criteria.

It's not a matter of "what was at stake". It's a matter of what is or is not constitutional.

5-4 split decision is exactly a case where there is question of legality and intention of the constitution whereas in Brown v Board it was 9-0 a definitive yea to the end of segregation. Clearly there was a discussion among the justices so to say that it's cut and dry is just ridiculous.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I highly doubt that Israel would be at the top of the list.

i guess you're not familiar with the likes of AIPAC...

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Except human rights are fundamentally given to humans, whereas political clout in corporate matters aren't, unless your saying that human rights are not fundamental rights at all.

@justinstrife... Actually the israel lobby is one of the top contributors to American politician, in fact most policies that benefit Israel are the fundamental reasons why arab's and the west have such a strained relationship.

I thought the reason arabs hate the West is because we don't think like them?

Can't say I've seen any evidence that Israel manipulates this country enough to be #1. We supply billions to arab countries in foreign aid just as we do to Israel and have even supplied others with military hardware. Israel didn't want us in Iraq, yet we went in anyway.

[Vexx]

The usual "conspiracy" theory is that the underlying reason for the Iraq invasion was to create our own permanent occupation force and bases there. This would take the heat off of Saudi Arabia by eliminating our bases there... and reduce our dependence on Israel as a deployment zone. The oil field control redistribution was gravy for Cheney's buddies.

Meh, whatever, YMMV

[karthak]

Here's what a lobbyist has to say:
We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want,’ ” a lobbyist can tell lawmakers, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden Arps in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us...donate.html?hp

In other words, any lawmaker who votes against the corporations interests will receive the threat that unless they change their opinion, their opponents will get tons of money for their campaigns.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I thought the reason arabs hate the West is because we don't think like them?

Can't say I've seen any evidence that Israel manipulates this country enough to be #1. We supply billions to arab countries in foreign aid just as we do to Israel and have even supplied others with military hardware. Israel didn't want us in Iraq, yet we went in anyway.

I'ld say it is not so important who you supply with military equipement or give foreign aid to (which is for most countries - includes the USA - it is not a noble act of friendship towards these countries but a means to keep them on a short leash politically... there is nothing better then economical dependency... thats the new way of colonization).
More important is who has influence on your local media. Israel's lobby groups are far more present in e.g. Germany or the USA then chinese or other national lobby groups. In the case of Israel this coincides with general jewish interests (which are often hard to tell apart). Religion seems to be a very strong factor in general, considering there are other, even stronger christian lobbies in the USA.
Which is not unsurprising since (warning sarcasm), modern feudalism doesn't work without a lot of idiots who follow a religion blindly. So, one could assume a certain political interest here, coming from the power elites (those who are in power).
Media is btw. the complementing part for religion. If both are combined in a clever way, the power elites can rule over the stupid masses by keeping them misinformed. That is the way, the whole western world opperates.
No major politician can be free of the influence of lobbying (be it directly or indirectly). If I was sracastic I'ld say: typically voting is just to keep the masses entertaint and make them believe they have some power to decide things.
However, in the end you will always get what the big influential lobbies want (whether they have much money or not is not so important... but admittedly lobbying without a substantial amount of money does not really work - except you have someone co-lobbying who has much money or the same interests.. at least partially).
Anyway... for lobbying in foreign countries, there exists a best practice if you lack economic power that utilizes religious matters. Now that is a weak point of China thus their lobbying activities are more based on economic pressure. When I said economical dependency is a way to modern colonialization, then this applies only for situations where a strong economical power is faced with weak economic powers. If the powers are equally strong, it is more like either an economic symbiosis or an economic cold war (or both of them in varying degrees, and according to national interest).

(I need to end this at this point... I have to go to work)

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I thought the reason arabs hate the West is because we don't think like them?

Can't say I've seen any evidence that Israel manipulates this country enough to be #1. We supply billions to arab countries in foreign aid just as we do to Israel and have even supplied others with military hardware. Israel didn't want us in Iraq, yet we went in anyway.

AIPAC is just one of the most powerful lobbies in washington, and note that many policies that involve israel have little to no benefit to the United States yet the US is willing to move heaven and earth for. Not to mention the amount of technology and intel we've shared with Mosad and the Israeli government. Aid is one thing, but considering how the US has helped deflect any blame from Israel is a reason why many arabs don't trust Americans. Just look, the invasion in lebanon was a breach of international law, and yet the united states backed israel, these big situtations create a hypocrisy which no rational human could accept, and let's not forget the current lack of desettlement in the gaza strip.