O.B.A.M.A.

[Fairweather]

don't jump to conclusions, buddy. how ludicrous is it to give friggin corporations individual legal rights?

 

 

And how about labor unions?

 

 

i'm also not sure that corporations and labor unions should enjoy the same legal protections and rights, since the aims of both (generally) differ so greatly.

 

So who should decide which "aims" are more deserving of First Amendment protection? The government? You've just taken the first step down the slope...

[Kimmo]

So who should decide which "aims" are more deserving of First Amendment protection? The government? You've just taken the first step down the slope...

as you will surely note, i prefaced my query with "i'm not sure". we are also not talking exclusively of 1st amendment rights either, although i guess it answers implicitly the question you didn't answer explicitly above (yes i did note the thread title, but the corporate/union entry expands the parameters).

[prole]

Regarding the original issue, I just presented some considerations to think about. The ACLU, for example, doesn't endorse or contribute to any political candidates, but it does contribute to and solicit donations for referendums and other electoral campaigns, mostly recently R71. Poorly written and enacted statutory restrictions on this type of political speech could potentially hobble such efforts.

 

In the end, campaign contributions are a band aid issue that doesn't really address the more fundamental question of why the electorate makes such poor choices in the first place.

 

I don't know that much about the issue, and therefore remain undecided, choosing instead to focus on other issues the I think are more important, interesting, and resolvable.

 

Plus, I'm not even sure I'm posting in the right thread.

 

I think at the "end of the day", the idea that progressives or the ACLU are going to benefit from this decision is a pathetic joke. The implication that the ACLU supports it on the basis of its own efforts is like drowning yourself in the bathtub to save yourself from a greasefire in the kitchen. Guess what, the ACLU's campaign contributions aren't going to amount to a squirt of piss compared to the big boys: welcome to the free market. If limiting the conflict of interest that arises between money and politics means equalizing the restrictions on what Chevron and Granny's Sewing Circle are able to spend? Sorry Granny.

 

Campaign contributions and the corruption of politics and governance that follows is anything but a bandaid issue. At this point, the cost of running a campaign and the ability to whore yourself in order to raise the necessary funds is the primary factor in who is on the slate at all. Our voting choices are limited by this from the get-go. It only gets worse from there.

 

Coming from someone who's rarely pleaded ignorance about anything on this board, I find your newfound agnosticism on something so obviously eathshatteringly important, puzzling. I suspect you know you and the ACLU are full of shit on this one. Tell me I'm wrong. I'm calling you out, sucka!

Edited January 22, 2010 by prole

[ivan]

prole, isn't the core problem that human beings are corrupt, and that any organization they form will contain elements of corruption?

 

i do think it's a shit ruling.

[prole]

No, I'm not interested in that kind of essentializing, arguments that rest on "human nature", "core problems", or "original sin". They're metaphysical nonsense better suited to theology than the study of society, much less campaign finance reform.

Edited January 22, 2010 by prole

[Mal_Con]

As always money talks, bullshit walks.

[ivan]

okay sunshine - good luck making a perfect world - wasn't looking for a deeply introspective moment, just an acknowledgment that, so long as people are involved in government, said gov's gonna have corruption.

 

getting the problems out in the open and not buried under 20 feet of corporate horseshit propaganda is no doubt key to minimizing the stink.

[prole]

It's not about creating a perfect world, it's about recognizing that we create tools to affect greater accountability, transparency, and citizen participation in governance where corruption needs to be kept at a minimum. Throwing up one's hands and abstracting the issue (or any other problem we're facing) to "oh well, it's just human nature, pass me a ding-dong" isn't going to get us anywhere in that conversation.

 

 

[ivan]

It's not about creating a perfect world, it's about recognizing that we create tools to affect greater accountability, transparency, and citizen participation in governance where corruption needs to be kept at a minimum. Throwing up one's hands and abstracting the issue (or any other problem we're facing) to "oh well, it's just human nature, pass me a ding-dong" isn't going to get anywhere in that conversation.

it's the internet dude - you don't get conversations here

 

at any rate, i'm hardly arguing w/ you

 

i would like a ding-dong though...to throw at justice kennedy.

[prole]

It's been called the worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott. Time will tell whether that's accurate or not. Ugh.

[ivan]

It's been called the worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott. Time will tell whether that's accurate or not. Ugh.

by your own admission, the whole establishment is practically in big business' pocket, and has been for damn near a century - i don't see how it can get much worse.

[Hugh Conway]

i would like a ding-dong though...to throw at justice kennedy.

 

I vote KK for dingdong to hurl

[prole]

January 22, 2010

Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Ruling

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.

 

“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.

 

The decision seeks to let voters choose for themselves among a multitude of voices and ideas when they go to the polls, but it will also increase the power of organized interest groups at the expense of candidates and political parties.

 

It is expected to unleash a torrent of attack advertisements from outside groups aiming to sway voters, without any candidate having to take the criticism for dirty campaigning. The biggest beneficiaries might be well-placed incumbents whose favor companies and interests groups are eager to court. It could also have a big impact on state and local governments, where a few million dollars can have more influence on elections.

 

The ruling comes at a time when influence-seekers of all kinds have special incentives to open their wallets. Amid the economic crisis, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats are trying to rewrite the rules for broad swaths of the economy, from Detroit to Wall Street. Republicans, meanwhile, see a chance for major gains in November.

 

Democrats predicted that Republicans would benefit most from the decision, because they are the traditional allies of big corporations, who have more money to spend than unions.

 

In a statement shortly after the decision, President Obama called it “a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.”

 

As Democrats vowed to push legislation to install new spending limits in time for the fall campaign, Republicans disputed the partisan impact of the decision. They argued that Democrats had proven effective at cultivating their own business allies — drug companies are spending millions of dollars to promote the administration’s health care proposals, for example — while friendly interest groups tap sympathetic billionaires and Hollywood money.

 

After new restrictions on party fund-raising took effect in 2003, many predicted that the Democrats would suffer. But they took Congress in 2006 and the White House two years later.

 

While Democrats pledged new limits, some Republicans argued for bolstering parties and candidates by getting rid of the limits on their fund-raising as well. Several cases before lower courts, including a suit filed by the Republican National Committee against the Federal Election Commission, seek to challenge those limits.

 

Thursday’s decision, in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, “is going to flip the existing campaign order on its head,” said Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a Republican campaign lawyer at the law-and-lobbying firm Patton Boggs who has represented both candidates and outside groups, including Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group formed to oppose Senator John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.

 

“It will put on steroids the trend that outside groups are increasingly dominating campaigns,” Mr. Ginsberg said. “Candidates lose control of their message. Some of these guys lose control of their whole personalities.”

 

“Parties will sort of shrink in the relative importance of things,” he added, “and outside groups will take over more of the functions — advertising support, get out the vote — that parties do now.”

 

In practice, major publicly held corporations like Microsoft or General Electric are unlikely to spend large sums money on campaign commercials, for fear of alienating investors, customers and other public officials.

 

Instead, wealthy individuals and companies might contribute to trade associations, groups like the Chamber of Commerce or the National Rifle Association, or other third parties that could run commercials.

 

Previously, Mr. Noble of Skadden Arps said, his firm had advised companies to be wary about giving money to groups that might run so-called advocacy commercials, because such activity could trigger disclosure requirements that would identify the corporate financers.

 

“It could be traced back to you,” he said. “That is no longer a concern.”

 

Some disclosure rules remain intact. An outside group paying for a campaign commercial would still have to include a statement and file forms taking responsibility. If an organization solicits money specifically to pay for such political activities, it could fall under regulations that require disclosure of its donors.

 

And the disclosure requirements would moderate the harshness of the third-party advertisements, because established trade associations or other groups are too concerned with their reputations to wage the contentious campaigns that ad hoc groups like MoveOn.org or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth might do.

 

Two leading Democrats, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, said that they had been working for months to draft legislation in response to the anticipated decision.

 

One possibility would be to ban political advertising by corporations that hire lobbyists, receive government money, or collect most of their revenue abroad.

 

Another would be to tighten rules against coordination between campaigns and outside groups so that, for example, they could not hire the same advertising firms or consultants.

 

A third would be to require shareholder approval of political expenditures, or even to force chief executives to appear as sponsors of commercials their companies pay for.

