what do you think of the recent ruling on political corporate donations?

[RedScare]

There's hope yet for the country!

Actually, no. We are doomed, and it has nothing at all to do with who is the senator from Massachusetts, and everything to do with the Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to overtly buy their representatives. Anyone, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, who remotely believes that US government will do anything for the good of the citizen is a moron. Everything from here on out will be done for the benefit of corporations and their CEOs. Sure, it was already mostly that way, but now it is completely that way.

The best thing citizens can do is put away their partisan differences, so that we can share in each other's misery, because there is no more government for us.

Actually, no. We are doomed, and it has nothing at all to do with who is the senator from Massachusetts, and everything to do with the Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to overtly buy their representatives. Anyone, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, who remotely believes that US government will do anything for the good of the citizen is a moron. Everything from here on out will be done for the benefit of corporations and their CEOs. Sure, it was already mostly that way, but now it is completely that way.

The best thing citizens can do is put away their partisan differences, so that we can share in each other's misery, because there is no more government for us.

talk about change since yesterday.

Actually, no. We are doomed, and it has nothing at all to do with who is the senator from Massachusetts, and everything to do with the Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to overtly buy their representatives. Anyone, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, who remotely believes that US government will do anything for the good of the citizen is a moron. Everything from here on out will be done for the benefit of corporations and their CEOs. Sure, it was already mostly that way, but now it is completely that way.

The best thing citizens can do is put away their partisan differences, so that we can share in each other's misery, because there is no more government for us.

It takes a lot to stop my ranting on the Fed, and AIG/Goldman, et al, and the dirty TARP deals, but this Supreme Court ruling certainly shut me up. There's a really good Mussolini quote I need to find--the one about the State and Corporations. We've become fascists, but the trains still don't run on time. Talk about adding insult to injury.

And to think all this time we were arguing over antique notions like Church vs State. What chumps, huh?

It takes a lot to stop my ranting on the Fed, and AIG/Goldman, et al, and the dirty TARP deals, but this Supreme Court ruling certainly shut me up. There's a really good Mussolini quote I need to find--the one about the State and Corporations. We've become fascists, but the trains still don't run on time. Talk about adding insult to injury.

And to think all this time we were arguing over antique notions like Church vs State. What chumps, huh?

Yeah, the Supremes did pretty much legalized fascism, didn't they? Here's what I'm wondering about. Back in the hyper-consumer days, (many) people stuck up for the corporations. Now that the banks, Wall Street and the corporations have simultaneously sent the economy into the crapper, while managing to secure record profits and bonuses during it, will the now sober consumer give them the finger they deserve?

Note: We need to start a thread on what party or group is left for those who have been burned by the GOP and the Dems in the same lifetime, only to find that they are both financed by the same corporations. I guess I need to bring back my anarchist avatar.

We need to start a thread on what party or group is left for those who have been burned by the GOP and the Dems in the same lifetime, only to find that they are both financed by the same corporations. I guess I need to bring back my anarchist avatar.

Ironically, I've been feeling a thousand times more radical the past year or so than I ever was as an angry youth. I've always been a fan of euro-style, burn-stuff-down radical. Long live my punk rock tendencies.

Especially since now it's abundantly clear Sarah Palin and The New Conservatives are going to ride in on their white horses to save god and country come the mid-term elections. Not that voting for anyone else will do any good.

Actually, no. We are doomed, and it has nothing at all to do with who is the senator from Massachusetts, and everything to do with the Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to overtly buy their representatives. Anyone, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, who remotely believes that US government will do anything for the good of the citizen is a moron. Everything from here on out will be done for the benefit of corporations and their CEOs. Sure, it was already mostly that way, but now it is completely that way.

The best thing citizens can do is put away their partisan differences, so that we can share in each other's misery, because there is no more government for us.

It's been this way for decades. It's just now more out in the open.

I wonder if we've about to see an ideology swap between the parties within this decade where the Democrats become the party of the corporation and the Republicans become the party of the people. In the past, the Republicans were the "pro-business" party, but this Supreme Court decision is a game changer. For very obvious reasons they can't stay at the forefront of the populist movement if all their political ads are bought and paid for by Chevron or those guys who blow up mountains in Appalachia.

Now here are my questions. Considering the nature of globalism, will foreign companies with an American sub be allowed to share in this practice? What if the foreign parent is a state-run corporation?

