Happy Days Are Here Again (For Some)

[Bud Struggle]

WASHINGTON (Jan. 21) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/supreme-court-rolls-back-campaign-spending-limits/19325879?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2Fnation%2 Farticle%2Fsupreme-court-rolls-back-campaign-spending-limits%2F19325879

I can understand the "legality" of this issue--anyone should be allowed to do what they choose, on the other hand it may influence the uneducated the poor and the just plain stupid adversely.

[RedAnarchist]

No company or business should be allowed to influence governments. Same goes for religions and anyone else who seeks to make money. This will give the rich and powerful even more influence over the US government.

[ComradeMan]

No company or business should be allowed to influence governments. Same goes for religions and anyone else who seeks to make money. This will give the rich and powerful even more influence over the US government.

LOL--- Checked out Italy lately? :(

[IcarusAngel]

This is actually one of the sickest rulings in history. Basically, government of, by, and for the corporations. It also equates property to free-speech, that even many right-wingers used to be critical of. Corporations are only responsible to the bottomline and the stockholders as well, but they have no other responsibilities. We also cannot apply other laws and regulations that we apply to people as we apply to corporations.

Basically people want free-markets, so they got 'em. I think America is too far gone to ever be saved. I talk to people from Europe all the time and they are in a completely different paradigm, and of course the people in the third world are after having witnessed the devastation of free-markets.

I think the best advice for US leftists (non-market oriented ones) is to go to college (probably one of the places that is least commercialized), before colleges are ultimately over taken by the free-market as well (since free-markets cannot take away an education once you get it), join the peace corps or something, move and join the struggling latin American movements, move to Europe, etc.

[Robert]

You guys stop hyperventilating. The Supreme Court is in place to decide whether laws violate the constitution or not, and I think they got it right. They're legal scholars with lifetime appointments and fixed salaries, not corporate hacks. It is not for them to decide whether a given law serves the interest of class struggle or not. The country runs on commerce, an intricate, interstate exchange of goods and services that democratically elected representatives, checked by federal judges, are empowered to regulate. It's not perfect, but it does exactly what the overwhelming majority want it to do.

Note too that the ruling is likely to loosen restrictions on union participation in campaign financing.


join the peace corps or something, move and join the struggling latin American movements, move to Europe, etc.
Move? Or something?? Latin America??? Like Mexico????
No, that is not "the best advice." It's terrible advice that will lead to frustration, penury, and declining health.

To the extent your advice to leave the USA is only directed, as it appears, at revolutionary leftists, I can only say, most cordially: bon voyage. On a personal level, I hope you change your mind and stay. All of you except the Stalinists

[IcarusAngel]

Free-markets are detrimental to the human psyche, which is worse than a detriment to the body. Basically it is the new form of slavery.

I personally believe that advanced social democracies will be where a move away from capitalism will take place. They are already further away from capitalism than the US, although many European countries are indeed slipping into free-markets. Check out the cooperative movements around south america though. US has good leftists, but terrible leftist movements outside of anti-war movements and so on.

[RGacky3]

Note too that the ruling is likely to loosen restrictions on union participation in campaign financing.

Yeah, but in the end it ends up helping teh unions a smigit, and the corporations a ton.

Although a functioning democracy can never really work under capitalism, having purely publicly funded elections would make a big difference.

[Scary Monster]

Note too that the ruling is likely to loosen restrictions on union participation in campaign financing.

Nope. We are fighting right at this moment to get legislation passed that also allows public financing, called the Fair Elections Now Act. My organization and numerous others have to gather signatures just to get Congress to recognize us ;) The FEN Act has bipartisan support, but note how us workers have to fight for our say in political matters, while the bill that gives corporate bastards free reign to influence elections, just breezed right on through

[Nolan]

Yeah, but in the end it ends up helping teh unions a smigit, and the corporations a ton.

Yeah, so it actually hurts the unions by helping the corps so much.

[Raúl Duke]

Leaving the U.S. will be like quitting...

Although I might consider to go to Canada one day (back to the "fatherland" lol)

[Chambered Word]

WASHINGTON (Jan. 21) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/supreme-court-rolls-back-campaign-spending-limits/19325879?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2Fnation%2 Farticle%2Fsupreme-court-rolls-back-campaign-spending-limits%2F19325879 (http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/supreme-court-rolls-back-campaign-spending-limits/19325879?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-w%7Cdl1%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2Fna tion%2Farticle%2Fsupreme-court-rolls-back-campaign-spending-limits%2F19325879)

I can understand the "legality" of this issue--anyone should be allowed to do what they choose, on the other hand it may influence the uneducated the poor and the just plain stupid adversely.


