| *goodco* 21.01.2010 21:23 |
by not limiting corporate finance donations, in a 5-4 ruling today. Just do a google. So, if a Chinese corporation wants to spend a billion on its candidate, its candidates, or its self-serving propositions in America, it can. If the Saudis want to spend a billion, they can. No limits. Given more 'individual' rights than certain minorities had less than 50 years ago. The future ramifications are frightening. A very, very sad day. |
| Micrówave 22.01.2010 10:01 |
Ain't Capitalism grand? |
| The Real Wizard 22.01.2010 10:43 |
link Check out this article... Obama's response is right on the money. I don't know my US politics well, but... can't the President somehow veto this? That's all Bush ever did after the Democrats had control of the senate. |
| john bodega 22.01.2010 10:53 |
Nice article - talk about a huge step in the wrong direction. They ought to limit campaign budgets to a thousand dollars. Any politician who can set up an easy to understand, no-bullshit site that says exactly what they're going to do (without wasting a single word on what "the other people have been failing to do") and still have money left over will have infinitely more respect from me than some cunt who throws millions of dollars down the gurgler only to set up disingenuous videos and smear campaigns. What a lot of fucking wankers. |
| Bo Rhap 22.01.2010 16:15 |
Exactly Zeb This is why i do not trust any politians with anything no matter which country we're talking about. When Obama came in i thought a change was in the air but................ |
| GratefulFan 22.01.2010 16:53 |
I actually don't think this is an bad thing in the medium term. This was a first amendment ruling, and some overrerach and inequity had begun to creep in around decisions and policy under the campaign finance umbrella. Now, lawmakers will scramble to legislate the worst of the potential abuses back out, while being forced to look at things through free speech and anti-censorship filters . The legislative corrections might not be in time for the late 2010 cycle, but after that it's quite possible this will be an improved system. This kind of fierce and sometimes messy adherence to fundamental democratic principles is something I admire about the United States. In some important ways, they've got the best and purest democracy in the free world and they remain a model on many fronts. And that's coming from a liberal Canadian. |
| GratefulFan 22.01.2010 17:18 |
Sir GH wrote: link Check out this article... Obama's response is right on the money. I don't know my US politics well, but... can't the President somehow veto this? That's all Bush ever did after the Democrats had control of the senate. The legislative, judical and executive branches of US government are separate. This was a Supreme Court decision, and could only be overruled by a wildly unlikely Constitutional amendment . What will likely happen is the legislative branch will correct the Constitutional deficiencies in the law so it is no longer vulnerable to First Amendment challenges. |
| The Real Wizard 22.01.2010 21:58 |
Zebonka12 wrote: They ought to limit campaign budgets to a thousand dollars. Any politician who can set up an easy to understand, no-bullshit site that says exactly what they're going to do (without wasting a single word on what "the other people have been failing to do") and still have money left over will have infinitely more respect from me than some cunt who throws millions of dollars down the gurgler only to set up disingenuous videos and smear campaigns.Very well written. But we know this will never happen, as in-your-face bullshit is what keeps the system going. The truly intelligent people, like yourself, are the ones who write about the politicians. GratefulFan wrote: What will likely happen is the legislative branch will correct the Constitutional deficiencies in the law so it is no longer vulnerable to First Amendment challenges. Ok, I get that on a linguistic level. But what does that ultimately mean in terms of the issue itself? You and Zeb should start a political party. |
| john bodega 23.01.2010 02:55 |
Ha! :D But you see, that's the trap that people fall into. I have a firm belief that a (hypothetical) wholly pure and genuine individual would never make it to the top office. And if they did, there would simply be too many interests going against them to DO anything. And if they did ignore what everyone was ordering them not to do, and went and did 'the right thing', they'd just be booted out or shot. Or something. Everyone was cheering about Obama winning, but I was pretty wistful. I looked at that guy and figured that even if he was talking from the heart, and had all of those great intentions, that his 'dream' (if you will) was never going to happen. Because it's too expensive and would lose too many votes from the thicko masses to think beyond your four/eight year term and think about helping people a few generations down the line. ... and I'm not even talking about global warming there, so no one e-mail me. Hehe. |
| Yara 23.01.2010 13:02 |
Hum, but, as far as I know, the ruling was given within the context of a discussion on the First Amendment - so it seems consisent with the way the Court usually, not always, approaches such matters. X has made money legally (not every corporation is corrupt, evil or ilegitimate - and they're part, and an important part, of the economic landscape). X wants to use this money to finance a political campaign or buy an Ipod - so be it. It's up to X. : )) "Oh, but what about the bail-out...doesn't it prove that the state...?". No, it doesn't prove anything: it just proves that the State is able to grab money from the market and give it different - legitimate or not, that's a different issue - uses. States generally don't know how to create wealth - they may be skilled at grabbing it from the market, and re-distributing it in one way or another, but it's the private sector which produces the wealth feeding bail-outs or social progams. By the way, Obama is in no position to veto anything coming from the Supreme Court!! If he were able to do this, he'd be a dictator, not a Republican President! Separation of powers and checks and balances are the stuff of which the democratic framework is, thanks goodness, made. So, basically, the alternative is having Chávez chasing and firing judges he doesn't like - fact well-documented, for instance, by Human Rights Watch - or sending the army to regulate prices, as we have just seen - again, in defiance of a previous Supreme Court ruling. --------------- On a different note, Legalizing and regulating lobbies, instead of simply outlawing them, is the best way to go - it'd be useless to ban this kind of financial backing, and history tells us why: ilegal or unethical donations keep being made under the blanket, and the State loses the capacity to track them down. Lobby is inherent to any form of state power, be it democratic or not. ------------- In theory, one could abolish private donations to political campaigns. It's been made before. The result is invariably the same: taxpayers pay the huge bill and are forced to directly back a system which they not even identify with in the first place. Goes without saying that private donations remain rampant and out of control despite the banning. ----------- So what about Obama: well, he'd better succed in passing the legislation on health-care - his own constituency is growing mad. And I'm a strongly supporter of an universal health-care program. But Obama has to turn it into reality and make it work. Otherwise, my fellows, his will be a four-year mandate. |
| The Real Wizard 23.01.2010 15:00 |
Agreed. Obama will either be the "health care president" or the "I promised everything and delivered nothing" president. If that's the case, it wouldn't be his fault. The president is not the person who ultimately runs the country. |
| GratefulFan 24.01.2010 14:25 |
Sir GH wrote:GratefulFan wrote: What will likely happen is the legislative branch will correct the Constitutional deficiencies in the law so it is no longer vulnerable to First Amendment challenges.Ok, I get that on a linguistic level. But what does that ultimately mean in terms of the issue itself? You and Zeb should start a political party. There has been bi-partisan legislative action over many years to insulate the American political process from corruption and the appearance of corruption. It's in the interest of no democracy to allow it, and so purely speculatively what I think it means is that over a relatively short amount of time new legislation will be crafted that will plug the important holes. In the meantime, we will get to witness a debate on whether coporations have freedom of speech rights comparable to individuals, which to my mind is a facinating philosophical question. And I think the timing is good, set as it will be against a dumbed down populist tone coming from a chastised White House with Obama's references to 'fat cat bankers' and such. |
| Yara 24.01.2010 15:14 |
GratefulFan wrote:Sir GH wrote:There has been bi-partisan legislative action over many years to insulate the American political process from corruption and the appearance of corruption. It's in the interest of no democracy to allow it, and so purely speculatively what I think it means is that over a relatively short amount of time new legislation will be crafted that will plug the important holes. In the meantime, we will get to witness a debate on whether coporations have freedom of speech rights comparable to individuals, which to my mind is a facinating philosophical question. And I think the timing is good, set as it will be against a dumbed down poplulist tone coming from a chastised White House with Obama's references to 'fat cat bankers' and such.GratefulFan wrote: What will likely happen is the legislative branch will correct the Constitutional deficiencies in the law so it is no longer vulnerable to First Amendment challenges.Ok, I get that on a linguistic level. But what does that ultimately mean in terms of the issue itself? You and Zeb should start a political party. Oh, yeah!!! Are you single? lol Kidding. : )) But that's so correct. ; -)) |
| Micrówave 24.01.2010 22:48 |
It's me, your resident republican!!! By the way, Obama's campaign accepted MORE large donations than any other presidential campaign run in history. Private donations, too. Also, he gave those "fat cat bankers" the right to hand out big bonuses this year, at the U.S. taxpayer expense. Then he sat on 60 minutes shaking his fingers at them telling us they weren't supposed to use the money for that. What did he think those banks were going to do?? Give the money to their customers?? Hello! |
| Holly2003 25.01.2010 05:07 |
Micrówave wrote: It's me, your resident republican!!! By the way, Obama's campaign accepted MORE large donations than any other presidential campaign run in history. Private donations, too. Also, he gave those "fat cat bankers" the right to hand out big bonuses this year, at the U.S. taxpayer expense. Then he sat on 60 minutes shaking his fingers at them telling us they weren't supposed to use the money for that. What did he think those banks were going to do?? Give the money to their customers?? Hello! So your criticism is that the Democrats are acting too much like Republicans... |
| Micrówave 25.01.2010 09:38 |
Oh, I've known that for years! It's just funny how you hear things on here (a few years ago) about how Bush was destroying the world and now you hear things like: "it wouldn't be (Obama's) fault." and "The president is not the person who ultimately runs the country." Democrats are funny. |
| GratefulFan 25.01.2010 15:12 |
Yara wrote:GratefulFan wrote: There has been bi-partisan legislative action over many years to insulate the American political process from corruption and the appearance of corruption. It's in the interest of no democracy to allow it, and so purely speculatively what I think it means is that over a relatively short amount of time new legislation will be crafted that will plug the important holes. In the meantime, we will get to witness a debate on whether coporations have freedom of speech rights comparable to individuals, which to my mind is a facinating philosophical question. And I think the timing is good, set as it will be against a dumbed down poplulist tone coming from a chastised White House with Obama's references to 'fat cat bankers' and such.Oh, yeah!!! Are you single? lol Kidding. : )) But that's so correct. ; -)) I like people who think I'm right! They're so smart! :) |
| The Real Wizard 26.01.2010 17:20 |
Micrówave wrote: It's just funny how you hear things on here (a few years ago) about how Bush was destroying the world and now you hear things like: "it wouldn't be (Obama's) fault." and "The president is not the person who ultimately runs the country." Democrats are funny. Um... I'm not a a Democrat, nor am I American. And I've never pledged allegiance to any political party in my country. So why hasn't Obama closed down Guantanamo Bay despite promising it to be the first thing on his agenda? Are you suggesting he is in favour of torturing people on Cuban soil without a fair trial? |
| john bodega 26.01.2010 23:22 |
Micrówave wrote: It's just funny how you hear things on here (a few years ago) about how Bush was destroying the world and now you hear things like: "it wouldn't be (Obama's) fault." and "The president is not the person who ultimately runs the country."I find this amusing as well. The nearest thing to an explanation I can think of is that while both could be powerless figureheads, Bush was a powerless figurehead who actually sounded like he agreed with doing insane bullshit. Obama's more like a guy in a canoe, in a raging river, with no oars. He sounds like he desperately wants to start rowing, but it ain't going to happen. |
| *goodco* 18.02.2010 11:05 |
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns. As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling. |
| Micrówave 18.02.2010 18:14 |
Oh, and Sir GH, I wasn't referring to you as a democrat. I know. I just used your comments, because they're 'spot on' to them dems. Obama's breaking a lot of his so-called promises. He's won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, which actually is peaceful when you think about it. Remember the comparisons of Obama to FDR after the election? They practically shoved that down our throats. Change is coming. The 21st century New Deal. Bush fatigue. The voters changed a center-right country into a center-left one. But now health care reform is hanging by a thread. Here's Obama spending his time on health care reform at a time when millions fear for their jobs. That would be like FDR spent his first days promoting Social Security instead of emergency relief and recovery. Instead of leaving AIG and GM to fall, Obama instead extended the same cooperation the Bush Administration did that put those companies in the positions they're in. Nothing ever changes. And limiting contributions from a certain group will only give rise to another way of funnelling in cash. |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.02.2010 07:25 |
Sir GH wrote: link Check out this article... Obama's response is right on the money. I don't know my US politics well, but... can't the President somehow veto this? That's all Bush ever did after the Democrats had control of the senate. Nope, only the Supreme Court can overturn a Supreme Court decision. So we'll just have to wait for a couple more conservatives who are on it to die, because you get appointed for life (which has resulted in a fair few senile justices in the past). |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.02.2010 07:28 |
Micrówave wrote: Oh, and Sir GH, I wasn't referring to you as a democrat. I know. I just used your comments, because they're 'spot on' to them dems. Obama's breaking a lot of his so-called promises. He's won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, which actually is peaceful when you think about it. Remember the comparisons of Obama to FDR after the election? They practically shoved that down our throats. Change is coming. The 21st century New Deal. Bush fatigue. The voters changed a center-right country into a center-left one. But now health care reform is hanging by a thread. Here's Obama spending his time on health care reform at a time when millions fear for their jobs. That would be like FDR spent his first days promoting Social Security instead of emergency relief and recovery. Instead of leaving AIG and GM to fall, Obama instead extended the same cooperation the Bush Administration did that put those companies in the positions they're in. Nothing ever changes. And limiting contributions from a certain group will only give rise to another way of funnelling in cash. So, in short, you think it's a *good* thing that [insert major corporation here] can just *buy* a senate- or house seat? |
| Micrówave 19.02.2010 12:02 |
No. In short, I say you get rid of one way of channelling money and another will soon pop up. People have bought senate seats for years. Stopping a major corporation from doing it won't change anything. I have a better solution. Put a tax on those contributions. A 100% tax. You donate $100, you give an extra $100 to Uncle Sam. |