Is there kind of percentage of business in the US requirement for corporations before they can start throwing campaign dollars around all willy-nilly, or is this truly a kleptocratic free-for-all? If it's the latter, this could get very ugly very quickly.

Mods: If anyone could start a separate topic for this, I have a feeling this will get a lot of discussion.

[bachanon]

thread created....

[bachanon]

There's hope yet for the country!

Redscare:

Actually, no. We are doomed, and it has nothing at all to do with who is the senator from Massachusetts, and everything to do with the Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to overtly buy their representatives. Anyone, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, who remotely believes that US government will do anything for the good of the citizen is a moron. Everything from here on out will be done for the benefit of corporations and their CEOs. Sure, it was already mostly that way, but now it is completely that way.

The best thing citizens can do is put away their partisan differences, so that we can share in each other's misery, because there is no more government for us.

Actually, no. We are doomed, and it has nothing at all to do with who is the senator from Massachusetts, and everything to do with the Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to overtly buy their representatives. Anyone, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, who remotely believes that US government will do anything for the good of the citizen is a moron. Everything from here on out will be done for the benefit of corporations and their CEOs. Sure, it was already mostly that way, but now it is completely that way.

The best thing citizens can do is put away their partisan differences, so that we can share in each other's misery, because there is no more government for us.

talk about change since yesterday.

Actually, no. We are doomed, and it has nothing at all to do with who is the senator from Massachusetts, and everything to do with the Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to overtly buy their representatives. Anyone, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, who remotely believes that US government will do anything for the good of the citizen is a moron. Everything from here on out will be done for the benefit of corporations and their CEOs. Sure, it was already mostly that way, but now it is completely that way.

The best thing citizens can do is put away their partisan differences, so that we can share in each other's misery, because there is no more government for us.

Crunchtastic:

It takes a lot to stop my ranting on the Fed, and AIG/Goldman, et al, and the dirty TARP deals, but this Supreme Court ruling certainly shut me up. There's a really good Mussolini quote I need to find--the one about the State and Corporations. We've become fascists, but the trains still don't run on time. Talk about adding insult to injury.

And to think all this time we were arguing over antique notions like Church vs State. What chumps, huh?

It takes a lot to stop my ranting on the Fed, and AIG/Goldman, et al, and the dirty TARP deals, but this Supreme Court ruling certainly shut me up. There's a really good Mussolini quote I need to find--the one about the State and Corporations. We've become fascists, but the trains still don't run on time. Talk about adding insult to injury.

And to think all this time we were arguing over antique notions like Church vs State. What chumps, huh?

Redscare:

Yeah, the Supremes did pretty much legalized fascism, didn't they? Here's what I'm wondering about. Back in the hyper-consumer days, (many) people stuck up for the corporations. Now that the banks, Wall Street and the corporations have simultaneously sent the economy into the crapper, while managing to secure record profits and bonuses during it, will the now sober consumer give them the finger they deserve?

Note: We need to start a thread on what party or group is left for those who have been burned by the GOP and the Dems in the same lifetime, only to find that they are both financed by the same corporations. I guess I need to bring back my anarchist avatar.

We need to start a thread on what party or group is left for those who have been burned by the GOP and the Dems in the same lifetime, only to find that they are both financed by the same corporations. I guess I need to bring back my anarchist avatar.

Ironically, I've been feeling a thousand times more radical the past year or so than I ever was as an angry youth. I've always been a fan of euro-style, burn-stuff-down radical. Long live my punk rock tendencies.

Especially since now it's abundantly clear Sarah Palin and The New Conservatives are going to ride in on their white horses to save god and country come the mid-term elections. Not that voting for anyone else will do any good.

Actually, no. We are doomed, and it has nothing at all to do with who is the senator from Massachusetts, and everything to do with the Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to overtly buy their representatives. Anyone, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, who remotely believes that US government will do anything for the good of the citizen is a moron. Everything from here on out will be done for the benefit of corporations and their CEOs. Sure, it was already mostly that way, but now it is completely that way.

The best thing citizens can do is put away their partisan differences, so that we can share in each other's misery, because there is no more government for us.

It's been this way for decades. It's just now more out in the open.

I wonder if we've about to see an ideology swap between the parties within this decade where the Democrats become the party of the corporation and the Republicans become the party of the people. In the past, the Republicans were the "pro-business" party, but this Supreme Court decision is a game changer. For very obvious reasons they can't stay at the forefront of the populist movement if all their political ads are bought and paid for by Chevron or those guys who blow up mountains in Appalachia.

Now here are my questions. Considering the nature of globalism, will foreign companies with an American sub be allowed to share in this practice? What if the foreign parent is a state-run corporation?

Is there kind of percentage of business in the US requirement for corporations before they can start throwing campaign dollars around all willy-nilly, or is this truly a kleptocratic free-for-all? If it's the latter, this could get very ugly very quickly.

Mods: If anyone could start a separate topic for this, I have a feeling this will get a lot of discussion.

[bachanon]

sorry guys, i mucked up the posts in the move to the new thread. if you know who posted what, i can add your/their name(s).

certain dems and republicans have railed against this kind of thing for years. where's the uproar? i'm interested to see if any talking heads make issue of it in the coming week.

[AtticaFlinch]

sorry guys, i mucked up the posts in the move to the new thread. if you know who posted what, i can add your/their name(s).

certain dems and republicans have railed against this kind of thing for years. where's the uproar? i'm interested to see if any talking heads make issue of it in the coming week.

This was mine, and the bolded part are questions that I'd like to know more about in greater detail. I surely hope the Supreme Court gave this some consideration.:

It's been this way for decades. It's just now more out in the open.

I wonder if we've about to see an ideology swap between the parties within this decade where the Democrats become the party of the corporation and the Republicans become the party of the people. In the past, the Republicans were the "pro-business" party, but this Supreme Court decision is a game changer. For very obvious reasons they can't stay at the forefront of the populist movement if all their political ads are bought and paid for by Chevron or those guys who blow up mountains in Appalachia.

Now here are my questions. Considering the nature of globalism, will foreign companies with an American sub be allowed to share in this practice? What if the foreign parent is a state-run corporation? Is there a percentage of business in the US requirement for corporations before they can start throwing campaign dollars around all willy-nilly, or is this truly a kleptocratic free-for-all? If it's the latter, this could get very ugly very quickly.

[N Judah]

Yes, foreign corporations can make contributions with a US subsidiary. That seems almost like a technicality...they might as well lift the subsidiary restriction since they think corporations are like individuals. After all, foreign-born individuals do not lose their freedom of speech when they visit here.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0123/Fighting-Obama-hits-Supreme-Court-over-campaign-finance

“This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy,” Obama said. “It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don't. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act. I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest.”

However, one benefit to keeping the US-subsidiary requirement is that it might be possible to regulate such companies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204811.html?hpid=topnews

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee head, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, are working with the White House to craft a new campaign finance bill. They are almost certain to call for strengthened disclosure requirements for companies that directly sponsor ad campaigns, and they may push for requiring shareholders to approve political expenditures by publicly traded companies. They are also studying ways to prohibit campaign spending by corporations such as American International Group or General Motors that received federal bailout money, as well as companies that have federal contracts or registered lobbyists.

Democrats are also eyeing restrictions on U.S. companies that are subsidiaries of foreign-owned corporations; they believe the public will be outraged by the possibility of foreign influence in U.S. election campaigns. The high court's majority opinion avoided addressing possible implications for foreign-owned firms, which are barred from direct participation in U.S. elections but can use their American subsidiaries to form political action committees.

[barracuda]

If we had a well-educatated and informed voting public, I might not find this ruling so disconcerting. But when a large number of voters are easily swayed by the constant drumbeat of lies and distortions prodded by info-tainers and the powers that be, this ruling will likely make the situation worse. And the fact that this is a 5-4 decision made along ideological lines raises more skepticism towards the SCOTUS, especially after the recent 5-4 ruling, also along ideological lines, to ban the broadcast of the Proposition 8 trial in California.

[BryanS]

If we had a well-educatated and informed voting public, I might not find this ruling so disconcerting. But when a large number of voters are easily swayed by the constant drumbeat of lies and distortions prodded by info-tainers and the powers that be, this ruling will likely make the situation worse. And the fact that this is a 5-4 decision made along ideological lines raises more skepticism towards the SCOTUS, especially after the recent 5-4 ruling, also along ideological lines, to ban the broadcast of the Proposition 8 trial in California.

It's going to get worse. I believe we are going to see another 5-4 ruling along the lines that the initiative process protects "anonymous speech." I hope I am wrong. A future ruling regarding Ref 71 in Washington state. Ref 71, like prop 8, sought to single out a group of people and treat them differently than all others. Signatures to ban domestic partnerships were collected in plain view, in public, 20 signatures to page, fully known and disclosed to petition handlers, etc - AND were to be part of a public record. Like it has been, for decades and decades. BUT... the haters claimed fear and retribution if their signatures were made public. So they sued. And now, the Supreme Court is set to rule. FWIW, the ban FAILED.

So... there are no spending limits any more. Corporations/unions/interest groups are like "people" (except they can't bear arms or vote - never mind that).... and have no limits on spending... and now... public disclosure laws are soon to be headed out the window... think about that. No limits on money. No requirement to disclose.

Anonymous speech is already protected in this country, but you need to put a hood over your head. But I doubt this court will see it that way.

...on another note... these 5-4 decisions... Kennedy is the swing vote. In the past 2 LBGT cases that went to the Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence) - he voted in favor of LBGT interests. There are at least two canaries in the coal mine headed for the Supreme Court on gay marriage: the Massachusetts case and an OMB case - which are narrowly targeted at a single provision in DOMA: that the federal government won't recognize valid same-sex marriages performed within states where they are legal. There is no reason that these should not be 9-0 decisions in favor of striking down the federal ban on gay marriage, where gay marriage is legal. No reason. These are the canaries because "the big one" is the Ted Olson/Boies case now pending in CA district court that seeks to strike down ALL marriage bans across the entire country and elevated LBGT persons to the same suspect status as race, gender, and religion. That will be the biggest civil rights case of this century.

[TheNiche]

If we had a well-educatated and informed voting public, I might not find this ruling so disconcerting. But when a large number of voters are easily swayed by the constant drumbeat of lies and distortions prodded by info-tainers and the powers that be, this ruling will likely make the situation worse. And the fact that this is a 5-4 decision made along ideological lines raises more skepticism towards the SCOTUS, especially after the recent 5-4 ruling, also along ideological lines, to ban the broadcast of the Proposition 8 trial in California.

Info-tainers and the media corporations that they work for were already exempted from the legislation that was the subject of this court ruling. And other corporations were already allowed to promote their agenda without overtly backing a candidate (for instance, we saw a lot of 'green' energy ads in the last election cycle). If the voting public is that poorly educated and ill-informed (as I believe is the case) then I'm not sure that they stand much of a chance as it is.

If it makes you feel any better, eight of the nine supreme court justices rendered opinions saying that they'd be OK with legislation requiring political ads to disclose who paid for them, so that sounds like a green-light for new legislation to that effect.

[KinkaidAlum]

As a gay fella, the last thing I am worrying about right now is gay marriage. This latest decision by the Supreme Court is beyond belief. I am still stunned at the decision. I've been getting more and more cynical as the years go by that there is very little difference between the Dems and the Reps other than the lip service they provide their followers. Both parties are OWNED by the exact same corporations and that ownership percentage just got bigger. We're heading down a dangerous path right now, but most don't seem to see it.

Paul/Kucinich 2012~

[RedScare]

As a gay fella, the last thing I am worrying about right now is gay marriage. This latest decision by the Supreme Court is beyond belief. I am still stunned at the decision. I've been getting more and more cynical as the years go by that there is very little difference between the Dems and the Reps other than the lip service they provide their followers. Both parties are OWNED by the exact same corporations and that ownership percentage just got bigger. We're heading down a dangerous path right now, but most don't seem to see it.

Paul/Kucinich 2012~

Most are still falling into the Republican vs. Democrat trap...and will continue to do so. It is really not that hard to formulate an ad campaign that galvanizes one group against another. For instance, corporate owned Republican politicians will continue to push religion and anti-socialism to the faithful, while happily giving government money to corporations. Meanwhile, Democrats will continue to push equality and green issues, while happily loosening restrictions on banks and Wall Street. And, both will continue to allow the Fed to give 0% loans to the corporations and Wall Street investment banks...loans that are unavailable to the rest of us.

It is all about access to government, and those of us who do not control investment banks and multi-national corporations have just been told (if we did not know already) that we do not matter. In other words, "shut up and buy our crap, and leave the government to us."

[barracuda]

Info-tainers and the media corporations that they work for were already exempted from the legislation that was the subject of this court ruling. And other corporations were already allowed to promote their agenda without overtly backing a candidate (for instance, we saw a lot of 'green' energy ads in the last election cycle). If the voting public is that poorly educated and ill-informed (as I believe is the case) then I'm not sure that they stand much of a chance as it is.

