While my head has been buried elsewhere, in the codes and procedures of surface condensers and turbo-generators, I missed the day I've been waiting for; dreading
( Read more... )
I am of the opinion that the hysteria over Citizens United has probably been greatly unfounded. As if corporations didn't already control everything. Maybe now we'll see some real campaign finance reform though, which would be a good thing.
I am not. It's not hysteria, it's not unexpected, it's the next natural step of the conversion of our government towards a vehicle of corporate control. Our government has essentialy been run by corporations for a long, long time; that is obvious. This, however, IS a milestone in the disparity between the democratic power of the Individual, The Community and The Corporation
( ... )
I am very familiar with the arguments on all side of this. I was actually somewhat obsessed with this opinion for about a week and a half following its announcement, which you'd know if you'd been reading my LJ. (I don't mean anything by this.) I actually read the entire majority opinion as well as Stevens' dissent.
Halliburton and KBR would never (with their INCREDIBLE profit's through this recesion) dump absurd amounts of money into political contributions to War friendly politicians because
You know this ruling had nothing to do with direct contributions, right? It was independent expenditures. Limits on direct contribution weren't even considered. Some people have argued there's little difference. I think there are big differences. The former is much more conceivable as a direct bribe. And as I argued in my lengthy column on the topic, limitations on the former don't have any effect on free speech, which the statute that was struck down did (a fact none of the Justices disagreed with
( ... )
I realize, but I'm a part of the "it doesn't really matter" opinion. Contributions essentially pay for: advertisements, travel and staffing costs. How much goes to Ads? From what I've read usually 50-80%.
So with this we've opened that 50-80% up to complete corporate sponsorship. If it is essentially agreed that politicians are "bought off" by being donated money to get elected, what does it matter if the money is direct or indirect? I see no difference in being given 50% of the money I will, inevitably, be spending on a product or a coupon that gives me 50% off of that product; the results are exactly the same.
A bribe is a bribe, direct or indirect. It's the ends, not the method.
If money spent is taken as a whole, and assumed to correlate directly to influence, then how are we not looking at a proportional increase in corporate influence or as Mr. Grayson says, “The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can buy elections. If that happens, democracy in America is over. We cannot put the law up for sale, and
( ... )
And a rant, but not really.fields_of_dustFebruary 2 2010, 05:57:26 UTC
We're talking about corporations whom already have their own guiding, governing body and have already transcended nation, and act as a parallel set of "national-entities"; observe the definition of nation it's self, Corporations fulfill most of the requisites of nation. It's my view that we are seeing an epoch in world history as great as that of Hammurabi's code, The Nation State, The Magna Carta, Democracy and The onset of The Age of Reason. We are seeing a new paradigm arise in which a world governance is disseminated in feudalistic corporate nations, it is already converging, many De'facto elements exist, this is another, critical step to making it De'Jours. In the end, Economy and Security are the pillars of Nation; we've seen Corporations granted the power of Person, this is another step in the ability of Nation (while also acting outside of nation, in parallel, entirely), we're seeing the rise of private armies to protect the citizens of these "corporate nations", and their interests swell to a 120 Billion per year market
( ... )
One more point: It's of questionable relevance whether corporations are foreign or American, from a Constitutional standpoint. As Constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald writes in his latest blog post, responding to Sen. Susan Collins' claims that the Constitution doesn't protect foreigners (a premise in her argument that foreign terrorists deserve no due process):
It is indisputable, well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners. It's not even within the realm of mainstream legal debate to deny that.
... to see how false this notion is that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the Bill of Rights. It says nothing about "citizens." To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . or abridging the freedom of speech"; "No soldier shall, in time of peace be
( ... )
Stop thinking like a Lawyer Rob, compartmentalize.
It is relevant, to people and to the philosophies of the men who wrote that constitution and bill of rights.
The right to vote was only granted to citizens for a reason, and the same exact reasoning carries through to campaign contributions regardless of legal linguistics.
Reply
Reply
Halliburton and KBR would never (with their INCREDIBLE profit's through this recesion) dump absurd amounts of money into political contributions to War friendly politicians because
You know this ruling had nothing to do with direct contributions, right? It was independent expenditures. Limits on direct contribution weren't even considered. Some people have argued there's little difference. I think there are big differences. The former is much more conceivable as a direct bribe. And as I argued in my lengthy column on the topic, limitations on the former don't have any effect on free speech, which the statute that was struck down did (a fact none of the Justices disagreed with ( ... )
Reply
So with this we've opened that 50-80% up to complete corporate sponsorship. If it is essentially agreed that politicians are "bought off" by being donated money to get elected, what does it matter if the money is direct or indirect? I see no difference in being given 50% of the money I will, inevitably, be spending on a product or a coupon that gives me 50% off of that product; the results are exactly the same.
A bribe is a bribe, direct or indirect. It's the ends, not the method.
If money spent is taken as a whole, and assumed to correlate directly to influence, then how are we not looking at a proportional increase in corporate influence or as Mr. Grayson says, “The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can buy elections. If that happens, democracy in America is over. We cannot put the law up for sale, and ( ... )
Reply
Reply
It is indisputable, well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners. It's not even within the realm of mainstream legal debate to deny that.
... to see how false this notion is that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the Bill of Rights. It says nothing about "citizens." To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . or abridging the freedom of speech"; "No soldier shall, in time of peace be ( ... )
Reply
It is relevant, to people and to the philosophies of the men who wrote that constitution and bill of rights.
The right to vote was only granted to citizens for a reason, and the same exact reasoning carries through to campaign contributions regardless of legal linguistics.
Reply
Leave a comment