Five Faces
I'd really like to place solidly in my memory the faces and names of the five supreme court justices who sold this country to the corporations...most commentators seem to think this will be looked back as a turning point in the political history of this nation, and there's no way it can be seen in any positive light... a very sad state of affairs, if you ask me.
Replies
50
SWGB
I think Unions potentially will abuse this well before any corporation. And, I believe the citizens of America will let both unions and corporations know their disdain as we are a consumer driven country governed by a representative government by the right and duty to vote, maintaining a democracy.
I think upholding the Constitution is important. I also think Campaign Finance Reform should include disclosing all contributions starting at $1. We should ensure illegal aliens aren't participating in our politics until and when they become citizens.
When I worked for a large corporation, I never contributed to any PAC because I am an individual and prefer to voice as an individual. What did a large corporation ever do for me? Why should I contribute to their causes politically? Maybe more people will come up with their own kool-aid flavor.
You'll be thrilled to know it already is. Every penny must be accounted for when dealing with political contributions. That is the main reason that cash donations are so restricted and watched. The current limit is $50.00 and was recently lowered from $100.00.
The reasoning behind that is that it would be very easy for a rich powerful person to simply hand a bag o' cash to any person and have them donate it. By restricting cash contributions there is a nice paper trail to find violations.
SoWal Insider
SWGB, I think they all violate this, but Obama raised more money via the small dollar contribution than any other candidate in the history of elections. He was able to forgo the public financing option as well as any matching. I have forgotten the number, but almost 100,000 donations were received by his campaign and not all of those that were small dollars were disclosed. He was asked to disclose, but would not. He had the right to not disclose based upon the rules regarding campaign finance. I think disclosing all contributions AND confirming citizenship should be a large part of campaign finance reform.
I also think upholding the Constitution should be a duty of the Supreme Court Justices, which they have done. I don't like the fact that there aren't limits on corporations and have serious concerns with unions and this law being lifted. But, I have to believe that the American people can and will take a strong position if and when it is abused.
Just my opinion.
Oligarchy is funny!
Good one.
I also think upholding the Constitution should be a duty of the Supreme Court Justices, which they have done. I don't like the fact that there aren't limits on corporations and have serious concerns with unions and this law being lifted. But, I have to believe that the American people can and will take a strong position if and when it is abused.
Just my opinion.
Oligarchy is funny!
Good one.Beach Fanatic
I don't abide that the view that the "founding fathers" were all-knowing, all-seeing, prophets with sacrosanct wisdom. I'm pretty sure they didn't forsee the rise of multi-national corporations and mass media. The constitution has to be a "living document". It has to be interpreted constantly by the courts for the common good. This ruling, which the court went out of their way to make as broad as they can, has nothing to do with the common good. If you think we have been going thru "propaganda wars" up until now, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
Your statement here illustrates a fundemental difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals believe everything is relative and up for interpretation. Conservatives believe that certain core principles found in the Constitution are inviolate.
As to "all-knowing,all-seeing" the Founders were neither. But they were very wise and provided a means to change the document with the times. The amendment process is available to address changes that are needed. If the limitation on corporate campaigning is needed then the Constitution can be amended to reflect that.
The only thing I see is that unions should be under the same restrictions as corporations and churches. That might level the playing field a little.
Beach Lover
". . . the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling -- which removes decades of campaign spending limits on corporations -- opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law.
"It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell elected officials through the campaign process . . . It allows them to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected officials who actually try to do what's right for the people."
Read more of what Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has to say.
"It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell elected officials through the campaign process . . . It allows them to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected officials who actually try to do what's right for the people."
Read more of what Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has to say.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
". . . the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling -- which removes decades of campaign spending limits on corporations -- opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law.
"It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell elected officials through the campaign process . . . It allows them to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected officials who actually try to do what's right for the people."
Read more of what Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has to say.
If Alan Grayson is against it I would think it is a grand idea
Beach Fanatic
If Alan Grayson is against it I would think it is a grand idea
Alan Grayson is a new American hero on the Left--just as Michelle Bachman and Sara Palin are both new American hero's on the Right.
The only difference is that he is both intelligent and logical.
Beach Fanatic
Anyone who believes that corporations don't ALREADY own this country and its leadership has been asleep for the past several years.
SoWal Guide
Anyone who believes that corporations don't ALREADY own this country and its leadership has been asleep for the past several years.
MC - how come you always hit the nail right on the head?
Beach Fanatic
Alan Grayson is a new American hero on the Left--just as Michelle Bachman and Sara Palin are both new American hero's on the Right.
The only difference is that he is both intelligent and logical.
He is intelligent and logical like Vandy is an SEC football powerhouse.
Beach Fanatic
Actually, they did. Corporations existed in Europe and were already manipulating financial markets.
Remember from your American History class reading about the Hudson Bay Company? It was a corporation.
They did not exist "as they exist today..." I am thinking primarily of the ones who own huge media outlets like network or cable TV stations--and multi-national financial institutions....quite different from the Hudson Bay Company, although I agree that corporations have always manipulated whatever they need to, in order to make a profit for their investors, and many of them have, at the same time, given much to good causes such as disasters and research for cures for disease..just in the founders' time they did not have the instant communication and world financial markets to help them.
Beach Fanatic
i
The only thing I see is that unions should be under the same restrictions as corporations and churches. That might level the playing field a little.
What restrictions? The way I read it, both the unions and the corporations have had the restrictions lifted by this decision...
Beach Fanatic
Anyone who believes that corporations don't ALREADY own this country and its leadership has been asleep for the past several years.
I agree. But, before the SC decision last week, they had to at least "work at" the manipulaton a little bit...now, they have been given a "blank check."
SoWal Expert
Actually some corporations had enormous power as they were given exclusive rights to certain regions. The Virginia Company, Hudson Bay Company, and British East India Company were HUGE economic and political powerhouses.
They had an elected board of directors, stockholders, lobbyists, elected representatives in their debt, you name it.
At one time the Hudson Bay company was the largest landowner in the world (1/3 of modern Canada) and was the de facto government in N. America.
The British East India Company was so powerful it basically ruled India for 100 years and had its own troops.
They had an elected board of directors, stockholders, lobbyists, elected representatives in their debt, you name it.
At one time the Hudson Bay company was the largest landowner in the world (1/3 of modern Canada) and was the de facto government in N. America.
The British East India Company was so powerful it basically ruled India for 100 years and had its own troops.
Beach Fanatic
Okay. I am not disputing that; guess I am just looking at it from a different perspective. It's not important enough to me to argue the fine points...suffice it to say, I (my opinion) think this decision is not a good one for regular Americans in today's world. and I am not sure if it was good for regular Americans or Brits, or French, or Native Americans in the world of yesterday either--just that the opportunities are different; results may turn out to be the same. there was probably a very good reason that the restrictions that were just overturned, were set up in the first place.
SoWal Expert
Oh, I think it's dumb as sheet - flies in the face of all the campaign reforms we have been working for.
Just trying to keep my head from exploding by focusing on the historical details.
Just trying to keep my head from exploding by focusing on the historical details.
SWGB
SWGB, I think they all violate this, but Obama raised more money via the small dollar contribution than any other candidate in the history of elections. He was able to forgo the public financing option as well as any matching. I have forgotten the number, but almost 100,000 donations were received by his campaign and not all of those that were small dollars were disclosed. He was asked to disclose, but would not. He had the right to not disclose based upon the rules regarding campaign finance. I think disclosing all contributions AND confirming citizenship should be a large part of campaign finance reform.
I also think upholding the Constitution should be a duty of the Supreme Court Justices, which they have done. I don't like the fact that there aren't limits on corporations and have serious concerns with unions and this law being lifted. But, I have to believe that the American people can and will take a strong position if and when it is abused.
Just my opinion.
Oligarchy is funny!
Could you provide a link to this?
It is my understanding that no candidate can simply refuse to disclose contributions. Having said that when reporting you have to go with the information you were given with the contribution. With that said standard procedure for contributions with lacking or missing information that cannot be returned are donated to charity.
SoWal Insider
Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations - washingtonpost.com
Controversy Over Obama's Small Donors - Newsweek.com
What are the candidates hiding? - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com
http://myrealitytelevision.com/2008/11/questionable-sources-of-obamas-campaign-contributions/
Potentially, something we'll never have clear answers due to the way the law was in 2008. I'd like to see every dollar and contributor disclosed, proving citizenship.....even proving voter registration....i.e. convicted felons forfeit their right to vote.
Controversy Over Obama's Small Donors - Newsweek.com
What are the candidates hiding? - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com
http://myrealitytelevision.com/2008/11/questionable-sources-of-obamas-campaign-contributions/
Potentially, something we'll never have clear answers due to the way the law was in 2008. I'd like to see every dollar and contributor disclosed, proving citizenship.....even proving voter registration....i.e. convicted felons forfeit their right to vote.
SoWal Guide
Oh, I think it's dumb as sheet - flies in the face of all the campaign reforms we have been working for.
Just trying to keep my head from exploding by focusing on the historical details.
and that is the bottom line, imo. it wasn't perfect but we were making some progress. now what? let the corruption roll!
I'm not bothered by unions - at least they are representing hard working people. who are corporations representing besides profits and wallets? corporations have to do business - and they will.
Edited
SoWal Insider
U.S. Government For Sale - Jeff Nielson -- Seeking Alpha
U.S. Government For Sale 5 comments
Jan 24, 2010 01:46 PM
In a sign that the United States judiciary is now as corrupt as its government, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that U.S. corporations can engage in unlimited campaign spending. Plainly and simply, this means that corporations can now openly ?buy? elections, and by implication, the candidates running in those elections.
This travesty of ?justice? was supposedly justified on the basis of ?free speech?, and the United States' First Amendment which protects that right. However, the same judiciary which has remained blind, deaf, and dumb as the U.S. government trampled all over the (supposed) rights of its people, was able to put aside the objections of the minority, and strongly assert the rights of corporations.
The dissenting minority argued, quite rightly that you could not interpret Constitutional rights in a manner which gives corporations equal status to people. There is no legal basis for simply passing along all the fundamental rights of human beings to corporate entities ? beyond what has been bestowed upon them through the decisions of judges. In fact, however, corporations are not being given rights equal to those of human beings, they are being given superior rights to human beings ? especially in the United States.
Individual rights now exist in the United States only at the whim of its government. Should it wave its magic wand, and utter the words ?Homeland Security?, all those rights instantly vanish before our eyes. The same government which has severely restricted human rights has been expanding the rights and powers of corporations in any and every way.
Decades of pro-corporation governments in all levels of government in the U.S. have virtually annihilated trade unions (with a very similar trend in Canada, as well). Here the people have no one to blame but themselves. They have allowed themselves to be duped into believing that the same (and only) entities which exist to protect and promote the rights of people in the workplace were the economic villains of our society ? supposedly being responsible for inflation, unemployment and every other economic problem which governments lacked the fortitude to address (and so found a convenient scapegoat).
The principle ?crime? of the unions: they helped working people make ?too much money?, and this was supposedly the primary cause of both unemployment and inflation. However, the same, stupid sheep who allowed themselves to be ?outraged? by the fact that union members were earning more than they could have negotiated without unions remained oblivious to the unions for professional people: the ?associations? which have consistently, year-after-year, decade-after-decade awarded themselves salaries many times the amount of most working people.
While the average person has seen their real wages, and standard of living falling every year for the last three decades, the members of these ?associations? have seen their own wages and living standards rise every year over those same thirty years. The politicians who were the architects of destroying the rights of the working people, while pampering the professionals have been at least as lavish in determining their own salaries and benefits.
Meanwhile, the management of corporations, whose only contributions to profitability (over those same thirty years) has been to ?down-size?, ?out-source?, or ?relocate? as much of their business as possible (with the specific purposes of reducing what they give to their own employees) have awarded themselves compensation packages which make even the generous perks and entitlements of the politicians and professionals seem like mere pittances.
Corporations (and their management) were not satisfied with simply stripping all their workers of unions, and the protection for workers which came with it (and the lower wages which came with that). What they lusted for was access to infinite pools of the dirt-cheap labour of under-developed nations, and so ?globalization? was invented, a scheme with one, solitary purpose: to make the world a better place for large corporations.
For U.S. corporations, that still wasn't enough. So the corporate lobbyists passed along their decree to government: open the southern border, to allow in a flood of migrants from the same economies which had seen their agricultural sectors ravaged, through being flooded with heavily-subsidized, U.S. agricultural exports. Corporate America drove millions of these people off their land, then opened the U.S. border ? so they could be serfs for those same U.S. corporations.
This is why they were not allowed to legally immigrate to the United States. Legal immigrants have the same rights as other Americans, and what Corporate America wanted was slaves. So the ?illegal aliens? were forced to ?sneak? across the U.S. border ? supposedly able to infiltrate the U.S. border at exactly the same time that the individual rights of Americans had been stripped away.
Follow the logic here: the rights of Americans had to be taken away, because there were supposedly large numbers of ?terrorists? who were supposedly doing everything possible to sneak into the United States in order to ?attack? Americans. The human rights of Americans were considered expendable, but the ?right? of U.S. corporations for a steady supply of slave-labour was not.
As a side note, this raises another very interesting point. Either the U.S. government was willing to recklessly gamble with the safety of Americans by allowing its southern border to remain wide open for most of the last decade, or there never was any threat. However, that is a discussion for another time.
In the United States (and, to a lesser extent in Canada), we now live in societies where the apathetic sheep who snooze through their lives have endorsed the philosophy (through their own choice of governments) that only corporations, politicians, and professional people deserve to prosper. For the ?little people?, it is apparently right and just that their own standards of living deteriorate a little more, every year, forever.
The human rights which countless millions have fought and died for around the world (in prior generations), apparently mean so little to today's sheep, that they utter nary a whimper when those rights are arbitrarily stripped away at the whim of government.
The ?salvation? for the sheep will ultimately result from the actions of the ?elites?, rather than of the sheep's own volition. Accustomed to decade-after-decade of always getting more for themselves and totally desensitized to rapidly rising poverty, a rapidly widening gap between ?have's? and ?have not's?, and rapidly increasing human misery, those on top will continue to take more and more for themselves until so little is left over for the sheep that they can no longer survive.
At that point, corruption and institutionalized elitism will be so deeply and thoroughly entrenched in our societies that reform of those societies will be utterly impossible. Only ?revolution? will depose the aristocracy that has appropriated all the wealth of our societies. History tells us that the chances are at least 50/50 that it will be violent revolution.
Has anyone seen this movie before?
Apathetic masses allow themselves to be trampled upon, year after year, by the ruling class. The elites, in turn, never are able to restrain themselves from simply taking more and more for themselves ? until the masses have nothing. The masses rise up, and many of the elites disappear. The wealth remaining in the rubble is (more or less) evenly divided, and the whole cycle starts all over again.
Roughly forty years ago, Pete Townsend of the Who, wrote these immortal words, in a haunting, rock classic ? titled Won't Get Fooled Again.
...I'll tip my hat to the new Constitution
Take a bow for the new Revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again...
The change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the ?foe?, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they'd all flown in the last war
I'll tip my hat to the new Constitution
Take a bow for the new Revolution
Smile and grin at the ?change? all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again...
Meet the new ?Boss?, same as the old ?Boss?
How many times do we have to live out the words to that song?
Today, it is the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly endorsing the principle that it is acceptable for corporations to purchase the outcome they desire in elections. For anyone who would choose to dispute this proposition, I would point out the degree to which the media (and the politicians, themselves) obsess about how much money individual campaigns and political parties are able to attract, and the high correlation between raising the most campaign funds and winning elections.
A year ago, the minority Conservative government in Canada attempted to ram-through legislation that would have stripped all public financing from elections ? 'stacking the deck' even more ruthlessly in favor of the candidate able to attract the most corporate donations. By remarkable ?coincidence?, the Conservative Party is (by a wide margin) the preferred recipient of corporate, campaign-bribes ? by both the corporations, and the Conservatives themselves.
Facing a revolt in Parliament, and the defeat of his government, Conservative leader Stephen Harper frantically suspended Parliament, and immediately launched a large (corporate-funded) advertising campaign ? with the sole purpose of turning the Canadian people against efforts to depose his minority government. It was only after the polls showed that Canadians had been brainwashed against removing the Conservatives that Parliament was allowed to resume.
A functional democracy requires work. Not only is effort (and good faith) required of those chosen to govern, but some effort is also required from the electorate. The mental ?couch potatoes? who form the vast majority of our electorate, have either meekly submitted to their own exploitation, or are simply so hopelessly brainwashed that they are oblivious to that exploitation.
People who take no responsibility for the state of their own lives, or of society itself, are not ?citizens?, they are serfs. At the very least, taking responsibility must involve making informed decisions throughout the election process.
Instead of a society of citizens, we have masses of serfs ? people far too lazy to make any effort to educate themselves. This is the natural consequence of an educational system which is clearly designed to produce serfs, not citizens (see ?Doomed by the Moron Factor?). It is hard to believe that a pathetically docile electorate, and an educational system which actively and explicitly discourages people from even attempting to think for themselves is merely a ?happy coincidence? for the ruling elites.
Instead of an educational system which seeks to elevate our status as human beings, and to maximize our potential, we have a system where the highest priority is to condition the ?little people? to accept their ?place? in society: gratefully thanking the elites for the crumbs of wealth which ?trickle down? to them ? and never seeking to challenge the status quo.
Today's ?victory? for U.S. corporations is (in the grand scheme of things) nothing but an exclamation-point in this serial, human ?drama? where the final outcome is already known ? because we have lived through the same chapters over and over.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
- George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
U.S. Government For Sale 5 comments
Jan 24, 2010 01:46 PM
In a sign that the United States judiciary is now as corrupt as its government, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that U.S. corporations can engage in unlimited campaign spending. Plainly and simply, this means that corporations can now openly ?buy? elections, and by implication, the candidates running in those elections.
This travesty of ?justice? was supposedly justified on the basis of ?free speech?, and the United States' First Amendment which protects that right. However, the same judiciary which has remained blind, deaf, and dumb as the U.S. government trampled all over the (supposed) rights of its people, was able to put aside the objections of the minority, and strongly assert the rights of corporations.
The dissenting minority argued, quite rightly that you could not interpret Constitutional rights in a manner which gives corporations equal status to people. There is no legal basis for simply passing along all the fundamental rights of human beings to corporate entities ? beyond what has been bestowed upon them through the decisions of judges. In fact, however, corporations are not being given rights equal to those of human beings, they are being given superior rights to human beings ? especially in the United States.
Individual rights now exist in the United States only at the whim of its government. Should it wave its magic wand, and utter the words ?Homeland Security?, all those rights instantly vanish before our eyes. The same government which has severely restricted human rights has been expanding the rights and powers of corporations in any and every way.
Decades of pro-corporation governments in all levels of government in the U.S. have virtually annihilated trade unions (with a very similar trend in Canada, as well). Here the people have no one to blame but themselves. They have allowed themselves to be duped into believing that the same (and only) entities which exist to protect and promote the rights of people in the workplace were the economic villains of our society ? supposedly being responsible for inflation, unemployment and every other economic problem which governments lacked the fortitude to address (and so found a convenient scapegoat).
The principle ?crime? of the unions: they helped working people make ?too much money?, and this was supposedly the primary cause of both unemployment and inflation. However, the same, stupid sheep who allowed themselves to be ?outraged? by the fact that union members were earning more than they could have negotiated without unions remained oblivious to the unions for professional people: the ?associations? which have consistently, year-after-year, decade-after-decade awarded themselves salaries many times the amount of most working people.
While the average person has seen their real wages, and standard of living falling every year for the last three decades, the members of these ?associations? have seen their own wages and living standards rise every year over those same thirty years. The politicians who were the architects of destroying the rights of the working people, while pampering the professionals have been at least as lavish in determining their own salaries and benefits.
Meanwhile, the management of corporations, whose only contributions to profitability (over those same thirty years) has been to ?down-size?, ?out-source?, or ?relocate? as much of their business as possible (with the specific purposes of reducing what they give to their own employees) have awarded themselves compensation packages which make even the generous perks and entitlements of the politicians and professionals seem like mere pittances.
Corporations (and their management) were not satisfied with simply stripping all their workers of unions, and the protection for workers which came with it (and the lower wages which came with that). What they lusted for was access to infinite pools of the dirt-cheap labour of under-developed nations, and so ?globalization? was invented, a scheme with one, solitary purpose: to make the world a better place for large corporations.
For U.S. corporations, that still wasn't enough. So the corporate lobbyists passed along their decree to government: open the southern border, to allow in a flood of migrants from the same economies which had seen their agricultural sectors ravaged, through being flooded with heavily-subsidized, U.S. agricultural exports. Corporate America drove millions of these people off their land, then opened the U.S. border ? so they could be serfs for those same U.S. corporations.
This is why they were not allowed to legally immigrate to the United States. Legal immigrants have the same rights as other Americans, and what Corporate America wanted was slaves. So the ?illegal aliens? were forced to ?sneak? across the U.S. border ? supposedly able to infiltrate the U.S. border at exactly the same time that the individual rights of Americans had been stripped away.
Follow the logic here: the rights of Americans had to be taken away, because there were supposedly large numbers of ?terrorists? who were supposedly doing everything possible to sneak into the United States in order to ?attack? Americans. The human rights of Americans were considered expendable, but the ?right? of U.S. corporations for a steady supply of slave-labour was not.
As a side note, this raises another very interesting point. Either the U.S. government was willing to recklessly gamble with the safety of Americans by allowing its southern border to remain wide open for most of the last decade, or there never was any threat. However, that is a discussion for another time.
In the United States (and, to a lesser extent in Canada), we now live in societies where the apathetic sheep who snooze through their lives have endorsed the philosophy (through their own choice of governments) that only corporations, politicians, and professional people deserve to prosper. For the ?little people?, it is apparently right and just that their own standards of living deteriorate a little more, every year, forever.
The human rights which countless millions have fought and died for around the world (in prior generations), apparently mean so little to today's sheep, that they utter nary a whimper when those rights are arbitrarily stripped away at the whim of government.
The ?salvation? for the sheep will ultimately result from the actions of the ?elites?, rather than of the sheep's own volition. Accustomed to decade-after-decade of always getting more for themselves and totally desensitized to rapidly rising poverty, a rapidly widening gap between ?have's? and ?have not's?, and rapidly increasing human misery, those on top will continue to take more and more for themselves until so little is left over for the sheep that they can no longer survive.
At that point, corruption and institutionalized elitism will be so deeply and thoroughly entrenched in our societies that reform of those societies will be utterly impossible. Only ?revolution? will depose the aristocracy that has appropriated all the wealth of our societies. History tells us that the chances are at least 50/50 that it will be violent revolution.
Has anyone seen this movie before?
Apathetic masses allow themselves to be trampled upon, year after year, by the ruling class. The elites, in turn, never are able to restrain themselves from simply taking more and more for themselves ? until the masses have nothing. The masses rise up, and many of the elites disappear. The wealth remaining in the rubble is (more or less) evenly divided, and the whole cycle starts all over again.
Roughly forty years ago, Pete Townsend of the Who, wrote these immortal words, in a haunting, rock classic ? titled Won't Get Fooled Again.
...I'll tip my hat to the new Constitution
Take a bow for the new Revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again...
The change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the ?foe?, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they'd all flown in the last war
I'll tip my hat to the new Constitution
Take a bow for the new Revolution
Smile and grin at the ?change? all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again...
Meet the new ?Boss?, same as the old ?Boss?
How many times do we have to live out the words to that song?
Today, it is the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly endorsing the principle that it is acceptable for corporations to purchase the outcome they desire in elections. For anyone who would choose to dispute this proposition, I would point out the degree to which the media (and the politicians, themselves) obsess about how much money individual campaigns and political parties are able to attract, and the high correlation between raising the most campaign funds and winning elections.
A year ago, the minority Conservative government in Canada attempted to ram-through legislation that would have stripped all public financing from elections ? 'stacking the deck' even more ruthlessly in favor of the candidate able to attract the most corporate donations. By remarkable ?coincidence?, the Conservative Party is (by a wide margin) the preferred recipient of corporate, campaign-bribes ? by both the corporations, and the Conservatives themselves.
Facing a revolt in Parliament, and the defeat of his government, Conservative leader Stephen Harper frantically suspended Parliament, and immediately launched a large (corporate-funded) advertising campaign ? with the sole purpose of turning the Canadian people against efforts to depose his minority government. It was only after the polls showed that Canadians had been brainwashed against removing the Conservatives that Parliament was allowed to resume.
A functional democracy requires work. Not only is effort (and good faith) required of those chosen to govern, but some effort is also required from the electorate. The mental ?couch potatoes? who form the vast majority of our electorate, have either meekly submitted to their own exploitation, or are simply so hopelessly brainwashed that they are oblivious to that exploitation.
People who take no responsibility for the state of their own lives, or of society itself, are not ?citizens?, they are serfs. At the very least, taking responsibility must involve making informed decisions throughout the election process.
Instead of a society of citizens, we have masses of serfs ? people far too lazy to make any effort to educate themselves. This is the natural consequence of an educational system which is clearly designed to produce serfs, not citizens (see ?Doomed by the Moron Factor?). It is hard to believe that a pathetically docile electorate, and an educational system which actively and explicitly discourages people from even attempting to think for themselves is merely a ?happy coincidence? for the ruling elites.
Instead of an educational system which seeks to elevate our status as human beings, and to maximize our potential, we have a system where the highest priority is to condition the ?little people? to accept their ?place? in society: gratefully thanking the elites for the crumbs of wealth which ?trickle down? to them ? and never seeking to challenge the status quo.
Today's ?victory? for U.S. corporations is (in the grand scheme of things) nothing but an exclamation-point in this serial, human ?drama? where the final outcome is already known ? because we have lived through the same chapters over and over.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
- George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
SoWal Expert
Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations - washingtonpost.com
Controversy Over Obama's Small Donors - Newsweek.com
What are the candidates hiding? - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com
http://myrealitytelevision.com/2008/11/questionable-sources-of-obamas-campaign-contributions/
Potentially, something we'll never have clear answers due to the way the law was in 2008. I'd like to see every dollar and contributor disclosed, proving citizenship.....even proving voter registration....i.e. convicted felons forfeit their right to vote.
Why is there not a question about GOP donors? Why only Obama?
SoWal Expert
Why is there not a question about GOP donors? Why only Obama?Silly Jdarg! :rofl:
SoWal Insider
It's on both sides. And, one or two of the articles mentions McCain, but when asked to show the donors, he disclosed everything. There were also questionable contributors to his campaign and those monies were returned.
It definitely happens on both sides as I stated, which is why I think every dollar and donor should be disclosed and become a part of campaign finance reform. In the age of the internet and prepaid credit cards, there was some controversy with Obama's contributors.
It definitely happens on both sides as I stated, which is why I think every dollar and donor should be disclosed and become a part of campaign finance reform. In the age of the internet and prepaid credit cards, there was some controversy with Obama's contributors.
SWGB
It's on both sides. And, one or two of the articles mentions McCain, but when asked to show the donors, he disclosed everything. There were also questionable contributors to his campaign and those monies were returned.
It definitely happens on both sides as I stated, which is why I think every dollar and donor should be disclosed and become a part of campaign finance reform. In the age of the internet and prepaid credit cards, there was some controversy with Obama's contributors.
The prepaid cash cards were being used on McCain's side as well. Unfortunately, with most new technology, these cards aren't covered by law yet.
SoWal Insider
Yep, SWGB, every candidate has violated this. I am not pro anyone in regard to this. Thanks!
SoWal Insider
Obama vs. Alito?
Seems to be some backlash for the public reprimand in the State of the Union Address. I think we could see an Amendment addressing the concern of abuse by large corporations, special interest groups and unions having no limits on what they can contribute to campaigns.....but, foreign corporations?? Strange.
Seems to be some backlash for the public reprimand in the State of the Union Address. I think we could see an Amendment addressing the concern of abuse by large corporations, special interest groups and unions having no limits on what they can contribute to campaigns.....but, foreign corporations?? Strange.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.