CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM is at the heart of everything!

[thoughtcrime1984]

Politicians are bought and paid for, for the most part. That is not news to any of us. Reform is badly needed with regards to campaign finance. The day politicians are not getting paid by lobbyists and corporations for their votes is the day that they can advocate what the public REALLY wants, and quit the BS excuses and sandbagging. Positive things for the masses may begin to happen, starting with healthcare. It's time to slaughter the fattened cattle. Enough is enough, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM is needed immediately!

[waiting for hope]

1. Take a look at this:

If You Think Corporations Run The Government Now…

by: Chris Bowers
Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 06:00

Then just wait and see what happens after, as expected, the Supreme Court allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of their favored candidates:

The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may let businesses and unions spend freely to help their favored candidates in time for next year's elections. Such a step could roll back a century of attempts to restrain the power of corporate treasuries in American politics.

The justices cut short their summer recess for a lively special argument that indicated the court's conservative skeptics of campaign finance laws have the upper hand over its liberals, including new Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the high court's swing vote, but a firm opponent of many campaign restrictions, at one point told the government's lawyer, "Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election."

~Snip~

I agree with you, but when the Court votes the way they are expected too, any chance of campaign finance reform will be DOA.

[sjdnb]

2. The case before the SCOTUS right now leaves me shaking my head

I read the first day's transcript and wondered how precedent was set by four previous rulings that determined corporations/unions or any other 'entities' were to enjoy the same inalienable rights as individual citizens. It makes absolutely no sense. Democracy is completely undermined by allowing the replication of individual rights. It's like - Hey, if you are the CEO of a corporation and Joe Schmo, citizen, you can VOTE TWICE, cuz not to allow you to would undermine your right to free speech. It's Horse Hockey!

I've read the Federalist Papers and bills introduced upon which the 1st Amendment was based -- IMO, this was not the original intent.

Citizens United v FEC http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/09/supreme-court-concludes-oral-a.html

[quantass]

9. Interestingly, if SCOTUS allows ULIMITED financing by Corps it will entice greater pressure for...

Campaign Finance Reform in Congress....i am only a beginner in American politics and so maybe i am mistaken by this assumption but when the levies break, as could be the case in this issue regarding financing, all hell will break lose and change would be much easier. The worst thing is trying to campaign fiance reform as it is today because to many its not enough of a big deal that could garner enough votes for change to happen even though the real problem with American politics IS the corruption brought on by the current system made possible by campaign financing. You need some dramatic disaster to happen to make it a priority for real change. Something like this stupid SCOTUS case could be the thing we need. So, although it is very unlikely to pass, i kinda hope it does make it far enough to scare the hell out of people to do something about it.

[BzaDem]

13. You're missing the point. The SCOTUS is probably going to BAN campaign finance reform.

It would hold unconstitutional the current campaign finance reform laws, not to mention anything that goes beyond them. That means it would remove power from Congress to act. The only way that would change is if the SCOTUS changes significantly, which could take decades.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

14. Impeachment....

You think the SCOTUS isn't accepting kickbacks and gratuities from corporate lobbyists? It would require a grand total of - count 'em - ONE investigation of a Justice (might I suggest Clarence Thomas?) for the rest of the conservative assholes on the Court to understand that we're playing hardball. Cut off the gravy train or you're through.

[cascadiance]

15. Then we need to campaign for a supermajority in the Senate to pass constitutional amendments!

That way, we can put it IN the constitution, so that SCOTUS CAN'T overturn it unless they want to be the ultimate judicial activists!

We could also put in a constitutional amendment update to the bill of rights to add a woman's right to protect her own body, and also give us the right to health care too.

The key is for us to find a way to subvert and contend with the corporate media who will no doubt be trying to use this court ruling to amp up that much more the corporate propaganda to try and prevent the Dems (especially progressive Dems) from getting power in the Congress. If we can fight to preserve net neutrality, and also find ways to have average non-profits come up to the same level of prominence on the internet that regular M$M outlets do, and perhaps over the next decade or so, the internet as a source of AV content will start to compete with the likes of cable and satellite TV as sources of simple access to video content, and provide newer alternate and simple to use gate keeper mechanisms to help people find good alternative content, then perhaps we could level the playing field.

Once the people see what a corporatist tool the SCOTUS has become, they'll realize that putting through constitutional amendments and/or impeachments will be the only way to move this country forward away from being a corporatist fascist dictatorship.

[jwirr]

3. Yes, the only way to get corporations out of the equation is to make

all politicians use public funding.

[ej510]

4. True and flat out eliminate lobbying.

[rhett o rick]

7. With respect, please read posts 1 and 2. Limiting lobbying will soon be ruled against the

Constitution. The case is being argued NOW TODAY. Looks bad for Democracy.

[rhett o rick]

6. Did you read posts 1 and 2 above. Unless we have a miracle, the SCOTUS is going to rule

that corporations are immune to campaign finance laws. No public funding ever.

[Uzybone]

5. "Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues,"

Madness

[classysassy]

8. Money rules

democracy is a joke.

[quantass]

10. If Finance Reform happened -- Democrats and Republicans would be VERY different Parties...

I would imagine democrats would be more forceful in enacting change and would probably have large majorities all the time. however with less fiancial incentives republicans would for the first time actuall listen to their constituents and what they ask and so i wonder what exactly that would be....they cant possibly survive by saying more tax cuts...but then again...I would think they would start becoming more democratic and shifting away from conservatism since as the country grows trying to keep things the way they were is not feasible...things must change and the new republicans would realize this and might even brace it (e.g. universal healthcare reform needed for the country's survival).

The more i think about this the more i see CFR is critical for any real change to happen. it is also quite possibly the most difficult thing to pass since both parties have lots to lose by going "straight". I would imaging this would be more difficult to get through than a strong Healthcare or energy bill.

[TheKentuckian]

11. We'll need to amend the Constitution to get campaign finance reform

it appears. I don't think we can legislate around a garbage decision by the Supreme Court. This is another reason why Republicans can never be allowed control again.

Not a dimes worth of difference my fucking ass. Nader must have had a lobotomy in the 80's sometime. A rational bench is worth a shit load of dimes alone and anyone who can't see that is really, really, really fucking stupid. Not to mention the utter destruction and cronyism of the bureaucracy which I reckon just isn't sexy and exciting enough for some lamebrains that fail to understand that those folks make everything happen.

Lord, preserve and protect us from fleeting attention spans and our own ignorance.

[DrToast]

12. Not necessarily

You just make it optional and pound the shit out of the politicians who don't take it.

If the Fair Elections Now Act was passed, that would be a HUGE improvement.

[rhett o rick]

16. You see it's the "shit out" process that won't work. If CorpAmerica is allowed to spend what

they want to promote candidates they will be able to get them elected. It's money that wins elections. So just how do we "shit them out"? That's why CorpAmerica is fighting so hard for this decision, they know they will own the election process.