 

The two sponsors of the 2002 law tightening the party-fundraising rules each criticized the ruling.

 

Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, called it “a terrible mistake.” Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, said in a television interview on CNN that he was “disappointed.”

 

Fred Wertheimer, a longtime advocate of campaign finance laws, said the decision “wipes out a hundred years of history” during which American laws have sought to tamp down corporate power to influence elections.

 

But David Bossie, the conservative activist who brought the case to defend his campaign-season promotion of the documentary “Hillary: The Movie,” said he was looking forward to rolling out his next film in time for the midterm elections.

 

Titled “Generation Zero,” the movie features the television host Lou Dobbs and lays much of the blame for the recent financial collapse on the Democrats.

 

“Now we have a free hand to let people know it exists,” Mr. Bossie said.-- NYT 1/22/10

[tvashtarkatena]

No, I'm not interested in that kind of essentializing, arguments that rest on "human nature", "core problems", or "original sin". They're metaphysical nonsense better suited to theology than the study of society, much less campaign finance reform.

 

Human nature is metaphysical nonsense?

 

Good luck with that.

 

I prefer Cupcakes.

Edited January 22, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Pete_H]

Its funny if you read most of the Supreme Court opinions on these issues you'd probably see the Justices wrangling with many of the same questions the reasonable minds here are, and probably slinging as many rhetorical insults to their colleagues as well.

 

I think its a difficult issue in which the right result in theory (not restraining political speech) results in a difficult outcome, i.e. money influencing politics.

 

Does anyone agree that its a sad commentary on human nature that the party with the loudest voice (who pays the most to inundate the media channels) gets the most support as opposed to the one with the most rational argument?

[ivan]

 

Does anyone agree that its a sad commentary on human nature that the party with the loudest voice (who pays the most to inundate the media channels) gets the most support as opposed to the one with the most rational argument?

i agree

 

but speaking of human nature, i must throw stones at meself as well - i, like most, am lazy and at any rate very much caught up in the day-to-day dramas of my own humble life - i know the problem could be largely fixed with a constitutional amendment restricting campaign financing, and that the problem needs fixing, but the process of realzing such an amendment is so demanding i can't begin to summon the will to ram it home

 

for it to work, a whole lot of dedicated people need to make it their life's work

Edited January 22, 2010 by ivan

[prole]

An essential "human nature" is no more verifiable than is your great fuzzy kitty or the spaghetti monster much less identifying it by assigning it some characteristics, like "corrupt" over others, like "caring".

[tvashtarkatena]

Its funny if you read most of the Supreme Court opinions on these issues you'd probably see the Justices wrangling with many of the same questions the reasonable minds here are, and probably slinging as many rhetorical insults to their colleagues as well.

 

I think its a difficult issue in which the right result in theory (not restraining political speech) results in a difficult outcome, i.e. money influencing politics.

 

Does anyone agree that its a sad commentary on human nature that the party with the loudest voice (who pays the most to inundate the media channels) gets the most support as opposed to the one with the most rational argument?

 

That is a sad commentary, but it's not a given. There are many examples, SR71 being the most recent, where the dark side outguns the good guys in money and advertising but, through better community organizing and more honest, rational messaging, the good guys win. There tends to be popular wisdom that elections are won on the 30 second sound bite battlefield, but there are many more factors involved. Plus, TV advertising isn't necessarily the best or only way to spend money. Targeted solicitation, both for money and votes, can be a far more effective and efficient way to spend a campaign dollar, for example. Opinion surveys and public information campaigns can also be a better way to spend.

 

In the end, an engaged, educated populace, trained in critical thinking, is the best equalizer. It's pretty obvious which party supports that goal (or at least gives lip service to it), and which party seeks to burn our education system down. That, to me, is the most telling indicator of who's in it for them versus who's in it for all of us.

Edited January 22, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

An essential "human nature" is no more verifiable than is your great fuzzy kitty or the spaghetti monster much less identifying it by assigning it some characteristics, like "corrupt" over others, like "caring".

not so, as their is some actual data that can be collected and analzyed, and experiments run

 

there is certianly plenty of historical evidence to support the general notions that humans like to hurt, steal, kill and corrupt

 

wether that outweighs our occasional capacity to heal, feed and clothe is debatable

[tvashtarkatena]

An essential "human nature" is no more verifiable than is your great fuzzy kitty or the spaghetti monster much less identifying it by assigning it some characteristics, like "corrupt" over others, like "caring".

