[OAW]

Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.

Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits - NYTimes.com

Is this ruling a good thing or a bad thing or democracy in the US? Should the First Amendment even apply to legal persons (i.e. Corporations, labor unions, think tanks, associations, etc.)? Will virtually unlimited "independent spending" by corporations and labor unions in political campaigns overwhelm and drown out the limited ($2400 max) campaign contributions of the voting public?

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Will virtually unlimited "independent spending" by corporations and labor unions in political campaigns overwhelm and drown out the limited ($2400 max) campaign contributions of the voting public?

Yes.

[Chuckit]

Um, I'm all about free speech and all that, but I don't believe most corporations have mouths, so they can get bent. I'm just curious why whoever was behind this decided to bribe Kennedy over Sotomayor.

Incidentally, though, wouldn't this be a strong precedent for overturning individual contribution limits as well?

[Orion27]

The McCain Feingold law prohibited issue oriented advertising 30-60 day before an election. The McCain-Feingold law did contain an exception for broadcast news reports, commentaries and editorials. Clearly, this exemption favored one party/ideology over another. Are not General Electric, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Microsoft, FOX, corporations? Not too mention the the disparity of influence held by unions, whose members, individual contributors with a gun held to their head, had no say as to whom or where contributions were made. This ruling simply levels the playing field. Maybe the press needs to get back into journalism instead of advocacy. How about a law on that?

[OAW]

Is it just me, but if a "legal person" such as a corporation or a union doesn't have a right to vote ... why does it have a right to free speech with regard to political campaigns?

And also, considering how the piece began with "Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents,.... .... would it be fair and accurate to characterize this ruling as judicial activism on the part of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court? I mean ... I'm just saying.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Um, I'm all about free speech and all that, but I don't believe most corporations have mouths, so they can get bent. I'm just curious why whoever was behind this decided to bribe Kennedy over Sotomayor.

Well Kennedy has long been a swing vote. He's been the deciding vote on the Supreme Court for some time now.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Incidentally, though, wouldn't this be a strong precedent for overturning individual contribution limits as well?

Perhaps. But clearly precedent isn't much of an issue for the Roberts Supreme Court.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

This ruling simply levels the playing field. Maybe the press needs to get back into journalism instead of advocacy. How about a law on that?

It didn't level the playing field so much as turn it into a mass grave, then pave over the dead bodies.

[Big Mac]

This was the right decision. If you think that corporations have too much power over the government, take power away from the monstrous federal government we have and corporations won't dump nearly as much money on elected officials to get favors. We won't have to fear the corrupting influence of money if the federal government returns to its Constitutionally mandated and constrained functions. The desire for campaign finance reform masks the true problem of a far too powerful central government.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The McCain Feingold law prohibited issue oriented advertising 30-60 day before an election. The McCain-Feingold law did contain an exception for broadcast news reports, commentaries and editorials. Clearly, this exemption favored one party/ideology over another. Are not General Electric, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Microsoft, FOX, corporations?

Yes, but the only one that's strongly based in a party ideology is Fox. Oh, I guess that's why it's mostly Republicans who think this is so neat. I see what you're saying. So you reckon this will be good for the Democrats?

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Not too mention the the disparity of influence held by unions, whose members, individual contributors with a gun held to their head, had no say as to whom or where contributions were made.

Doesn't this ruling worsen that situation? Now unions can give away their members' dollars without any limits and keep spending it on ads until the last possible moments.

[Shaddim]

I'll agree with controlling corporate donations if the same is done with unions.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

This was the right decision. If you think that corporations have too much power over the government, take power away from the monstrous federal government we have and corporations won't dump nearly as much money on elected officials to get favors. We won't have to fear the corrupting influence of money if the federal government returns to its Constitutionally mandated and constrained functions.

What do you recommend I use to take away the government's power, ****ing pixie dust? If I could singlehandedly bring down the government, that would be awesome, but it's not remotely the case. As it is, the best option is to limit the potential for harm. I am convinced that corporate control of the government is our #1 problem in this age and one of the biggest causes of expanding government power (see the DMCA, our money wasted on fighting illegal drugs to keep the legal drug companies happy, people forced into buying health insurance, etc.).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, but the only one that's strongly based in a party ideology is Fox.

