GOP Presidential Debate

[Gerald Lively]

" Let’s just say that your $100 contribution will go unnoticed – but the big oil corporations million dollar contribution will not go unnoticed."

You don't count anymore.  You don't have enough money.  Democracy in action.  The US Supreme Court trumped your vote.

gl

[Willis]

Willis, my gut reaction (which is not enshrined in the Constitution, sadly.  LOL!) is that the reason why corporations shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions via giving gobs of money to re-electing certain politicians is because they AREN'T in fact "voluntary collections of free citizens" in the first place.  They are in existence for profit and only for profit, and the people who work for them are not volunteers at all.  The CEO of BigBob Corp may not have the same political stance and philosophy as the mail guy, so you get an uneven playing field that is made even more uneven.

That said, I personally agree that unions shouldn't be allowed to give big contributions in the same way.

I'm curious...what is the advantage of allowing corporations, comprised of many people of many different opinions, to give large amounts of money to any candidate?  I can see where a Pac or an educational group or a religious institution might be populated with like-minded people, but I don't see corporations that way.  I would be very resentful if I worked for a corporation that gave a lot of money to a candidate of whom I did not approve.  I might not be in the position where I could easily leave that job, and I don't think I should have to suss out the political ideology of the board members of any company I may work for.

So, I don't see it as "silencing" corporations, rather, I see it more as not allowing the heads of corporations (who are the ones who are going to be deciding to whom to give money) to financially contribute funds that were earned through the labors of people who might not have the same political opinion.  That seems un-American, although it does seem that the volumn of your voice is defined by how much financial sway you have, so maybe it's becoming very American in a sad way.

I think you came close to getting my point. The issue is who gets to decide what groups are OK and which are not OK. I could agree that corporations, unions, and even so-called non-profits may have people in the organization who have diverse points of view that run counter to those of the decision makers who may get involved in politics. There are probably lots of groups that could be singled out as being unfair to certain constituents. Heck, maybe a husband who contributed to one party pisses off his wife who prefers the other party. Where do we draw the line?

Some would say only individuals could contribute money. That still involves a wide disparity in income (and contributions). But the Constitution includes the right of assembly in the Bill of Rights. So if people get together and form a group then decide to contribute money to a politician...well then we've came back full-circle. My issue is who decides! I don't think there are any pat answers and no perfect system. But I prefer to err on the side of free speech rather than limiting speech.

 

[MooseMom]

I don't think there are any pat answers and no perfect system. But I prefer to err on the side of free speech rather than limiting speech.

 

I also think there are no pat answers and no perfect system, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to find said perfect system, and I'm not sure that allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to get a particular candidate elected is steering us closer to perfection.  And I suspect that "free speech" is a bit of a canard.  I don't think I buy that argument.  We limit speech all the time.  There are all kinds of things that you might say that will get you into trouble.  I am uncomfortable with the idea of money spent equalling "speech".  The fact remains that corporations who speak the loudest surely believe that they are buying something, and that feels somewhat anti-American and against the aims of the Constitution.  I'm not sure this is what our founding fathers had in mind.

[Gerald Lively]

I wrote this some time way back when . . . . . for a blog I had.


Military Industrial Complex -- read it twice
Posted by Kootie J at 20:01, 29 May 2008

" . . . this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." Dwight D. Eisenhower.
 
Dwight Eisenhower was a Republican President. That he spoke these words at all demonstrates a courage that is seldom seen in American politics. President Clinton challenged the military-industrial-complex through reductions in the defense budget, sending surpluses to payoff the national debt - something no Republican President has ever done. We are all aware of what happened to President Clinton, every aspect of his life was investigated. Courage under fire. Punishment for challenging the establishment.
 
All of this involves war, continuous war. Of course a military is necessary, especially in a world political environment created by the U.S. since WWII. Yet, war means killing. That's right people, killing other people. Those "people" could be you. Hah, you feel the fear!! Someone could be so angry with you that they would shoot at you, kill you if they could, because you are an American. Is it okay to shoot at the other fellow as long as he doesn't shoot back?
 
War!!! What can we do to stop war? Perhaps we can start by not starting wars. Perhaps we Americans should not consider ourselves the World's Policeman. We did take a central role in creating the United Nations for that purpose. Perhaps Americans should mind their own business.
 
Lost lives is not the only cost of war; ask yourselves this -- are you better off today than you were before the Iraq invasion? Gas, housing market, grocery prices, world reputation, secret government, wiretapping, airport searches and more! And why is it that America is the first to jump into any fracas?

Does all of this lead back to the Eisenhower statement about the military-industrial-complex? Hey, an Army that doesn't fight isn't needed, nor are all of the industries that support that military. All of that industrial production went to war, not to you, not to me, and the profits went to the chosen few.
 
And for those who have forgotten, wasn't it Harry Truman who made his reputation investigating war profiteering? And who is doing that job today?
 
Kootie J

[Willis]

I don't think there are any pat answers and no perfect system. But I prefer to err on the side of free speech rather than limiting speech.

I also think there are no pat answers and no perfect system, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to find said perfect system, and I'm not sure that allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to get a particular candidate elected is steering us closer to perfection.  And I suspect that "free speech" is a bit of a canard.  I don't think I buy that argument.  We limit speech all the time.  There are all kinds of things that you might say that will get you into trouble.  I am uncomfortable with the idea of money spent equalling "speech".  The fact remains that corporations who speak the loudest surely believe that they are buying something, and that feels somewhat anti-American and against the aims of the Constitution.  I'm not sure this is what our founding fathers had in mind.

I believe there are two issues here and we need to be careful not to mix them up. The first issue concerns huge amounts of money going into lobbying Members of Congress. Gerald's post highlights how some industries profit by supporting war-mongering politicians. Most of this money is "hidden" money that comes out of a corporation's (or union or NGO, etc) "black box" of money used for lobbying. I think this is a separate problem  from that of political speech per se and I'm in favor of limiting this official bribery system. It's not right that some middle-class businessman can get elected to the Congress or Senate and then retire 30 years later as a multi-millionaire. In a few rare cases the money may come from legal outside activities such as writing a book. But even these book deals are usually "cooked" and just more bribery in disguise. It's disgusting and only term limits can solve the problem.

On the other hand, the freedom of speech issue comes in when corporations buy (for example) TV advertisements supporting some cause. An example would be Exxon extolling its virtues concerning conservation efforts within its operations. This kind of advertisement certainly has its political point-of-view by trying to influence consumers, but how is it different from another company saying its soap is better than someone else's soap? In both cases the law has held for years that hyperbole alone is no reason to claim an advertisement is fraudulent. If a corporation, in my opinion, wants to make a scathing political attack against a candidate then they risk alienating customers who disagree with that POV. That should be their choice and if someone doesn't like it they can just avoid buying that product. That's what the free-market (of both products and ideas) is all about.

Now one BIG problem not discussed yet is how a few of these large corporations actually own significant parts of the media. For example, General Electric owns NBC and its affiliates. So should NBC and MSNBC forfeit their right to Freedom of the Press? Or should Fox be censored because it's owned by a foreign company (News Corp.)? Where do we draw the line?

 

[MooseMom]

Willis, I don't disagree with any of your points.  But it does raise the question of how do we keep foreign interests out of our election process?  How many major corporations that make political donations are domiciled in other countries who might not have the interests of the US at heart?  And what about American multi-nationals who might want to influence foreign affairs policy?  Are there some laws in place that would prevent such circumstances?  I really don't know.

Most members of Congress are unhappy with the current lobbying system.  I do believe that many are eager to serve their constituencies but have to spend an inordinate amount of time in fundraising rather than in problem solving.  I've heard quite a few congresspeople from both sides of the aisle complain about that, so all of this "free speech" has become screeching!  I agree that this is probably a bigger problem, for now, than superPacs, but I'd rather not add to the problem via Citizens United.

So, since so much time is spent in raising money, I'm not sure that time limits are the answer because then a congressperson will not have had time to do anything but fundraise.  Term limits are great for congresspeople who think that they will become millionaires out of the enterprise, but I feel that people should have the duty and responsibility of finding out whether or not their congressperson is doing what they have been elected to do.  If not, get rid of him/her, but if you like what s/he has been able to do on your behalf, then you should have the choice to keep that person in elected office.  People get the opportunity to rid themselves of shambolic representatives on a regular basis.  Let the democratic process work.

As for the media, yes, there are all kinds of problems there.  I personally do not think that General Electric should be allowed to own media outlets, but I don't know how you can separate them now.  And no, I don't think that any media outlets should be owned by a foreign company.  Rupert Murdoch had way too much political clout in the UK, and look how that turned out.  I don't know where the law would allow me to draw the line, but give me the crayon and I'll be drawing lines all over the place!  LOL!

From today's The Independent...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/james-murdochs-revenge-evidence-that-shook-government-to-its-core-7675196.html

[Gerald Lively]

“Let the democratic process work.” (per MooseMom)

Democracy right now isn’t working, that’s the point.

Wall Street is embezzling your money, the government isn’t prosecuting or regulating issues like hedge funds or derivatives, banks aren’t lending because they have to recover the money they lost in 2008,  the US Supreme Court took away the 2000 election then changed the campaign money picture, nobody I know supported a war in Afghanistan after Osama was killed but we are still there and if the news is correct – we will be there for ten years, money buys votes and you don’t have any money, and half of Congress wants to have the sex police in your bedroom to make sure you don’t use a condom.

If a cop shouts “terrorist” he doesn’t need a warrant to bust into your home, if they bust you for drugs – even if your are innocent – they can do an asset seizure and take away your house and car and everything in between, they can tap your phone, read your e-mail and strip you naked for getting on an airplane.  If you are arrested and innocent the jailer can strip search you and in some states you get your vagina invaded because you asked for an abortion. 

We don’t have enough money to repair highways but we have heaps of money for wars we started.  Jobs are scarce but we can’t get a jobs bill passed.  And some on congress wants to privatize Medicare.  And there goes your dialysis program to say nothing of the children whose only medical care is in an emergency room where we pay the bill anyway.  And that says something about healthcare and those who cry “socialism”. 

If you want Democracy to work, we must have it in the first place.  Whether you like it or not, this nation has been drifting toward fascism.  A democracy requires its citizens to be informed and involved.  That isn’t happening.

A small thing like creating an upbeat ambiance in a dialysis center may not seem important in the face of all of the above, but we have to begin somewhere.  Let us not just complain, get out there and do something.

Gerald
Made as Hell and I won’t take it anymore

[MooseMom]

I realize that this country is no longer a democracy but is, rather, a plutocracy.  But as yet, we have no dictator, and it is still within the power of the American people to change things if they want.  Lack of education about the issues is no excuse as we are an information-based society with most of the population having any information they want right at their fingertips.

The people in Congress who want to control your behaviour in the bedroom can be voted out.  We get the government we deserve.  If we can't be arsed to educate ourselves and to get involved when we see something we don't like, then we mustn't grumble when things don't go our way.

I am a regular letterwriter to my members of Congress.  I have even written to the President on several occasions.

We DO have the money to repair highways, it's just that the majority of congresspeople won't be convinced that money spent for the public good is an investment in our nation.

[Willis]

Wall Street is embezzling your money, the government isn’t prosecuting or regulating issues like hedge funds or derivatives...

Yes, for anyone who cares, just google "front running" and it will make your blood boil. Now it's done in microseconds by computers on every financial transaction on every stock, bond, options, and futures exchange. It may only be a fraction of a cent (usually more), but whether the market is up or down the brokers (via computer) make literally MILLIONS of these front-running transactions every day.

...drifting toward fascism.

Only drifting? 

 

[Hober Mallow]

I realize that this country is no longer a democracy but is, rather, a plutocracy.  But as yet, we have no dictator, and it is still within the power of the American people to change things if they want.

I'm not sure we do have that power anymore. The game is so rigged for this country's elite that nothing can be changed easily. Voting alone won't help because a candidate can't even get on the ballot without massive corporate money, and once that money gets him elected he certainly won't be motivated to get money out of politics.

[Gerald Lively]

Mussolini identified Fascism as a “corporate run government”.  Does that cause anyone to think?  Even pause at the thought?

[jbeany]

Maybe we need to separate corporations and state, too. 

It's kind of a catch 22.  If a lot of what has been given to the government to run is returned to the free market system, the cost is less.  Check out some of the stats on privatizing toll roads, for example.  But, without the government around to apply some restraints, we end up with monopolies that end the free market.