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 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.
You have considered the fact that this applies equally to Foreign corporations as well, right? Or that, the corporation is by nature, not a citizen of any individual nation.
…Does the high court want this decision to apply to foreign corporations as well as domestic ones, he ponders? The truth is, the court didn’t make a decision one way or the other.
Foley best explains the potential issues by talking about the electronic, video, and communication giant, Sony. The corporation is headquartered in Japan, but a large number of its shareholders reside in the United States. In fact, people can even buy and trade Sony’s stock on the New York Stock Exchange. The issue is whether this corporation, with strong ties to a foreign country and the United States, should be permitted to independently contribute money to presidential and congressional campaigns.
The court sought to expand First Amendment protection for corporations, but did it really mean to promote the free flow of ideas from Russian or Chinese corporations, Foley asks? Justice John Paul Stevens focused on the same concerns in his dissenting opinion. The majority’s position “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans,” he writes.
I find the author's assessment of the situation to be, frankly, plainly wrong and at times amusing in their narrow view. This opens up an entirely different paradigm. Consumer blowback is supposed to stop corporations from massive campaign spending? I'm sorry, but what? Really? Because, oviously, 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 . . . people might stop buying their products? Well, hey, they have to say their KBR right? Everyone knows that, obviously, they're a military contractor with a vested interest, right? Probably not.
Yeah, I doubt Sony is going to be donating a ton of money (blatantly buying) politicians any more than now. It's not Sony I'm worried about.
This, as far as I can tell and numerous others, sidesteps almost every check from FEC regulations.
I agree with one thing he said, it will be incremental in it's progress.
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).
The statute also produced irrational, untenable results in my opinion, so I ultimately support the central holding of the case, which did not grant corporations new rights as most people seem to believe, but rather simply invalidated one provision of a statute that was passed in 2002 and was already somewhat circumvented by 2004 (which I also discuss in the column).
I don't want more corporate money in elections, of course, but all this ruling does in terms of that effect is open up the flood gates to corporate control over broadcast media. But those gates have been open for decades.
And as I mentioned above, this case is driving a huge movement to pass legislation to limit corporate power over election, such as expanding public financing of elections (which real reformers have been screaming for forever) and addressing other concerns, like foreign corporate influence, which as you rightly pointed out, wasn't ruled on by the Court. I think someone has introduced a bill to directly confront that question. Rep. Alan Grayson - a progressive ally of Ron Paul in his fight against the Fed - has been particularly prolific, introducing five bills immediately after the decision.
We lost one section of the McCain-Feingold bill, but in return, we may pick up a handful of incredibly worthwhile reforms. If much of it pans out, I say it's a fair trade.
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 award government to the highest bidder."
Of the bills you linked, I'm going to be one gets passed, the weakest one: The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432). I don't expect it to go unchallenged, because as is, it IS a massive handover of power and people will not tolerate tyranny of leaps and bounds, but will by baby steps. Only HR 4434 & 4435 really seem to have a net gain, and I'll bet you $100 bucks right here and now neither of them pass and another it's H.R. 4432 that does.
It's the same pattern, well documented and established. Rip a big hole-people resist, sew it 4/5 shut-people are relieved, then rip it again, sew 4/5 shut. Do that 5 times, and you have the same hole you ripped the first time, only people don't seem to really notice.
Giving corporations, who are the economic equivalent of Nations (see upcoming, segregated rant) the ability to spend unlimited funds on campaign ads is monumental; the old saying holds true, Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
How much more apt is that to people who MAKE the ink?
If you could, could you link me anything being done to restrict foreign influence via. corporation specifically, something that shows FEC regulations still apply, because I can't find anything.
And as I said, I'm not surprised, this is a milestone I've known we'd see for a long time - it still doesn't make it any more palatable.
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.
What terrifies me is that I see in this one of the most powerful forces of human society, a twisted mutant of Tribalism entirely corrupted by our world ravaging culture and self deification. Have you read "Beyond Civilization" by Quinn yet? The most important factors of a tribe are: Similar world view, creation myth, culture and shared means of making a living -he points out that a carnival is very much a modern day tribe.
This all exists in the corporate entity: World View (profit at all costs, progress), creation myth (company evolved from one man operation into amazing world wide enterprise; it's always the same story, go to any corporate website's "History"), culture (Corporate Culture is an essential part of any corporation), and obviously, a shared means of making a living.
I've mentioned before, I don't pay over much attention to politics anymore because I find we tended to stop seeing the forest for the trees. I've been reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, and am on Common Sense at the moment. I don't point that out to sound pretentious, only to point out that the nation we have is NOT the nation our forefathers had designed and I can see that in their own words. We got here by small, incremental change. Big holes sewed 4/5 closed and reopened. Fair trades that were never quite as fair as they seemed, experts who said it would make little difference.
There is a trend, a current that has lead us here, and is leading us to "the corporate nation" as well as "the corporate person", maybe it's emergence, I don't know. But I don't like it, I find it terrifying.
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 quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner"). And where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in "citizens," but rather in "persons" or "the accused" ("No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense").
The First Amendment was implicated in this case, and that's always tricky domain to civil libertarians like me. To quote the ACLU's site, "the system of electing candidates to federal office badly needs repair. And we will continue to advocate reform of the current system - such as our longstanding support for full public financing - but in doing so we will stress fidelity to the principles protected by the First Amendment with the goal of expanding, not limiting, political speech."
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.
