Campaign finance Reform killed.

[Pauls' Revere]

So, my question is this. How is the individual citizen suppose to compete with this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_mccain_campaign_finance

wtf... I'm utterly at a lose for words.

:(

[DjLoTi]

I know. It sucks. A major blow to individual freedom and liberty.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So, my question is this. How is the individual citizen suppose to compete with this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_mccain_campaign_finance

wtf... I'm utterly at a lose for words.

:(

You don't think the Corporations bought and paid for the politicians all ready?

[Pauls' Revere]

George was right....

YouTube - George Carlin ~ The American Dream (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q)

[DjLoTi]

Well yeah, but this just makes it 1000X easier for them to drown us out with dollars

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well yeah, but this just makes it 1000X easier for them to drown us out with dollars

No. All this does now is put what they do in the light, instead of it hiding in the dark recesses.

[Pauls' Revere]

You don't think the Corporations bought and paid for the politicians all ready?

oh I knew, now it's just a huge slap in the face.

Dam I wish George Carlin was here!

YouTube - George Carlin ~ The American Dream (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q)

[rp08orbust]

McCain-Feingold took the wrong approach. Instead, campaign finance reform should have limited the eligibility of candidates for office based on their financing instead of infringing on the basic rights of individuals or groups of individuals to do or say what they wish with their own property. In other words, it should have taken the form, "If candidate X receives more than Y% of his campaign contributions from entity Z, then X is disqualified from holding the office."

The Constitution already has arbitrary age requirements for holding various offices, and adding financing requirements would seem just as defensible.

[rp08orbust]

I agree with Glenn Greenwald and Jonathan Turley that the decision was corrrect: http://salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united

[DjLoTi]

That makes sense rp08orbust. Making a requirement to limit a certain % of campaign money from corporate donors. That would really balance the scales. Make it like 3% or something.. lol

[akforme]

This is what I wrote to a libral friend of mine who was up in arms about it. I used to be a liberal with her and she wanted my take, this is what I sent her:


The McCain Feingold bill gave an exclusive right to be allowed air time to give their opinion in the last 30-60 days of a race (depending on primary or general) to government approved media (MSM) and the candidates in the race. This helps the incumbent and the MSM. First the incumbent usually has more money, so they can run more ads. Second, the incumbent usually has more connections with MSM so they get more time on there as well. And third the incumbent usually has more enemies who now have no way of rebutting what he say’s unless they can get invited on to the MSM. And a corporate media company like Fox gets a monopoly on opinions while groups like moveondotorg can’t do anything unless they get invited on to speak. Fox can also use that power over candidates to get special favors if they give them extra air time. (one of the biggest special interest in DC is MSM)

The MSM and incumbents are scaring the people to keep their advantage. They don't mention Goldman Sachs gave over 2.5 million dollars in the 08 campaign while this law was in effect anyway and notice they always use the word “corporation”? That's meant to scare people. What they also don't say is in order for us to take the first from the corp, they had to take it from us too.

Now we can argue that allowing corps the right as a person is a mistake, and I would probably agree, but right now it’s the law, are you willing to give up your rights for a mistake made by government? The war in Iraq was a mistake too, so by the same logic you’re fine with the patriot act and wiretapping? And at what point do they stop making mistakes, when they have all our rights taken away?

This ruling is being sold to keep their advantage.

[Pauls' Revere]

So, my question is this. How is the individual citizen suppose to compete with this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_mccain_campaign_finance

wtf... I'm utterly at a lose for words.

:(

WE HAVE NO RIGHTS!

YouTube - YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS - George Carlin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E&feature=related)

[sofia]

this is a GOOD decision....

Thomas, Scalia, and Alito all were in favor.,,

Ginsburg, Sotomayor wanted to keep the restrictions.

This weakens the monoploy that the media has on promoting candidates. Why do u all assume that corporations are evil and will always spend money on behalf of statist candidates?

This decision will allow groups like CFL to attack certyain politicians by name and promote others.

[Meatwasp]

this is a GOOD decision....

Thomas, Scalia, and Alito all were in favor.,,

Ginsburg, Sotomayor wanted to keep the restrictions.

This weakens the monoploy that the media has on promoting candidates. Why do u all assume that corporations are evil and will always spend money on behalf of statist candidates?

This decision will allow groups like CFL to attack certyain politicians by name and promote others.

I agree!

[Pauls' Revere]

Ok, then should we incorporate a Ron Paul PAC?

Should we collectively become a corporation?

How to Incorporate:
http://www.ehow.com/how_4809685_incorporate-yourself.html

[Pauls' Revere]

this is a GOOD decision....

Thomas, Scalia, and Alito all were in favor.,,

Ginsburg, Sotomayor wanted to keep the restrictions.

This weakens the monoploy that the media has on promoting candidates. Why do u all assume that corporations are evil and will always spend money on behalf of statist candidates?

This decision will allow groups like CFL to attack certyain politicians by name and promote others.

Because the only side corporations are on is thier side. This is why they will and do support both simultaneously at times to ensure that thier interest are met. And that's the rub, they are not in the business of personal liberty nor should they be. They essensially become smaller governments or governing bodies under the federal umbrella. If they were interested in our well being (as a citizen) why then have they not improved conditions for those who work for them? If say, I was personally incorporated and could contribute an endless supply of "contributions" wouldn't my self interest bias the selection process? Especially with the media access I could gain? This just stinks....

What interest does Walmart have? certainly not personnal liberties.

For the record, I love corps, just why the hell does our political system have to be bought off by them?

[angelatc]

I might be wrong, but I didn't think this allowed corporations to funnel cash directly into campaign coffers. I thought it just meant they could produce their own messages.

Let's face it - the media are already owned by corporate America and their messages are piped into our psyche 24/7. At least these messages will have disclaimers attached.

[mczerone]

Ok, then should we incorporate a Ron Paul PAC?

Should we collectively become a corporation?

How to Incorporate:
http://www.ehow.com/how_4809685_incorporate-yourself.html

I think the better idea is to just support companies that have a stated interest in supporting RP and liberty candidates with your business. If you have a great business idea, you'd be able to give more to a campaign if you're more successful, and forming this PAC would detract from your wealth-earning capabilities.

So I think the useful thing to do is to put together regional/topical lists of libertarian businesses to focus our resources toward.

[akforme]

I might be wrong, but I didn't think this allowed corporations to funnel cash directly into campaign coffers. I thought it just meant they could produce their own messages.

Let's face it - the media are already owned by corporate America and their messages are piped into our psyche 24/7. At least these messages will have disclaimers attached.


Yes the ruled no on direct contributions. They still have to funnel it thru their employees like they always do.

[erowe1]

So, my question is this. How is the individual citizen suppose to compete with this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_mccain_campaign_finance

wtf... I'm utterly at a lose for words.

:(

All those shareholders who own all those corporations are individual citizens.

The government never had any right to stifle our right to spend our money by way of corporations to fund political speech. McCain-Feingold was every bit as terrible of a law as anyone here might guess by its name.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

So, my question is this. How is the individual citizen suppose to compete with this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_mccain_campaign_finance

wtf... I'm utterly at a lose for words.

:(

It seems that we will have to get people to realize that it is totally corrupt situation that is manipulated by those with wealth and authority.

[klamath]

All I can say is it didn't go far enough. Let me ask where in the consitution does it allow congress the right to control what individuals or groups of individuals donate to campaigns. Unless the money is buying preprinted ballots NOBODY has to listen to advertisement being bought for big bucks. Was RP able to buy the election because he raised more money than the other republicans??

Ron Paul voted against McCain feingold.

[Pauls' Revere]

It's an imbalance of power for sure. For example, as individuals we each get one vote this holds for me and each member of a board of directors. However, each member of the board gets a vote and the influence of thier corporation thrown behind a candidate of thier choosing who probably will push legislation and policy to reflect the corporate view. How hard will candidates have to suck to get funding and exposure?

[erowe1]

However, each member of the board gets a vote and the influence of thier corporation thrown behind a candidate of thier choosing who probably will push legislation and policy to reflect the corporate view.

That power those board members have was delegated to them by all the individuals who own shares of that corporation, and thus own the money being spent, and are fully within their rights to delegate that power to those board members. If somebody doesn't want to delegate power over their money to those board members, they don't have to buy shares in that company.

[Captain Shays]

One way to solve the problem and still maintain a corporation's "entity" status is to limit contributions to the politicial process to ONLY eligible voters. Period. No corporations, no PAXs, no unions and no foreign entities. ONLY those who are eligible to vote.

But let's not overlook THE biggest lobby in Washington who dwarfs ALL others including the "evil oil companies" and auto makers......the mainstream media constructs. Far and away they hold the biggest influence over our electoral processes bar none. Information is power so therefore those who control the flow of information, control a lot of power. If they want to shove Obama down our throats and ignore Ron Paul they will. We've already seen it. Ralph Nader, Harry Browne, and Pat Buchanan and John Hagelin and Chuck Baldwin ALL know this too well.

We need to set up election channels something like CSPAN but just for elections and debates.

[Pauls' Revere]

That power those board members have was delegated to them by all the individuals who own shares of that corporation, and thus own the money being spent, and are fully within their rights to delegate that power to those board members. If somebody doesn't want to delegate power over their money to those board members, they don't have to buy shares in that company.

Oh sure for publically traded compaines and those wealthy enough to purchase controlling shares of a stock.

[CCTelander]

No. All this does now is put what they do in the light, instead of it hiding in the dark recesses.

It also lends a petina of "legitimacy" to what they're doing. That may have some negative effects in the short term.

[Pauls' Revere]

One way to solve the problem and still maintain a corporation's "entity" status is to limit contributions to the politicial process to ONLY eligible voters. Period. No corporations, no PAXs, no unions and no foreign entities. ONLY those who are eligible to vote.

But let's not overlook THE biggest lobby in Washington who dwarfs ALL others including the "evil oil companies" and auto makers......the mainstream media constructs. Far and away they hold the biggest influence over our electoral processes bar none. Information is power so therefore those who control the flow of information, control a lot of power. If they want to shove Obama down our throats and ignore Ron Paul they will. We've already seen it. Ralph Nader, Harry Browne, and Pat Buchanan and John Hagelin and Chuck Baldwin ALL know this too well.

We need to set up election channels something like CSPAN but just for elections and debates.

Ok, I would go as far as to say this. How about corporations cannot contribute more than what the federal poverty level is? This at least would give some fo the "contribution power" back to the people. The media would lose margin and seek profit elsewhere. btw what is/was the maximum corporate contribution before all this?

[erowe1]

Oh sure for publically traded compaines and those wealthy enough to purchase controlling shares of a stock.

Those who buy noncontrolling shared of a stock voluntarily delegate to that board the right to spend their money on political speech. It is their right to do that. If you don't want to buy any shares of a stock at all, you don't have to. But you have no right to interfere with my right to do that. You also don't have a right to interfere with those who are wealthy enough to own controlling shares. If you think you're the victim of some injustice because there are other people out there far wealthier than you, then go out there and get rich yourself.

[NYgs23]

Ok, I would go as far as to say this. How about corporations cannot contribute more than what the federal poverty level is? This at least would give some fo the "contribution power" back to the people. The media would lose margin and seek profit elsewhere. btw what is/was the maximum corporate contribution before all this?

Corporations can't donate a dime to a politician directly now. This was about corporations buying ads.

Why don't we just socialize the entire thing and say that rich people should only be allowed to donate or advertise below the arbitrary state-created poverty line? To make it all nice and "equal."

[low preference guy]

Poor people tend to vote Democrats because of the welfare state.

[Pauls' Revere]

Those who buy noncontrolling shared of a stock voluntarily delegate to that board the right to spend their money on political speech. It is their right to do that. If you don't want to buy any shares of a stock at all, you don't have to. But you have no right to interfere with my right to do that. You also don't have a right to interfere with those who are wealthy enough to own controlling shares. If you think you're the victim of some injustice because there are other people out there far wealthier than you, then go out there and get rich yourself.

Wealth is only the issue in that its used to purchase influence. I could really care less about rich v/s poor or class warfare propoganda. My complaint is that why does a corporation as a nondying entity get to influenece our political process?

Are your individual liberties inline with corporate policy? Haven't telecoms given up the publics information to the goverment? You know for protection,safety first.

[romacox]

Not quite sure about the Supreme Court decision yet. But I am certainly uncomfortable with Chinese corporations and the federal Reserve upping the cost of advertising and making it impossible for grass roots organizations like C4L to compete for advertisement.

Understand also that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and as such would also be allowed to wage advertising campaigns for or against candidates on local, state and federal levels. If allowed unlimited spending, the Fed obviously has an unlimited supply of money. They can create it at will and spend it - as they have - with no oversight or direction by the people. They are a private corporation!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2509474#post2509474

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - A Non-Deranged, Law-Based Special Comment! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFGpoxnbfeI&feature=player_embedded)

[erowe1]

My complaint is that why does a corporation as a nondying entity get to influenece our political process?


The corporation as an abstraction doesn't get to do anything. It is a tool used by real flesh and blood people. Those people should get to use that tool to fund political speech. It is their God given right as people to do that.

[Captain Shays]

What's wrong with ONLY eligible voters being allowed to contribute to campaigns? That way it doesn't effect free speech at all for "people" who are eligible to vote, yet it reduces the influence unions or corporations foreign or domestic have. A corporation may be an entity but cannot vote.

I understand that corporations are barred from contributing but I saw a list of over 60 major fortune 500 corporations that gave over a $$Million to both Gore's and Bush's campaign. Whatever loop hole there is, they found a way to exploit it anyway.
That list included a bunch of unions who gave more than the maximum allowable $5,000 to the tune of $1.5 million each.