Follow the Money

[j_b]

Spare us the fear-mongering about Robespierre and the libertarian nonsense about the "dictatorship of the majority": somehow, the peons can't vote on what's a right, only the 5 corporatists appointees of the Reagan/Bush administrations on the supreme court can do that. So apparently somebody is voting, it's just that they don't represent the popular consensus on whether corporations or the wealthy have the right to buy an election. What a surprise!!!

 

As if Cambodia 76 reflected the popular will. You need to have your head examined.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm just curious about what exact language in the Citizen's United ruling you object to and why. And no, that isn't a question with a patently obvious answer.

[j_b]

Has, as expected, this ruling opened the floodgates of corporate money into elections? yes. So, how is an arcane discussion about my understanding of the exact language going to help? Anyway, didn't we have that discussion already earlier this year?

[tvashtarkatena]

It has not opened any floodgates to campaigns, which constitute 'coordinated', or direct contributions. That's an erroneous reading of the ruling on your part. It does allow uncoordinated contributions to political efforts that are independent of campaigns. It allows corporate contributions for Swiftboating, for example, but not direct contributions to any actual candidates or their campaigns.

 

Should organizations independent of campaigns be able to speak their piece or should they be gagged by the incumbents in Congress?

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

I didn't say it had open floodgates to campaigns. You did.

[tvashtarkatena]

OK, substitute 'campaigns' for 'elections'. Sophist.

 

My last questions still stands. Who gets to tie the gag on political speech? When viewed from this perspective, the ruling takes on a much different light, doesn't it?

 

Citizens, including citizens who work for corporations, should be able to express their political views freely.

Edited October 15, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

Nope. By the end of this election cycle, 100's of million will be spent on the elections by conservative ad-hoc organizations, supposedly independent from campaigns.

 

I am not sure what you are talking about not everyone being able to speak freely. Speaking freely has little to do with corporations or the uber-rich pouring untold amount of cash into slanderous propaganda.

Edited October 15, 2010 by j_b

[JayB]

OK, substitute 'campaigns' for 'elections'. Sophist.

 

My last questions still stands. Who gets to tie the gag on political speech? When viewed from this perspective, the ruling takes on a much different light, doesn't it?

 

Citizens, including citizens who work for corporations, should be able to express their political views freely.

 

Listen, buddy. I'm the libertarian regressive corporate shill around here....

[tvashtarkatena]

Hey, if a bunch of faux libertariatards want to forego buying that new four wheeler and stuff their extra cash into a faux 'grassroots' compost pile, I'm all for it.

 

If you're so concerned about it, mount a counter-fund raising campaign and Make That Movie That Will Change the World!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Nope. By the end of this election cycle, 100's of million will be spent on the elections by conservative ad-hoc organizations, supposedly independent from campaigns.

 

and 100's of millions will be spent on the elections by liberal ad-hoc organizations, supposedly independent from campaigns...

 

you myopic fucktard

 

[j_b]

there is little doubt about it whatever confusion may ensconce the fetishists.

[tvashtarkatena]

What I like about primitive societies is, when they don't appreciate someone's political views, they spear kill them.

 

So much more...honest, you know?

[j_b]

Nope. By the end of this election cycle, 100's of million will be spent on the elections by conservative ad-hoc organizations, supposedly independent from campaigns.

 

and 100's of millions will be spent on the elections by liberal ad-hoc organizations, supposedly independent from campaigns...

 

you myopic fucktard

 

sorry but we aren't going to restart this argument because morons like you can't read.

[JayB]

Nope. By the end of this election cycle, 100's of million will be spent on the elections by conservative ad-hoc organizations, supposedly independent from campaigns.

 

and 100's of millions will be spent on the elections by liberal ad-hoc organizations, supposedly independent from campaigns...

 

 

I think he's quite okay with that set of consequences from the Citizen's United ruling. It's the impartiality that's problematic.

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't go for any measure that reduces my political power as a citizen - whether they be gags on my free speech or limiting my ability to vote for who I want through term limits. That fact that I live in a country where half the population is operating from a barely functioning brain stem doesn't change that. That's what constitutional protections are for - to put a cyclone fence around a possible brain stem zombie uprising.

[JayB]

I don't go for any measure that reduces my political power as a citizen - whether they be gags on my free speech or limiting my ability to vote for who I want through term limits. That fact that I live in a country where half the population is operating from a barely functioning brain stem doesn't change that. That's what constitutional protections are for - to put a cyclone fence around a possible brain stem zombie uprising.

 

Now you're *really* reading straight from the Regressive Handbook.

[j_b]

and 100's of millions will be spent on the elections by liberal ad-hoc organizations, supposedly independent from campaigns...

 

I think he's quite okay with that set of consequences from the Citizen's United ruling. It's the impartiality that's problematic.

 

JayB and the other nincompoops have already forgotten about the Washington post article posted 2 pages ago showing that ad-hoc conservative organizations are outspending liberal ones 7:1, while most of their contributions come form large wealthy donors and corporations.

[JayB]

and 100's of millions will be spent on the elections by liberal ad-hoc organizations, supposedly independent from campaigns...

 

I think he's quite okay with that set of consequences from the Citizen's United ruling. It's the impartiality that's problematic.

 

JayB and the other nincompoops have already forgotten about the Washington post article posted 2 pages ago showing that ad-hoc conservative organizations are outspending liberal ones 7:1, while most of their contributions come form large wealthy donors and corporations.

 

Now we're getting to the heart of your objections. If the distribution of spending favored your side, we wouldn't be hearing much from you, methinks.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm perfectly fine with exercising my amplified political power over my fellow, fallow, non-participatory man to forward my social agenda. And I'm perfectly fine with using money, and lots of it, to do just that. I'm also perfectly fine with forcing, through legal means, bigots out of the political process to protect and promote fundamental human rights. My will over theirs. Yup, I'm absolutely fine with that.

[tvashtarkatena]

and 100's of millions will be spent on the elections by liberal ad-hoc organizations, supposedly independent from campaigns...

 

I think he's quite okay with that set of consequences from the Citizen's United ruling. It's the impartiality that's problematic.

 

JayB and the other nincompoops have already forgotten about the Washington post article posted 2 pages ago showing that ad-hoc conservative organizations are outspending liberal ones 7:1, while most of their contributions come form large wealthy donors and corporations.

 

Now we're getting to the heart of your objections. If the distribution of spending favored your side, we wouldn't be hearing much from you, methinks.

 

Yup. Get busy, jb!

 

As anyone who does fundraising already knows, the lion's share of any donor funded organization's contributions, regardless of political bent, comes from a relatively few wealthy donors. It's very rare when an organization is primarily funded by lots of small donors, who tend to be, let's say, fickle, not very loyal, and very costly on a per capita basis in terms of fund raising efforts.

 

Edited October 15, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

I don't go for any measure that reduces my political power as a citizen

 

because the institutionalization of corporations buying elections don't reduce your political power? You are clueless.

 

- whether they be gags on my free speech or limiting my ability to vote for who I want through term limits. That fact that I live in a country where half the population is operating from a barely functioning brain stem doesn't change that. That's what constitutional protections are for - to put a cyclone fence around a possible brain stem zombie uprising.

 

spoken like an elitist who ignores how corporate media manufacture consents, how a perpetually dysfunctional government betrays constituencies year after year leading to disenfranchisement of ~50% of the population, etc ..

[tvashtarkatena]

The ACLU is a corporation.

[j_b]

 

JayB and the other nincompoops have already forgotten about the Washington post article posted 2 pages ago showing that ad-hoc conservative organizations are outspending liberal ones 7:1, while most of their contributions come form large wealthy donors and corporations.

 

Now we're getting to the heart of your objections. If the distribution of spending favored your side, we wouldn't be hearing much from you, methinks.

 

Liar. I have no problem with any organization spending money on elections when their money comes from many small contributions.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

JayB and the other nincompoops have already forgotten about the Washington post article posted 2 pages ago showing that ad-hoc conservative organizations are outspending liberal ones 7:1, while most of their contributions come form large wealthy donors and corporations.

 

Now we're getting to the heart of your objections. If the distribution of spending favored your side, we wouldn't be hearing much from you, methinks.

 

Liar. I have no problem with any organization spending money on elections when their money comes from many small contributions.

 

Define "small"? (other than your nuts, which we know are microscopic)

 

 

[j_b]

 

Now we're getting to the heart of your objections. If the distribution of spending favored your side, we wouldn't be hearing much from you, methinks.

 

Yup. Get busy, jb!

 

lying piece of shit!

 

As anyone who does fundraising already knows, the lion's share of any donor funded organization's contributions, regardless of political bent, comes from a relatively few wealthy donors. It's very rare when an organization is primarily funded by lots of small donors, who tend to be, let's say, fickle, not very loyal, and very costly on a per capita basis in terms of fund raising efforts.

 

if small contributors don't come through, fOrget it. We don't need the untold millions spent on sound-bytes. Many other countries have a more engaged, knowlaedgeable populations and spend a fraction of what we spend on elections.