United States Supreme Court destroys individual rights...

by not limiting corporate finance donations, in a 5-4 ruling today.

Just do a google.

So, if a Chinese corporation wants to spend a billion on its candidate, its candidates, or its self-serving propositions in America, it can.  If the Saudis want to spend a billion, they can.  No limits.

Given more 'individual' rights than certain minorities had less than 50 years ago.

The future ramifications are frightening.

A very, very sad day.

Ain't Capitalism grand?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/campaign.finance.ruling/index.html

Check out this article... Obama's response is right on the money.

I don't know my US politics well, but... can't the President somehow veto this?  That's all Bush ever did after the Democrats had control of the senate.

Nice article - talk about a huge step in the wrong direction.  
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]They ought to limit campaign budgets to a thousand dollars.  Any politician who can set up an easy to understand, no-bullshit site that says exactly what they're going to do (without wasting a single word on what "the other people have been failing to do") and still have money left over will have infinitely more respect from me than some cunt who throws millions of dollars down the gurgler only to set up disingenuous videos and smear campaigns.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]What a lot of fucking wankers.[/QUOTE]

Exactly Zeb

This is why i do not trust any politians with anything no matter which country we're talking about.

When Obama came in i thought a change was in the air but................

I actually don't think this is an bad thing in the medium term.  This was a first amendment ruling, and some overrerach and inequity had begun to creep in around decisions and policy under the campaign finance umbrella.  Now, lawmakers will scramble to legislate the worst of the potential abuses back out,  while being forced to look at things through free speech and anti-censorship filters .  The legislative corrections might not be in time for the late 2010 cycle, but after that it's quite possible this will be an improved system.  This kind of fierce and sometimes messy adherence to fundamental democratic principles is something I admire about the United States.  In some important ways, they've got the best and purest democracy in the free world and they remain a model on many fronts.  And that's coming from a liberal Canadian.

[QUOTE]

 



[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/campaign.finance.ruling/index.html

Check out this article... Obama's response is right on the money.

I don't know my US politics well, but... can't the President somehow veto this?  That's all Bush ever did after the Democrats had control of the senate.



[/QUOTE]
The legislative, judical and executive branches of US government are separate.  This was a Supreme Court decision, and could only be overruled by a wildly unlikely Constitutional amendment .  What will likely happen is the legislative branch will correct the Constitutional deficiencies in the law so it is no longer vulnerable to First Amendment challenges.

[QUOTE]





[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]



They ought to limit campaign budgets to a thousand dollars.  Any politician who can set up an easy to understand, no-bullshit site that says exactly what they're going to do (without wasting a single word on what "the other people have been failing to do") and still have money left over will have infinitely more respect from me than some cunt who throws millions of dollars down the gurgler only to set up disingenuous videos and smear campaigns.

[/QUOTE]
Very well written.  But we know this will never happen, as in-your-face bullshit is what keeps the system going.  The truly intelligent people, like yourself, are the ones who write about the politicians.

[QUOTE]

[b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

What will likely happen is the legislative branch will correct the Constitutional deficiencies in the law so it is no longer vulnerable to First Amendment challenges.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I get that on a linguistic level.  But what does that ultimately mean in terms of the issue itself?

You and Zeb should start a political party.

Ha! :D  But you see, that's the trap that people fall into.  
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]I have a firm belief that a (hypothetical) wholly pure and genuine individual would never make it to the top office.  And if they did, there would simply be too many interests going against them to DO anything.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]And if they did ignore what everyone was ordering them not to do, and went and did 'the right thing', they'd just be booted out or shot.  Or something.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Everyone was cheering about Obama winning, but I was pretty wistful.  I looked at that guy and figured that even if he was talking from the heart, and had all of those great intentions, that his 'dream' (if you will) was never going to happen.  Because it's too expensive and would lose too many votes from the thicko masses to think beyond your four/eight year term and think about helping people a few generations down the line.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]... and I'm not even talking about global warming there, so no one e-mail me.  Hehe.[/QUOTE]

Hum, but, as far as I know, the ruling was given within the context of a discussion on the First Amendment - so it seems consisent with the way the Court usually, not always, approaches such matters. X has made money legally (not every corporation is corrupt, evil or ilegitimate - and they're part, and an important part, of the economic landscape).

X wants to use this money to finance a political campaign or buy an Ipod - so be it. It's up to X. : )) 

"Oh, but what about the bail-out...doesn't it prove that the state...?".

No, it doesn't prove anything: it just proves that the State is able to grab money from the market and give it different - legitimate or not, that's a different issue - uses. States generally don't know how to create wealth - they may be skilled at grabbing it from the market, and re-distributing it in one way or another, but it's the private sector which produces the wealth feeding bail-outs or social progams.

By the way, Obama is in no position to veto anything coming from the Supreme Court!! If he were able to do this, he'd be a dictator, not a Republican President! Separation of powers and checks and balances are the stuff of which the democratic framework is, thanks goodness, made. So, basically, the alternative is having Chávez chasing and firing judges he doesn't like - fact well-documented, for instance, by Human Rights Watch - or sending the army to regulate prices, as we have just seen - again, in defiance of a previous Supreme Court ruling.    

---------------

On a different note, Legalizing and regulating lobbies, instead of simply outlawing them, is the best way to go - it'd be useless to ban this kind of financial backing, and history tells us why: ilegal or unethical donations keep being made under the blanket, and the State loses the capacity to track them down. Lobby is inherent to any form of state power, be it democratic or not.

-------------

In theory, one could abolish private donations to political campaigns. It's been made before. The result is invariably the same: taxpayers pay the huge bill and are forced to directly back a system which they not even identify with in the first place. Goes without saying that private donations remain rampant and out of control despite the banning.   

-----------

So what about Obama: well, he'd better succed in passing the legislation on health-care - his own constituency is growing mad. And I'm a strongly supporter of an universal health-care program. But Obama has to turn it into reality and make it work.

Otherwise, my fellows, his will be a four-year mandate.

Agreed.  Obama will either be the "health care president" or the "I promised everything and delivered nothing" president.  If that's the case, it wouldn't be his fault.  The president is not the person who ultimately runs the country.

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



 



 



 



 



[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]



 



 



 



 



 



 



 

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



[b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



What will likely happen is the legislative branch will correct the Constitutional deficiencies in the law so it is no longer vulnerable to First Amendment challenges.



 



 



 



 



 



 



 

[/QUOTE]
Ok, I get that on a linguistic level.  But what does that ultimately mean in terms of the issue itself?

You and Zeb should start a political party.
[/QUOTE]

There has been bi-partisan legislative action over many years to insulate the American political process from corruption and the appearance of corruption.  It's in the interest of no democracy to allow it, and so purely speculatively what I think it means is that over a relatively short amount of time new legislation will be crafted that will plug the important holes. In the meantime, we will get to witness a debate on whether coporations have freedom of speech rights comparable to individuals, which to my mind is a facinating philosophical question.  And I think the timing is good, set as it will be against a dumbed down populist tone coming from a chastised White House with Obama's references to 'fat cat bankers' and such.

[QUOTE]

[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



 



 



 



 



[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]



 



 



 



 



 



 



 

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



[b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



What will likely happen is the legislative branch will correct the Constitutional deficiencies in the law so it is no longer vulnerable to First Amendment challenges.



 



 



 



 



 



 



 

[/QUOTE]
Ok, I get that on a linguistic level.  But what does that ultimately mean in terms of the issue itself?

You and Zeb should start a political party.
[/QUOTE]

There has been bi-partisan legislative action over many years to insulate the American political process from corruption and the appearance of corruption.  It's in the interest of no democracy to allow it, and so purely speculatively what I think it means is that over a relatively short amount of time new legislation will be crafted that will plug the important holes. In the meantime, we will get to witness a debate on whether coporations have freedom of speech rights comparable to individuals, which to my mind is a facinating philosophical question.  And I think the timing is good, set as it will be against a dumbed down poplulist tone coming from a chastised White House with Obama's references to 'fat cat bankers' and such. 




[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah!!! Are you single? lol

Kidding. : ))

But that's so correct. ; -))

It's me, your resident republican!!!

By the way, Obama's campaign accepted MORE large donations than any other presidential campaign run in history.  Private donations, too. 

Also, he gave those "fat cat bankers" the right to hand out big bonuses this year, at the U.S. taxpayer expense.  Then he sat on 60 minutes shaking his fingers at them telling us they weren't supposed to use the money for that.  What did he think those banks were going to do??  Give the money to their customers??  Hello!

[QUOTE]

[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]

It's me, your resident republican!!!

By the way, Obama's campaign accepted MORE large donations than any other presidential campaign run in history.  Private donations, too. 

Also, he gave those "fat cat bankers" the right to hand out big bonuses this year, at the U.S. taxpayer expense.  Then he sat on 60 minutes shaking his fingers at them telling us they weren't supposed to use the money for that.  What did he think those banks were going to do??  Give the money to their customers??  Hello![/QUOTE]

So your criticism is that the Democrats are acting too much like Republicans...