You have considered the fact that this applies equally to Foreign corporations as well, right? Or that, the corporation is by nature, not a citizen of any individual nation.
…Does the high court want this decision to apply to foreign corporations as well as domestic ones, he ponders? The truth is, the court didn’t make a decision one way or the other.
Foley best explains the potential issues by talking about the electronic, video, and communication giant, Sony. The corporation is headquartered in Japan, but a large number of its shareholders reside in the United States. In fact, people can even buy and trade Sony’s stock on the New York Stock Exchange. The issue is whether this corporation, with strong ties to a foreign country and the United States, should be permitted to independently contribute money to presidential and congressional campaigns.
The court sought to expand First Amendment protection for corporations, but did it really mean to promote the free flow of ideas from Russian or Chinese corporations, Foley asks? Justice John Paul Stevens focused on the same concerns in his dissenting opinion. The majority’s position “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans,” he writes.
http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/01/22/wait-can-foreign-companies-now-spend-on-us-political-elections/
I find the author's assessment of the situation to be, frankly, plainly wrong and at times amusing in their narrow view. This opens up an entirely different paradigm. Consumer blowback is supposed to stop corporations from massive campaign spending? I'm sorry, but what? Really? Because, oviously, 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 . . . people might stop buying their products? Well, hey, they have to say their KBR right? Everyone knows that, obviously, they're a military contractor with a vested interest, right? Probably not.
Yeah, I doubt Sony is going to be donating a ton of money (blatantly buying) politicians any more than now. It's not Sony I'm worried about.
This, as far as I can tell and numerous others, sidesteps almost every check from FEC regulations.
I agree with one thing he said, it will be incremental in it's progress.
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).
The statute also produced irrational, untenable results in my opinion, so I ultimately support the central holding of the case, which did not grant corporations new rights as most people seem to believe, but rather simply invalidated one provision of a statute that was passed in 2002 and was already somewhat circumvented by 2004 (which I also discuss in the column).
I don't want more corporate money in elections, of course, but all this ruling does in terms of that effect is open up the flood gates to corporate control over broadcast media. But those gates have been open for decades.
And as I mentioned above, this case is driving a huge movement to pass legislation to limit corporate power over election, such as expanding public financing of elections (which real reformers have been screaming for forever) and addressing other concerns, like foreign corporate influence, which as you rightly pointed out, wasn't ruled on by the Court. I think someone has introduced a bill to directly confront that question. Rep. Alan Grayson - a progressive ally of Ron Paul in his fight against the Fed - has been particularly prolific, introducing five bills immediately after the decision.
We lost one section of the McCain-Feingold bill, but in return, we may pick up a handful of incredibly worthwhile reforms. If much of it pans out, I say it's a fair trade.
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 award government to the highest bidder."
Of the bills you linked, I'm going to be one gets passed, the weakest one: The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432). I don't expect it to go unchallenged, because as is, it IS a massive handover of power and people will not tolerate tyranny of leaps and bounds, but will by baby steps. Only HR 4434 & 4435 really seem to have a net gain, and I'll bet you $100 bucks right here and now neither of them pass and another it's H.R. 4432 that does.
It's the same pattern, well documented and established. Rip a big hole-people resist, sew it 4/5 shut-people are relieved, then rip it again, sew 4/5 shut. Do that 5 times, and you have the same hole you ripped the first time, only people don't seem to really notice.
Giving corporations, who are the economic equivalent of Nations (see upcoming, segregated rant) the ability to spend unlimited funds on campaign ads is monumental; the old saying holds true, Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
How much more apt is that to people who MAKE the ink?
If you could, could you link me anything being done to restrict foreign influence via. corporation specifically, something that shows FEC regulations still apply, because I can't find anything.
And as I said, I'm not surprised, this is a milestone I've known we'd see for a long time - it still doesn't make it any more palatable.
Reply
What terrifies me is that I see in this one of the most powerful forces of human society, a twisted mutant of Tribalism entirely corrupted by our world ravaging culture and self deification. Have you read "Beyond Civilization" by Quinn yet? The most important factors of a tribe are: Similar world view, creation myth, culture and shared means of making a living -he points out that a carnival is very much a modern day tribe.
This all exists in the corporate entity: World View (profit at all costs, progress), creation myth (company evolved from one man operation into amazing world wide enterprise; it's always the same story, go to any corporate website's "History"), culture (Corporate Culture is an essential part of any corporation), and obviously, a shared means of making a living.
I've mentioned before, I don't pay over much attention to politics anymore because I find we tended to stop seeing the forest for the trees. I've been reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, and am on Common Sense at the moment. I don't point that out to sound pretentious, only to point out that the nation we have is NOT the nation our forefathers had designed and I can see that in their own words. We got here by small, incremental change. Big holes sewed 4/5 closed and reopened. Fair trades that were never quite as fair as they seemed, experts who said it would make little difference.
There is a trend, a current that has lead us here, and is leading us to "the corporate nation" as well as "the corporate person", maybe it's emergence, I don't know. But I don't like it, I find it terrifying.
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 quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner"). And where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in "citizens," but rather in "persons" or "the accused" ("No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense").
The First Amendment was implicated in this case, and that's always tricky domain to civil libertarians like me. To quote the ACLU's site, "the system of electing candidates to federal office badly needs repair. And we will continue to advocate reform of the current system - such as our longstanding support for full public financing - but in doing so we will stress fidelity to the principles protected by the First Amendment with the goal of expanding, not limiting, political speech."
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