$$ Wins - The People Lose - Controls on U.S. Election Spending Removed

[Delphine]

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f382/AnnabelleL/NEWS/court.jpg


Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the U.S. voted 5 to 4 to overturn the 100-year old restriction on corporations that has kept them from spending whatever amount they might choose on federal elections.

"In a landmark decision, the court's conservative bloc said that corporations had the same right to free speech as individuals, and for that reason the government could not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates."

Probably this will apply to labor unions, also, and is expected to pour millions of new dollars into the political party coffers during the election this fall. It is presumed that the GOP will be the big winner.

Republicans approved of the decision as a victory for open political speech, but Democrats slammed it as a win for big money. Everyone has their own spin.

The President called it "a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." He promised to search out a response from Congress.

"The Supreme Court just predetermined the winners of next November's elections," an angry Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. "It won't be Republicans. It won't be Democrats. It will be corporate America."

Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Maryland), chairman of the Democratic House reelection group , said they would offer a bill to try to rein in the the reach of the decision before the elections this November.

It's rather refreshing to hear something from the Court, per the balance of power, but these days everything seems to turn into a grab for power.


(Quotes from the Los Angeles Times.)

[VOguy]

That's one of those things where I sit on the fence.

On one side, they are right, it will open the gates for big money to compensate political parties with huge amounts of cash.

On the other side, I believe what people want to give should be their business, so there is an issue of "rights".

But.... let's face the fact that since the late 1700s we've seen a huge change in the way politicians get their word out. In the 1700s it was by their words and their meeting the electorate. Today it's 10-second sound bites, and slickly produced commercials.

This is why I think that in political races, there should be NO advertising, and only non-promoting reporting of candidate statements. I feel candidates should spend their time in each district speaking to the electorate and answering questions, and the any media coverage should strictly be 1st person on NPR/PBS. Further, I would require in the latter stages of of the race that candidates be grilled by journalists in a town-hall type of forum where they have to answer questions directly to those who are v0oting.

The problem, in my humble opinion, is that our system allows for the advertising and sale of a turd in a Tootsie Roll wrapper, and the voters don't know what they are getting till they open the wrapper. I would advocate taking the ads away, and make them articulate their positions on merit.

[Alpha]

This thread is for you Had from our discussion in the TO last night....



Controls on U.S. election spending removed


WASHINGTON–A bitterly divided U.S. Supreme Court vastly increased the power of big business and unions to influence government decisions Thursday by freeing them to spend their millions directly to try to sway elections for president and Congress.

In its 5-4 ruling, the court set the stage for a wave of likely repercussions – including new pressures on lawmakers to heed lobbyists' demands, as well as boisterous campaigns featuring highly charged ads that drown out candidate voices.


The election-season blizzard of ads on Americans' television screens is bound to increase.


While the full consequences of the decision were hard to measure, politicians made clear who they believed benefited. Democrats, led by President Barack Obama, condemned the decision, while Republicans cheered it.


The decision seeded the ground for further challenges to an already weakened system of campaign finance regulations.


The court overturned two earlier decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to run their own campaign ads urging the election or defeat of particular candidates by name.



The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in closing days of campaigns.


Article (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/754257--controls-on-u-s-election-spending-removed)
One response to the above:





Voters, lawmakers stunned by high court's campaign finance ruling


ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- A highly controversial Supreme Court decision on campaign finance is drawing a huge political backlash from both sides of the voting booth, with politicians afraid their next election will be tainted and citizens afraid of being counted out.


The Court's decision essentially allows corporations and unions to donate freely to support or oppose politicians who might someday work in the state capital.


"It's a new form of plantation owners, for sure," radio talk show host Shannyn Moore said on the air Friday. "One of my Twitter friends yesterday said, ‘Oh, good: the Supreme Court just decided that I'm three-fifths of a corporation."


It's a busy day for Moore. Like a broken record, all of her callers want to chat about the same topic.


"I think it's starting to sink in to people what it really means," Moore said. "For them, that their vote -- why would any of us ever contribute even $10 or $25 to a campaign when now a corporation from China can come in and spend pretty much as much money as they want? It really takes the voice of Americans away."


Some on the national stage, including U.S. House Minority Leader John Boehner, call it a victory for Americans' First Amendment rights. They say no organization, no matter how big or small, should be prevented from having a political voice.


"The incredible cost of media makes it difficult for candidates to communicate, so this should enhance the voters' knowledge when they do go to vote," said Alaska Republican Party Chair Randy Ruedrich. "Their vote matters just as much as it always has, but they may now be more completely informed because with the campaign finance limits that we have in Alaska, it's very hard for candidates to get their message out."


But some people are concerned that the ruling could prevent people from getting involved with politics at the local level. They're afraid people without deep pockets, or financial backers will be discouraged from running.


"It's sort of like the last straw in a haystack of corporate attempts to extend their constitutional rights," said local activist Riki Ott. "And this just really tips the balance now to where we have completely a government of, for and by the corporations."


"We all know that big money already has a lot of influence in politics," said Matt Wallace, director of the Alaska Public Interest Research Group. "The folks that write the big campaign checks tend to get a really good return on their investment, and this decision makes that situation much, much worse."


One of Alaska's largest unions, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, released a statement about the decision saying it supported campaign finance reform, but it's not happy with the ruling because it puts unions in the position of spending more money.


For their part, state lawmakers are already concerned.
"Well, it's just a tremendous blow to democracy," said one of Moore's callers, Sen. Bill Wielechowski. "The studies are pretty clear that in elections, the candidate that raises more money wins the election 90 percent of the time.".................


Article Continues (http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=11868796)

[Random]

They ruled in favor of free speech....Arent CEO`s Americans to. This is politically Neutral to me ...Left wing Org`s have as much a chance as Right wing ones...To me this is a victory FOR the people.

"The 1st Amendment is overrated"

Rahm Emmanuel


That is traitorous talk from the Presidents CHIEF OF STAFF!!!!


I guess its TRUE what Glenn Beck says...The Constitution is indeed a Negative to the liberal agenda.... Its the 1st Amendment for a reason because WITHOUT it all the others are WORTHLESS

[Krepta3000]

As a Libertarian I agree that any donation, whether to a political party or charity, should be your own business. That said, I don't equate money with speech, and I think it's tragic that others do. I do think politics has become a dog and pony show, just a distraction from what is really going on. I do think political ads are free speech, and not allowing them is something I would be against as a Libertarian. How about total accountability for all donations. Any anonymous donations should be kept out of the political race entirely. As in require all anonymous donations to be redirected to charity, rather than political campaigns. The politician gets a boost in public opinion from charitable donations, but can't spend that money on ads and such.

We need a serious overhaul of the whole system. There is way too much wrong with everything to ever fix it with little incremental things. We need something major, something big! And, no, I do not mean replacing the political system with a King, or Dictator of some kind. I have had an idea for a long time for a three person head of state, who must agree 2 to 1 to get things done. Period. And I think three Women sounds like a really excellent idea. :)

I don't like pure democracy, it abuses the minority. I don't like the idea of the minority having all the power either, abusing the majority. I don't like totally unfettered capitalism, I find it incredibly abusive to people, especially when large corporations throw their weight around. But a gift economy can't scale up very well, it works best in small groups and communities.

So, I guess I'm saying I'm very unhappy with the way things work today, and yet I don't know what to do about it. :(

[Dark Skies]

Goldman Sachs was the biggest financial booster to getting Obama elected during the last campaign. No wonder the stock market took a beating this past week on the heels of Obama's new bank tax initiative.

[Random]

Goldman Sachs was the biggest financial booster to getting Obama elected during the last campaign. No wonder the stock market took a beating this past week on the heels of Obama's new bank tax initiative.


Thus why I call this a politically Neutral decision by the court....

[Krepta3000]

I agree that it is politically neutral. But I don't like the idea of corporations running things. Things are becoming more and more corporate, or haven't you noticed? As a Libertarian I agree that how you spend your money, on donations or whatever, is your business. But it seems to me that the guy who wins is almost always the guy with the deepest pockets, who spends the most money. If Money equates with Free Speech, then there is no such thing is FREE speech anymore. It's expensive speech, and only people with lots of money get a voice. What about my voice? Who will listen to me when I'm being drowned out by the much louder voices of Big MONEY?

Although I agree with the Court's decision, because everyone should be free to do whatever they want, I am still very concerned about big money buying and owning our government.

