Corporate campaign ads starting this fall

Here's a prediction: Most big corporations will donate reasonably evenly to both parties. It's not bribery; it's more like paying protection money.
 
ktesibios said:
Darn you, JCL- I thought of the same thing, and wrote it up- back in December of 1999, or so says the date on the .txt file.

Having just searched for and found that old file, I'm gonna paste it in here:

(JCL - snipped a lot of words conveying good ideas)
Click to expand...

I did not think I was the first to come up with the idea. Let’s get someone to write it up in legalese and start a grass roots campaign. If this does not work I may start advocating for the torches and pitch forks route.
 
Brainster said:
Here's a prediction: Most big corporations will donate reasonably evenly to both parties. It's not bribery; it's more like paying protection money.
Click to expand...

...and thus the American people will robbed of any semblance of choice at the ballot box.
 
How much does this ruling strike down? Can foreign companies that do business here donate as well?
 
If we have a political system to which giant corporations have unlimited financial access, then you have politicians more intereted in serving their paymasters than the public. And as Brainster suggested, if these corporations "donate" equally to both parties, it's not going to matter who one votes for; that candidate will be serving corporate interests over public ones, regardless of party affiliation.

To frame it in a sports analogy, theoretically any baseball team can win the World Series, right? Tell that to every team who's not the Yankees.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
To frame it in a sports analogy, theoretically any baseball team can win the World Series, right? Tell that to every team who's not the Yankees.
Click to expand...

To extend the analogy, its already like the NYY of today versus the Atlanta Braves of the early 90s...

but ya, keep trying Seattle and Houston... ;)
 
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.
Click to expand...

Well, it is the Constitution.
 
Rika said:
I would dare say that 'freedom of speech' needs to be curtailed when it can be used to unfairly influence an election. The problem is I can't really define that firmly, and on top of that, there are corresponding issues with why negative campaigning works.
Click to expand...

Yes, those problems are indeed too large.

If the heat gets excessive, there's always libel. That friend of McCain's the NYT wrote so much innuendo about sued. She didn't win, unfortunately.
 
KingMerv00 said:
How do you tell the difference between a bribe and a campaign donation? If a company donates money directly in hopes that you will support them, it seems like the only difference is a wink and nod.
Click to expand...

A campaign contribution can only be legally spent on campaign activities. A bribe can be spent however the politician likes. So while a senator may like a million dollar campaign contribution, he can't buy himself a condo in Aspen with it. And if he doesn't get re-elected (which is a possibility even for the best-funded campaigns out there), well, the campaign contribution does him no good at all. Furthermore, because bribes are illegal, once a politician has been bribed, he's tainted for life. That politician and whoever bribed him have a bond due to common guilt that will reinforce collusion between them, whereas politicians are not above stabbing campaign contributors in the back, and can do so with total legal impunity.

If you want to view bribes and campaign contributions as morally equivalent, well, I can't prove that they're not. But practically speaking, they're quite a bit different, as outlined above. If nothing else, it means that forcing money through the campaign significantly reduces the potency of that contribution.
 
Beerina said:
Many organizations are also open to counter these adds fully. It's not just corporations this applies to.
Click to expand...
Right, because the College Democrats are on a level playing field with, say, Wal-Mart.
 
cisco said:
Right, because the College Democrats are on a level playing field with, say, Wal-Mart.
Click to expand...

Not to imply that there is a parity between grassroots and corporations, but the age of blogging and YouTube has successfully promoted/destroyed a number of candidates. See macaca, Rep. Joe Wilson.
 
cisco said:
Right, because the College Democrats are on a level playing field with, say, Wal-Mart.
Click to expand...

That's a poor analogy if I must say so. I dont think college kids from my experiences give much at all to campaigns period.

More like the NY Times and Wal-Mart no?
 
Let's see:

Master Plan, 1980-Now:

- :cool: Move manufacturing offshore and reduce the influence of labor unions
- :cool: Utilize religion and values argument to persuade the now-unemployed, panicking middle class that you represent the "good guys"
- :scared: Use declining middle class security and income to argue for lower taxes
- :cool: Now lower the taxes, but disproportionately for the wealthiest
- :hypnotize Declare government a disaster
- :hypnotize Blame job losses on unions, blame liberals & media for declining America
- :cool: Stack the courts, fund campaigns, lobby massively

- :cool: Use government to subsidize big oil, agribiz, and defense contractors
- :hypnotize Declare the government a disaster
- :hypnotize Blame job losses on unions, blame liberals & media for declining America
- :cool: Stack the courts, fund campaigns, lobby massively

- :cool: Roll back all controls on speculative and dangerous financial finagling
- :p When now trashy dollar leads oil producers to consider setting prices in non-dollar currencies, invade the first one who does it (Iraq)
- :D When the finagling creates the inevitable recession/depression, use the government to cover your losses
- :D Produce record deficit with war and finagling, so no money left to help the non-rich
- :hypnotize Declare the government a disaster
- :hypnotize Blame MASSIVE job losses on unions, liberals & media for declining America
- :scared: Use media to fan frenzied discourse and sow mud and FUD

- :cool: Get court to grant unfettered, unlimited power of persuasion over the nation you panicked, in the steep decline you created :dig:

:p Win! USA pwned! :p

Got to admire those patriotic, god-fearing, values-driven Good Guys!

Coming up, party in Bermuda while America burns!:D:D:D
 
KingMerv00 said:
How do you tell the difference between a bribe and a campaign donation? If a company donates money directly in hopes that you will support them, it seems like the only difference is a wink and nod.

I don't have an answer to this. It is a difficult issue to figure out.
Click to expand...
This ruling wasn't about donations to candidates, but about 3rd parties promoting candidates. So Acme Rocket Skates Inc. can buy an advertisement saying "Vote for Wile E. Coyote", bypassing his campaign altogether.
 
Praktik said:
To extend the analogy, its already like the NYY of today versus the Atlanta Braves of the early 90s...

but ya, keep trying Seattle and Houston... ;)
Click to expand...

Hey! We got Griffey back! Unicorns will fly over rainbows and the magical 95 season will repeat itself...except better.
 
WildCat said:
This ruling wasn't about donations to candidates, but about 3rd parties promoting candidates. So Acme Rocket Skates Inc. can buy an advertisement saying "Vote for Wile E. Coyote", bypassing his campaign altogether.
Click to expand...

But it will effectively be the same. Instead of giving a campaign contribution that will in turn be used on marketing, a corporation can just directly finance the marketing. After all, why would Acme pay for advertising for Wile E. Coyote if they weren't getting some kind of concession out of it?
 
johnny karate said:
But it will effectively be the same. Instead of giving a campaign contribution that will in turn be used on marketing, a corporation can just directly finance the marketing. After all, why would Acme pay for advertising for Wile E. Coyote if they weren't getting some kind of concession out of it?
Click to expand...
Why should the corporation known as the New York Times endorse him if they weren't getting anything out of it?

If you don't like the 1st Amendment maybe your ideological brother Hugo Chavez will let you emigrate to Venezuela.
 
johnny karate said:
But it will effectively be the same. Instead of giving a campaign contribution that will in turn be used on marketing, a corporation can just directly finance the marketing. After all, why would Acme pay for advertising for Wile E. Coyote if they weren't getting some kind of concession out of it?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone engage in any political speech if they weren't getting some concession out of it? All those bastards in my neighborhood with political signs in their lawn in 2008 must be on the take!

Or, just maybe, people engage in political speech because they might actually prefer a particular candidate (or position on a ballot initiative) purely due to policy preferences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom