Supreme Court Provides For Corporate Takeover of Nation

Cycloptichorn wrote:

they did so in order to advance the Conservative and Republican cause in this country, because those are the allies of Big Business and enemies of all regulation in general.

Says you.

The Supreme Court says they did it for different reasons: A plaintiff had appealed to them with the claim that the FEC had violated their First Amendment rights. The FEC had defended its restrictions as constitutional. Therefore the Supreme Court had to decide the conflict. I have no evidence to suggest they're lying.

Says reality, c'mon man. Don't buy into what is such transparent bullshit.

We have entered into a situation in which it will be practically impossible to reverse the course of events, and it's extremely troubling that this is the case - and that people don't give a ****.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Says reality, c'mon man. Don't buy into what is such transparent bullshit.

You have supplied no evidence for this assertion. If everything short of agreement with your views defaults to "transparent", I'm afraid we've reached an impasse in our discussion.

Ditto. I have considered your opinion and disagree with it. If that constitutes "not giving a ****" to you, so be it.

Do you truly not see the situation which has been created by this ruling, and the dangers that arise from it?

Disagreed with it? You have not addressed it at all. You haven't talked about the real-world effects this unrestricted Corporate spending will have in elections at all.

I do see the situation, and think Congress has can realistically fix it before the next elections with a new classification. This classification could be money-toting, or some other criterion that actually matters. Also, the classification will be independent of the organizations' legal form. I consider that a good thing.

Do you honestly believe that a 'fix' can be passed before the next election? Or is this just some sort of blue-skying on what should be done?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you honestly believe that a 'fix' can be passed before the next election? Or is this just some sort of blue-skying on what should be done?

Wanna bet? Dinner at the Italian place in Berkeley, whenever my first trip to Berkeley happens after November 2010?

I am amazed that people continue to speak of this as though it were innovation. It's not. It simply returns the situation to the way it was before McCain-Feingold.

Define 'fix' and what it does, and you're on!

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Define 'fix' and what it does, and you're on!

The restrictions on electioneering by General Motors would be similarly stringent as they were under the old law. But the distinction would draw on something like General Motors' spending power not on its being a corporation. We'll have to rely on "we'll know it when we see it" for definitions of "similarly stringent" and "something like [...] spending power".

Certainly not, and in this and the other thread i have described the decision as unfortunate. While it is not a cause for rejoicing, neither is it a cause for despair. We are simply back at square one.

Define 'fix' and what it does, and you're on!

The president isn't thrilled with it, either.

"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."