Campaign Finance changed

pettyfog · Jan 21, 2010

An important decision from SCOTUS:

powerlineblog - Paul{Everton fan}
Volokh

Bottom line is free speech and advocacy cannot be denied Corporations or Labor Unions under pretense of Corruptive Activities using monies not solicited for that purpose.

1. The decision better secures the liberty of the mainstream media. Most mainstream media is organized as corporations, and as the Court pointed out the argument for lesser protection for corporate speech would equally apply to speech by media corporations. So far, Congress has exempted the media from bans on corporate advocacy for or against candidates; but now it’s clear that the media corporations (alongside other corporations) are constitutionally entitled to so editorialize.

2. The decision diminishes the relative power of the mainstream media. Until now, media corporations and some ideological advocacy corporations were the only groups that had a truly free hand in editorializing for or against candidates. Now business corporations and unions will also have this freedom, and the relative importance of the media’s views will diminish.

3. But the decision will likely increase the income of the mainstream media, especially broadcasters: Now that unions and business corporations are free to speak for and against candidates, presumably many of them will do so, often by buying advertising. And who’ll sell them the time or space for the advertising? Mostly broadcasters, though perhaps some newspapers and magazines as well.
Click to expand...

Note this killed part of McCain-Feingold. Sen McCain is probably happy about that, too.

What is not clear to me is the effect on corporations that own news subsidiaries.
I am ALL FOR disclosure of who is paying for the ad.

And I would like to see news organizations disclose possible interests in news coverage, particularly on 'opinion programming'....ESPECIALLY when their parent corporations have billions at stake in commercial ties to the government regarding supplier contracts, etc.. wouldnt you?

I bet Chuckie Schumer would.. cause:

"I think it's an un-American decision," Schumer said at a press conference 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."

...

"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.
Click to expand...

When asked if Soros would disclose in a press release that he made 1 Billion in Brazillion oil profits after the US pumped 3 billion into the Brazil off shore development, Chuckie said: "That's got nothing to do with it. - Okay, so I made the question to Schumer up.

BTW: Speaking of ponying up.. evidently Wall ST didnt put up enough in the last election cycle even though they sent about 3 bucks to dems for every 1 to repubs..
The End of Wall Street As We Know It

The actual story is that today’s proposal is totally new, far more radical than anything Obama and his top officials, mainly chief economic adviser Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, have proposed in the past. Indeed, they’ve been actively avoiding it for the better part of their first year in office. The president was gracious enough today to credit the man responsible for it—“we’re calling it the Volcker rule after the tall guy behind me,” he said—but what Obama didn’t say was that, until now, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker has been virtually ignored by his administration.

...

If adopted, along with another proposal to limit the consolidation of the financial sector into giant firms—essentially what’s happened over the past two decades—Obama’s new plan would dramatically change Wall Street as we know it. It would have an effect not unlike that of the Glass-Steagall law of 1933, which forced big banks like J.P. Morgan to spin off their investment-banking sides into new firms (in that case, Morgan Stanley).
Click to expand...

Okay, we actually been through this before.. so who's gonna end up holding the worthless Fannie and Freddy originated crap, THIS TIME?

HatterDon · Jan 21, 2010

Good decision by the court. Restricting money is restricting speech. The Constitution recognizes corporations as "people." There's little to argue about there for any civil libertarian.

I would also like to see all federal funding of any individual campaigns -- matching funds, etc. -- ended, but I guess that is nowhere close to unconstitutional, which the above aspect of McCain-Feingold clearly was.

As far as media connections, who cares. If you can't tell after 10 seconds of Fox News and 3 seconds of MSNBC, then you're too stupid to be read a disclosure in the first place.

pettyfog · Jan 22, 2010

Wherein I cuss a lot!

And Right on Cue...Supreme Court Sanctioned Murder Of Democracy! General Electric Employee Keith Olbermann Special Comment pt.2

The more I see this shit, the more I think of Siemens in the thirties
-EG; GE was recently given a supplemental contract as second engine supplier to the F35... already well over budget. There are relatively few of these planes to be built.
Oh, but never mind.. GE is GREEN!
Sorry if I offend, but the damn shoe fits! And it doesn't change things a damn bit to ignore it.

Let's look back a few years before you write me off as loony.. remember I told you about the Corn-Ethanol scam and the cozy arrangements between Dept Agriculture, Tom Harkin, ConAgra and ADM?
How'd that turn out?
Still the same today.. the higher the price of oil the more it COSTS to PRODUCE ethanol. The only way to -EVEN PARTIALLY- break that bond would be for the processors to build nuke power plants near their plants. Sure's hell aint gonna happen either.
And the higher the price of fuel, the higher food prices go.

I sure's hell got nothing against big corporations, per se. I even dont mind them owning media companies.

But there's a need for light being shined on these comfy cooperative ventures. And I would sure as hell like to know how GE can forecast such rosy revenue earnings by 2012.. The leading economic signs sure dont support that.

And to think Ronald Reagan was once GE's public affairs voice.

Forum	Title	Date
Miscellaneous	Your Campaign Thread	Aug 29, 2008
Miscellaneous	Campaign Sliming Thread Challenge	Aug 23, 2008
Miscellaneous	Obama: How Republicans will Campaign	Jun 20, 2008
Miscellaneous	Campaign Rhetoric gets just silly.	Mar 8, 2008
Miscellaneous	Campaign tidbits	Feb 23, 2008

Campaign Finance changed

pettyfog Well-Known Member

HatterDon Moderator

pettyfog Well-Known Member

Share This Page

About Us

League Standings

Useful Searches

Campaign Finance changed

pettyfog Well-Known Member

HatterDon Moderator

pettyfog Well-Known Member

Share This Page