Left andRight, meet in the middle.

[TheDude]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Much has been made of late about the hyper-partisan political environment in America. On Tuesday, Sen. Evan Bayh explained his surprising recent decision to leave the Senate by lamenting a "dysfunctional" political system riddled with "brain-dead partisanship." It seems you'd be hard-pressed to get Republicans and Democrats inside and outside of Washington to agree on anything these days, that if one party publicly stated its intention to add a "puppies are adorable" declaration to its platform, that the other party would immediately launch a series of anti-puppy advertisements.

But it appears that one issue does unite Americans across the political spectrum.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling. -END SNIP

This story appears in other news outlets, if you don't like Yahoo.

 

[cammerfe]

Bushwa

This is a wonderful example of spin. One of the reasons I pay dues to the NRA is because of their ceaseless efforts to represent my interests in regard to firearms-related legislation. As it stood, due to recent interpretation, NRA was prevented from having the ability to speak for me during the critical time just before elections. I, and the other millions of gun owners were being effectively muzzled. That's no longer true. But fair for one is fair for all.

The great unwashed have been fed another load of bushwa, so they react as they've been directed. So 80% allow themselves to be portrayed as upset. What else is new?
KS

 

[fossten]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Much has been made of late about the hyper-partisan political environment in America. On Tuesday, Sen. Evan Bayh explained his surprising recent decision to leave the Senate by lamenting a "dysfunctional" political system riddled with "brain-dead partisanship." It seems you'd be hard-pressed to get Republicans and Democrats inside and outside of Washington to agree on anything these days, that if one party publicly stated its intention to add a "puppies are adorable" declaration to its platform, that the other party would immediately launch a series of anti-puppy advertisements.

But it appears that one issue does unite Americans across the political spectrum.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling. -END SNIP

This story appears in other news outlets, if you don't like Yahoo.

The wording of the poll question was misleading as usual. Skewed poll. Newsbusters has already nailed this. Try and keep up.

 

[shagdrum]

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

Actually, the restrictions on corporations, unions, etc in donating to campaigns remain. The author should familarize themselves with what the ruling does and does not cover. That or they should stop misrepresenting and deceptively promoting an agenda by editorializing in what is supposed to be objective news coverage.

 

[foxpaws]

Actually, the restrictions on corporations, unions, etc in donating to campaigns remain. The author should familarize themselves with what the ruling does and does not cover. That or they should stop misrepresenting and deceptively promoting an agenda by editorializing in what is supposed to be objective news coverage.

Here is what the author of some of the restrictions that you mention shag states about this ruling...

Senator Russ Feingold, one of the architects of the 2002 campaign finance restrictions known as the McCain-Feingold law, issued this reminder that the court’s decision did not completely lift some boundaries for corporate money:

“It is important to note that the decision does not affect McCain-Feingold’s soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the political parties from corrupting the political process. But this decision was a terrible mistake. 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.

Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’ Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century’s worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government.

The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.”
​

Republicans, of course, hailed the ruling as a victory for the First Amendment. (same link)

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has acted to protect the Constitution’s First Amendment rights of free speech and association,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “These are the bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and strengthen our democracy.”

 

[fossten]

Here is what the author of some of the restrictions that you mention shag states about this ruling...

Senator Russ Feingold, one of the architects of the 2002 campaign finance restrictions known as the McCain-Feingold law, issued this reminder that the court’s decision did not completely lift some boundaries for corporate money:

“It is important to note that the decision does not affect McCain-Feingold’s soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the political parties from corrupting the political process. But this decision was a terrible mistake. 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.

Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’ Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century’s worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government.

The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.”
​

Republicans, of course, hailed the ruling as a victory for the First Amendment. (same link)

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has acted to protect the Constitution’s First Amendment rights of free speech and association,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “These are the bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and strengthen our democracy.”

And as we've already discussed, race baiter, Feingold's statement is so much BS propaganda lies. The ruling lifts restrictions on advertising, not on campaign contributions.

 

[foxpaws]

Foss - corporations can now buy political advertising directly - so, how isn't this indirectly adding to the candidates coffers? The candidates will just get their corporate buddies to foot the advertising bill - which is enormous - the largest part of any campaign, and then they won't have to pull that hunk of change out of the campaign funds.

 

[shagdrum]

Here is what the author of some of the restrictions that you mention shag states about this ruling...

Senator Russ Feingold, one of the architects of the 2002 campaign finance restrictions known as the McCain-Feingold law, issued this reminder that the court’s decision did not completely lift some boundaries for corporate money:

“It is important to note that the decision does not affect McCain-Feingold’s soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the political parties from corrupting the political process. But this decision was a terrible mistake. 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.

Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’ Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century’s worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government.

The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.”
​

Republicans, of course, hailed the ruling as a victory for the First Amendment. (same link)

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has acted to protect the Constitution’s First Amendment rights of free speech and association,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “These are the bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and strengthen our democracy.”

Is any of that at all relevant to what I said?

 

[fossten]

Foss - corporations can now buy political advertising directly - so, how isn't this indirectly adding to the candidates coffers? The candidates will just get their corporate buddies to foot the advertising bill - which is enormous - the largest part of any campaign, and then they won't have to pull that hunk of change out of the campaign funds.

Whining won't change the fact that you're wrong. It's illegal to solicit corporations to pay for an ad.

Why aren't you as outraged about the unions?

 

[foxpaws]

Whining won't change the fact that you're wrong. It's illegal to solicit corporations to pay for an ad.

Why aren't you as outraged about the unions?

But it isn't illegal for the corporation to pay for the ad if they 'do it on their own' and label it as such. And I think it is bad that the unions are also allowed this as well. Big money in politics means big paybacks later.

 

[foxpaws]

Is any of that at all relevant to what I said?

Shag - I was pointing out how this is now a 'run around' the current campaign laws. Corps can't give money directly to the campaign, but they are allowed to buy advertising that helps the campaign. Similar to all the ads you see from the 'groups' that support a candidate or issue. Often you see 'The Friends of Moose and Squirrel' at the end of a commercial - that was individuals getting together to support a political cause, outside of the monetary limit restrictions set by law. Now you will see ads that end with 'Concerned citizens for a bigger tax loop'. The concerned citizens will in fact be groups of corporations who can now give corporate money to buy advertising for political issues/candidates.

They can't give money directly - but by purchasing advertising, they will in effect be giving money to the candidate by making sure the airwaves are filled with pro-commercials. This way the campaign doesn't have to purchase as much advertising space, or spend as much on production costs.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - I was pointing out how this is now a 'run around' the current campaign laws.

Again, how is this relevant to what I said? Or are you simply trying to change the subject and reframe the debate?

 

[fossten]

But it isn't illegal for the corporation to pay for the ad if they 'do it on their own' and label it as such. And I think it is bad that the unions are also allowed this as well. Big money in politics means big paybacks later.

And yet you never complained about Big Union money being used in politics, because it helped the Democrats far more than it helped the Republicans. Look at the purchase of GM by Obama. HUGE payback to the unions. Funny how you never got outrageously outraged at Soros funded groups like moveon.org shelling millions to the Democrat party. So now that the playing field is more level, you're crying foul.

Never mind that you deliberately avoid arguing the First Amendment aspects of this case. Feingold's entire point is moot and completely irrelevant of the fact that his bill was a blatant violation of the First Amendment. It's amusing how you fiberals pick and choose which amendments you like based on how it helps your party. You mourn Feingold while you curse the Patriot Act.

Complete political hackery on your part. FAIL.

 

[fossten]

Shag - I was pointing out how this is now a 'run around' the current campaign laws.

The 'current campaign laws' were a 'run around' the First Amendment. Now they've been declared Unconstitutional. Deal with it and quit whining. The adults are in charge now.

 

[foxpaws]

Again, how is this relevant to what I said? Or are you simply trying to change the subject and reframe the debate?

I am addressing what Dude posted by explaining the decision. Is my explanation incorrect shag? It appeared you wanted people to know what is still on the books, and how the decision changes how the laws are enforced

 

[foxpaws]

And yet you never complained about Big Union money being used in politics, because it helped the Democrats far more than it helped the Republicans. Look at the purchase of GM by Obama. HUGE payback to the unions. Funny how you never got outrageously outraged at Soros funded groups like moveon.org shelling millions to the Democrat party. So now that the playing field is more level, you're crying foul.

Never mind that you deliberately avoid arguing the First Amendment aspects of this case. Feingold's entire point is moot and completely irrelevant of the fact that his bill was a blatant violation of the First Amendment. It's amusing how you fiberals pick and choose which amendments you like based on how it helps your party. You mourn Feingold while you curse the Patriot Act.

Complete political hackery on your part. FAIL.

So, you believe in first amendment rights for corporations Foss - you really believe corporate slavery is preferable to government slavery as you stated on another thread.

enjoy your servitude..

Should be an interesting campaign season - dems can sell out to big corporations just as well as Reps... the corporations will own both sides of the fence. However, the dems will still have unions. Oh, there are plenty of soros type funds on the right - the right knows that game as well.

 

[fossten]

So, you believe in first amendment rights for corporations Foss - you really believe corporate slavery is preferable to government slavery as you stated on another thread.

enjoy your servitude..

Should be an interesting campaign season - dems can sell out to big corporations just as well as Reps... the corporations will own both sides of the fence. However, the dems will still have unions. Oh, there are plenty of soros type funds on the right - the right knows that game as well.

Tu quoque.

Remember, race baiter, YOU'RE the one who has the big problem with the Supreme Court decision, I'm not.

As far as servitude to corporations - there is no comparison to the higher and more direct level of bondage a government can exert vs. that which a corporation can exert. I'll take my chances with the free market instead of succumbing to you elites who think you know best how I should live my life, thanks.

 

[foxpaws]

You should Foss - with corporations running the show - two things are most likely to happen - First - bailouts for industries. As large companies control more politicians, if they stumble and need bailouts, the hill will be more likely to award them government money. You thought it was bad the last 18 months - you haven't seem anything if corporations control more of congress then they do already. Two -Large corporations will be able to dictate laws that effect smaller upstart companies, and in effect, suppress innovation. For example, if this type of political funding would have been available to IBM decades ago, they would have been able to control many politicians with large political 'funding' . And they would have been able to suppress new competitors. Could Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs in his garage, really have matched IBM in campaign funding back then? No - and their innovations would have been legislated out of existence by politicians who owed their soul to IBM.

 

[shagdrum]

I am addressing what Dude posted by explaining the decision. Is my explanation incorrect shag? It appeared you wanted people to know what is still on the books, and how the decision changes how the laws are enforced

Your initial post was couched as a response to what I said (you quoted me before you responded). Yet what you posted was only tangentially related to what I said. That is an often used means to change the subject...

 

[foxpaws]

Your initial post was couched as a response to what I said (you quoted me before you responded). Yet what you posted was only tangentially related to what I said. That is an often used means to change the subject...

Is my explanation incorrect shag? It appeared you wanted people to know what is still on the books, and how the decision changes how the laws are enforced. I am attempting to get back to Dude's post...

 

[fossten]

You should Foss - with corporations running the show - two things are most likely to happen - First - bailouts for industries. As large companies control more politicians, if they stumble and need bailouts, the hill will be more likely to award them government money. You thought it was bad the last 18 months - you haven't seem anything if corporations control more of congress then they do already. Two -Large corporations will be able to dictate laws that effect smaller upstart companies, and in effect, suppress innovation. For example, if this type of political funding would have been available to IBM decades ago, they would have been able to control many politicians with large political 'funding' . And they would have been able to suppress new competitors. Could Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs in his garage, really have matched IBM in campaign funding back then? No - and their innovations would have been legislated out of existence by politicians who owed their soul to IBM.

Look who's fearmongering now...:bowrofl:

 

[shagdrum]

Is my explanation incorrect shag? It appeared you wanted people to know what is still on the books, and how the decision changes how the laws are enforced. I am attempting to get back to Dude's post...

So you are changing the subject...

 

[fossten]

So you are changing the subject...

...only when it suits her.

 

[shagdrum]

As large companies control more politicians

That is a massive assumption that you simply glossing over without justifying it. Some politicians may be bought out, but others won't and businesses may give to politicians who will give them preference but they also may very well donate to candidates because they view the government as not having a place in regulating markets.

There are profound philosophical differences and differences is governing approach here that should be considered. The entire incentive structure created for businesses by governments interfering in the markets and choosing winners and losers is also a major factor.

Your line there ignores all that and makes unjustified assumptions upon which your entire argument is premised.

As this past year has shown, the party of corporatism is the Democrat party. Backroom healthcare deals, "green" industries, etc. are all prime examples of this. The primary reason for this is because collectivism is a tool that businesses can leverage for any myriad of reasons.

There is also the issue of free speech here. Do you think rights lessen as wealth increases?

 

[foxpaws]

That is a massive assumption that you simply glossing over without justifying it. Some politicians may be bought out, but others won't and businesses may give to politicians who will give them preference but they also may very well donate to candidates because they view the government as not having a place in regulating markets.

Companies may well donate to candidates who want government to repeal regulations. I can imagine that RJ Reynolds and Parke-Davis will be all over that.

There are profound philosophical differences and differences is governing approach here that should be considered. The entire incentive structure created for businesses by governments interfering in the markets and choosing winners and losers is also a major factor.

And the fact that when corporations are allowed to dictate the outcome of elections, the government becomes a corporatocracy.

There is also the issue of free speech here. Do you think rights lessen as wealth increases?

No I don't shag. Rights are part of the human equation - and humans can be rich or poor, black or white, man or woman. But I do believe that all men are created equal, and that the bill of rights deals with human rights. I do not believe that corporations have natural rights.