But, I suppose they already bought it, and have owned it for quite some time. This decision just makes it easier to handle all the financial transactions, that's all.

I remember something some CEO said in one of those Robocop movies about how buying and owning stocks in a corporation is a perfect form of democracy, therefore there was no need for a political system, no need for protected speech or a Democratic Government. Corporate rule is perfectly acceptable. I disagree, vehemently. In a system where Money Buys Votes, and Money Speaks, there is no room for the common people to have a voice, or any influence whatsoever. These days it seems that the only voice any of us have is our money. We vote with the dollar, whether by purchasing a burger or a salad, or using a bicycle rather than a car, we can effect changes in corporate behavior by changing what we choose to spend our money on. Other than that, it seems like our voices are completely drowned out by big money influence.

[Random]

Money is not buying a vote it is buying and AD...pple have the right to decide by what they see whom they agree with...in the end pple have there own mind

[Judee]

Whatever 'corporate' wants, 'corporate' will now get - no questions asked. There never was any 'free' elections anyway, but now it will be more open and blantant as to who is buying the next president(s). :screama: Liberty...? Freedom...? Equality...? I don't think so.

[Delphine]

Perhaps part of the problem is that corporations are INDIVIDUALS under the law. This is why they were given the right. I can see the problems, though.

We know an overhaul of our election system is needed.




(VOguy)
I would require in the latter stages of of the race that candidates be grilled by journalists in a town-hall type of forum where they have to answer questions directly to those who are voting.



I agree, for the most part, VO, but I would want the journalists to act more as moderators and "parrots"....asking questions the electorate has told them to.

[Dr Powerfun]

in the end pple have there own mind
Sure they do. Though the way I see it, for all too many, outside influence is needed TO make up their own mind for them; that being the case I don't expect this verdict by the SCOTUS as making much difference to most folks in today's Homer America -

http://i49.tinypic.com/mkesls.gif

Excerpted from a "CRITICAL FACULTIES" piece By Christopher Shea at boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/01/are_voters_irrational/)


ELECTIONS ARE SUPPOSED to be about determining the will of the people. Citizens throw their weight behind the candidate who best reflects their own values and interests -- at least, that's the story that civics teachers tell. But what if voters don't know their own interests? That's the claim of Thomas Frank...

Frank's thesis has its critics, but he may be on to something, if the work of political scientist Larry Bartels is any indication. In fact, Bartels finds even more confusion among the electorate than Frank does. Voters, in Bartels's version, know their own interests and articulate firm political views. Then they go ahead and vote against them anyway.
...
For more than a decade Bartels has been collecting examples of public-opinion bizarrities that represent "challenges to the most fundamental assumptions of democratic theory."

In one paper, he showed that whatever their interests, voters hold incumbents responsible for bad news -- even acts of God. In 1916, Bartels argues, Woodrow Wilson lost votes in several seaside New Jersey counties because of . . . shark attacks. Similarly, he writes, Al Gore may have lost in 2000 because Midwestern farmers suffered droughts and floods while he was vice president.

In the case of the estate tax, Bartels concludes that it's an example of "misplaced self-interest": Homer thinks his taxes are too high, so he votes to reduce Mr. Burns's.

More than anything else, I see this SC decision as another in a string of actions providing aid and assistance to the nation's REAL OWNERS (http://fredsshed.webng.com/audio/George_Carlin-Who_Really_Runs_America.wma) in their quest to string the rest of us along....

[VOguy]

In my humble opinion, public servants should get a flat fee for serving, and one home in their district to conduct their business out of, and not be able to profit in any way from service (including book deals, gifts, ect).

They can speak all they want, in their home district, in front of their constituents.

[VOguy]

I agree, for the most part, VO, but I would want the journalists to act more as moderators and "parrots"....asking questions the electorate has told them to.

That's the beauty of having it all local, instead of national. I could guarantee you that if anyone in the TV newsroom, or the local rag in town, played a game of "kissy-kissy", there would be hell to pay.

It all comes down to accountability, as well as checks and balances.

As long as politicians can hide in Washington, surrounded by money and gifts, their constituents won't have their ear. On the other hand, if they are in their district and do something stupid, woe is them.

[Alpha]

Delphs...my apologies.

I didn't see your initial thread as your initial title threw me and started one in the same vein.