You guys stop hyperventilating. The Supreme Court is in place to decide whether laws violate the constitution or not, and I think they got it right. They're legal scholars with lifetime appointments and fixed salaries, not corporate hacks. It is not for them to decide whether a given law serves the interest of class struggle or not. The country runs on commerce, an intricate, interstate exchange of goods and services that democratically elected representatives, checked by federal judges, are empowered to regulate. It's not perfect, but it does exactly what the overwhelming majority want it to do.

Note too that the ruling is likely to loosen restrictions on union participation in campaign financing.


Bud seems to be the only capitalist who thinks in terms of reality and not just theory.


Leaving the U.S. will be like quitting...

Although I might consider to go to Canada one day (back to the "fatherland" lol)

Just go to Canada. Wouldn't want to get health problems while living in America. :thumbdown:

[Axle]

As if enough US policy weren't already set by corporations.

So what's next? Selling Congressional seats to the highest bidder? God, our government is pathetic.

[MarxSchmarx]

Of course it is a horrible decision. But there's an old saying: In a democracy, a people get the government they deserve. If they are swayed by billions of dollars in corporate advertising, they get what they vote for. Just look at the supreme court full of republican nominees.

Certainly, up to a certain point (like hiring a scheduler, transportation bills, having an office) money is important.

Having said that, what has not been mentioned in any of the media coverage of this issue (nor here and elsewhere) is that at the end of the day, corporations don't vote, people do. In this day and age, there is no excuse to make up one's minds on a political candidate based on how many commercials you watched on TV.

It seems an unstated assumption that more money = more electability. This assumption only works if we assume that there are enough gullible voters who would support who spends the most, presumably through TV ads. As such, the critique of this ruling that it will lead to corporate politicians (which we already have, anyway) is a critique of representative democracy. Worse, in some respects the previous campaign finance laws, viewed through this lens, could be seen as "protecting voters from themselves." I am wondering if those who decry this ruling here would go that far.

Perhaps there is something integral to representative democracy the way it encourages apathy among the voters or treats political decision making as akin to buying laundry detergent is yet another example of its problems. But beyond that, individuals make their own decisions, including who to vote or not vote for.

[Conquer or Die]

The only way to run a proper society is to have government operate industry as it matures. Regulated capitalism fails because the power to regulate falls into the hands of the corporations that are supposed to be regulated.

After this ruling, corporations will spend endless money on government men who will rule favorably towards their products.

[Robert]

Perhaps there is something integral to representative democracy the way it encourages apathy among the voters or treats political decision making as akin to buying laundry detergent is yet another example of its problems.

Very good. I agree.

Now. Must. Go. Buy. More. Tide. Detergent. Whiter whites. Colors brighter. New. Fresh. Scent. Happy. Safe.

[Robert]

The FEN Act has bipartisan support, but note how us workers have to fight for our say in political matters, while the bill that gives corporate bastards free reign to influence elections, just breezed right on throughFight? Everybody has to fight. Even Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) gets sued by the government from time to time.

I admit I hadn't been watching this "FEN Act" (http://www.publicampaign.org/node/38166). Looks interesting and I'll watch it. But there are way more bigger problems on Congress's plate now for us to expect it to go anywhere.

Something in your post is off a bit: there is no "bill that gives corporate bastards free reign." It's exactly the opposite! This thread is about a ruling by 9 people (actually it was a 5-4 decision, so it didn't "breez through" anything) on a court that invalidated a significant part of the McCain Feingold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform)legislation.

So it was the democratic process led to the restrictions that were invalidated by the court. If your concerns about corporate power had any validity at all, the bill would not have been passed in the first place. Note too that Sen. McCain is a Republican.

Another thing you are not understanding is that the absolute prohibition on direct contributions to political campaigns by corporations is still in place. Exxon cannot give a penny to anybody directly. That's a very old law, and it wouldn't be in place if corporations had "free reign."

Finally, I think its important to consider the facts of the case that precipitated this ruling. Some people got together and produced a movie called "Hillary, The Movie". It was critical of Hillary Clinton. They intended it to run during the 2008 presidential campaign. Because it was funded by an incorporated group, and because it named a candidate by name, it ran afoul of McCain Feingold and was banned. Think about that.