 

Human nature is just as readily studied scientifically as any other natural phenomenon. Decades of study have produced excellent, predictive models of how markets, relationships, authority, and other human nature-driven phenomena work. The assumed (and false) inscrutability of such phenomena springs forth from that most fundamental of human desires: to remain inscrutable.

Edited January 22, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

An essential "human nature" is no more verifiable than is your great fuzzy kitty or the spaghetti monster much less identifying it by assigning it some characteristics, like "corrupt" over others, like "caring".

not so, as their is some actual data that can be collected and analzyed, and experiments run

 

there is certianly plenty of historical evidence to support the general notions that humans like to hurt, steal, kill and corrupt

 

wether that outweighs our occasional capacity to heal, feed and clothe is debatable

 

Unless you live the slums of Tijuana, Baghdad, or Cabrini Green, there's a whole lot more healing, feeding, and clothing, teaching, trading, building, caregiving, etc. that the other things you mentioned. But again, I don't know what neighborhood you live in. Most situations where someone has to rely on "human nature" to advance their argument it's essentially political ideology masquerading as "common sense".

[prole]

Human nature is just as readily studied scientifically as any other natural phenomenon. Decades of study have produced excellent, predictive models of how markets, relationships, authority, and other human nature-driven phenomena work. The assumed (and false) inscrutability of such phenomena springs forth from that most fundamental of human desires: to remain inscrutable.

 

Yeah, its called Game Theory. It's a pseudo-scientific sham.

 

http://www.rewtube.com/the-trap-episode-1/

[tvashtarkatena]

An essential "human nature" is no more verifiable than is your great fuzzy kitty or the spaghetti monster much less identifying it by assigning it some characteristics, like "corrupt" over others, like "caring".

not so, as their is some actual data that can be collected and analzyed, and experiments run

 

there is certianly plenty of historical evidence to support the general notions that humans like to hurt, steal, kill and corrupt

 

wether that outweighs our occasional capacity to heal, feed and clothe is debatable

 

Unless you live the slums of Tijuana, Baghdad, or Cabrini Green, there's a whole lot more healing, feeding, and clothing, teaching, trading, building, caregiving, etc. that the other things you mentioned. But again, I don't know what neighborhood you live in. Most situations where someone has to rely on "human nature" to advance their argument it's essentially political ideology masquerading as "common sense".

 

That's probably true in Baghdad as well, but it doesn't take much of the dark side to fuck the rest of it all up. One dumbfuck faux cowboy gives an order and one society is burned to the ground while another economically collapses.

 

Do the experiment yourself. From Mon to Sat, bring your S.O. flowers and cook a nice dinner. On Sunday, serve them parboiled, whole house cat...fur still on.

 

Record which event they remember longer.

[tvashtarkatena]

Human nature is just as readily studied scientifically as any other natural phenomenon. Decades of study have produced excellent, predictive models of how markets, relationships, authority, and other human nature-driven phenomena work. The assumed (and false) inscrutability of such phenomena springs forth from that most fundamental of human desires: to remain inscrutable.

 

Yeah, its called Game Theory. It's a pseudo-scientific sham.

 

http://www.rewtube.com/the-trap-episode-1/

 

No, it's not called Game Theory. There is an enormous body of scientific work in this field out there. You're just not aware of it, so, predictably, and like any good human, you assume it doesn't exist.

[prole]

Human nature is just as readily studied scientifically as any other natural phenomenon. Decades of study have produced excellent, predictive models of how markets, relationships, authority, and other human nature-driven phenomena work. The assumed (and false) inscrutability of such phenomena springs forth from that most fundamental of human desires: to remain inscrutable.

 

Yeah, its called Game Theory. It's a pseudo-scientific sham.

 

http://www.rewtube.com/the-trap-episode-1/

 

No, it's not called Game Theory. There is an enormous body of scientific work in this field out there. You're just not aware of it, so, predictably, and like any good human, you assume it doesn't exist.

 

Wow, either you watched that movie in fast-forward or you're assuming it doesn't exist...