Hogwash. MSNBC? They have some "token conservatives" the same way FOX has "token libs", but their party bias is obvious.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The McCain Feingold law prohibited issue oriented advertising 30-60 day before an election. The McCain-Feingold law did contain an exception for broadcast news reports, commentaries and editorials.

It is entirely appropriate for the media to engage in "broadcast news reports, commentaries and editorials". They aren't called the Fourth Estate for nothing.

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Clearly, this exemption favored one party/ideology over another.

How so?

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Not too mention the the disparity of influence held by unions, whose members, individual contributors with a gun held to their head, had no say as to whom or where contributions were made. This ruling simply levels the playing field.

Surely you jest? "The disparity of influence held by unions ...."? Seriously?

Union membership had been steadily declining in the US since 1983.

....

At the apex of union density in the 1940s, only about 9.8% of public employees were represented by unions, while 33.9% of private, non-agricultural workers had such representation. In this decade, those proportions have essentially reversed, with 36% of public workers being represented by unions while private sector union density had plummeted to around 7%. Recently, workers have increasingly chosen union membership. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent survey indicates that union membership in the US has risen to 12.4% of all workers, from 12.1% in 2007. Private sector union membership has rebounded as well, increasing from 7.5% in 2007 to 7.6% in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_u..._United_States

Clearly labor unions are not the political force that they used to be. They've had declining membership for decades (a slight increase in recent years notwithstanding). Consequently, they have less funding with which to wield political power. Now contrast with the increase in corporate earnings and power during the same time period. Furthermore, the employees ... hell even the shareholders of corporations had no say "as to whom or where contributions were made" ... so how is this any different than with labor unions?

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Maybe the press needs to get back into journalism instead of advocacy. How about a law on that?

Sounds like a good idea. I just don't think Fox News would agree. They are getting really great ratings going the advocacy route.

OAW

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hogwash. MSNBC? They have some "token conservatives" the same way FOX has "token libs", but their party bias is obvious.

OK, you're right. I almost invariably flip right by MSNBC because they're useless, so they weren't in my mind as clearly.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What do you recommend I use to take away the government's power, ****ing pixie dust?

Should I report this post?

I am convinced that corporate control of the government is our #1 problem in this age and one of the biggest causes of expanding government power (see the DMCA, our money wasted on fighting illegal drugs to keep the legal drug companies happy, people forced into buying health insurance, etc.).

1. Regarding the DMCA, the online community likes to demonize it, but some of it is worthwhile. And like it or not, America's economy is information-based and makes a lot of its money on intellectual property. Whether or not we should be an information economy, that's what we have, so laws will be made to protect it.

2. Who says illegal drugs are fought to keep legal drug producers happy? Illegal drugs are fought because most people (and especially those in power) believe they should be illegal, principally.

3. Those who argue for campaign finance limits are most likely the same people trying to force insurance mandates. Strange bedfellows.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What do you recommend I use to take away the government's power, ****ing pixie dust?

I'd tap Tinkerbell.

[SpaceMonkey]

In my mind the issue here is quite similar to the "tyranny of the majority" fear that motivated the creation of the Bill of Rights in the first place. Absent restrictions, corporate (and union) interests have a preponderance of resources that can drown out the speech rights of the rest of us. It's perfectly reasonable and Constitutional to set well-defined limits on political speech. We can quibble about whether McCain-Feingold went about it in the right way, though.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

This was the right decision. If you think that corporations have too much power over the government, take power away from the monstrous federal government we have and corporations won't dump nearly as much money on elected officials to get favors. We won't have to fear the corrupting influence of money if the federal government returns to its Constitutionally mandated and constrained functions. The desire for campaign finance reform masks the true problem of a far too powerful central government.

This is where we will surely disagree. And quite frankly, this is where radical right-wing ideology trumps common sense IMO. What you suggest is tantamount to "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face". I'm a firm believer in the old adage ....

Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The thing is ... unlike many of our good friends on the right .... I don't believe that this adage applies only to the federal government. Personally, I think it's nonsensical to chafe at unbridled government power ... yet say nothing (or even encourage) unbridled corporate power. Consequently, the answer to too much corporate influence over the government is NOT to weaken the "monstrous federal government" ... for that only leaves the "monstrous corporations" in control of everything. The answer is to limit the influence of corporations over the government so that the government can actually do what it is supposed to which is "promote the general welfare" of the PEOPLE instead of promoting CORPORATE INTERESTS.

The government is the "referee". It makes no sense for the "players" to have more power than the "referee". It makes even less sense for the "players" to have the "referee" in their pocket. Not if you have any concern for the integrity of the "game" that is.

OAW

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

In my mind the issue here is quite similar to the "tyranny of the majority" fear that motivated the creation of the Bill of Rights in the first place. Absent restrictions, corporate (and union) interests have a preponderance of resources that can drown out the speech rights of the rest of us. It's perfectly reasonable and Constitutional to set well-defined limits on political speech. We can quibble about whether McCain-Feingold went about it in the right way, though.

Tyranny of the majority as the founders conceived of it was of too much power concentrated in the hands of the masses and too much government authority. If you're worried about too much corporate control, that's not tyranny of the majority you're actually concerned about. It could well be Fascism, though, and the antidote to Fascism is to return the government to its properly constrained Constitutional roles.

The same goes for much of what you're railing against in your reply to me, OAW. What do I have to fear from corporate control if excessive government power is brought under control?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Tyranny of the majority as the founders conceived of it was of too much power concentrated in the hands of the masses and too much government authority.

Of course, but the same principle applies to corporations, associations, etc. if we are considering them as a class of citizen with protected speech rights.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'll agree with controlling corporate donations if the same is done with unions.

What he said.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Of course, but the same principle applies to corporations, associations, etc. if we are considering them as a class of citizen with protected speech rights.

Then downsize government authority back to its Constitutional levels and the corrupting influence of corporate money will also be downsized.

Powerful corporations are an economic fact of life. If we try to constrain them too much they'll just move to countries that provide them more freedom, and we'll lose any government control over them. Monstrous federal governments are not a fact of life. It's perplexing to me to see people complain about too much corporate influence over government and then say that the way to balance it out is to make government even more powerful. That just means that those corporations that properly game the system will have an even more powerful government doing their bidding.

[Chuckit]

I think what Big Mac is saying is, what are you afraid corporations are going to do to you that the government is not allowed to do?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Then downsize government authority back to its Constitutional levels and the corrupting influence of corporate money will also be downsized.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Then downsize government authority back to its Constitutional levels and the corrupting influence of corporate money will also be downsized.

All you've done then, at best, is push more corporate money down to state-level politics, since state authority will have increased. It doesn't resolve the fundamental dynamic.

Powerful corporations are an economic fact of life. If we try to constrain them too much they'll just move to countries that provide them more freedom, and we'll lose any government control over them.

How does limiting a corporation's ability to pay for issue advertising around an election, or contribute to campaigns, impact its business model? I'm not proposing that we constrain corporations' ability to become economically powerful.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think what Big Mac is saying is, what are you afraid corporations are going to do to you that the government is not allowed to do?

That's not really what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned that a preponderance of corporate money in elections unrealistically limits the scope of debate around some issue to a handful of choices that do not necessarily benefit the public good.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The same goes for much of what you're railing against in your reply to me, OAW. What do I have to fear from corporate control if excessive government power is brought under control?

Oh I don't know. How about ...

- Unsafe working conditions
- Low wages not commensurate with the work being performed
- Pay discrimination
- Insane work schedules with no paid overtime

Just to name a few. None of which were corrected by the "free market". Such abuses were essentially eliminated in the US workplace because the government compelled the corporations to do so. By acting on behalf of the public good. Again, unbridled corporate power in a capitalistic society will inevitably lead to fascism and the undermining of democracy. Perhaps you disagree, but I for one don't think that's a good idea.

OAW

[Chuckit]

So you're saying that without government control, we might be competitive in the global market?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

OK, you're right. I almost invariably flip right by MSNBC because they're useless, so they weren't in my mind as clearly.

