Welcome to PatsFans.com

Keeping Politics Safe for the Rich

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Jun 9, 2010.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,692
    Likes Received:
    256
    Ratings:
    +473 / 2 / -10

    #87 Jersey

    Interesting opinion of a recent SCOTUS case.

    Editorial - Keeping Politics Safe for the Rich - NYTimes.com

  2. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yeah free speech is a pesky thing... everyone gets to practice it - even all those *******s you disagree with.

    (Note: I am responding to the writer of the opinion piece and not IcyPatriot :D )
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,830
    Likes Received:
    89
    Ratings:
    +150 / 3 / -19

    The divide between the military industrial folks and wartime decisions have been blurred, the divide between industry and goverment regulation has been blurred and now the divide between the uberrich and government has been blurred.. the trend is obvious and frightening.

    But it will swing the other way, not confident soon, but it usually does.
  4. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,813
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +145 / 2 / -1


    Is spending really speech? If it is, does that mean there can be no curbs on it?

    (Bribery is illegal. Gambling is sometimes illegal. Antitrust regs often curb corporate spending on other companies. These are three curbs on spending, off the top of my head -- should they be legalized due to freedom of speech?)
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Corporations are people. That's where this country is today in the so-called "Class warfare" corporate fascists constantly whine about through their media mouthpieces. They complain that they can't be heard in government unless they're allowed unrestricted access via campaign fundraising. It's a disturbing trend but not a surprising one.

    And I disagree with Daryll on this. I don't see the pendulum swinging back on this one before it's too late. It's been swinging in favor of corporations and the rich (same thing, right?) since the late 70's and there is no sign that it will change in time to salvage the power of the People. We are in the midst of full co-option of the government by corporations that will be so entrenched that even elections will have no importance anymore. All candidates will be funded by big business and PSC's very soon, to the point of making individual donations seem miniscule and irrelevant by comparison.

    Once in office is when the real leverage can be used because, as we all know, politicians begin their fundraising for re-election the day they are elected. During their time in office, the massive amounts of funding available to the politician is dangled before them as incentive to vote on matters in a way that will help keep the money flowing into the campaign warchest. The political piece has now reached the last hope we had of correcting this imbalance of power- the SCOTUS. They continue to decide in favor of money, profit and economic "development" over the rights of individuals that the fascists are so fond of invoking.

    The corporate media (left and right) reinforces this by refusing to address the massive fraud being perpetrated on us by the big donaters (bribers) and celebrating each election as some sort of "victory for democracy" and the "thundering voice of the People"...when they all know what's going on. They're not talking because their revenues are going higher and they're being kept comfortable beyond their wildest dreams.

    Corporations are not people. People are people. The Constitution was written for the People and every myth we were told about democracy is being flushed down the toilet. I makes me sad that so few are able to see that they're living in the Matrix, and even when they do, they chose the blue pill almost every time.
  6. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Quoted for Truth. If more people at least nibbled on the red pill our country wouldn't be where it is now. :(
  7. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Here's a good one to try on someone: Ask them what a gallon of gasoline costs. If they say "$2.87", they took the blue pill. If they say "$17.42" they've had the red pill and are living a miserable existence of frustration and solitude.

    Someone shoot me now!
  8. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Those analogies are too ridiculous to address.

    If I (or an entity I control) have $1 million that I want to spend telling the public how wonderful one candidate is (and how poor the other one is) who do you think you are to tell me I can't do that?
  9. JackBauer

    JackBauer On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,604
    Likes Received:
    149
    Ratings:
    +270 / 6 / -4

    I'm shocked that people actually think we need more corporate influence in our politics.
  10. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    The message that corporations are equal to people dehumanizes people, IMO, and that message is working on far too many of us.
  11. JackBauer

    JackBauer On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,604
    Likes Received:
    149
    Ratings:
    +270 / 6 / -4

    That and the fact that politicians are already much too beholden to special interests. I didn't really see the lack of corporate influence as a problem in need of remediation.

    Of course, reversing a century of precedent is also not an issue. Because judges are only activists when they are liberal.
  12. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    lol "sometimes I wish I took the blue pill" .....
    I think more people are starting to get it though, especially young people. Almost all my friends see at least part of the light, my family does, my bf does, some of my coworkers do. But random people that I meet mostly seem live in their own world but I think one can only wrap your mind around just so much at a time.
  13. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,813
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +145 / 2 / -1

    They're not ridiculous to address, given that you appear to view spending as speech and believe that we can't have any curbs on free speech (and therefore spending).

    Clearly there are curbs. So the question is how and where is the line drawn?

    I haven't told you you can't spend $1mm on a candidate. You're again reading something into my post that simply isn't there. I don't have a position on this issue yet. On the one hand, I agree with your example. On the other hand, I don't think spending = speech, and I recognize that there are in fact curbs on both spending and speech, and I think that unlimited spending can be very dangerous.

    You can spend $1mm on advertising for a candidate (or an issue, maybe? not sure where the law is now) -- but you're limited to $2000 or so in donations to a candidate. Is that OK?
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,725
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2

    I don't yet have a position on this, since I'm not sure I completely understand the different points involved. I found this interesting though.

    One thing I don't agree with here, is AZ's notion that restricting people's ability to raise/spend funds for a campaign, prevents corruption. Why penalize honest candidates because some previous individuals were corrupt? Furthermore, if I decide to empty my savings, in my attempt to win a political seat, why should taxpayers subsidize my personal financing, in providing a matching amount to those running against me. Just some thoughts. Of course, to me, there's the state's rights issue, of what the people of AZ feel is in their best interests. I need more perspective from both sides, and specifics behind the reasoning for the decision, before I can decide where I fall.
  15. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Isn't that why we elected Neo last election? To save us all from the Matrix?
  16. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    He IS the Matrix but if he's Neo I shudder to think who Morpheus is:eek:
  17. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My money is on Bill Ayers.
  18. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Or Saul Alinsky. :eek:
  19. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

  20. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You're comparing free speech to illegal activites. I believe in free speech. Only the most warped perspective can take my belief in free speech and use that to deduce that I also support bribery, illegal gambling or antitrust violations.
    Well you haven't had the fortitude to come forward with a position of your own. But telling me I can't spend $1 million on a candidate is exactly what others are trying to do. They are trying to prevent people and/or entities from being allowed to spend their money to advance their political beliefs.
    Well, things cost money. Whether we are talking about commercial time on TV, printing and distributing flyers and bumper stickers, or renting public space to hold a rally.
    I can't answer your questions because I don't think your statement accurately reflects what the current laws are (though I gladly admit I may be mistaken). So let me summarize my position in my own words: An individual or entity (and by "entity" that can be anything from a special interest group to a corporation) should be able to spend their money however they darn well feel like, and if that includes spending millions of dollars to advance a certain political viewpoint, so be it. To restrict the ability to do so is a violation of free speech.
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2010

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>