interesting-MSNBC poll re: SC opinion-85% disagree.

[w8liftinglady]

http://politics.newsvine.com/_question/2010/01/21/3788203-do-you-agree-with-the-supreme-court-ruling-allowing-corporations-and-unions-to-spend-freely-in-political-campaigns-

The real question is-will they DO anything about it?



Results
Total of 45,404 votes

11.9%
Yes. The ban on corporate and labor spending in campaigns was a restriction on free speech.
5,419

votes85%
No way. This decision will flood the political system with even more cash from wealthy interest groups, drowning out the voice of the people.
38,596

votes3.1%
I don't know. I don't like the idea of campaigns becoming even more costly, but it's not fair to censor anyone's opinions.
1,389 votes

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. They can't "do anything about it." It's a Supreme Court decision.

The fact that most people don't agree with it won't change anything. Congress and the states could amend the campaign finance laws, but they would still have to comply with what the decision said were Constitutional limits. The only other way to change it is to wait for current court members to retire or die, appoint some new ones, wait for a similar case to come to them, and hope they overturn the decision. This is why this case is such a huge damn problem -- it won't go away just because people don't like it.

[babylonsister]

3. The Move to Amend coalition declares:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x512719

snip//

The Move to Amend coalition declares:

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

We Move to Amend.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

1. Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

2. Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.

3. Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

Within hours of the decision, more than 3,500 Americans had signed on as backers of this particular initiative.

Whatever the specific route, and whatever the specific language (Graves suggests: "No corporation shall be considered to be a person who is permitted to raise or spend money on federal, state, or local elections of any kind"), the goal of any amendment strategy should be to enshrine in the Constitution of this land the fundamental democratic principle proposed more than a century ago by a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt: "All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Good luck with that. You can't amend the Constitution by petition, either.

I hate to be a party pooper, but in order to get the Constitution amended, 2/3 of both houses of Congress have to propose the amendment (or 2/3 of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments, but this method has never been used.) Then the amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in 3/4 of the states.

Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) were ever ratified.

[babylonsister]

6. Thanks, so there is precedent. I realize it'd be a steep climb,

especially with the party of 'no' to contend with. This they probably like.

[gristy]

10. That is an informal motion to amend. It is not a direct attempt to amend the Constitution.

A petition seems like a pretty good way for the the petitioners to publicize their views to me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Yes, but what does that actually DO if it's intended only as a symbolic gesture?

Seems to me that people ought to start putting pressure on Congress to propose a for-real Constitutional amendment. It's a long shot but at least there's some potential -- unlike another useless Internet petition that makes people feel good because they think they're doing something even though they aren't.

[w8liftinglady]

16. true-and those of us in Red states don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell

as I see this as seriously affecting OUR elections.

[whattheidonot]

21. right wing

corporations have right wing agendas but do not necessarily specifically advertise that way. their ads are very slick. what they advertise and what they do are world.s apart sometimes. They have nice feel good ads while they back tyrants and screw up environments. How many people watching these ads are going to check out corporations. To counter one slick ad takes time, and information that is much harder to get out to a large audience.

[w8liftinglady]

8. yeah-that IS a bitch- I was hoping we could...

organize enough on both sides to put pressure on our representatives to amend the Constitution.

[Bitwit1234]

19. And now we know cheney knew what he was doing when

he instructed bush to appoint Roberts and Alito.

[LoZoccolo]

2. I don't like the ruling either, but I still think there's no substitute for

people viewing campaigns and political ads with a critical eye. There were still ways of spreading bad information and exerting undue influence before the ruling, and even if it's reversed, there will still be. If we can get people to a point where they can handle the treachery it will have lost it's effect. As far as this survey goes, I'm actually encouraged that they might have an interest in being as critical as they should.

[tom_paine]

5. Even if it WERE possible for the American Subject Populace to do anything about it,

the American Subject Populace is and has been for quite some time, other than some nonsensical window-dressing that wouldn't fool a person from a Free Country for a minute, completely and fully enslaved.

In a kinder and gentler fashion, of course, with plenty of Plausible Deniability to keep the Plebs and Proles confused and quiet until the Age of Peak Everything starts to bite them, by which time it will be far too late and there are already PLENTY of American Subjects ready to staff the Camps for Arabs, Liberals, and other "terrorists". (IF that is how the Final Phase goes, maybe our Aristocrats can design a new way for the brutality of what will be required, but I don't see how it could stray that far from the old ways - if I live long enough I will be schooled, I suppose)

Bottom Line: An Inverted Totalitarianism, the government we live under, has no more interest in the opinions of it's Plebs and Proles than more Classic Totalitarianisms throughout history.

"The avalanche has begun. It's too late for the pebbles to vote."
--Ambassador Kosh "Babylon 5"

[tridim]

7. Wow, my prediction was exceeded!

I guessed that 80%+ would not like it.

This number proves that the SCOTUS has gone rogue. They don't work for the people or the Constitution.

Overturn or Impeach. Now.

[CANDO]

9. The media can't mention the corpo-cash without also saying labor unions.

Like they are on par with each other. More like a gnat vs an elephant.

[w8liftinglady]

15. I'd like to see a dollar-for-dollar comparison

if their intent is to influence Texas politic,then they stand no chance-we are a "right-to-work" state with little union representation.

[DemoTex]

11. Ah, the 11-percenters.

IIRC, 11% was the figure for Bu$h's hard-core base.

:rofl:

[SpiralHawk]

13. So, we have a 15% Plutocracy running America

And the rest of us noisy proles can just STFU, according to the Republicon Supremos

[spanone]

14. too bad that the public's opinion doesn't matter

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. small online poll =/= interesting

[tinrobot]

18. That's a populaist issue if I ever saw one...

The Democrats sure as hell better grab this issue and run with it.

[Imajika]

20. Errr, this poll is meaningless

This is an unscientific MSNBC online poll that only tells us people reading MSNBC's website think.

I do believe Gallup actually polled the question and found the public actually agreed with the ruling. Ofcourse, the public has no idea at all what the Supreme Court has really done and may eventually realize just how bad it is, but for the moment, public sentiment is not against it.

There really is just no value in posting unscientific internet polls, unless your just pointing out what people who read MSNBC think.