The recent 5 to 4 vote by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has just lifted all campaign donation restrictions on corporations and unions, stating that they, although created through law, are to be considered individuals and have open prerogative to spend what they will during elections.This means corporate board rooms have the potential to become Political Action Committees with the ability to spread unlimited amounts of money, (without consent of the shareholders) on the candidates of their choosing. Essentially, buying the politician they want and pretty much dictating legislation through their puppet in office.
Just imagine: AETNA, Blue Cross and Pharma can now toss money at the pro-insurance candidate of choice openly, instead of through their fake PACs. (that have been pretty successful enough) Now GE, IBM, AIG and BOA can now pay for commercials on national television with their names at the top. This goes for SEIU and AFL CIO as well. No more hiding.So every time you donate your $10, $50 or $100 to any candidate of your choice, these major corporations can match, double or triple anything in opposition while feeling nothing. In campaigns of late, we've seen how money has practically paid for votes; the numbers are staggering. Now the limits are gone.
This is the most evident case of activist judges as I've ever seen it. There were no precedents to refer, no dire loss of life to protect and a century of clearly stated proclamations as to why previous Supremes have left this issue as it's stated, and yet, this Court, in 2010 has decided, at the behest of the largest corporate voices in the land, chose to repeal all restrictions on corporate funding of campaigns.
Do you realize what WalMart is about to do to any local politician that tries to restrict one of their mega-stores? Or if you say anything negative about Natural Gas Well Fracking? Count your days baby!
I think we are in a heap of crap on this one.
Welcome to the United Corporate States of America.
18 comments:
Skipped around the cable news channels tonight. CNN and MSNBC did stories on this. OReilly talked about Blonde power and Scott Brown's centerfold. Hannity focussed on John Edward's love child.
Could it be that corporate factions told FOX not to talk about it?
This is not a Democracy.
Enter the new (old) political powerplay, the boycott. If money rules, the deprivation of money is king. Get ready for some interesting times.
I'm guessing the Gang of 5 were Reagan-Bush appointees. Anyone?
How is this any different from the way it is done now. These same companies use just as much money now through loopholes to influence elections as they will now that this case is settled.
And what about the way these companies buy lawmakers votes through donations and junket vacations. That is a bigger crime then election ads.
All I see this ruling as doing is allowing big business to do out in the open what they are already doing in secret.
Mike,
I think this poster form one of my favorite artists says it all.
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_bDrSwFlLVwoAYRmjzbkF/SIG=131dgub2r/EXP=1264259666/**http%3a//i39.photobucket.com/albums/e158/mcnail/OMG/hegeliandialecticwebtc1.jpg
10:12 is correct. This will do little to change what is happening in regards to money getting to candidates. They will just no longer need to use manipulative tactics such as "bundling" to get large sums of money to a candidate.
To many of our campaign finance laws are not enforced now anyway. When Obama was campaigning how did he deal with the law that he was not to receive foreign contributions. He simply shut off the address tool on his website where credit card donations were accepted.
I am old enough to remember how things were before the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law was passed and I didn't see any loss of influence by the big money donors in the time McCain Feingold was the law.
Oh, by the 4:31, you are correct, the USA is not a Democracy, it is a Representative Republic.
Since the supreme court is 5to4 democrat the republicans could not pass this rotten legislation without one democrat vote. please name one of the unholy 5 that would vote with the Bush Reagen appointees.
Hooray for the 1st Amendment.
This will now level the playing field with the unions which use members money without any input from the member. The system has been a farce for years, both parties are playing the game. Let's make them show where all the money comes from including foreign and we as voters will deside who to vote for. The limiting of free speech is a slipery slope and what would the next step be if this was upheld. Bring in the light and open the process up where all money is accounted for and the voters see who is trying to buy the elections.
It's about time that the chineese nationals and Dubai International who own controlling shares of some our largest corporations can finally have their say in American politics without having to funnel it thru phoney PACs.
I'm thrilled.
I agree with 3:03.
We once organized a large group of members of my union at one site (with other sites waiting) and petitioned to have the portion of our dues returned to us or charity that were used for political donations to representatives that didn't do jack for us. As was our leagal right.
We were told that only way to do this was quit the union. So much for our rights which apparently don't apply when it means a cut in political donations.
And the defense contractors can donate directly to Senators on the Armed Services and appropriations Committees.
My guess (and it is just a guess...) as to the six Yes votes:
John Roberts
Samuel Alito
Antonin Scalia
John Paul Stevens
Clarence Thomas
Sonia Sotomayer
Does anyone know for a fact who the six were?
-----------------
BTW, since one poster agrees with me in that this is not a Democracy... I would like to ask him or her if (?) really considers this [in fact/not in termonology only...] a "Representative Republic?"
-------------------
Interesting commentary here about the overseas corporate interests [Will this allow them more say in the US Government?] and the unions...
-------------------
And about the potentiality of boycotts...
-------------------
Who would youall put on that [potential boycotts] list?
I'm a bit confused by the reports I've accessed, but it appears (? / Please research this yourself to confirm or correct me...) as if:
Justice Alito was a yes.
Justice Roberts was a yes.
Justice Kennedy was a yes.
Justice Scalia was a yes.
Justice Alito was a yes.
Justic Thomas was a yes.
Justice John Paul Stevens appears to be the most vocal of those that dissented - which included
Justice Stephen G. Breyer
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
And (my apologies) Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Sorry for the double Alito :)
There is a petition for those hoping to see a reversal of this decision at "Save Democracy":
http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4
NS
[In my opinion, this "new rule" (Bill Maher speak..) will not necessarily change any of the sneaky stuff that has been going on anyhow... It just gives corporations and such a double edged sword...]
Yes, of course, this is a Representative Republic, both in name and deed. It is funny to hear people question that only when things do not go their way.
Free speech means just that, whether for people with financial means or not. Free speech does not mean that we all have equal access though. For example, here we are trying to be heard on Mike's blog while columnists, whose talents many of us would question, get to be heard in the NY Times.
How about giving individual voters the same tax loopholes, bailouts, and corporate subsidies? To consider corporations to be equivalent to an individual is a joke. This decision by the Supreme Court will have tremendous effect on the influence of big money on the political scene. Unions and environmental groups have no where near the financial clout of corporations.
Post a Comment