thoughts on this one?

[bpwallace49]

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...=314485&hl=

 

I just posted that link instead of reposting everything in that thread about this subject posted earlier . . .

Edited January 21, 2010 by bpwallace49

[tosberg34]

well the part that's a little confusing is when you or yo says organizations don't have free speech because they aren't individuals, and then in the next breath say oh but some organizations deserve free speech while others don't. is it that non-profit organizations should get free speech, but for-profit organizations shouldn't? what about a technically "non-profit" organization comprised entirely of people with similar economic interests, say a union or a chamber of commerce or a bar association? all of these organizations are voluntary, and all of them have their own internal processes for determining how the collective views of the organization will be formulated and transmitted, so I don't see any meaningful distinction there. I think the court realizes those lines are nearly impossible to draw, for one thing. and that when the government is drawing them anyway the possibilities for corruption and favoritism are nearly endless, for another. which is why their ruling gives previously censored free speech to BOTH the sierra club and verizon.

 

+1. Spot-on, Az.

[skylive5]

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...=314485&hl=

 

I just posted that link instead of reposting everything in that thread about this subject posted earlier . . .

 

While that is true... there is an even better truism... you aren't wiegie.

[Ursa Majoris]

well the part that's a little confusing is when you or yo says organizations don't have free speech because they aren't individuals, and then in the next breath say oh but some organizations deserve free speech while others don't. is it that non-profit organizations should get free speech, but for-profit organizations shouldn't? what about a technically "non-profit" organization comprised entirely of people with similar economic interests, say a union or a chamber of commerce or a bar association? all of these organizations are voluntary, and all of them have their own internal processes for determining how the collective views of the organization will be formulated and transmitted, so I don't see any meaningful distinction there. I think the court realizes those lines are nearly impossible to draw, for one thing. and that when the government is drawing them anyway the possibilities for corruption and favoritism are nearly endless, for another. which is why their ruling gives previously censored free speech to BOTH the sierra club and verizon.

I think I addressed the union issue earlier - they should not be allowed to contribute. As for the "like-minded", let them have agreements in place that people can sign up for or leave if they don't agree.

 

BTW - the use of "free speech" to describe this issue is misleading, regardless of what the SC says. This isn't about speech, this is about the ability to buy politicians and elections.

[Kid Cid]

well the part that's a little confusing is when you or yo says organizations don't have free speech because they aren't individuals, and then in the next breath say oh but some organizations deserve free speech while others don't. is it that non-profit organizations should get free speech, but for-profit organizations shouldn't? what about a technically "non-profit" organization comprised entirely of people with similar economic interests, say a union or a chamber of commerce or a bar association? all of these organizations are voluntary, and all of them have their own internal processes for determining how the collective views of the organization will be formulated and transmitted, so I don't see any meaningful distinction there. I think the court realizes those lines are nearly impossible to draw, for one thing. and that when the government is drawing them anyway the possibilities for corruption and favoritism are nearly endless, for another. which is why their ruling gives previously censored free speech to BOTH the sierra club and verizon.

Whoa there bucko. Being a member in a union is not voluntary in some states (i.e. if your workplace is unionized then you must belong) and therefore some money comes out of your pocket in the form of union dues which gets fed to individual candidates via the AFL-CIO. So it is a distinct possibility that a dues paying member of a union would never give money to the candidate that the AFL-CIO chooses. That puts unions in teh exact same category as Corporations when it comes to this discussion IMO.

 

FWIW, I tend to agree with yo and ursa on this one.

[bpwallace49]

While that is true... there is an even better truism... you aren't wiegie.

 

Very true . . so I shall cut and paste . .

 

This opens up to big unions and corporations contributing more to their respective candidates. IMO this REALLY hurts potential third party candidates from generating enough grass roots supprt to overcome corporate donations for campaign funds.

 

A lot of Obama's campaign contributions were made by small increments from individuals. With the swing against the left inevitable, it seemed possible that a serious 3rd party independent could challenge for those independent donations. Now with the purse strings opening up for corporations and unions to freely contribute again, the recent decision puts all the power back to the Republicans and Democrats and their deep pocketed contributers that curry politcal favor.

 

Bad news for independents and 3rd party candidates .

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Obama Statement on Citizens United v. FECJanuary 21, 2010

 

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON TODAY'S SUPREME COURT DECISION

 

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.

[Savage Beatings]

Obama Statement on Citizens United v. FECJanuary 21, 2010

 

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON TODAY'S SUPREME COURT DECISION

 

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.

 

 

What exactly does he think they can do about it? Besides new legislation which would probably also be struck down by the same Court, it seems like any kind of response other than a constitutional ammendment just wouldn't have any teeth.

[Ursa Majoris]

What exactly does he think they can do about it? Besides new legislation which would probably also be struck down by the same Court, it seems like any kind of response other than a constitutional ammendment just wouldn't have any teeth.

Fire Roberts and replace him with a lefty.

[Savage Beatings]

Fire Roberts and replace him with a lefty.

 

I think they would actually need some grounds to pull something like that off. But it'll be fun to watch them try.

[Azazello1313]

can't wait to see obama's bipartisan "forceful response" to the first amendment.

[Azazello1313]

it seems like a lot of you are saying this decision is GOOD in the sense that it grants free speech to some organizations, like the ACLU, the sierra club, etc. you just don't want that same free speech to apply to other organizations.

[bpwallace49]

it seems like a lot of you are saying this decision is GOOD in the sense that it grants free speech to some organizations, like the ACLU, the sierra club, etc. you just don't want that same free speech to apply to other organizations.

 

This is about the ability to buy and sell politicans and elections. I am not in favor of anyone having that ability. Right or left.

 

More than anything this firmly squashes any realistic shot any third party candidate may ever have. Corporations and unions know where their bread is buttered, so any non-elephant or non-donkey has ZERO chance of matching up money for money ad space unless they are a gazillionaire and put up their personal cash.

 

Victory for Demcrats and Republicans . . . defeat for anyone that doesnt blindly follow party lines.

[Perchoutofwater]

This is about the ability to buy and sell politicans and elections. I am not in favor of anyone having that ability. Right or left.

 

More than anything this firmly squashes any realistic shot any third party candidate may ever have. Corporations and unions know where their bread is buttered, so any non-elephant or non-donkey has ZERO chance of matching up money for money ad space unless they are a gazillionaire and put up their personal cash.

 

Victory for Demcrats and Republicans . . . defeat for anyone that doesnt blindly follow party lines.

 

I agree with you, but based on the 1st Amendment I think it is the right decision. We do want the court actually following the Constitution and it's amendments don't we?

[Ursa Majoris]

it seems like a lot of you are saying this decision is GOOD in the sense that it grants free speech to some organizations, like the ACLU, the sierra club, etc. you just don't want that same free speech to apply to other organizations.

You are the master at blithely ignoring what has gone before and I salute your insouciance. Several times we have attempted to define the differences between different kinds of organizations for you but you insist on lumping them all together regardless.

 

I think you are glossing over the several bits where we have said that - in general terms - a non-profit "like-minded" organization you voluntarily sign up for e.g. chamber of commerce, Sierra Club, Shapeshifters Anonymous or whatever, should be free to openly donate to whatever candidate they choose as long as all the members are aware of this and can leave without penalty.

 

Unions and corporations should stay the hell out as they can't meet the above criteria.

 

Side note - I don't agree with donations of any kind anyway. 100% public financing is my preference but I do understand that's not likely. I'll take the partial elimination of political graft that a ban on corporate / union donations would bring instead.

[bpwallace49]

I agree with you, but based on the 1st Amendment I think it is the right decision. We do want the court actually following the Constitution and it's amendments don't we?

 

Based on that I completely agree. However the implications on campaign reform (or lack thereof) just entrenches the two parties that a lot of people arent too happy with over the last couple years. I wish there was some kind of compromise that would maintain campaign integrity and even allow the possibility of a third party candidate getting SOME shot.

 

No good answer to this one . . . I wish there were. Frustrating that this is just another vehicle to keep the Dems and Repubs at the top of the heap and have $$$ the main determinant . .

 

The only positive I could see from the whole "tax the big banks" idea (if there IS any good ideas in there) is that people would flow to smaller, local banks and no bank would be "too big to fail". Could there be a cap on campaign contributions that extended to value of airtime? Put a daollar value for the going rate, and then cap the amounts that can be donated by single entities, be it individuals, unions or corporations? That way, depending on the threshold, big money cant donate more than a couple commercials based on going rates? Would that level the playing field?

[bpwallace49]

Here is some more analysis . .

 

WINNER:

 

_Voters. Not sure where a candidate stands on an issue? Not sure how to vote? Need more information to make a wise decision? Never fear. Corporations and unions are likely to tell you their version of things now that they're freed from restrictions. But buyer beware: It's still up to voters to separate fact from fiction.

 

LOSER:

 

_Voters. Had enough of campaign ads? Too bad. People probably will have to endure even more now that corporations and unions can spend as much as they want from their general treasuries right up to the moment of an election. Voters will have to discern the motivations behind the ad campaigns as best they can. And more ads will only boost the potential for more salacious spots and negative campaigning.

 

WINNER:

 

_Corporations and unions. These high-dollar entities can now can spend freely to support or oppose named candidates for president and Congress. By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling barring such ads.

 

LOSER:

 

_Political parties and many candidates. More voices in the mix means candidates and parties will have even less control of the message. And they won't be able to do anything to stop groups from running ads they don't like. Still, cash-strapped candidates could welcome such independent spending that attacks an opponent. Political parties now face more restrictions than outside groups on election-time communications.

 

WINNER:

 

_The First Amendment. The ruling was clearly a victory for this pillar of democracy. Critics of the stricter limits had argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed. There certainly will be even more of a marketplace of ideas. Corporations and unions can now advertise what they please.

 

LOSER:

 

_Civility and truthfulness. Watch out candidates: You may not like what you hear. And there will be little you can do about it. Both Republicans and Democrats say ads are likely to get tougher now that outside groups can expressly advocate for or against candidates. And it will be up to voters to sort through the clutter.

 

WINNER:

 

_Media companies, TV and radio stations. They already see a financial windfall every two and four years during congressional and presidential campaigns. Paydays could be even bigger now. A flood of corporate and union money for ads in federal campaigns is expected as early as this fall's midterm campaigns.

 

LOSERS:

 

_Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. They are the fathers of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that sought to restrain the influence of money on elections. The justices struck down the part of the law that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

[yo mama]

it seems like a lot of you are saying this decision is GOOD in the sense that it grants free speech to some organizations, like the ACLU, the sierra club, etc. you just don't want that same free speech to apply to other organizations.

And the NRA, and pro-life organizations, and religious groups, and the KKK, and...

 

This isn't a liberal v. conservative issue. It's about about the voice of the citizenry being drown out by corporate influence.

[pig devilz]

As it has always been, it will be up to the individual citizen to do his/her homework on

the candidates to see who is really supporting them and who they are really campaigning for.

 

I see a bright future for groups, companies, etc that will track the 'donations' from corporations

and companies and bring them to the light of day for the voters to see.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Olbermann on now talking about this....this should be good.

 

Already said that Obama is proposing taxes and regulations on banks, but whatever he passes they will just spend "eleventy billion" dollars to buy his successor and roll it all back.

 

More I think about this, more I think it's a HORRIBLE decision. Congress for sale, even now more than ever. HORRIBLE.

[Azazello1313]

You are the master at blithely ignoring what has gone before and I salute your insouciance. Several times we have attempted to define the differences between different kinds of organizations for you but you insist on lumping them all together regardless.

 

I think you are glossing over the several bits where we have said that - in general terms - a non-profit "like-minded" organization you voluntarily sign up for e.g. chamber of commerce, Sierra Club, Shapeshifters Anonymous or whatever, should be free to openly donate to whatever candidate they choose as long as all the members are aware of this and can leave without penalty.

 

Unions and corporations should stay the hell out as they can't meet the above criteria.

 

Side note - I don't agree with donations of any kind anyway. 100% public financing is my preference but I do understand that's not likely. I'll take the partial elimination of political graft that a ban on corporate / union donations would bring instead.

 

And the NRA, and pro-life organizations, and religious groups, and the KKK, and...

 

This isn't a liberal v. conservative issue. It's about about the voice of the citizenry being drown out by corporate influence.

 

well yeah. I think you both are missing my point. up until now, the ACLU and the NRA (and the sierra club and the chamber of commerce and so on) were censored. this decision grants them a right that you seem to be saying they should have. so, like I said, it would seem you are saying that it is GOOD in that it grants free speech to some organizations. you just don't want it to apply to others, because, as best I can tell, you don't think being a shareholder in a corporation or a dues-paying union member is sufficiently "voluntary".

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Alan Grayson (FL) " This decision institutionalizes bribery..." and "Maybe we'll end up wearing corporate logos..."

Edited January 22, 2010 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[Azazello1313]

interesting paper

 

Why Is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics?

 

Abstract

Thirty years ago, Gordon Tullock posed a provocative puzzle: considering the value of public

policies at stake and the reputed influence of campaign contributions in policy-making, why is

there so little money in U.S. politics? In this paper, we argue that campaign contributions are

not a form of policy-buying, but are rather a form of political participation and consumption.

We summarize the data on campaign spending, and show through our descriptive statistics

and our econometric analysis that individuals, not special interests, are the main source of

campaign contributions. Moreover, we demonstrate that campaign giving is a normal good,

dependent upon income, and campaign contributions as a percent of GDP have not risen

appreciably in over 100 years - if anything, they have probably fallen. We then show that only

one in four studies from the previous literature support the popular notion that contributions

buy legislators' votes. Finally, we illustrate that when one controls for unobserved constituent

and legislator e®ects, there is little relationship between money and legislator votes. Thus,

the question is not why there is so little money politics, but rather why organized interests

give at all. We conclude by o®ering potential answers to this question.

 

I dunno, I think graft and pork and lobbyists and croneyism are big problems in our political system. I just don't think getting out the government censor muzzle is a constructive way of addressing the problem. the freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment are far more important.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

This decision could end up being the rallying call of a grass roots movement on the left, much like the Tea Party was on the right. Once corporate money starts flowing in and going over the line people are gonna get pissed and they are gonna get organized...

[evil_gop_liars]

This decision could end up being the rallying call of a grass roots movement on the left, much like the Tea Party was on the right. Once corporate money starts flowing in and going over the line people are gonna get pissed and they are gonna get organized...

 

You have to start voting with your pocket book.

 

When For Dummies spends a billion to get Palin/Brown elected in 2012, you stop buying their books.