RIP USA

[JohnO]

So let's see if I've got this right. The SC has overturned a 20 year old ruling that puts us back under the same rules that gave us Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Kennedy and Reagan and we're supposed to be scared to death? What a bunch of wimps we've become!

[Central Scrutinizer]

I guess it's an over simplification to ask if unfettered spending has forced us to drink only Bud or only Miller, or eat at only McDonalds or only Burger King. It's easier to argue that big business has already controlled our decisions. And yes, it boils down to a society that only focuses on the immediate -- loud, bright, shiny, or what can fit into 140 characters. The social network mindset has de-evolved to people espousing opinions on a subject before it's even fully reported and forming sides in anticipation of what the facts are going to be (and how the other side is going to twist it).

 

There's one interesting aspect to unfettered spending: There are still only 24 hours in a day, and only so many venues on which to advertiser. Unfettered spending will create shortage of air time and drive up costs of a 30-second spot -- the networks, cable networks, cable companies and local affiliates will clean up.

 

But, in the sake of oversimplification, big business will ultimately boil an election down to Coke or Pepsi, under the current two-party system, that's the choice we already have.

[JohnO]

What it really does is eliminate the exclusivity Media companies enjoyed under the old law to spend unlimited amounts of money expressing political opinions and preferences. The likes of CNN, Time, Newsweek, News Corporation, et al will now have competition when it comes to political speech. They will also benefit from the additional ad revenue.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

 

I'm in agreement with Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion that the ruling didn't go far enough. In essence he argues that the disclosure laws should also be struck down as they in theory and unfortunately in practice have been used to infringe upon free speech as they have led to organized attempts to intimidate and threaten dissenting opinion.

[bjorn_skurj]

Things you can kiss goodbye in about two Congressional elections or so:

* Environmental regulations

* Product safety regulations

* Food safety regulations

* Any other regulations a corporation thinks gets in the way of it making more money

[bleedorange]

Things you can kiss goodbye in about two Congressional elections or so:

* Environmental regulations

* Product safety regulations

* Food safety regulations

* Any other regulations a corporation thinks gets in the way of it making more money

 

I'm not sure you live in any sort of reality

[bjorn_skurj]

I'm not sure you live in any sort of reality

The feeling is mutual. What makes you think corporations will not see the investment of buying a few elections and the subsequent removal of profit-inhibiting laws as a wise one? Do you not understand how capitalism works?

Oh, and add "Net neutrality" to my above list.

[Sparky speaks]

I'm not sure you live in any sort of reality

 

 

Here's some reality.....

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/18/coal-dump-location-obama-usa

 

http://www.hillbillyreport.org/diary/392/obama-appoints-a-right-wing-neo-con-to-the-consumer-product-safety-commission

 

http://civileats.com/2009/12/23/food-safety-in-2009-obama-vilsack-fda-senate-on-naughty-x-mas-list/

[ikol]

The feeling is mutual. What makes you think corporations will not see the investment of buying a few elections and the subsequent removal of profit-inhibiting laws as a wise one? Do you not understand how capitalism works?

Oh, and add "Net neutrality" to my above list.

 

It seems like an exaggeration to me. No one hates free market capitalism more than big corporations. They would much rather buy politicians to regulate their competitors out of existence than to do away with regulations that would make it easier for smaller companies to compete.

[Basil II]

This both makes sense and scares the hell outta me.....

 

-Robert

[M. (hristine]

Thinking about this today, I became enmeshed in reading about Illuminati and John Perkins.

Bastards.

[JohnO]

Things you can kiss goodbye in about two Congressional elections or so:

* Environmental regulations

* Product safety regulations

* Food safety regulations

* Any other regulations a corporation thinks gets in the way of it making more money

 

Sure corporations are going to attract more customers and make more money by poisoning the environment, killing, maiming or poisoning their customers by creating unsafe products and by selling diseased infested foods.

 

Is that really your point?

[Edie]

Sure corporations are going to attract more customers and make more money by poisoning the environment, killing, maiming or poisoning their customers by creating unsafe products and by selling diseased infested foods.

 

Is that really your point?

You really don't have to go all that far back in history to find a story that resulted in numerous changes for the good for workers (and people) everywhere -- but you can bet that corporations would not have made them on their own, even after such a horrific event. While we surely won't see the return of working conditions like this, what legislator is going to go against special interests that can more easily help to see him ushered from office?

 

The Triangle Shirtwaist fire

 

[JohnO]

The fact of the matter is special interests and corporations tend to support the incumbent. Incumbents only remain incumbent with the support of the people. All the money in the world isn't going to get you elected if you're not doing the will of the people. Obama is proof of that today. He has spent trillions trying to buy support for his agenda and the people aren't buying it. Many seem to have more faith in some piece of legislation that has so many loop holes it resembles a block of Swiss cheese than in the wisdom of the people. Don't sell the people short. There is great wisdom in the founding fathers words; Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech.

 

Fight like hell in support of someone elses right to speak, particularly if you disagree with them, for someday you may need their support in kind.

[Good Old Neon]

The fact of the matter is special interests and corporations tend to support the incumbent. Incumbents only remain incumbent with the support of the people. All the money in the world isn't going to get you elected if you're not doing the will of the people. Obama is proof of that today. He has spent trillions trying to buy support for his agenda and the people aren't buying it. Many seem to have more faith in some piece of legislation that has so many loop holes it resembles a block of Swiss cheese than in the wisdom of the people. Don't sell the people short. There is great wisdom in the founding fathers words; Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech.

 

 

The vocal “wisdom” coming from the people sounds suspiciously similar to the sort of “wisdom” that dribbles from Glenn Beck’s frothy lips, which, in fact, isn’t wisdom at all – it’s warmed over right wing hysteria delivered by a political hack who has watched Network a few too many times.

 

People have a right to be angry, but as is often the case in tough times, that anger is largely misdirected. In principle, I was strongly opposed to the bailouts, but without them, the economy might have looked much, much worse – and you just know the same people who are attacking Obama for doing something, would be yelling even louder if he stood idly by and watched the economy crumble. The economic mess was years in the making, and only a fool would think it could be fixed overnight. Unfortunately, unlike prior generations, Americans have devolved into whiny little bitches who demand instant gratification.

[MattZ]

Again, though, strict constructionism is not originalism. I remember Scalia addressing this point in a book and I found this on Wikipedia:

 

Justice Scalia differentiates the two by pointing out that, unlike an originalist, a strict constructionist would not acknowledge that "he uses a cane" means "he walks with a cane" (because, strictly speaking, this is not what "he uses a cane" means).[9] Scalia has averred that he is "not a strict constructionist, and no-one ought to be;" he goes further, calling strict constructionism "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute."

 

I know you disagree with and do not like Scalia, and that's fine (I'm on record saying he is our finest and smartest justice). There are different ways to interpret the Constitution. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

 

But you call Scalia and conservative or originalist justices hypocritical based on definitions and labels that are either wrong or misapplied. I think Scalia is a lot more consistent with his opinions and voting record than most justices. But when you subscribe to an originalist point of view, that will always be the case.

 

Liberal or activist justices don't have a set framework of interpretation. They pretty much decide cases on whims or personal preferences or find ways to read things in the Constitution when they are not there. Thus, you get inconsistent opinions.

 

Fair points, bleedorange. You continue to mop the floor with me and my lazy (and perhaps misapplied) application of terms like strict constructionist or originalist.

 

Yet I stand by the subtance of my points. Scalia is every bit the tail wagging dog justice that he excoriates the liberals for being. Which is to say that he gets to his results by putting policy first, and then hangs an originalist hat on it. I would focus on your final paragraph above. I think this is exactly what Scalia is doing. Scalia didn't vote the way he did in this case because he believed that this is what the original framers intended by the First Amendment. He voted this way because this is the policy that he agrees with.

 

Again, as I said above, if we are all taking about the degrees to which speech can be restricted, how does Scalia draw his line? I say it's the same "whims or personal preferences" that you (and he) attribute to the activist/liberal justices.

[JohnO]

The vocal “wisdom” coming from the people sounds suspiciously similar to the sort of “wisdom” that dribbles from Glenn Beck’s frothy lips, which, in fact, isn’t wisdom at all – it’s warmed over right wing hysteria delivered by a political hack who has watched Network a few too many times.

 

Well it was first espoused in Jeffersonian liberalism and the Jacksonian push for universal manhood suffrage, later to be resurrected as Democratic pluralism which has been the mantra of the left for the last 70 years and codified in the mission statement of the ACLU. So if you're correct about Beck's dribbles it's basis is firmly grounded in left wing rhetoric rather than 'warmed over right wing hysteria'.

[bleedorange]

Fair points, bleedorange. You continue to mop the floor with me and my lazy (and perhaps misapplied) application of terms like strict constructionist or originalist.

 

Yet I stand by the subtance of my points. Scalia is every bit the tail wagging dog justice that he excoriates the liberals for being. Which is to say that he gets to his results by putting policy first, and then hangs an originalist hat on it. I would focus on your final paragraph above. I think this is exactly what Scalia is doing. Scalia didn't vote the way he did in this case because he believed that this is what the original framers intended by the First Amendment. He voted this way because this is the policy that he agrees with.

 

Again, as I said above, if we are all taking about the degrees to which speech can be restricted, how does Scalia draw his line? I say it's the same "whims or personal preferences" that you (and he) attribute to the activist/liberal justices.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. It comes down to a chicken or the egg argument. I think being an originalist frames Scalia's policy, ideology, and a lot of his personal beliefs, etc. Of course, you only need to look at his voting in Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman as one example of him not voting on his whims and preferences. You like to think poorly of the man, so you believe otherwise.

[bjorn_skurj]

Sure corporations are going to attract more customers and make more money by poisoning the environment, killing, maiming or poisoning their customers by creating unsafe products and by selling diseased infested foods.

 

Is that really your point?

Hey, it worked for the tobacco industry and the mortgage industry, to name a few. And when they do so, there will be plenty of free-market apologists to try to cover up their foul deeds with a patina of deontological bullshit. I wish I could be as trusting in human goodness as you seem to be, but I live in New York, where rubes get skinned on a minute-ly basis.

[M. (hristine]

Motion 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: Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count. Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

[Atticus]

is someone being denied the right to vote and participate? I'm pretty sure our current constitution has that one covered

[M. (hristine]

If Disney creates Miley Cyrus does that make her a legitimate artist?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Does the fact that Disney "created" her nullify the fact that she can sing, dance, play guitar and become a legitimate artist?

[M. (hristine]

I think what is created is a product that sells Disney product.

[Guest Speed Racer]

But if Disney left her alone, would she or would she not still be a legitimate artist?

[M. (hristine]

True. They were first treated as "persons" under a tax case out of California in the 1800s which, I guess, led to their being codified as such at a later time.

I don't think, until now, their consideration as "persons" has been used to justify granting them 1st Amendment rights allowing them to advance their self-interests through unlimited funding of political campaigns/issues (albeit indirectly) so that, in the end, they will have a more direct effect on the process than actual persons/citizens.

And I would add that corporate personhood rights do not extend to corporate personhood responsibilities.

 

But if Disney left her alone, would she or would she not still be a legitimate artist?

Pandora's box is already open.