posted
A politician with no money but the trust of many honest but poor citizens is unlikely to win any election due to an inability to campaign against richer oppisition funded by rich people, and now companies. Therefore lessening the role of the politicians who are not lap dogs for the wealthy and hard working Americans whom can only offer thier vote in the end, it gives corporations the ability to snuff out those who oppose them politically and legally. As if company interest lobbyist havent already made the government an even more difficult field to stay honest in, these international companies (or American subsidiaries thereof) can outright buy the election for whom ever they want.
Money makes a campaign, campaigning makes for more votes, and if self-interest corporations can openly fund someone out the wazoo to over-expose themselves in contrast to thier oppisition and take the election than this is officially a country of corporations and not citizens.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might want to read the decision. This doesn't let corporations contribute to campaigns.
Also, you might want to compare the two scenarios again:
Only individuals can spend money on political speech: the only ones who can afford TV ads and other large expenditures are rich people.
Corporations can also spend money on political speech: rich people can still afford TV ads and other large expenditures, and might be able to afford more, but people who cannot individually afford TV ads can now band together and purchase TV ads as a group for the purposes of political speech (just like the group did in this instance). The New York Times cannot be forbidden from publishing things because the government doesn't like them. Et cetera.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mia Landingham pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter on Wednesday and was sentenced to three years probation and 100 hours of community service, according to CBS affiliate WOIO. ... Landingham, who was believed to weigh over 300 pounds at the time of the Aug. 2009 incident, sat on Mikal Middleton-Bey as he was face first on the couch.
According to her lawyer, there was a history of domestic abuse between Landingham and her boyfriend, FOX News reports.
Investigators say the victim was 5'10" tall and weighed 126 pounds while Landingham is 5'9" tall.
A police scale that went up to 350 pounds wasn't enough to accurately weigh the Cleveland woman, according to the affiliate.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: You might want to read the decision. This doesn't let corporations contribute to campaigns.
Also, you might want to compare the two scenarios again:
Only individuals can spend money on political speech: the only ones who can afford TV ads and other large expenditures are rich people.
Corporations can also spend money on political speech: rich people can still afford TV ads and other large expenditures, and might be able to afford more, but people who cannot individually afford TV ads can now band together and purchase TV ads as a group for the purposes of political speech (just like the group did in this instance). The New York Times cannot be forbidden from publishing things because the government doesn't like them. Et cetera.
Even if they band together, there is no way that the amount of money they raise will be able to compete with the funds that these corporations have at their disposal. Corporations will have their hands in nearly every politician's pocket while these smaller groups of citizens will be stuck with one 30 second spot on the local evening news. There's no way anybody can compete with that.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if it'd be possible to require corporations to waive some of their rights to political speech if they make an IPO, or something to that effect.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SoaPiNuReYe: if they can't compete with corporations, they can't compete with wealthy individuals, who are already vastly wealthier. Or do you have any evidence for the difference being so controlling?
Take a look at my post towards the bottom of the last page. Corporations are already allowed to engage in many sorts of political speech, but rarely do to the extent allowed. If they're not already taking advantage of the situation, why are they suddenly going to now?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
And I do have a question that others probably know the answer to: So what's stopping, say, Exxon-Mobil from using it's considerable financial resources to flood the market with ads for pro-oil politicians? Exxon-Mobil is after profits, not participating in politics.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I think about this, I'm really wondering what affect this will have on third party candidates. Let's say that Exxon really did want to have their own candidate in office. Why would they bother with the Republicans or the Democrats? Why wouldn't they run the Exxon candidate under a third brand, therefore ensuring that he really does conform to their standards without having to worry about party affiliation possibly screwing up their hard work and investment?
Especially coming at a time when the people as a whole are disgusted with both political parties. This might be the best time in the history of the nation for a well-funded third party candidate to rise up and join the fray, and with mega-corporations behind them, they'd be the best funded in history, and in many cases, far, FAR better funded than individual congressman and senators.
Funding a presidential race runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Funding a senate race? Maybe tens of millions, it really depends on where you are. But even then, if Exxon targeted say North Dakota, they could pay pennies on the dollar for what they'd pay in California or Florida. There are dozens of states with small populations, ridiculously cheap media markets, and one senator who's just as powerful as those from the bigger states, and they're ripe for the picking.
And as for House races? Again, depending on the market in question, they could be funded for what GE spends on stationary.
I don't really think Democrats or Republicans are going to end up being major benefactors from this. I think they're both going to get sucker punched in the end. And if corporations think anything along the lines I just laid out, then Republicans are going to suffer far more than Democrats. Red states are cheap media markets, by and large. Plains states, mountain states, states with sixteen people in them, those are all red, and all prime pickings for an unlimited budget and an underfunded opponent. Blue states have natural defenses in the form of high prices to buy-in, which makes it more expensive to unseat Democrats.
It probably won't happen quite this way, and the parties sadly aren't going anywhere any time soon. But I wonder if, maybe not in 2010 or 2012, but coming soon to an election near you, we'll be voting between the UAW candidate and the Moveon.org candidate instead of the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
