• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Corporate campaign ads starting this fall

Magyar

Graduate Poster
M
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
1,906
welcome to the plutacricy?

Or something like that from Star Wars

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/


The ONE thing that every one seems to agree on in US politics - from the extreme left to the extreme right - is that the system is corrupt and there is way too much influence from big money.

This ruling it seems to me has basically put a giant for sale sign on the US govt. out in the open. There can be no doubt that ANY ONE from ANY party can from now on ONLY get elected with a corp behind them.


This should send the tea party, libertarians and the "JOOOS own the govt" crowd ballistic, but it should scare all of us!

This quote sums it up well
"The fault line on this issue does not split liberals and conservatives or Republicans and Democrats. Instead, it pits entrenched establishment politicians against the very people whom they are elected to serve."
Click to expand...
 
Here's a better quote:

[Justice Kennedy] said people will naturally disagree with the content and meaning of Hillary: The Movie, but "those choices and assessments, however, are not for the government to make."
Click to expand...


I want no reasoning whatsoever to give Congress a memetic narrative that allows them to censor what people are saying, and who, and when, and why, and especially when it is about Congress itself, and who gets elected.


Ok, "Hillary: The Movie" is a hack job, paid for by corporate interests or whatever. "Thou shalt not play this before the election because it might have an effect on the election?!?"

Hell and no! :mad: Neither the appearance of corruption, nor corruption itself, is more important than freedom of speech. The absolute terms of the First Amendment do not let weasels apply value judgments to silence people who would criticize them.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Ok, "Hillary: The Movie" is a hack job, paid for by corporate interests or whatever. "Thou shalt not play this before the election because it might have an effect on the election?!?"

Hell and no! :mad: Neither the appearance of corruption, nor corruption itself, is more important than freedom of speech. The absolute terms of the First Amendment do not let weasels apply value judgments to silence people who would criticize them.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the Hillary movie. Is it a "hack job" or is it lies? If it lies then it is not protected speech under the first amendment.
 
Don't you know that money is how corporate personhoods speak? How dare you attack the first amendment!
 
People need to understand just how far reaching this ruling is... it's overturning over 100 YEARS worth of campaign finance laws, laws which got started back in 1907 when it was clear back then that excessive corporate money was having an undue influence in elections and the government.

I now fear the U.S. government is no longer going to be a party of the people, by the people, and for the people. Instead it is going to be up for auction to the highest bidder as politics becomes more heavily corporatized(sp?) than ever before.

And, on a more immediate note, if you thought seeing wall-to-wall, non-stop campaign commercials & ads was bad in 2008, with this new ruling in place, just wait until the races for 2010 get going. You ain't seen nothing yet :rolleyes:

I agree this isn't necessarily a left/right issue. This is a question of an entrenched political establishment cozying up to corporations, and vice versa, for the purpose of the government doing what's good for corporations first, and the rest of us last. Though, I will point out that it seems most Republican politicians (notable exception: John McCain) are just peeing their pants with glee over this ruling, but I think many Dems will be happy as well, due to the fact the ruling also opens it up for labor unions to go nuts on spending.

I sense massive amounts of corruption creeping back into our political process as a result of this misguided ruling... Ugh.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
I haven't seen the Hillary movie. Is it a "hack job" or is it lies? If it lies then it is not protected speech under the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good luck getting that argument to hold up in court. Especially when the target is a public figure.
 
Beerina said:
Hell and no! :mad: Neither the appearance of corruption, nor corruption itself, is more important than freedom of speech. The absolute terms of the First Amendment do not let weasels apply value judgments to silence people who would criticize them.
Click to expand...

So since you don't think there should be any limits on speech, you're okay with yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

Besides, I had no idea that a corporation/union was a person :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Magyar said:
This should send the tea party, libertarians and the "JOOOS own the govt" crowd ballistic, but it should scare all of us!
Click to expand...

Yes, it will be interesting to see how the Tea Party crowd deals with this one, seeing as how they're all about how corrupt the government is these days. If they thought it was corrupt now, they ain't seen nothing yet.
 
Money is like water; it will find a way in. See, for example, the common practice of "bundling" donations to political candidates. The most effective type of campaign finance reform would be to require complete and virtually immediate disclosure on the internet.
 
Brainster said:
Money is like water; it will find a way in. See, for example, the common practice of "bundling" donations to political candidates. The most effective type of campaign finance reform would be to require complete and virtually immediate disclosure on the internet.
Click to expand...

I agree to a certain extent... but that's like saying that some annoying waves lapping up on shore are equivalent to a tsunami. I think this is going to get majorly crazy, and fast - if you thought the amount of spending in 2008 was nuts, I think it will look tiny compared to what's coming. We'll be seeing the impact of this ruling as soon as the next couple of months in both GOP and Dem primaries. And I don't even want to think about how much corporate/union cash is going to flood the 2012 elections :boggled:

Btw, just how is this Internet disclosure thing supposed to help with campaign finance reform? The ads themselves are still required to disclose who is funding them (for whatever good that will do...)
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
but I think many Dems will be happy as well, due to the fact the ruling also opens it up for labor unions to go nuts on spending.
Click to expand...
Well, the good news obviously is that once enough corporate politicians get elected, unions can be safely outlawed and their influencing of politics with cash will finally end.
 
Some congressmen should put a sign on their forehead saying 'to rent' -- but should not forget to add, 'unfurnished'.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012200659.html

The Supreme Court has opened the door to a new era of big and possibly shadowy election spending, rolled back anti-corruption laws and emboldened critics of fundraising limits to press on. In the middle of it all will be voters, trying to figure out who's telling the truth.

The court's ruling Thursday lets corporate America start advertising candidates much as they market products and tell viewers to vote for or against them. While it almost certainly will lead to a barrage of hard-hitting TV ads in the 2010 elections, its implications reach far beyond that.

The ruling was a victory for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the National Rifle Association and other interest groups most likely to run ads with money from their treasuries. It's unlikely major corporations would want their name on an ad, but they can avoid that by giving money to interest groups, who would then run ads and disclose the spending under the groups' names.
Click to expand...
This seems like a pretty big deal to me, but I've heard nothing about it. Stumbled across this.

Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom