I need to be "talked down" or something about today's SCOTUS ruling

[clear eye]

striking down the laws that limit corporate donations to electoral campaigns.

I just can't seem to come to grips w/ living in a country where a petition or large numbers of constituent calls won't mean diddly b/c the member of Congress has to worry first about positioning him/her-self so he/she won't provoke a big corporation or groups of corporations into funding an opposing candidate next time around. I tried interesting DUers in FENA (voluntary public financing of campaigns) and I get no takers. Congress can be pressured into taking everything from us--privatizing our Social Security, and anything else you think you have. I'm close to despondent. I never expected to live in a fascist country, and I think most people will be in such denial that I won't get much support.

I'm so worried for all of us. This is not a joke.

[Arugula Latte]

1. I wish I had comforting words.

Honestly, I think this is it. Corporations have us in a stranglehold, and most Americans don't seem to realize it. If they do realize it, they don't seem to mind. Frankly, they're too ignorant and stupid and susceptible to propaganda, and that is how access to universal healthcare that doesn't bankrupt you was turned into a scary plot. We had little recourse before, and now we have none.

Sorry. I think we're done. :(

[clear eye]

2. If they want to obstruct economic recovery until we have to work for less than subsistence wages,

they can now. If they want to degrade all environmental regulations until our pollution rivals China, they can. In fact I think we will see our country come to resemble China gradually more and more w/ the mega-corporations in the place of China's regional bureaucrats. Anti-trust? Pfft. Forget trying to make a small business profit. If you've got anything, the big business will just take it and dare the courts to do anything about it. It's like Terry Gilliam's Brazil come to life.

[Taverner]

3. At least it will all be out in the open

And we'll know who bought who....

Sorry, other than that I got nuthin...

[MrCoffee]

4. I keep reading the decision, looking for something good...there's not much good there.

It's bad, it's real bad.

[clear eye]

6. It's only ~a quarter to 3 in the afternoon around here, but I think I'm going to get a little drunk.

(I don't have a drinking problem; thank goodness for small things.) When I sober up, maybe I'll be ready to lead a struggle for measures to salvage some of our system.

[jobycom]

5. Meh. Doesn't change much. They can't donate to campaigns.

They can run ads themselves, but they have to clearly identify that they are the ones running the ads. They can't donate to campaigns, so the candidate's ads won't be affected.

Many corporations will be hesitant to run ads for unpopular candidates or issues, and many candidates would be less than welcoming of some corporate ads supporting them. For instance, in how many regions would an ad labeled "Exxon" convince the average voter to vote for that candidate? It could hurt the candidate and Exxon.

In addition, our own organizations will be freed up, too. PETA, the Sierra Club, labor unions, the teachers' union, Ben & Jerry's, etc, will be able to run their own ads.

For-profit corporations still have a budget for such ads. Most of that budget will go where it's most effective, and where they can operate behind closed doors--lobbyists, in other words.

It's not doom and gloom, or no worse than before. People are overestimating this.

However, we can still use it to our advantage in 2012, pointing out that we need more liberal SCOTUS justices.

[MrCoffee]

7. "Our own organizations" ads are just as bad

Not the content, but the undue influence over the electoral process that ALL paid advertisements bring.


Ban them all, regardless of the source.

[jobycom]

12. I don't understand that argument.

Are you saying that no one should be allowed to argue their position when it comes to politics. That we should all be limited to donating to a candidate and just accepting what they say?

[Dr. Strange]

8. Hmmm, sets up an interesting reverse psychology situation, maybe.

Next election, Exxon, Haliburton, etc. start running boatloads of ads in favor of Obama, causing voters to vote against him.

[jobycom]

15. Heh! If you listen to half of GD

the oil companies want him to win. :rofl:

[clear eye]

10. Are you sure about that "can't donate to campaigns" part?

If so, that would be encouraging. It didn't sound like that when I read the TPM article or read what Feingold said.

Funny, it seems like we should probably move this to GD. Usually it's the other way around--discussions crop up in GD that need to go to the Lounge.

[jobycom]

14. That's what all the stories I've read have said. I haven't read the actual decision.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/21/supreme-court-says-limitless-independent-corporate-campaign-spending-is-okay.aspx

"The ruling does not allow corporations to spend endless amounts of money on direct campaign contributions; money that would go directly into the candidate's bank account to travel or produce campaign materials. As long as corporations don’t interact with a specific political campaign, they can directly buy ad time to support a candidate."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7046846/US-Supreme-Court-abolishes-political-funding-restrictions.html
The ruling however does not allow corporations to donate directly to candidates. Money can only be spent on their behalf, meaning that most freed-up funds would be spent on advertising.


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

It won't even affect all states, because some states didn't have such restrictions in the first place:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_campaign_finance_wash.html
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark campaign finance decision might not have much effect in Washington state.

Under state law, there's no prohibition on corporate or union contributions, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission. Any spending from general treasury funds has to be reported when a political committee is formed.

--------

[jakefrep]

18. It's always been that way

Corporations have never been able to contribute directly to candidates. The court ruling today didn't change that.

[clear eye]

17. Ratigan just said that they don't have to "clearly identify themselves".

They can, as he put it, call themselves "Americans for America".

It will affect all federal elections from every state, but state level elections in only 24 states, including the couple (I think Maine and Arizona), that have public financing.

It will likely have much more impact than you seem to think.

[Orangepeel]

20. if true, and I don't think it is, it should be an easy congressional fix

"The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in a 57-page opinion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016942930090152.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

only Thomas dissented from that part of the ruling.

[jobycom]

21. I think he's wrong if that's what he said.

Anyone paying for the ad would have to disclose that in the ad--lying about that would still violate federal disclosure laws. If the corporations tried to give themselves a new name or organize under a made-up name, they would fall under PAC laws, and they have that right already.

Here's the actual decision. It's boring as hell. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Page 52 on deals with the requirement to disclose and identify the makers of the ads and all donors. The Court rejected every argument that such disclosures restricted speech, and called them reasonable. I don't see what Ratigan is saying.

[clear eye]

23. It's not wrong at the state level in many states.

The law that you refer to is part of the McCain-Feingold Act and it only covers federal elections. I'd prefer to discuss these sorts of details on GD, but I didn't want people to misunderstand the situation.

[Orangepeel]

19. I agree, except I think disclosure rules need to be stronger

I agree that it won't be much different than all the PAC ads on now (except they'll run up until the day of the election). Those ads were ostensibly about issues rather than candidates, but it was easy enough for them to say "call Senator X and thank him for his support of this issue." They couldn't explicitly coordinate with campaigns, but it was easy enough to use the same language to make it clear which candidate was on the "right" side.

I do think however, that disclosure requirements need to be much tougher than they are. The ad should have to say who funded it both in voiceover and type for a broadcast ad and a PAC calling itself something like "Americans for Prosperity should have to say who the major contributors of Americans for Prosperity are (even if it sounds like a pharmaceutical ad with all the side effects listed).

[jobycom]

22. I just read large parts of the decision. It basically agrees with you.

Or at least, it doesn't consider disclosure requirements a restriction of speech (except when it can be proven that donors would be subject to harrassment or danger, but it makes clear that this is an extraordinary circumstance).

Certainly the ruling allows such laws to be passed and strengthened, and the ones already existing to be upheld.

[The2ndWheel]

9. I think you need a good talking to, more than down

Step into Valhalla...courtesy of one A. Jensen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BVqIjKyJh0

[clear eye]

11. Aaaaaaaieeee!!! n/t

[Lorien]

13. It's certainly a big step backwards. I've been saying all along that election reform

should be a TOP issue for every DUer. Now not only aren't we even discussing election reform, we've just allowed the situation to get worse. We can't wait for talking heads on the TV to tell us which issues are important; we need to take action on this one NOW.

[clear eye]

16. Ratigan is talking about it on the air right now. n/t

[TheMightyFavog]

24. May I suggest booze?

Specifiaclly something expensive and high quality?

[Initech]

27. I'm thinking of downing a handle of Jack Daniels Bluto-style.

Thanks! I needed that!

[Writer]

25. We need to organize en masse.

This is nothing to be idle about. This is an incredible risk to the democratic system. And that's not a hyperbole. It's real.

[WinkyDink]

26. Fascism: It's Not Just for Breakfast Anymore.

[Initech]

28. May I suggest pitchforks and torches?

[many a good man]

29. Look at it this way.

Is it really any worse than we have it now? When was the last time constituent calls made a dent in any real significant legislation?

Feel any better now?

[clear eye]

30. Nice try, but we actually blocked the lousy Senate HCR bill by influencing the House

and what we're about to get leaves out some of the worst aspects & I think allows the states to start their own single-payer if they want to. I heard that California would go that way if it could.

But a cupla beers did bring me down off the ceiling. I'm ready to come out swinging now.

eta: And thanks, folks for being here. Believe it or not it made a difference.

:yourock: