Save Democracy?

[tornandfrayed]

I know a lot of you are probably into the Supreme Courts ruling last week concerning Corporations and their ability to buy the Politicians that they want but for those of you who are not, there is a petition going around to try to change this...

Save Democracy

If you hate politics sorry, I just felt this was important.

[Hawk]

I know a lot of you are probably into the Supreme Courts ruling last week concerning Corporations and their ability to buy the Politicians that they want but for those of you who are not, there is a petition going around to try to change this...

Save Democracy

If you hate politics sorry, I just felt this was important.

I doubt you'll change a supreme court ruling. The case involved was a video made about Hilary Clinton and whether it was allowed to be played when she was running for president. The court ask for a delay because THEY wanted to extend the case to include all corporations relative to how they can spend their money.

The decision:

A corporation is equal to an individual with (nearly) the same rights.

Money equals free speech (literally).

So now companies can spend as much as they want for adds (for or against) political candidates.

Commentary:

Election advertising will greatly increase. Attack adds will greatly increase. Because Republicans are all about money (and in the pockets of Corporate America) the adds will be one sided. Political advertising is not held to the same standard as comercial advertising in that they don't have to be truthful.

The question:

Is it fair ?

[lonewolf]

Commentary:

Election advertising will greatly increase. Attack adds will greatly increase. Because Republicans are all about money (and in the pockets of Corporate America) the adds will be one sided. Political advertising is not held to the same standard as comercial advertising in that they don't have to be truthful.

Truthful? You mean just like political posts on Rockpage?

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/inde ... cycle=2010

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/inde ... cycle=2008

[Banned]

Commentary:

Election advertising will greatly increase. Attack adds will greatly increase. Because Republicans are all about money (and in the pockets of Corporate America) the adds will be one sided. Political advertising is not held to the same standard as comercial advertising in that they don't have to be truthful.

Truthful? You mean just like political posts on Rockpage?

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/inde ... cycle=2010

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/inde ... cycle=2008

[Blue Reality]

Corporations were already given protection for free speech in previous rulings. This was simply extended to political speech. Where do you draw the line on speech prtection vs. exclusion?

For everyone howling about corporations buying elections, why did I not hear protest about George Soros pumping many many millions of $ into the last election via 5013c's? Corporations and George Soros would have little impact if the America people would ever decide to care about the process...

[lonewolf]

Just to clarify, Dave, I voted for that and put in my dummy yahoo email address so I wouldn't receive tons of ACLU-oriented spam.

Because of the ACLU and legions of "constitutional" lawyers (like our President) bent on extracting Supreme Court decisions to undermine the Constitution and fit their agenda, this route of solving the money problem is destined to fail.

If you look at the problem a little closer, you will find that there is a weaker link in the money process that we can control and it focuses more closely on the point of attack: Congress.

The President has to put all his investments in a blind trust. Why not Congress? Somebody out to screw the system might think twice about running if access to their investments was removed upon entry to Congress.

With a blind trust requirement, only true patriots would run for Congress. Sure, it might deter some honest talent, but I'd remind you that the graveyards are just brimming with indispensable people.

[Hawk]

Commentary:

Election advertising will greatly increase. Attack adds will greatly increase. Because Republicans are all about money (and in the pockets of Corporate America) the adds will be one sided. Political advertising is not held to the same standard as comercial advertising in that they don't have to be truthful.

Truthful? You mean just like political posts on Rockpage?

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/inde ... cycle=2010

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/inde ... cycle=2008

Did I miss something ? I don't get why you're cheering ?

[songsmith]

legions of "constitutional" lawyers (like our President).

...And conservative posters on Rockpage?

I did notice from the chart that while the Dems raised far more money, the GOP still outspent them. I'd guess that while that doesn't necessarily prove Bill's statement that the GOP is all about money, it doesn't diminish his point, either.--->JMS

[lonewolf]

legions of "constitutional" lawyers (like our President).

...And conservative posters on Rockpage?

I did notice from the chart that while the Dems raised far more money, the GOP still outspent them. I'd guess that while that doesn't necessarily prove Bill's statement that the GOP is all about money, it doesn't diminish his point, either.--->JMS

Pay attention Johnny...the cycle in the 1st link is still in progress. The dems raised almost twice as much so far, they just didn't spend it yet. Meanwhile, spending is relatively close. Those numbers aren't final until the books are closed on the 2010 election.

Unfortunately, your views are almost exclusively from the democrat perspective--in your eyes, if the republicans spend even one dollar more, they are the moneygrubbers, not the democrats. You need to remove your partisan blinders and see the federal government for the clusterfoxtrot that it is.

On the other hand, I am trying to illustrate that it is both parties that are on the take. If you look at historical campaign spending, you will see that most money goes to the party in power or the one perceived to be on the threshold of power.

I haven't replied to pro-republican posts on this subject because there are no such foolish claims made from that side.

[Hawk]

Jeff, is there any records of how much special interest groups spent ? Either directly or through a "front" organization ?

[Hawk]

Do you (plural) know some Arabian company can now legally spend a $billion on campaign adds for or against any candidate they choose?

Or Venezuela company "Citgo" can spend a billion dollars on a candidate.

I don't care if it's for a democrat or a republican candidate, for congress or any other elected official, it just doesn't seem fair.

A senator might normally spend an average of $10 million on a campaign. A drop in the bucket for some companies.

If A.I.G. doesn't like a candidate because he is for legislation that A.I.G sees as negative, they can spend $30 million (or more) in attack adds.

[RamRod 1]

Second one I signed.

[lonewolf]

Jeff, is there any records of how much special interest groups spent ? Either directly or through a "front" organization ?

Check that whole site out. They have more categories than I can describe and probably anything you are looking for.

[Hawk]

Jeff, is there any records of how much special interest groups spent ? Either directly or through a "front" organization ?

Check that whole site out. They have more categories than I can describe and probably anything you are looking for.

Thanks

[PStl]

I trust the American people to see thru all the BS.
There is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to negative adds.
So, to casually say that we can be bought off is naive.

[Hawk]

So, to casually say that we can be bought off is naive.

Not true for the 80% of the people who don't follow politics. They ONLY know about a candidate via what they hear on commercials that air during their favorite TV show.

[lonewolf]

Corporations were already given protection for free speech in previous rulings. This was simply extended to political speech. Where do you draw the line on speech prtection vs. exclusion?

Most of the prior rulings were also based on campaign contributions as political free speech. What makes this one different is that it:

1. Eliminates limits on campaign contributions from corporations and unions.

2. Allows corporations and unions to place their own ads directly at any time.

[songsmith]

[Unfortunately, your views are almost exclusively from the democrat perspective--in your eyes, if the republicans spend even one dollar more, they are the moneygrubbers, not the democrats. You need to remove your partisan blinders and see the federal government for the clusterfoxtrot that it is.

.

I don't think that "even one dollar more" is correct, but I see your point. I certainly, certainly agree that the Dems spend too much, they both do, but there are plenty of places to hear how terrible the Dems are, and if the GOP outspends by 10 million, that's more money than I will ever see. And don't look to a third party for help. Even if the Tea Party were to go legit, A) third parties have historically done little more than siphon votes from the Big Two, and B) that kind of power would divide the Tea Party almost immediately due to lack of focus.
As for my partisan leaning, I was thinking about my votes over time, and one pattern emerges: Dem for Federal, and Republican state and local. There are obvious exceptions however, as I actually research my choices. Voting "ticket is lazy and irresponsible."

In a related note, I've been listening to a fair amount of XM's America Left channel. Based on what I'm hearing, you guys will be pleased to know that pretty much everybody on the far left is done with Obama, for the opposite reasons you all are. He's not liberal enough, and is caving in to corporate interests. They want the reaching across the aisle stopped. I find that interesting because on rightwing radio, Obama's a far-left socialistcommiebabykiller, and on leftwing radio, he's a (gulp) moderate.
Apparently, douchery cuts a swath through a cross-section of society. --->JMS

[lonewolf]

In a related note, I've been listening to a fair amount of XM's America Left channel. Based on what I'm hearing, you guys will be pleased to know that pretty much everybody on the far left is done with Obama, for the opposite reasons you all are. He's not liberal enough, and is caving in to corporate interests. They want the reaching across the aisle stopped. I find that interesting because on rightwing radio, Obama's a far-left socialistcommiebabykiller, and on leftwing radio, he's a (gulp) moderate.
Apparently, douchery cuts a swath through a cross-section of society. --->JMS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX5tfRdkoY0