Supreme Court decision erodes protections against corporate control of government

perseus

perseus

Active member
A depressing decision which hopefully can be overturned

When Corporations Rule The World (thanks to the Supreme Court)

the Supreme Court has granted corporations even further unfettered access to destroy the fundamental Constitutional protections against corporate control of government.

Corporations, Wall Street and other special interests can now spend as much as they want on commercials and literature to call for the victory or defeat of federal political candidates. Unlike previously acceptable “issue ads,” candidates can now be mentioned by name, as long as there’s no coordination with the candidates or campaigns.

Obama said

“With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.”
Click to expand...
http://www.desmogblog.com/when-corporations-rule-world-thanks-supreme-court
 
I don't know about you guys but this does make me a bit worried that banks are going to waste the our money that we have already spent to keep them out of trouble. Why do they want to get back into it again?
 
Eeeeh, now it's in the open instead of under the table and going thru 3rd and 4th party conduits.
 
03USMC said:
If you think this wasn't happening below board anyway ......well.
Click to expand...
well__red_and_green.jpg


It was happening, but now it's legally happening. That'll encourage more companies who have things like ethics to get in on the fun.
 
03USMC said:
Eeeeh, now it's in the open instead of under the table and going thru 3rd and 4th party conduits.
Click to expand...

No the under the table deals will continue, the SCOTUS just undercut the sticker price for how much this country can be bought for.
Make way for the new American Oligarchy!
 
The 1st admendment of freedom of speech was talking about political speech. There are a number of violations on the books try to make it "fair" & keep big money out, but the 1st doesn't say the rich can have thier political speech reduced in the name of fairness. The most obvious benefit goes to George Soros.
 
George said:
The 1st admendment of freedom of speech was talking about political speech. There are a number of violations on the books try to make it "fair" & keep big money out, but the 1st doesn't say the rich can have thier political speech reduced in the name of fairness. The most obvious benefit goes to George Soros.
Click to expand...

George, Its logic time again. Lets try putting aside the party indoctrination and use logic.

Who gives biggest contributions to political compaigns: Big Corporate Lobbies right?

Who do Big Corporations overwhelming favor Republicans or Democrats: Mostly Republicans right? T Even they will say they are the party of BIG BUSINESS.

So who does this ruling favor? Democrats or Republicans? Much more so Republicans.
 
Put too much power in the hands of anyone and it becomes a dictatorship with the "democracy" reduced to a dog and pony show.
If it happens in other countries, it can happen here too.
There is a reason why many European countries have severe and strict restrictions on election and campaign air time and money. That is because that is what is healthy to the democratic election system.
Consider it an anti-noise pollution measure. Free speech doesn't mean I can saturate a town with noise because I have enough money to do it.
 
I must confess that I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this decision.

The argument for this was that companies have boards and shareholders who can vote against decisions - but board mwmners make the decisions and get voted in / out on a 2 year basis, so political activism cannot be ruled out.

On the other hand it simply reflects what is going on, on a day to day basis - special interest groups rule Washington, so nothing really changes?

As a cynic, the only thing that I can say is Caveat Emptor (buyer beware - I think), maybe it is time to stop life time stipends to the Supreme Court, at least until the average age is that of a living person.
 
George said:
The 1st admendment of freedom of speech was talking about political speech. There are a number of violations on the books try to make it "fair" & keep big money out, but the 1st doesn't say the rich can have thier political speech reduced in the name of fairness. The most obvious benefit goes to George Soros.
Click to expand...

The route of the problem is that political parties are funded privately. Why not fund it via the state via an increase in Corporation tax by 0.1% (or whatever its called) then they don't need to pay for lobbying. They would love that! :roll:

Soros or CEOs can then lobby as free-individuals rather than corporations and we ensure lobbyists represent the political and social spectrum.

OK dream on!
 
mmarsh said:
George, Its logic time again. Lets try putting aside the party indoctrination and use logic.

Who gives biggest contributions to political compaigns: Big Corporate Lobbies right?

Who do Big Corporations overwhelming favor Republicans or Democrats: Mostly Republicans right? T Even they will say they are the party of BIG BUSINESS.

So who does this ruling favor? Democrats or Republicans? Much more so Republicans.
Click to expand...

Partisan said:
I must confess that I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this decision.

The argument for this was that companies have boards and shareholders who can vote against decisions - but board mwmners make the decisions and get voted in / out on a 2 year basis, so political activism cannot be ruled out.

On the other hand it simply reflects what is going on, on a day to day basis - special interest groups rule Washington, so nothing really changes?

As a cynic, the only thing that I can say is Caveat Emptor (buyer beware - I think), maybe it is time to stop life time stipends to the Supreme Court, at least until the average age is that of a living person.
Click to expand...
If you check wealthy Dem members of Conress you'll find most of the wealth comes from business, though the perception is Dems being more anti Capitalist & Reps being more Capitalist.
The Board of Directors are supposed to be riding heard on the top management but the meltdown seems to show that wasn't being done. The draw back to shareholders voting on the Board of Directors is it usually is a rubber stamp vote. Even if there is an interest in voting no decent info is provided to the shareholders on what the Director did during the year except his attendance record. Therefore voting is done with no info available. No way of knowing if he was acting responsibly.
 
I just saw this, George Will saying Lobbies dont actually swing politicans vote, and when they do its obviously done by lawyers for democrats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPWqc0W5kpo

UNBELIEVABLE. Anybody who believes that deserves a serious reality check.

Now George is right to say many lobbiest are lawyers. The line behind Lobbying and offering a bribe is a obscure line to all except those with a keen legal acumen. Hence thats why there are so many Lawyers. But George Will seems to leave out the part that lawyers never act on their own initiative, but on behalf of their clients who are paying $500-$800 an hour, and take a wild guess who their clients are?

Appearent George missed the Irony in his statement. Most Democrats are furious with the SCOTUS decision, and to their credit many Republicans like John McCain are too. But here is ultra-neoconservative George Will defending the decision...(the one only democrats profit from).

I have read histories from the reign of Roman Emporer Cladius referring about his frustration about Roman senators who were taking money from Corn Growers in order to prevent the contruction of a Winter Harbor (in order to keep Grain prices high). But here is George Will saying what was documented to have happened in the Roman Era obviously doesnt happen today.

RIIIIIIIGHT.

I hate it when politicans take us citizens for the stupidest morons in the universe with these outrageous lies.
 
Last edited:
The Supreme Court Just Handed Anyone, Including bin Laden or the Chinese Govt., Control of Our Democracy

I'm losing sleep over the millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation's U.S. unit; or from the maker of "New Order" fashions, the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.

Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA.

But under today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.

Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding

Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names."...


So it's not just un-Americans we need to fear but the Polluter-Americans, Pharma-mericans, Bank-Americans and Hedge-Americans that could manipulate campaigns while hidden behind corporate veils. And if so, our future elections, while nominally a contest between Republicans and Democrats, may in fact come down to a three-way battle between China, Saudi Arabia and Goldman Sachs.
Click to expand...

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23717
 
Last edited:
Dunno about that article.
Too much exagerration. I can see how in theory it could be the case but I don't think it'd go that far in actuality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top