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
( ... )
I'm not, I'll likely start a blog more removed from anything that can be associated to me; largely poetry most likely. I'm killing the LJ because of the adds that keep raping me when I try to log in, and because due to my future job prospect, I need to divorce my name and politics and such for the time being. I even changed my views on Facebook and such to more palatable ones.
Comments 10
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
(The comment has been removed)
Here's hoping you can buy out after you sell out.
Reply
Farewell, man. Jesi and I miss you.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment