...independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy [U.S. Supreme Court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010.01.21, Syllabus, pp. 5–6].
Dang. Maybe Rep. Herseth Sandlin was right when she said supposing a connection between campaign contributions and undue influence is "ridiculous." Not that I take much heart from our Democratic Congresswoman sounding like a small group of conservatives.
But that last line, about the electorate losing faith... how do my Tea Party friends feel about that?
The conservative justices do make their case (read the full opinion), but I'm still shaking off the effects of a failed laugh test.
"how do my Tea Party friends feel about that?"
ReplyDeleteI have already answered that, many times.
And how long is it going to take the people who blindly trust unlimited capitalism to realize they're being had? Who outsourced all the jobs? Who closed all the factories? Who constantly fights against any regulation (pay, benefits, mpg, clean air, clean water, etc.) because it's bad for business (adding, of course, anything that is bad for business is bad for America)? Corporations. The average worker is being stripped of his/her job and benefits - pensions, health insurance, etc. - by corporations who say it's too expensive to keep their promises. (Think of Morrel's.) And now they get to use their assets to fight for the things they love the best: profit and eliminating the competition. And they will.
ReplyDelete"And how long is it going to take the people who blindly trust unlimited capitalism to realize they're being had?"
ReplyDeleteEve, we have never had unlimited capitalism. What you are rightly upset about is "corporate socialism". It is created by public/private partnerships. Big business is a function of big government. So to fix the problems, we need to reform government to the limits that the Constitution originally placed.
...independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt.
ReplyDeleteI went to the PDF and read the entire passage. It's quite strange unless I edit it to include a few new words, as follows:
...independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not in and of themselves give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not in and of itself mean that those officials are corrupt.
Nevertheless, I still have one question and one comment:
(Q) Why did these oracles not include the words I have inserted here?
(C) This whole business troubles me, and ought to constitute the beginning of a long debate between now and November.
Stan, I agree the insertion of those phrases would have made a difference. I had a feeling the justices were making that sort of definitional point (one that I could agree with), but phrased as is in the syllabus, it sounds absurd.
ReplyDeleteI do hope this issue grows and keeps legs that we keep talking about right through November. I suspect those legs will grow, as we watch the campaign coffers swell and the airwaves fill with corporate-sponsored ads.
This decision can change the very nature of political parties as well. Democrats, Inc. has a nice ring to it. It could be as irresponsible in exploitation of acts as is Bill O'Reily and other apologists for all things rich and rightist.
ReplyDeleteNo sense being a non-profit political party if a party can be a corporation and still have all the rights of a living breathing human.
"I do hope this issue grows and keeps legs that we keep talking about right through November."
ReplyDeleteCory, I just left a comment in response to the BS you put on Powers' web site. And now you again proved the point that all you really care about is power and the money that comes with it.
Eve, we have never had unlimited capitalism. What you are rightly upset about is "corporate socialism".
ReplyDeleteNo, Steve, what I am upset about is corporate fascism. As I said before, please remember Mussolini: when the state and corporations mix, it's fascism, not socialism.
And reforming government to the limits of the original Constitution - impossible to achieve, although I understand fervently longed for by some - will not do diddly to control corporations: in fact, since corporations, capitalism, or business are never mentioned in the original constitution, they will have even more free reign than they do now.
Nor, of course, if we return to the ORIGINAL constitution, will women be able to vote, or people of color, the electoral college will return to total power over presidential/VP elections, senators will no longer be elected by popular vote, the federal and state election officials will be able again to charge for the privilege of voting, there will be no limits on congressional pay raises, nor any limits on presidental terms. None of these seem like good ideas. You might want to rethink your proposal, and your (false) definition of socialism.
Eve,
ReplyDeleteCapitalism is not fascism or socialism. And General Motors and Chrysler are no longer fascist, they are socialist. Next step communism. So we better turn back to the original constitution before it is too late.