I agree, but I expect an even greater influence over their MSM and their info-tainers due to the near limitless corporate advertising dollars, which can now run all the way up to election day. Previous legislation had restricted corporate political advertising beginning 30 days before a presidential primary and 60 days before general elections. This ruling should further drown out any reasonable public discourse and sway those undecideds their way. It makes all the more sense now why some politicians have been trying to dismantle PBS. The corporate overlords don't like the fact that they can't be bought out, at least not as easily.

As a gay fella, the last thing I am worrying about right now is gay marriage. This latest decision by the Supreme Court is beyond belief. I am still stunned at the decision. I've been getting more and more cynical as the years go by that there is very little difference between the Dems and the Reps other than the lip service they provide their followers. Both parties are OWNED by the exact same corporations and that ownership percentage just got bigger. We're heading down a dangerous path right now, but most don't seem to see it.

Paul/Kucinich 2012~

Agree...even though the corporate-owned MSM portrays our political system as a death match between two parties, the reality is that both parties are just different subservient flavors of the corporate world, with large financial institutions having particularly strong influence over the party in power. I do believe some politicians in each party occasionally try to do the right thing, but they do so against near overwhelming odds and risk to their political career, all made worse by this decision. It's a huge step backwards for the voice of the individual.

[TheNiche]

I agree, but I expect an even greater influence over their MSM and their info-tainers due to the near limitless corporate advertising dollars, which can now run all the way up to election day.

Hmmm...with all that corporate advertising money on the line, the media companies would probably be more cautious with their programming. Wouldn't want to offend a big sponsor.

[BryanS]

No need to worry.

Congressman Alan "Save Our Democracy" Grayson to the rescue:

Here are the bills that Congressman Grayson has introduced, and what they aim to accomplish:

1) The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.

2) The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.

3) The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.

4) The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.

5) The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.

I like #1. Supreme Court said corporations can spend whatever they want. OK. Well... Congress can TAX those expenditures whatever they want! Corp USA... You spend $1 billion for an advocacy campaign... you pay $5 billion in taxes! Go ahead! Spend away!

[AtticaFlinch]

Whatever happened to the good ol' days when the companies would just build a cable news network from scratch if they wanted to spread a certain political agenda?

Remember Fox News, guys? Remember how bad we thought that was? That's soooo 2009.

[TheNiche]

I like #1. Supreme Court said corporations can spend whatever they want. OK. Well... Congress can TAX those expenditures whatever they want! Corp USA... You spend $1 billion for an advocacy campaign... you pay $5 billion in taxes! Go ahead! Spend away!

Gee, I wonder how the Supreme Court will rule on legislation that attempts to place unequal taxation of what it has deemed to be free speech, where the spirit of the legislation is to silence a certain kind of "individual".

[TheNiche]

Whatever happened to the good ol' days when the companies would just build a cable news network from scratch if they wanted to spread a certain political agenda?

Remember Fox News, guys? Remember how bad we thought that was? That's soooo 2009.

In all fairness to Rupert Murdoch, Fox News did prove commercially successful. That's what it was about...money.

It's not as though edutainment hadn't already been pioneered by the likes of CNN and the Discovery Channel; it's just that networks like Fox News and the History Channel discovered that the market was more segmented than were the programming options at the time.

[bachanon]

fox news was created because there was a market for it. plain and simple. to say that it was created to sway public opinion or as a propaganda machine sounds like "vast right wing conspiracy". people who tuned out CNN, NBC ABC, CBS tuned in to FOX.

i'm not sure why there is a disconnect between the big bad corporations and the common folk. corporations are made up of employees and investors. what benefits a particular corporation might benefit me, my neighbors, my community, and so on. (yes, there are excesses. I understand that.)

if a government regulation stifles my industry, my corporation, family, neighbors and community suffer. if corporate donations give my industry, corporation, family, neighborhoods and community a voice when it comes time to write legislation, then so be it.

[RedScare]

Surprised it took 17 posts before someone took up for the poor defenseless corporation.

[AtticaFlinch]

fox news was created because there was a market for it. plain and simple. to say that it was created to sway public opinion or as a propaganda machine sounds like "vast right wing conspiracy". people who tuned out CNN, NBC ABC, CBS tuned in to FOX.

That was mostly a joke, but for full disclosure, I had just watched an Alex Jones documentary before posting that. There's a media term, demassification, that refers to the localization of content focus, and the springing up of newer outlets to satisfy every new available niche. Fox News found some people who'd buy the crap their advertisers hocked, and if you go online you'll be capable of finding media outlets for people who think Fox News doesn't go far enough. So yeah, I knew Fox wasn't invented to be a corporate shill for Chevron and Goldmann-Sachs. More likely, they were invented to be a corporate shill for Sham-Wow and the Snuggie.

i'm not sure why there is a disconnect between the big bad corporations and the common folk. corporations are made up of employees and investors. what benefits a particular corporation might benefit me, my neighbors, my community, and so on. (yes, there are excesses. I understand that.)

Be careful with that logic though. While a corporation is comprised of people, unlike our government, there are never been any pretensions that the corporation is of the people or by the people. In other words, they aren't thinking of your best interest come decision-making time. An average corporation has one goal, and that's to turn a profit. That's it, and nothing more. I think history has more than borne out the necessity of regulating what can easily become unfettered greed without it. Greed is what I'm worried about, and considering Joe Average is largely an idiot, I worry that those greedy corporations who have nearly bottomless pockets have unrestricted access to the decision-making epicenter of Joe Average's brain. Bear in mind, what's good for the people doesn't always correllate with turning a higher profit. Cases in point: Mountain top removal, ANWR, DDT, Mad Cow disease, the Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire, Wal-Mart, Bernie Madoff, Enron and Windows Vista. That list can continue till it resembles the rough draft of War and Peace.

if a government regulation stifles my industry, my corporation, family, neighbors and community suffer. if corporate donations give my industry, corporation, family, neighborhoods and community a voice when it comes time to write legislation, then so be it.

That's a little pollyannish, don't you think? On the one hand you're suggesting they shouldn't be restricted with any regulations, and on the other you're implying they'll act in the best interests of you and your community without those restrictions? Yeah, not gonna happen. You've got have one to have the other.

[barracuda]

fox news was created because there was a market for it. plain and simple. to say that it was created to sway public opinion or as a propaganda machine sounds like "vast right wing conspiracy". people who tuned out CNN, NBC ABC, CBS tuned in to FOX.

We had an entire thread on Fox News awhile back. But it's worth repeating that Rupert Murdoch has said that he created the network with the intention of providing conservative balance to what he felt was liberal bias in the media. The other networks you listed were not created with the intention of providing biased news. They were created as money-makers with a degree of real journalism.

[N Judah]

I like #1. Supreme Court said corporations can spend whatever they want. OK. Well... Congress can TAX those expenditures whatever they want! Corp USA... You spend $1 billion for an advocacy campaign... you pay $5 billion in taxes! Go ahead! Spend away!

I think bills like these will be popular in state legislatures, with varying degrees of taxation/regulation. The advantage of this is if your state taxes/regulates it enough you won't have to deal with any campaigning whatsoever.

[bachanon]

That was mostly a joke, but for full disclosure, I had just watched an Alex Jones documentary before posting that. There's a media term, demassification, that refers to the localization of content focus, and the springing up of newer outlets to satisfy every new available niche. Fox News found some people who'd buy the crap their advertisers hocked, and if you go online you'll be capable of finding media outlets for people who think Fox News doesn't go far enough. So yeah, I knew Fox wasn't invented to be a corporate shill for Chevron and Goldmann-Sachs. More likely, they were invented to be a corporate shill for Sham-Wow and the Snuggie.

Be careful with that logic though. While a corporation is comprised of people, unlike our government, there are never been any pretensions that the corporation is of the people or by the people. In other words, they aren't thinking of your best interest come decision-making time. An average corporation has one goal, and that's to turn a profit. That's it, and nothing more. I think history has more than borne out the necessity of regulating what can easily become unfettered greed without it. Greed is what I'm worried about, and considering Joe Average is largely an idiot, I worry that those greedy corporations who have nearly bottomless pockets have unrestricted access to the decision-making epicenter of Joe Average's brain. Bear in mind, what's good for the people doesn't always correllate with turning a higher profit. Cases in point: Mountain top removal, ANWR, DDT, Mad Cow disease, the Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire, Wal-Mart, Bernie Madoff, Enron and Windows Vista. That list can continue till it resembles the rough draft of War and Peace.

That's a little pollyannish, don't you think? On the one hand you're suggesting they shouldn't be restricted with any regulations, and on the other you're implying they'll act in the best interests of you and your community without those restrictions? Yeah, not gonna happen. You've got have one to have the other.

lol. i just had a flash of myself with long golden locks and a shiny blue dress. not pretty.

yes, there are greedy people. you can't legislate morality. if a person abuses their position, they are punished. simply because greed exists is no reason to regulate profits or how they are spent. i believe that because the corporation pursues profit, i benefit. as long as wal mart exists and does what it does, i get to buy things at a cheaper cost to me. if wal mart doesn't treat it's employees well, the employees should leave. if service in wal mart becomes too poor, i might be willing to pay more for better service elsewhere. personal choices on a large scale, for the most part, create the corporations vying for political clout. i "am" wal mart. for that matter, i "am" blue cross blue shield. i am gmac. i am gmc. i am gateway computers. i am eddie bauer. i am nabisco. (i'm now standing in wal mart, with XXXL shiny blue dress, black pumps, four day shadow and long golden locks with a sign that says "I AM NABISCO".)

it's difficult to see big industry or corporations as evil entities when they are comprised of so many different elements.

if the mean old health insurance industry wants to kill healthcare legislation by lobbying key congressional figures, hallelujah. i like my health care plan and don't want it to change.

i certainly do not think a corporation thinks of me at all, that would be preposterous. i act in my own self interest and i choose to utilize the products of corporations whose primary goal is profit; they wouldn't exist otherwise and i would not have the option of their benefit(s).

[TheNiche]

The other networks you listed were not created with the intention of providing biased news. They were created as money-makers with a degree of real journalism.

I can't accept that. Read what Attica said about demassification; he's spot on.

CNN started off by trying to be as middle-of-the-road as possible. But even centrism is a perspective, and it appears just as biased to someone on the extreme right or extreme left as does a media outlet with an extreme right or extreme left perspective to someone who is a centrist. So I don't think that a discussion over bias is very productive. Every channel is biased according to somebody.

And certainly there was a period of time where CNN was a little awkward in that it had a seed of journalistic quality (the same was true of Discovery Channel with respect to educational quality), but that was only because the concept of edutainment hadn't yet been refined as a business model. Never forget that CNN's purpose was to generate advertising revenue...any "real journalism" that might've come from it was purely incidental and temporary.

[AtticaFlinch]

yes, there are greedy people. you can't legislate morality. if a person abuses their position, they are punished.

Yes actually, you can. In fact, that's exactly what laws are. Laws are legislated morals and ethics.

[RedScare]

it's difficult to see big industry or corporations as evil entities when they are comprised of so many different elements.

if the mean old health insurance industry wants to kill healthcare legislation by lobbying key congressional figures, hallelujah. i like my health care plan and don't want it to change.

And what happens if your health care plan DOES change, because the insurance company decides it can make more money by changing it? Of course, the others would also change once they see the profit in change.

At one time, big corporations used PCBs, lead and asbestos in their products. Suppose they use their influence to get rid of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other regulations that disallow the use of these carcinogens. Are you cool with dying of cancer just so that you can put a superior roofing product on your house? Are you willing to give up eating fish, just so that General Electric can build transformer the way they used to?

You know, the USDA can be quite the annoyance. Testing all of those cows for disease is a waste of time and money. So what if a few dozen people die from eating at Jack In The Box. They can just sue...wait, no they can't. We change the law so that they cannot recover for 'accidental deaths.

[RedScare]

yes, there are greedy people. you can't legislate morality. if a person abuses their position, they are punished. simply because greed exists is no reason to regulate profits or how they are spent.

Do you know why Theft is a crime? Because it was legislated. Suppose the legislation legalized theft. Banks already have the ability to change your interest rate unilaterally. Some rates are as high as 79.9%. On a $1,000 balance, that is %66.53 in interest per month. Why is the bank's ability to change your interest rate without your permission legal, but my ability to take your weedeater without your permission illegal? And, why are you offended at my stealing your $35 weedeater, yet you defend the bank's right to take twice that from you every month?