Why? They are clearly a mouthpiece for Obama and the far left. I actually prefer Morning Joe to all other morning offerings. I may be conservative but I do watch MSNBC, read the NYT's,
Washington Post, Salon and the rest. I'm not afraid of reading or listening to the arguments on the left. And I'd compare my far left credentials against anybody. But just as Podhoretz, I have seen the tyranny of the left and reject it totally.

[Chuckit]

You mean why don't I watch them? Because they don't really offer much that's unique and I generally find the coverage on the other networks more interesting. I don't watch any TV in the morning (or do anything else but either sleep or rush to get ready for work), so I can't comment on their morning show. I just know that when I am looking to watch the news, they're usually the loser. Also, they have Microsoft in their name.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Again, unbridled corporate power in a capitalistic society will inevitably lead to fascism and the undermining of democracy. Perhaps you disagree, but I for one don't think that's a good idea.

OAW

Well, a truly free market capitalistic system has never been tried so , while you may possibly be right, your opinion is still straight out of your imagination and your ideology rather than evidence and history.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Oh I don't know. How about ...

- Unsafe working conditions
- Low wages not commensurate with the work being performed
- Pay discrimination
- Insane work schedules with no paid overtime

Just to name a few. None of which were corrected by the "free market". Such abuses were essentially eliminated in the US workplace because the government compelled the corporations to do so.

OAW

It was unions that forced these things to change, the government fell in line later. This is a part of the free market and would have come about IMO with or without the government. It goes both ways. What people are willing to put up with determines their pay and work conditions. We have aspects of this now. For example, in many places, like my state, there is NO government mandate with regard to breaks and lunches in the workplace. They don't have to give you a break if they don't want to. Yet miraculously, every job I have ever had or heard of here allows regular breaks and lunches.

There should be laws in place to prevent outright abuse and exploitation, but for the most part the necessity of governmental intervention in worker protection is highly overstated. Also, though a certain amount of protection is in order, going too far beyond the minimal protection actually starts empowering the larger, more powerful and connected corporations by harming or destroying smaller businesses as they struggle or fail to keep up with the increased financial burden of compliance.

[Big Mac]

As with many controversial SCOTUS opinions, before anyone decides firmly that this is a bad decision, it's important to actually read it:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

The Court found that the restrictions on corporate speech were so chilling to the 1st Amendment that there was no choice but to strike down the laws as unconstitutional. The fact is, a corporation could be found to be in violation of criminal law simply by operating a website with partisan political opinions in the vicinity of an election. Whatever you think of corporate power influencing politics, free speech should never be criminalized in this country. Corporations are simply assemblages of people, and as such it doesn't make sense to limit their 1st Amendment rights simply because they're concentrated and delivered by an assembled entity, no matter how powerful. The 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, not Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech unless it seems sensible to do to powerful entities. Powerful corporations and even the very rich (relatively speaking) existed when the Bill of Rights was adopted, so if it had been deemed essential there would have been a restriction on the 1st Amendment (just like there's a restriction on the Takings Clause in the 5th Amendment). There is no such restriction on, and these laws were onerous. Therefore, they had to be struck down.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

… By acting on behalf of the public good.…

OAW

Also, not to overstate my position but, how many atrocities against man and how much oppression has been perpetuated against man because of someone acting on behalf of the "public good"?

[olePigeon]

By an odd coincidence, a picture of the 2016 Presidential candidates fell through a time warp. Here it is:

[OAW]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Well, a truly free market capitalistic system has never been tried so , while you may possibly be right, your opinion is still straight out of your imagination and your ideology rather than evidence and history.

And it shouldn't be tried. I certainly don't want food companies using the toxic ingredients to improve their bottom line and letting the "market decide" if that's acceptable or not. Would you?

A "truly free market capitalistic system" would be tantamount to economic anarchy. I have little faith that such a system would work itself out over the long haul.

OAW

[chabig]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Is it just me, but if a "legal person" such as a corporation or a union doesn't have a right to vote ... why does it have a right to free speech with regard to political campaigns?

You've made a few mistakes. There is no constitutional right to vote. Voting is a privilege normally extended to all citizens 18 years or older, but the privilege can be taken away through due process (in many states felons are not allowed to vote). The first amendment is a restriction on the government's ability to interfere with speech. Were the government to try to restrict free speech only to the voting eligible, that would be an unconstitutional restriction.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And it shouldn't be tried. I certainly don't want food companies using the toxic ingredients to improve their bottom line and letting the "market decide" if that's acceptable or not. Would you?