I have merged the two so the conversation about this important issue is all in the same space....hope that's o.k.

[earthist]

Perhaps part of the problem is that corporations are INDIVIDUALS under the law. This is why they were given the right. I can see the problems, though.Gee, Delph, that's a mighty astute statement for a green-haired lady to make, IMO! Bravo! :arms:

[Judee]

Money is not buying a vote it is buying and AD...pple have the right to decide by what they see whom they agree with...in the end pple have there own mind

Yes, but what it comes down to these days, is people voting for one of any and all of the candidates that have already been bought and paid for!!!

[VOguy]

And sadly, candidates are like prom kings/queens. They are appointed through popularity, and shielded by distance from those who elected them.

They don't possess any magic powers, or vast wisdom to solve problem, and as such have the temptation and opportunities to not do what is right.

Money is only half of the problem.

[Dr Powerfun]

Excerpted from David Kairys' piece at slate.com (http://www.slate.com/id/2242210/?from=rss)


Go back almost a century, to the time when the modern corporation was created, and you'll find laws that prohibit or limit the use of corporate money in elections. And yet this week, a 5-4 Supreme Court struck down the limits that Congress passed in 2002 in this tradition in the case Citizens United v. FEC.

The majority's ruling unleashes a new wave of campaign cash and adds to the already considerable power of corporations. The court's main rationale is that limits on using corporate treasuries for campaigns are a "classic example of censorship," as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. To get there, Kennedy depends on two legal theories that blossomed as constitutional principles in the mid-1970s: money is speech and corporations are people. Both theories are strange, if not simply wrongheaded—why, according to the Constitution or common sense, would money be speech or corporations be people?
...
The money-is-speech theory turns out to be a rhetorical device used exclusively to provide First Amendment protection for all money that wealthy people and businesses want to give to, or to spend, on campaigns. It also doesn't make sense under long established free-speech law. Spending or donating money to support or facilitate speech is expressive and deserves some protection. But money simply doesn't make it into the category of things that are and embody speech, such as books, films, or blogs.

Traditional speech-law analysis would separate the speech from the conduct (or "nonspeech") elements of campaign spending and donation and allow considerable leeway to regulate the latter. Even as to "pure" speech, "compelling" government interests are overriding. And spending and donating money seem, among the traditional speech-law categories, a "manner" of speaking that the court has said usually can be "reasonably regulated."

The other basic theory supporting the ruling in Citizens United—the court's claim that, for some purposes, corporations are constitutionally, if not actually, people—comes out of the long history of the development of corporations. But the extension of corporate personhood to campaign speech is a controversial innovation of the conservative justices over the last few decades.

Corporations needed some rights usually reserved for people to function as legal entities, so that they could, for instance, make enforceable contracts and sue or be sued. But despite the common cultural personification of corporations—we can easily say "GM was embarrassed today"—they obviously don't and shouldn't have all the rights of people. For example, they don't have the right to vote.

In Citizens United, Justice Kennedy discusses business corporations as if they were clubs or political associations with political viewpoints and elected leaders. But corporate managers don't function as representatives or employees of shareholders, who have no say, no shared political views, and no expectation that their investments will be used for political ends. In the wake of the court's ruling this week, will some corporations pick a party or politics while others channel unheard of amounts of money to both major parties? Will investors be influenced by a corporation's political portfolio?

The Citizens United decision will make it harder to achieve reforms opposed by major corporations and change business as well as politics. Increasing the constitutional rights of corporations beyond their business purposes is really about increasing the rights and power of corporate managers. Government has enabled corporate managers to control huge accumulations of wealth without any personal risk—an arrangement that contributes to wild, bubble-producing economic swings and collapses. Citizens United invites that arrangement directly into politics and elections.
...
The court's invalidation of campaign finance reforms over the last few decades isn't about censorship or suppressed speakers or viewpoints. At its core, this line of cases is about dominance of the political and electoral system by wealthy people and corporations and about legitimizing a political and electoral system that is unrepresentative, money-driven, corrupt, outmoded, and dysfunctional. Wealthy people and corporate managers shouldn't dominate politics or have more and better speech rights than the rest of us. That seems like an obvious truth. And yet the Supreme Court's recent decisions move us away from it.

[Dr Powerfun]

bump