[bachanon]

Do you know why Theft is a crime? Because it was legislated. Suppose the legislation legalized theft. Banks already have the ability to change your interest rate unilaterally. Some rates are as high as 79.9%. On a $1,000 balance, that is %66.53 in interest per month. Why is the bank's ability to change your interest rate without your permission legal, but my ability to take your weedeater without your permission illegal? And, why are you offended at my stealing your $35 weedeater, yet you defend the bank's right to take twice that from you every month?

you cannot create laws that will prevent people from being greedy any more than you can stop drinking and driving with higher penalties.

banks can charge what they want, i don't have to use their credit. in addition, if anyone took the time to read the small print, we give them permission to change rates based on whatever criteria they, the bank, chooses. you sign for the card, you pay what they want. and, if you steal my weedeater, whether or not legislation has been passed to allow it, i can kick your ass or turn the other cheek. people choose to take it up the arse or they don't.

[BryanS]

lol. i just had a flash of myself with long golden locks and a shiny blue dress. not pretty.

yes, there are greedy people. you can't legislate morality. if a person abuses their position, they are punished. simply because greed exists is no reason to regulate profits or how they are spent. i believe that because the corporation pursues profit, i benefit. as long as wal mart exists and does what it does, i get to buy things at a cheaper cost to me. if wal mart doesn't treat it's employees well, the employees should leave. if service in wal mart becomes too poor, i might be willing to pay more for better service elsewhere. personal choices on a large scale, for the most part, create the corporations vying for political clout. i "am" wal mart. for that matter, i "am" blue cross blue shield. i am gmac. i am gmc. i am gateway computers. i am eddie bauer. i am nabisco. (i'm now standing in wal mart, with XXXL shiny blue dress, black pumps, four day shadow and long golden locks with a sign that says "I AM NABISCO".)

it's difficult to see big industry or corporations as evil entities when they are comprised of so many different elements.

if the mean old health insurance industry wants to kill healthcare legislation by lobbying key congressional figures, hallelujah. i like my health care plan and don't want it to change.

i certainly do not think a corporation thinks of me at all, that would be preposterous. i act in my own self interest and i choose to utilize the products of corporations whose primary goal is profit; they wouldn't exist otherwise and i would not have the option of their benefit(s).

...so if you already are walmart, blue cross, gmac, and nabisco... and you can vote... (but corporations cannot)...

...then what's the purpose of ANY corp involvement in politics? If the elements (real people) are already participating in the political process - and voting - both with their wallets and at the voting both... then why give a megaphone to a mob of people, who collectively, cannot vote, but only serve to corrupt the political process?

In reality, for-profit corporations, like what we think (Microsoft, 3M, etc)... aren't going to be the big problem. I don't think.

It's the non-profit 501[c]s that are going to run amok. And they already are.

Right now, in Maine, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a 501c, is in litigation over campaign finance disclosure laws in Maine. Basically, money from across the country is laundered through NOM (by taking up collections in churches)... and NOM just shows up in your state - with their "advocacy" campaign. Unlimited money, no disclosure is what they're after.

http://www.scribd.co...e-Investigation

It is these kinds of "corporations" that the Supreme Court just gave a green light to. And while the Maine NOM case has not been ruled upon, here is a little snippet from Justice Thomas, in the case that has been decided. He dissented because the Court did not go far enough in its reach:

Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest [prop 8]—“the advent of the Internet” enables “prompt disclosure of expenditures,” which “provide” political opponents “with the information needed” to intimidate and retaliate against their foes. Thus, “disclosure permits citizens ... to react to the speech of [their political opponents] in a proper”—or undeniably improper —“way” long before a plaintiff could prevail on an as-applied challenge.

I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in “core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection.’ ”

Nevermind, Judge Thomas, that everyday in this country, people are routinely assaulted, lose their jobs, and have to repair their damaged property simply because of who they are - not even in the process of exercising their First Amendment rights!

[RedScare]

Isn't it interesting that some are so willing...even insistent...that a non-human entity that was created by the voters be given the power to control the voters? We constantly repeat the mantra that we are the greatest country in the world, yet so many insist that certain entities be given the right to trample us. Why? It's just a corporation. It doesn't breathe, vote or feel pain. In theory, it only does what we allow it to. And, yet some demand that we allow this soulless creation with no morales, no conscience, and no responsibility be allowed to do what it pleases.

If they aren't going to be forced to make the country better, why not simply abolish the Business & Commerce Act, and let them REALLY have at it? If corporations are so good, why not trust them to incorporate under their own terms?