A "truly free market capitalistic system" would be tantamount to economic anarchy. I have little faith that such a system would work itself out over the long haul.

OAW

In my view, part of the role of government should be protect consumers from fraud and deceit. As long as there is full disclosure I don't care what they put in there. People are ultimately responsible for themselves and I don't care if they choose to endanger their lives, be it with drugs, booze, or "toxic" food. ( I realize that I am in the minority here. I have no sympathy for people who choose to be ignorant or who victimize themselves) You really think that in this context a company would thrive or even survive? Do you think that civil suits are no longer possible in such a world? No one is talking about anarchy here.

Most of these laws are superfluous or redundant, enacted as a way to appear to be "doing something" in order to garner support, i.e. votes. A good example of this is the fairly recent lead toy testing rules brought about by Chinese toys containing lead. I mean, WHO wants their kids playing with toys with "toxic" lead in them? Here is an interesting story about that. All it does is cost us money, make the problem worse, and empower large corporations.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by chabig 

You've made a few mistakes. There is no constitutional right to vote.

The 15th and 19th Amendments say otherwise.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. "
(emphasis mine)

[OAW]

And the 26th Amendment says ....

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Having said that, "technically" chabig is correct. While these Constitutional Amendments prohibit discrimination when it comes to voting rights on the basis of race (15th), gender (19th), and age (26th) ... there is no explicit, affirmative right to vote expressed in the Constitution. Consequently, voting rights are established by the states. All the Constitution does is prohibit the states from discriminating in this area based upon the criteria listed in these Amendments. IOW, as long as the states aren't discriminating based on those criteria ... they can establish whatever rules they want. Or not.

Now having said that, I fear the larger point I was trying to make is being missed. The issue here is corporate personhood ... and the question/controversy over what subset of rights afforded to "natural persons" under the law should also apply to "legal persons" such as a corporation, non-profit organization, labor union, etc. So putting the Constitutional minutiae aside, let's dig into that some more.

Question

Is it appropriate for the executive management of a large company to use corporate funds to influence a political election .....

(e.g. A pharmaceutical company running ads to defeat a candidate who supports shortening the timeframe for drug patent protection in order to promote increased competition from generic manufacturers. Thereby lowering (or restraining the growth) of healthcare costs.)

.... based upon the financial interests of the corporation, which may or may not coincide with the political interests of its shareholders (or employees)?


Now while corporations still may not contribute directly to a candidate or his/her campaign they can now run ads or send out out flyers advocating/opposing a particular issue or candidate. So it is my contention that most reasonable people can clearly see that this is a distinction without a difference. And when you add to that the fact that "natural persons" have a $2400 limit on what they can contribute to a political campaign, while "legal persons" such as corporations now have no financial restrictions whatsoever on the "third party" political activity that they sponsor ... the situation is even more alarming because the deck has so thoroughly been stacked in favor of corporate interests. Now I suppose there are those who are OK with this because their political interests coincide with corporate interests. That's why this was a decision made by the conservative wing of the Supreme court and many of our conservative friends are cheering the ruling. So that's fine. Whatever. But I would encourage our friends on the right to look at the bigger picture. To realize that this decision literally hands the "keys to the kingdom" over to corporations when it comes to financing political activity. And corporations ... whose raison d'etre is predominantly (if not exclusively) financial in nature ... may not always have financial interests (which are increasingly very short-term oriented) that align with your overall interests. All you Tea Party supporters who have been b*tching about the Wall Street bailout should be even more outraged about this ruling. The largest and wealthiest corporations will now have even more power and influence in Washington, DC than they already do. And when they run the economy off the rails again .... they will be even more likely to get bailed out on the taxpayer's dime because they now have even more leeway to buy and pay for politicians who will do their bidding.

Democracy in America has just been bent over and screwed. With no grease. We'll see how long it takes the supporters of this decision to realize that they've too been made the b*tch ... just like the rest of us.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Haha.. this is awesome.

In about 30 years, US will be own and run by China.

Bye bye USA. Nice knowing yah.

[smacintush]

Yeah 'cuz before now corporate money wasn't in politics at all.

We have passed more and more restrictions on how campaign money is raised and yet, it has done NOTHING to solve or even improve the issue. Finance restrictions always end up favoring the incumbent and costing challengers votes, which IMO is a horrible trade-off for false perception that somehow we are keeping corporate influence in check.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Haha.. this is awesome.

In about 30 years, US will be own and run by China.

Bye bye USA. Nice knowing yah.

That was in the cards anyway at the rate they are throwing our money away.

[lpkmckenna]

In interesting posting from reddit:

The new rules really won't change anything. Corporations will NOT be able to give donations directly to campaigns.

What they will be able to do is fund commercials or mailers or billboards or whatever the hell they want to support or oppose a candidate.

The only thing that has changed is that it will make the corporation less paranoid about hiding it...up until today, all a corporation had to do was fund a 527. Just like "The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" - a company (or more correctly, the owners of a company) could give them 100 million dollars to spend on commercials, mailers, radio ads, robo calls, etc.

Now, if they wanted, they could just air an ad and have it say "Paid for by Exxon".

But do you REALLY think they're going to tip their hat like that? Hell no. There would be so much negative PR if Exxon or some other company attacked a candidate and obviously supported another.

So basically it's going to be the same old game. Instead of owners or CEO's of corporations funding 527's, the company will just do it - Which is what was really going on before, it was just easy to hide.

Nothing changes.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

We have passed more and more restrictions on how campaign money is raised and yet, it has done NOTHING to solve or even improve the issue. Finance restrictions always end up favoring the incumbent and costing challengers votes, which IMO is a horrible trade-off for false perception that somehow we are keeping corporate influence in check.

Yeah, this is a big part of the problem. Those with the money will find ways to get their money to the candidates they want in office, restrictions or not.

I would be in favor of no campaign restrictions, on both physical and corporate persons, as long as there was complete transparency* in the process. At least that way, those interested in knowing who is behind the political advertising would have a better sense of who/what is trying to influence the candidates.

*Make something like Open Secrets a requirement for federal-level elections. Corporations would not be restricted in giving money, the only restriction--and possible penalty--would come from not disclosing the funding.

[nonhuman]

In practical terms this ruling changed nothing except to make it more obvious to people how money changes hands when it comes to politics. It's not as though there is actually any limit on corporate participation in politics anyway, or do you think advocacy groups and lobbying groups are somehow different simply because they aren't referred to as 'corporations'?

The problem is the concept of corporate personhood, not the way in which people choose to contribute their money (corporations being nothing other than a voluntary association of individual people).

[Orion27]

I'd say the ruling levels the playing. Oprah's massive influence on television, magazines, book sales, and the campaign trail is on par with a massive conglomerate.

[OldManMac]

Like I've always said, people are more gullible than they want to believe they are. This ruling is just another step toward the end of the democratic experiment that was the U. S.

Psychologists: Propaganda works better than you think - USATODAY.com

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Like I've always said, people are more gullible than they want to believe they are. This ruling is just another step toward the end of the democratic experiment that was the U. S.

Psychologists: Propaganda works better than you think - USATODAY.com

That article is a joke. The mainstream media has and continues to possess a liberal bias. This bias is also manifest in universities. Just read the editorial of the New York Time today. It is another rant on passing a Climate Bill. Still, to this day, however discredited the Times has become, its sets the agenda for the most of big media outlets. Talk about propaganda. Just where is the opposing view? Point it out to me please. To quote from today's editorial:

"The list of reasons to pass a climate bill, on the other hand, is long and persuasive"

Seriously. Give me a break. Show me any elementary, middle school, high school, or university which does not censor an opposing view. Not to mention the Weekly News Magazines.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

That article is a joke.

Of course it is, if you're in denial. There's a relatively new field of behavioral economics, and there's already a fair volume of studies which show that it isn't very hard to make people do things against their best interests, including some people we would think of as smarter than the average bear. You obviously haven't paying attention for however old you are; people are induced into buying crap, whether they need it or not, just because of targeted advertising; that behavior extends to lot of other areas as well, and we all fall for it.