O.B.A.M.A.

[Mal_Con]

Today is the day representative democracy ended in the United States of America, thanks Bush

[prole]

"In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns."

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

 

Looks like the 2012 elections will be Labor Unions v Corporations in an unprecedented orgy of spending.

 

And guess which justices came down where. Big Fucking Surprise. And as for the media including labor unions as part of this dialogue as if they mattered, purely a sop to "the altar of the appearance of fair and balanced". This political system is a joke. Next teabagger I see dressed up like James Madison or Alexander Hamilton, imma run his ass over.

Edited January 21, 2010 by prole

[olyclimber]

What a bunch of Debbie Downers! Look at the bright side, its a great day to be a politician!

[ivan]

Today is the day representative democracy ended in the United States of America, thanks Bush

huh? it's not like it wasn't already happening before the restrictions that were just struck down were in place, or that the restrictions themselves were even fucking effective, or that it did anything about the still legal corruption of the revolving door.

 

our representative democracy was pretty much still-born since jefferson wrote his wildly ironic declaration, no?

[Mtguide]

Bill Gates for prez

 

innovation not politics

 

Problem is, one man's not gonna do it, no matter his resources or connections. Not Gates, not Ralph Nader, not anyone. Anyone who shows up and tries to do anything different from business as usual will simply be torn apart. That's what's happening to Obama.

[ivan]

as pessimistic as i am, i don't think the proble is irresolvable - a constitutional amendment dealing w/ the problems of money in politics could be crafted that appeals to the common man i'd bet, and that would take the courts out of it, while also going much further than the politicians are willing or able

 

one of you lawyers types wanna help us w/ the wording?

[prole]

Problem is, one man's not gonna do it, no matter his resources or connections. Not Gates, not Ralph Nader, not anyone. Anyone who shows up and tries to do anything different from business as usual will simply be torn apart. That's what's happening to Obama.

 

Obama is full of shit. He ran a grassroots campaign on the ideas of increased citizen participation and transparency then promptly abandoned that strategy (the only one that could ensure any measure of success against entrenched interests) for the Rahm Emanuel "the adults can take it from here" style of disconnected every-four-years politics. They did nothing to "sell" health care to the public, didn't even craft their own legislation out of a decade old fear of the demise of Hillarycare, and handed it to the "pragmatists" (read: corporate whores) in Congress. If you want to "do something different from politics as usual" you actually have to lift a finger and do something different from politics as usual. "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house".

Edited January 21, 2010 by prole

[Hugh Conway]

What a bunch of Debbie Downers! Look at the bright side, its a great day to be a politician!

 

When isn't it a great day to be a politician?

[tvashtarkatena]

"In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns."

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

 

Looks like the 2012 elections will be Labor Unions v Corporations in an unprecedented orgy of spending.

 

And guess which justices came down where. Big Fucking Surprise. And as for the media including labor unions as part of this dialogue as if they mattered, purely a sop to "the altar of the appearance of fair and balanced". This political system is a joke. Next teabagger I see dressed up like James Madison or Alexander Hamilton, imma run his ass over.

 

It's not a teabagger issue. The ACLU, for example, has long held the policy that campaign finance constitutes free speech (much to the ire of a good portion of its membership).

 

How do I feel about it? Haven't figured that one out yet.

[ivan]

It's not a teabagger issue. The ACLU, for example, has long held the policy that campaign finance constitutes free speech (much to the ire of a good portion of its membership).

 

How do I feel about it? Haven't figured that one out yet.

all the more reason for an amendment - an amendment would recognize the essential virtue of free speech but address the fact that it can come with some problems so tremendous that it must be restrained - this money in politics thing is clearly at the root of so many of our problems - healthcare, defense spending, yadda, yadda, yadda

[prole]

"In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns."

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

 

Looks like the 2012 elections will be Labor Unions v Corporations in an unprecedented orgy of spending.

 

And guess which justices came down where. Big Fucking Surprise. And as for the media including labor unions as part of this dialogue as if they mattered, purely a sop to "the altar of the appearance of fair and balanced". This political system is a joke. Next teabagger I see dressed up like James Madison or Alexander Hamilton, imma run his ass over.

 

It's not a teabagger issue. The ACLU, for example, has long held the policy that campaign finance constitutes free speech (much to the ire of a good portion of its membership).

 

How do I feel about it? Haven't figured that one out yet.

 

The teabagger thing was a comment on the idiotic fetishization and idealization of our governmental structure at the expense making necessary changes to an anachronistic set of institutions. This view is most recently typified by red-faced morons in tri-cornered hats waving the Constitution at pharmaceutical and insurance industry sponsored rallies.

 

As far as the Supreme Court ruling goes, corporations are not individuals. Period. Government elections, like health care, should be not-for-profit.

 

Edited January 21, 2010 by prole

[prole]

all the more reason for an amendment...

 

Yeah, what he said.

[billcoe]

So, is this the "hope and change" you voted for?

One Big Ass Mistake, America

And this comes from a liberal media outlet, no less.

IS THAT EVEN TRUE? It's one dudes opinion. Yet after reading the facts and figures of that article, you are left with hopelessness and the shocking feeling that George Bush wasn't so bad at all by comparison.

 

Damn, if true, that's real real rude stuff. Shockingly so.

[Mal_Con]

Don't want to bust your bubble but for a Constitutional Amendment BOTH houses of Congress have to approve by 2/3 (that is 67 Senators) THEN 2/3rds of the State legislatures have to Approve. Of course all these parties have been sucking at the corporate tit all their lifetime. You would have better luck impeaching at least one of the 5 and having a new apiontee vote to overrule the decision.

[prole]

Don't want to bust your bubble but for a Constitutional Amendment BOTH houses of Congress have to approve by 2/3 (that is 67 Senators) THEN 2/3rds of the State legislatures have to Approve. Of course all these parties have been sucking at the corporate tit all their lifetime. You would have better luck impeaching at least one of the 5 and having a new apiontee vote to overrule the decision.

 

SEE, THE SYSTEM WORKS!!!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Don't want to bust your bubble but for a Constitutional Amendment BOTH houses of Congress have to approve by 2/3 (that is 67 Senators) THEN 2/3rds of the State legislatures have to Approve. Of course all these parties have been sucking at the corporate tit all their lifetime. You would have better luck impeaching at least one of the 5 and having a new apiontee vote to overrule the decision.

 

SEE, THE SYSTEM WORKS!!!

 

Your "system" would never work

[kevbone]

In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."

 

 

They need to take the money out of Washington to fix the problem. Not allow the ones with the most money in.

[ivan]

Don't want to bust your bubble but for a Constitutional Amendment BOTH houses of Congress have to approve by 2/3 (that is 67 Senators) THEN 2/3rds of the State legislatures have to Approve. Of course all these parties have been sucking at the corporate tit all their lifetime. You would have better luck impeaching at least one of the 5 and having a new apiontee vote to overrule the decision.

doesn't burst my bubble - i even teach on the subject occasionally

 

article V of the consitution reads:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

so...amendments can originate in the states...in theory then grass roots actions can effect change, and if the wording was worked properly, could sell

[Lars]

The only president that would ever make Lars and Pink happy

 

[img:center]http://ahaupt.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/guns.jpg[/img]

 

Uncle Ted in the white house?

 

I bet JayB just s#%t himself when he saw that pic!!

[richard_noggin]

The only president that would ever make Lars and Pink happy

 

[img:center]http://ahaupt.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/guns.jpg[/img]

 

I seen him roll'n on stage and Jump’n from speaker to speaker play'n his guitar at the first and last annual cherry blossom festival in Richmond VA in 1974 …good show till the crowd started burning nark cars WTF

[prole]

Where Are the Real Populists Now?

Jan 21, 2010

Salon

 

The notion of right-wing "populism" is suddenly fashionable following last Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts, when even stiff millionaire suit Mitt Romney could be heard braying about the "royalists" who rule Washington. But all such fakery was exposed today by an event of far greater moment. The Supreme Court's narrow, poorly argued and highly political decision in the Citizens United case -- which removes century-old restrictions on corporate influence-buying -- is the culmination of a Republican dream. From this moment forward, what the original American populists once called "the money power" will be enabled to overwhelm all other forces in American democracy using sheer wealth -- and that includes every "tea party" activist with a dissenting opinion about bank bailouts, executive abuses or crooked contracting.

 

For establishment Republicans like columnist George Will and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the court's decision is simply an overdue recognition of the First Amendment right to free speech. (Or what in fact is more aptly described as "paid speech.") But to understand its actual impact, listen to Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, who drew this pithy comparison: Under the old dispensation, which prohibited direct corporate expenditures on elections for nearly a century, Exxon Mobil could spend only what its political action committee raised from executives and employees. In 2008, said Waldman, that was roughly $1 million. Under the new order, the world's biggest oil company can spend as much as its management cares to siphon from its earnings -- which in 2008 amounted to $45 billion.

 

While most of the anger stoked against the Obama administration by the tea party groups is currently focused on healthcare reform, the original irritant was the spectacle of hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the Big Banks, the crooked insurance behemoth AIG, the reckless traders at Goldman Sachs, and all the abuses that attended those bailouts.

 

According to Judson Phillips, the Tennessee lawyer who organized the upcoming tea party convention, many of the movement's rank-and-file "believe that Congress pays far too much attention to Wall Street and not enough attention to Main Street." Dale Robertson, the founder of TeaParty.org, reacting directly to the Citizens United decision, told blogger Joy Reid that it is a constitutional travesty: "It just allows them to feed the machine. Corporations are not like people. Corporations exist forever, people don't. Our founding fathers never wanted them; these behemoth organizations that never die, so they can collect an insurmountable amount of profit. It puts the people at a tremendous disadvantage."

 

All the ultra-wingers and tea partyers who agitate constantly over U.S. sovereignty should recall again how little loyalty the multinational corporations and banks have displayed toward the United States in their drive for profit. Now, in effect, the Supreme Court's "conservatives" have opened up the American electoral process to a new, potentially limitless source of foreign influence.

 

Dale Robertson spoke like an honest populist -- or even a progressive. For him and anyone else in the tea party movement who isn't merely a loudmouthed stooge of the Republicans, a moment of truth is coming soon. Will they support legislation to curtail its worst effects, even if sponsored by those hated Democrats, or surrender to a new era of corporate rule?

--from here.

[prole]

How do I feel about it? Haven't figured that one out yet.

 

Are you kidding? Get a fucking clue.

[Fairweather]

Today is the day representative democracy ended in the United States of America, thanks Bush

 

Bush? Huh?

[Pete_H]

In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."

 

 

They need to take the money out of Washington to fix the problem. Not allow the ones with the most money in.

 

Bone, you're soooo out of your league here. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing con law isn't your strong suit.

[Pete_H]

It's not a teabagger issue. The ACLU, for example, has long held the policy that campaign finance constitutes free speech (much to the ire of a good portion of its membership).

 

How do I feel about it? Haven't figured that one out yet.

 

Freedom of speech isn't absolute. Never has been. The balance of freedom to chaos just depends on where we want to draw the line. I don't think hiding behind freedom of speech on this one holds a lot of water.