After all, what is Obama going to do when companies start running ads about the projected impact of cap and trade?
Corporations have always had the right to run ads about the projected impact of cap and trade.
But not tie it to a specific candidate.
And with the unconstitutional power that Obama is wielding, I would be nervous about running ads against his policies without tying it to him. Especially when so many Obama voters were ignorant of what he actually stood for and didn't know much beyond him being smart, well-spoken, and potentially the first black president.
After Obama refused public financing, breaking his promise, in the 2008 election and then spent billions of dollars in online donations from foreigners, I think I know why he is so upset about people in corporations being given their free speech rights back.
After all, what is Obama going to do when companies start running ads about the projected impact of cap and trade?
For ****'s sake, have you read anything that has been posted in this thread?
This decision will not have a substantial impact on the amount of money that corporations throw at politics.
WHY? ?? Corporations devised Cap & TradeAfter Obama refused public financing, breaking his promise, in the 2008 election and then spent billions of dollars in online donations from foreigners, I think I know why he is so upset about people in corporations being given their free speech rights back.
After all, what is Obama going to do when companies start running ads about the projected impact of cap and trade?
It's interesting that you criticize Obama for spending campaign contributions from foreigners when the SCOTUS decision may allow influence of the U.S. government by corporations owned by foreign investors.
I think it puts corporations on equal footing with unions.Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that allows massive sums to be spent to influence future elections.
The 5-4 ruling split the high court along conservative and liberal lines. It was a defeat for the Obama administration and supporters of campaign finance laws who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system.
This is the greatest case of SCOTUS incompetence I have ever seen.
Lets all give the cluess assholes who voted to alllow the corporate buyoff of the government a big hand. The justices responsible for voting "yes" on this issue (probably republicans) needs to be removed from office.
This country just lost key liberty and no longer has free and fair elections.
The SCOTUS ... what a bunch of ****ing imbeciles.
I think it puts corporations on equal footing with unions.
I think it puts corporations on equal footing with unions.
Many support full disclosure of contributions as well so as voters can determine who is actually contributing and where the money is coming from.
I think it puts corporations on equal footing with unions.
The only issue is that it's easier for businesses to form than it is for unions to form in this country. I once read a news article about the difficulty for workers to form a union in a shop. I'll see if I can hunt it down. The reason why it's important is that if a union is more difficult to form than a business, then it will lead to a de facto overwhelming advantage to businesses and managers than to unions and workers.
I'm not so sure if I even like this though. What if I want to give $10 to a political candidate that my family hates? I'd want to keep it secret so that I don't have to hear about it from them. Is that such a bad thing?
There is no competition between unions. There is competition between businesses though. This is all that is necessary for workers to get their due pay.
let's look at your example magnified
say a mob boss wants to "contribute" $5 million to a judge's campaign, but wants to keep it a secret so the FBI does not learn of it. is that so bad
just wanted to illustrate that sometimes the perfect really is an enemy of the good
There is no competition between unions. There is competition between businesses though. This is all that is necessary for workers to get their due pay.
I think it puts corporations on equal footing with unions.
That's pretty much the way it is now, at least for campaign money.
As for personal funds, even politicians have some level of a right to privacy and being considered innocent until proven guilty.
I don't like it when the unions do it and I dislike the ID of corporate scumbags being allowed to do it.
A law needs to be made to outlaw it completely.
It's interesting that you criticize Obama for spending campaign contributions from foreigners when the SCOTUS decision may allow influence of the U.S. government by corporations owned by foreign investors.
SCOTUS Decision Allows Foreign Influence of U.S. Elections | Progressive Nation
Several other analysts, however, cautioned that the fear was being overblown and that foreign companies would be reluctant to dabble in U.S. politics for the same reason some American companies steer clear, to avoid angering consumers.
“It is a plausible inference from the court’s opinion that [foreign] money can’t be restricted,” said Michael Dorf, a Cornell law professor who has backed giving foreigners the right to contribute to U.S. campaigns. “For me, that’s not such a terrible thing.”
Dorf said it was unlikely that large multinational companies would want to weigh in in most elections. “If I’m the CEO of a major corporation, I’m going to be very leery of directly supporting or opposing a candidate. ... It’s just not good business to alienate potential customers,” he said.
Sure, that is true, though not a particularly persuasive argument for making a bad situation, worse.
This is why I hate dealing with prominent SC cases - "journalists" who don't know the first thing about the law perpetually miss the point.
That article is correct in saying that this decision could mean that foreign companies could spend to influence our government. What it neglects to mention is that foreign companies already spend to influence our government. The article bemoans the possibility of Citgo spending billions on advertising as a way to subvert our democracy, but ignores the fact that Citgo already spends millions lobbying Congress via its American subsidiaries.
Which one of those seems more likely to "subvert democracy"?
Also:
Decision may mean more foreign cash - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
Again, I don't see how anything is made worse. We had an unworkable system that violated the first amendment and restricted the speech of small corporations while letting big corporations do whatever they wanted. Now we have a workable system that is constitutional and lets everyone speak freely.
This was never about speech. It was about John Roberts and his Reich-wing cronies remove the barriers preventing their big business special interests from buying out Politicians wholesale.
How'd he get Anthony Kennedy to come on board?
:Oopsie
Good question. I have been wondering that myself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?