The Ruling Changes Nothing!!

[Milo_Bloom]

Yes, I am talking about the "corporations can donate to politics" ruling.

First, let me start off by saying I think the ruling is wrong b/c corporations should NOT be treated the same as individuals and it also ignores the very basic concept of double dipping. (A corporation can give and so can the individuals behind it, allowing essentially for the same person to give twice, etc..).

However, PRACTICALLY speaking, everyone needs to chill. The same money is going to go to the same sources from exactly the same people... it will just be more direct than before. During bush terms in office, corporations would give bonuses to its employees and then those employees would donate money to the campaigns OR they would hire a firm to act as a middleman OR any other number of stunts to get the money to the people they want to have the money and weild the influence they want to weild. It wasn't all legal for sure, but no one was really policing it either, so it didn't fricken matter.. the corporate money was getting to the candidates and causes and the candidates and causes knew damn well where it was coming from.

So, rather than jumping through hoops.. now GE can just write a check directly. Same money, same people.. different process.

Do we need to address the issue of "corporate personhood"?.. yes!

Do we need to find a way to enact actual campaign finance reform? HELL YES.

But, in practical terms, this ruling ain't gonna matter to the bottom line!

[gateley]

1. If it really changed nothing, those who understand this far better than I wouldn't

be apoplectic about it.

[Milo_Bloom]

5. Sure they would.

Because people like to become apoplectic over everything.

It DOES establish a dangerous precedent; however, I am talking about PRACTICAL APPLICATION.

[gateley]

9. I'm thinking of people who generally don't become apoplectic -- like

Rachel Maddow (one example). I understand what you mean about practical application, but even then, I'm not sure we fully understand what this could entail.

[AlinPA]

2. The amounts are unlimited now.

[Milo_Bloom]

6. They were unlimited before.

You just had to spread it around.

You are talking about cutting out a step.. NOT changing the amounts.

[AlinPA]

10. If I recall, soft money was stopped with the McCain Feingold bill. It's wide open now.

[Orangepeel]

12. Soft money to political parties was stopped. I don't believe that was reversed.

I know that corporations still can not give directly to candidates and I don't believe they can give to parties either. Because of the ban on soft money to parties, corporations (and unions) found a different way to spend their money. The 527 "issue oriented" PACs. That's what the OP is talking about. Corporations already spend all the money they want on political activities. Direct spending was banned so they found another way.

This decision is bad, but for other reasons.

[AlinPA]

14. My post is confusing. While soft money was stopped, money is now unlimited

and wide open. Since most money goes to campaign advertising (TV, radio, print, handbills, mailers) this ruling of unlimited spending makes it the same as soft money or direct giving IMO.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. It was already unlimited!!

People are acting as if the corporations didn't already buy and sell candidates. They used PAC's, 527's and phony non-profit corps to do it before... now they can be more direct.

[Milo_Bloom]

19. THANK YOU!

This was the problem with the campaign finance reform in the first place, which many of us pointed out at the time.. there were so many ways around it, it didn't make a difference.

[TheKentuckian]

3. Neither does denial. The floodgates are open and the handcuffs off

[Milo_Bloom]

7. When were the floodgates closed and the hancuffs on????

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. That's what Glenn Greenwald thinks:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united

An interesting perspective.

What I think should happen is that any advertisement supporting a candidate that is paid for by a corporation or other non-human entity should clearly state the source of the funding for the ad and the reason for the support, and not in little tiny letters at the very end, either. It should be right in the body of the ad. There'd be the usual soft-focus pictures of the candidate and his lovely family, with some nice nondescript but cheerful music, and there would be a voiceover that would say something like: "GreedyAsshole Oil Company supports Elmer Dickhead for Congress because he supports more offshore drilling! This would increase our profits by ten percent every year for the next twenty years. Please vote for Elmer Dickhead and help us get more oil!" Elmer Dickhead smiles for the camera. The voiceover adds: "This is a paid political advertisement funded by GreedyAsshole Oil Company."

So the corporations' constitutional right to free speech would be satisfied, and we'd know exactly who supported whom, and why. It could work.

[salguine]

13. The problem with that idea is thinking that the donors and recipients

of those donations will willingly disclose that information. Right no they do because the law says they have to. Once they buy enough Senators and Congressmen to change that law, no such disclosures will be made, and there isn;t a damn thing anyone can do about it. ExxonMobil could give a hundred million dollars to some douchebag Senator and you'll never know.

[AlinPA]

15. That's an important point. They buy the 2010 with enough republicans

to change the law about disclosure and eliminate McCain-Feingold. Unlimited soft money, unlimited direct money to candidates will be allowed. And they are off to the races with anything they want.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. People are not treated the same as Corporations...

They can spend an unlimited amount of money on a Candidate. People are limited to the amount of money they can donate.

That is not the same.

[Milo_Bloom]

16. They could already do it before.. this just makes it easier.

[elocs]

11. Tough choice. Do I believe the knowledgeable experts who disagree,

or a username on a message board? :shrug:

[Milo_Bloom]

17. I know of no knowledgeable experts who disagree.

Doubt you could name any who address this point either.

[elocs]

20. Since it's your thread the onus is on you to provide a link that proves your assertion

because I notice there is none. I've heard nobody who has claimed it changes nothing, including much written about it here on DU.

So in DU tradition: Link please?

[Milo_Bloom]

21. You made the claim.. please provide the link.

You claim experts have spoken on this subject.

Please provide a link to back up your claim.

As for proof of what I said. Check out http://www.campaignmoney.com/ where you can see EXACTLY where money came from and you will find that the money was already coming from corporations OR from large groups of individuals within those corporations.

Or corporations would simply set up PAC's.. like http://merckpac.com

And what did MERCKPAC do??? Why contributed to candidates yes it did.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/committees/merck-co-inc-employees-political-action-committee-merck-pac.asp?cycle=08


The concept that this changes anything is laughable, because the corporations were ALREADY GIVING MONEY TO CANDIDATES!!!

[elocs]

22. Actually, you posted an OP with an assertion and a claim and provided no link.

That's on you. You should know what DU thinks of linkless assertions.

So, you are actually trying to claim that all the people in Congress or campaign finance reform who have spoken on this ruling for the past day actually claim that it changes nothing, like it is no big deal and so what?

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold blasts Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance:

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20100122/GPG0101/1220562/1207/GPG01

Feingold, D-Middleton, said that although the court left intact McCain-Feingold's ban against large, unregulated political contributions known as "soft money," its overall decision was a "terrible mistake ... ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent."

Just six years ago, Feingold pointed out, the Supreme Court upheld the ban against corporations and unions using general funds to pay for ads.

"Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president," Feingold said in a statement.

Feingold said he will push legislation to restore as many of the restrictions against corporate influence as he can.

You know, that's funny, because I don't see anywhere that Senator Feingold says the SOTUS ruling changes nothing and I've seen post after post here at DU backing up what Feingold says as well as story after story that says the same thing.

So for you to come on DU and try and claim the decision changes nothing and providing no link in your OP to back up that claim just plain stinks. Fortunately for me I will stick with people who have actual and real names and who have reputations to uphold as opposed to some anonymous poster on an internet message board. Fortunately, for me, I won't be able to see any more of your linkless OPs.

[Milo_Bloom]

23. So you weren't able to find a link?

I gave you links proving my assertion.

I notice that Feingold made no statement about the practical outcome of the ruling, but instead talked about the precedent, etc.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Caretha]

24. Here's your fuckin' link, buddy

Schumer calls for hearings on SCOTUS decision
By Tony Romm and Michael O'Brien - 01/21/10 12:34 PM ET

The Supreme Court's ruling striking down limits on corporate and union spending in elections is "un-American," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Thursday.

Additionally, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a top Senate Democrat who formerly ran their campaign committee, said he would hold hearings on the decision in the coming weeks.

"I think it's an un-American decision," Van Hollen said at a press conference along side Schumer on Thursday. "I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today."

<snip>

The law, until this ruling, had subject corporations to special spending limits and disclosure rules that did not apply to individuals.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the sponsor of that 2002 law, has called for new legislation to address the court's ruling. Schumer said Thursday he'd hold hearings as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee.

"As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over these issues, I'm announcing that we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision within the next of couple of weeks," Schumer said.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77293-...

[Caretha]

25. Here's another LINK

Source: USA Today

CEOs to Congress: Use taxpayer money for campaigns
01:40 PM

More than 40 current and former corporate executives on Friday urged Congress to pass taxpayer funding for congressional campaigns -- and stop asking busy business leaders for political cash.

The letters sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were signed by executives with Ben & Jerry's, Playboy Enterprises, Hasbro and others.

It's part of a major push by watchdog groups to jump-start legislation that would bring public funding to congressional campaigns -- and comes a day after the Supreme Court issued a sweeping decision that allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on ads to elect or defeat federal candidates. (The legislation has more than 120 sponsors in the House, and six in the Senate, but has not moved beyond the level of committees. Public funding is already available in presidential campaigns.)

The executives wrote:

As business leaders, we believe the current political fundraising system is already broken. The Supreme Court decision further exacerbates this problem. Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors. And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress. With additional money flowing into the system due to the Court's decision, the fundraising pressure on Congress will only increase.

The full letter can be found here.
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/businessleaders

Will someone help me out with more links for this poor LINKLESS OP?

PS, incase you are to stupid to get it, which you appear to be....Supreme Courts don't waste their time making decisions & NOT CHANGE THE RULES...THE RULES THEY BE CHANGED



Sorry you're too dense to get it....btw, it's WIELD....not WEILD, you misspelled it twice.

[Milo_Bloom]

28. LMAO!! So you have nothing??

These links do not address the point I raised.

Please learn to read more carefully in the future.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Milo_Bloom]

29. Oh dear god, not even close to reality.

This isn't about media companies, vs regular companies.

The point is that this ruling doesn't really have any practical effect, because companies were already circumventing the rules that were in place.

The POINT is that there is suddenly outrage that this somehow changes something, when it doesn't.

What needs to happen is a system overhaul where corporations are COMPLETELY BANNED from spending money on ANY political cause, 527's, PACs, etc.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

27. Yes, it's more about vetting candidates real well for integrity and we'l be OK...

Then when we have a fair and just supreme court we can reverse the decision down the line. There's a will there's is a way and we have the willl the setbacks should just make us work harder and it'll be OK.

[TexasObserver]

30. This ruling opens the floodgates. Make no mistake about it.

This ruling won't change GE or other big companies from funneling money to candidates through their officers and other employees. It will mean GE can start an endless string of corporate entities, give them wonderful names like "Mothers for God and Apple Pie" to applaud their private prison initiatives, for example, or to influence any number of elections.

With this ruling, no federal judge anywhere is going to rule anything the GOP does to raise money and influence elections is going to be unconstitutional. This is opening the floodgates.

[Milo_Bloom]

31. What floodgates that weren't already open?

Is there a difference between a corporation called Mothers for God and Apple Pie and a PAC called Mothers for God and Apple pie?