Follow the Money

[JayB]

"Democracy is so complicated. It'd be so much simpler if the plutocrats could buy all the votes they needed"

 

 

One would think that fact that the boundaries between speech with political implications and "political" speech are clearly too complex, subjective, and laden with value judgments renders you incapable of marshaling so much as a coherent argument here would temper your enthusiasm for entrusting Congress with that power. Particularly if the evangelo-pluto-fascist hordes ever secure a majority there.

 

 

[JayB]

It's a free market thing, you wouldn't understand.

 

Well...I certainly don't understand the arguments behind your position here, mostly because you haven't stated them.

 

[j_b]

"Democracy is so complicated. It'd be so much simpler if the plutocrats could buy all the votes they needed"

 

One would think that fact that the boundaries between speech with political implications and "political" speech are clearly too complex, subjective, and laden with value judgments renders you incapable of marshaling so much as a coherent argument here would temper your enthusiasm for entrusting Congress with that power. Particularly if the evangelo-pluto-fascist hordes ever secure a majority there.

 

The alternative being that your logic is too twisted to justify arguing against it: the existence of nuances and subtleties has never been an argument for letting everything go, but you appear to be an expert at making inferences that have no reason to be.

[JayB]

"Democracy is so complicated. It'd be so much simpler if the plutocrats could buy all the votes they needed"

 

One would think that fact that the boundaries between speech with political implications and "political" speech are clearly too complex, subjective, and laden with value judgments renders you incapable of marshaling so much as a coherent argument here would temper your enthusiasm for entrusting Congress with that power. Particularly if the evangelo-pluto-fascist hordes ever secure a majority there.

 

The alternative being that your logic is too twisted to justify arguing against it: the existence of nuances and subtleties has never been an argument for letting everything go, but you appear to be an expert at making inferences that have no reason to be.

 

They're actually not too far removed from the real-world case that lead to the Supreme Court's decision:

 

"The case arose out of Citizens United’s January 2008 release of Hillary: The Movie, a 90-minute critical documentary about then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was a candidate for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Citizens United sought to distribute the movie through Video On Demand, but was prohibited from doing so because federal law made it a felony for corporations–including nonprofit corporations–to use their general treasury funds for political advocacy."

 

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/01/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictions-on-corporate-speech/

 

 

[j_b]

Don't confuse the activism of closet Federalist Society judges and other corporatists on the supreme court for real world concern great enough to prevent reigning in the role of corporate money in the total take over of our government.

[JayB]

The only compelling interest that corporations (and limited partnerships, and outfits like the Trial Lawyers, etc) have in taking over the government is to score special tax breaks, subsidies, or other exemptions from competition to enrich themselves at the public's expense.

 

The more power that Congress has to rig the game and pick winners, the greater the incentive for all businesses to distort the laws in their favor. Exhibit A, once again - Corn Ethanol. There's a few thousand others.

 

The great irony here is that the more power that you grant Congress to regulate commerce, the greater the incentives for businesses to "take over" Congress, while the tax and regulatory regime favored by regressives would dramatically reduce them.

[j_b]

So in order to avoid corporations taking over government, we shouldn't regulate corporations? More of the same brilliant logic!

 

In the last couple weeks alone you have told us that 1) wealthy individuals will always try to circumvent the rules and taxation so we shouldn't have rules and taxation, 2) that democracy was so messy that we'd be better off not preventing plutocrats buying politicians and now, 3) that we shouldn't regulate corps because it'll incite them to take over government. What's next? that employers will always go for the bottom labor cost so there is no point in having anti-slavery laws? Where the hell do you get that stuff, it's hilarious.

[JayB]

The actual argument was that we'd be much better off if Congress didn't make special exemptions to whatever set of rules for particular corporations or other economic interests they happen to favor. Since they mostly do that through tweaking the tax code, or passing targeted tariffs, subsidies, etc the best way to diminish their incentives for economic interests to buy off Congress would be to reform the tax code, etc so that whatever they pass applies to all corporations without exception. A flat tax is an easy way to do that on the tax side.

 

Same deal with speech one set of rules for everyone. You've demonstrated a singular incapacity to provide even the remotest inkling of any objective standard that could be used to differentiate "political speech" from speech with political consequences. My argument is that's because no such standard exists, and any attempts to enforce it would be hopelessly compromised by partisan motives.

 

Drug laws are another example. Once the government starts making subjective value judgments about which drugs are worse than others then the law-enforcement hammer arbitrarily falls on some groups more than others. I'd much rather end prohibition all together, but failing that - I'd much rather have a single code that applies to all illegal drugs than the current system.

[billcoe]

Jayb, you really raised some great points. Yet until we achieve that dream of a perfect tax situation you describe, one that I've been hearing of all my life but have never seen yet, I'd want to see who's buying whom and who is paying for what. There should be a dollar limit of who reports what. No one cares if little Jimmy puts .50 cents in Barak Obamas cookie jar for advertising. Sure, this reporting limit will be arbitrary. But congress is there to regulate commerce -that is their job, and they will always have lobbyists coming around to suck the bread off the table. Always. Even if you change the tax situation for corporations. Shine a light on them all like cockroaches in the dark is all most of us ask.

 

Whats wrong with transparency and honesty? It's all most of us really need or want.

 

Regards to all

[j_b]

The actual argument was that we'd be much better off if Congress didn't make special exemptions to whatever set of rules for particular corporations or other economic interests they happen to favor.

 

Except that we all know that you don't want any rules over business whatsoever, so spare us the empty rhetorics. You have no argument beyond stating they always try to subvert the rules.

 

 

Since they mostly do that through tweaking the tax code, or passing targeted tariffs, subsidies, etc the best way to diminish their incentives for economic interests to buy off Congress would be to reform the tax code, etc so that whatever they pass applies to all corporations without exception. A flat tax is an easy way to do that on the tax side.

 

No. A progressive tax according to income and capital gain level is what is needed. A flat tax is effectively regressive despite the "fair" sounding name. Half of corporations pay essentially no taxes in any given year and tax evasion is widespread among the wealthy. No more free ride for the uber-rich and their toadies. If you don't want to pay taxes commensurate to your take you can go live in Somalia where I hear government (the instrument of the taxpayer) is just the way you like it: very small.

 

Same deal with speech one set of rules for everyone. You've demonstrated a singular incapacity to provide even the remotest inkling of any objective standard that could be used to differentiate "political speech" from speech with political consequences. My argument is that's because no such standard exists, and any attempts to enforce it would be hopelessly compromised by partisan motives.

 

Objective standard? Partisan motives? ROTFL more partisan than the financial industry fucking over main street and buying congress? We all can tell who are the corporate shills. What have you ever said to reign in a financial sector gone wild?

 

Drug laws are another example. Once the government starts making subjective value judgments about which drugs are worse than others then the law-enforcement hammer arbitrarily falls on some groups more than others. I'd much rather end prohibition all together, but failing that - I'd much rather have a single code that applies to all illegal drugs than the current system.

 

Typical ideological nonsense from you. Some drugs are clearly detrimental to humans and they can't all be dealt with in the same fashion.

[billcoe]

If you don't want to pay taxes commensurate to your take you can go live in Somalia where I hear government (the instrument of the taxpayer) is just the way you like it: very small.

 

The "government", or what passes for it -the many "governments" or those seeking political power via military means, in Somalia is huge in comparison to their GDP. Furthermore, their system of commerce, which jayb is rallying about, is even less free and open than here in the states. That's what you get with more gov't regulation like you continually espouse. Jayb doesn't want that, you do.

 

So YOU move there. CYA!

[j_b]

The government, or what passes for it, in Somalia is huge in comparison to their GDP.

 

let's see the numbers since you pretend to know so much.

 

Furthermore, their system of commerce, which jayb is rallying about, is even less free and open than here in the states. That's what you get with more gov't regulation like you continually espouse.

 

The central government has control over nothing in Somalia. There are NO regulations to speak of. You appear to know fuckall about Somalia and the role of regulations.

 

Jayb doesn't want that, you do.

 

So YOU move there. CYA!

 

how could you say all of this with his cock in your mouth? I am amazed.

[JayB]

Jayb, you really raised some great points. Yet until we achieve that dream of a perfect tax situation you describe, one that I've been hearing of all my life but have never seen yet, I'd want to see who's buying whom and who is paying for what. There should be a dollar limit of who reports what. No one cares if little Jimmy puts .50 cents in Barak Obamas cookie jar for advertising. Sure, this reporting limit will be arbitrary. But congress is there to regulate commerce -that is their job, and they will always have lobbyists coming around to suck the bread off the table. Always. Even if you change the tax situation for corporations. Shine a light on them all like cockroaches in the dark is all most of us ask.

 

Whats wrong with transparency and honesty? It's all most of us really need or want.

 

Regards to all

 

Hey Bill - mostly agree, I just worry about where the lines would be drawn and whether or not they'd be applied impartially.

 

I also think that once you get too far beyond direct donations to political parties or political campaigns you quickly get into zones where the government has no business monitoring citizens.

 

I'd put donations to the NRA, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the ACLU, the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute, etc, etc, etc in that category. These are definitely groups with clear political agendas that generally line up with one side of the aisle or another, engage in quite a bit of lobbying, etc but don't think that they should be compelled by the government to disclose the identities of their donors or the amount they donated.

 

Some groups out there are closer to the line than others, but it looks fuzzy to me at best, and the picture gets even more complicated when you start analyzing each ad, leaflet, movie, etc, etc, etc.

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

Despite your repeated tries to have that largely irrelevant discussion, ~80% of Americans are against Citizens United and think that corporations/the wealthy shouldn't be able to buy elections, with or without disclosure. People aren't really falling for your side-show.

[j_b]

"Fed up with the fossil fuel industry funding the denial of science and buying congress into doing nothing? Well, just stop trying to control CO2 emissions and the oil industry will stop interfering with government. See, that was easy."

[j_b]

Boy, that was fun! let's see what other major corporate interference with government we can solve in a jiffy ...

 

"Fed up with a bloated financial sector being the main source of bribe money on the hill? well then, just stop telling them how to run the wall street casino, and stop trying to prevent them from practicing usury rates. How do you think we got rid of usury in the past and reigned in wild speculation after the great depression? Well, we just let them make their own rules, that's what we did"

Edited October 15, 2010 by j_b

[Nitrox]

Despite your repeated tries to have that largely irrelevant discussion, ~80% of Americans are against Citizens United and think that corporations/the wealthy shouldn't be able to buy elections, with or without disclosure. People aren't really falling for your side-show.

 

Cite the source for "80% of Americans".

 

 

[j_b]

Why? You don't know how to use a search engine?

 

"Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.

 

Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted.

 

The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents.html

[Nitrox]

Why? You don't know how to use a search engine?

 

"Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.

 

Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted.

 

The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents.html

 

An Op Ed isn't a valid source. I know that you love your Op Ed hit pieces as you constantly post Op Eds but they mean exactly jack shit...as you remind others when they post Op Eds.

 

87.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Cite a source, doucher.

 

 

[j_b]

are all would be libertarians blithering idiots? seriously?

[Nitrox]

are all would be libertarians blithering idiots? seriously?

 

So no source huh? No surprise, just like the last thread where I asked you substantiate your claims and you wouldn't.

 

80% of Americans oppose the courts decision? Are you that dumb that you just mindlessly repeat the media? 80% of American don't know who the top 5 ranking government officials so it stands to reason that 80% of Americans aren't even aware of the courts ruling in the first place.

 

Kind of hard to try and claim someone else is wrong when using such blatantly fictitious numbers without a source.

 

 

[j_b]

Your stupidity is mind numbing.

[JayB]

Despite your repeated tries to have that largely irrelevant discussion, ~80% of Americans are against Citizens United and think that corporations/the wealthy shouldn't be able to buy elections, with or without disclosure. People aren't really falling for your side-show.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

 

Bzzzt.

 

 

We vote on rules, not rights. Rules are constrained by rights, and we have courts to sort out specific tensions between the two. Not perfect, but better than mob rule. Unless you're Robespierre.

[j_b]

Classic appeal to victim-hood by a supporter of plutocratic rule. It's only next week that you'll claim to be for democracy, just not today. Hayekians and other neocons do believe the peons are too stupid to govern themselves, which explains their support for dictatorships as a lesser evil

Edited October 15, 2010 by j_b

[JayB]

All things being equal I prefer the likes of Turgot to Robespierre.

 

I've said before that the primary virtue of modern democratic institutions lies their capacity to preserve essential rights and liberties, rather than in the percentage of the population that votes.

 

If I had to choose, I would prefer a liberal state that limits participation in the political process and preserves the rule of law, defends the rights of minorities, etc to a state where there are zero checks on "the popular will." I'll take Singapore in '96 over Cambodia in '76.