Support NeoGAF

[Jonm1010]

On the plus side, at least two requirements were upheld:

1. that any corporation which spends more than 10k on a film needs to register with the FEC.
2. IF it is a political ad is not authorized by a candidate, then the Corporation needs to let people know this in the movie.

If Thomas had his way those requirements would be struck down.

That doesn't really comfort me in any way.

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

A Reformer At The White House

Potential Geithner replacement?

 

[SimpleDesign]

Potential Geithner replacement?

Not going to happen. She's too radical left wing for the Obama/Emanuel administration.


Fire Rahm Emanuel Today!

 

[cntr]

Is health-care reform stabilizing?

It's been a bad day for health-care reform. Maybe the worst it's endured so far. A week ago, people were writing victory speeches. Today, they were trying out language for epitaphs. But by nightfall, the situation seemed to be stabilizing a bit.

Barney Frank walked back his unexpected comment that health care was dead now that Democrats only had 59 seats in the Senate. "I have realized that my statement last night was more pessimistic than is called for," he said, admitting that he had been "perhaps overreacting." Later on, he told Brian Beutler that "I'm strongly inclined to vote for the thing."

News that Barack Obama had told ABC that he wanted a pared-down bill led to instant and aggressive push back from the White House. As they pointed out, he didn't actually say that in the interview (it was a reporter's interpretation), and they released their own statement saying his preferences remain constant (though the statement is notably vague). Sources also say that the White House is letting the immediate shock of Brown's election settle, and that the president will be significantly more involved in the days to come.

Meanwhile, staffers who attended today's meeting of Senate Democrats said they were comforted that the moderates in the room wanted to see the House pass the Senate bill rather than give up on health care altogether. They also said there's a recognition that passing nothing at all is electorally unthinkable.

Consonant with that, Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee, said he's open to using the reconciliation process to modify the bill, a key admission if the House is going to pass the Senate legislation.

None of this is to downplay the blow health-care reform received last night. The odds of passage have gone from extremely good to considerably worse. If the bill does survive, it is likely to be weaker, smaller and less progressive than would otherwise have been the case. Democrats have completely stopped speaking about what's important in the legislation and let process and electoral uneasiness overwhelm the conversation. But where chaos reigned this morning, something more closely related to calm is returning tonight.

 

[mckmas8808]

If the supreme court rules that a corporation can, say, spend freely on political campaigns for individals, it's effectively legal, and congress can't overturn it.

Basially, the supreme court overrules congress, as congress makes laws, while the supreme court establishes the constitutionality and legality of certain actions.

It's a gross oversimplification, but that's the gist of it.

I thought this ruling just gave corporations the ability to run commericals for certain candidates. I don't think they can give money directly to people running for office.

 

[LosDaddie]

Breaking on CNN:

Supreme Court rules 5-4 to ease restrictions on spending by corporations and unions in political campaigns. :

Well that effectively eliminates any interest I'll ever have in politics. Americans will never have the spending power of Big Business.

Anyone care to guess which political party Big Business will run non-stop ads for?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Potential Geithner replacement?

There's been talk of her heading the CFPA, if it survives in the legislation. She would be ideal for the role.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Anyone care to guess which political party Big Business will run non-stop ads for?

As someone who has followed the HCR bill, you should already know that Big Business does not discriminate.

 

[The Librarian]

Is health-care reform stabilizing?

On that note, Pelosi says she doesn't have enough votes to pass the senate bill in the House... for now.

 

[empty vessel]

As someone who has followed the HCR bill, you should already know that Big Business does not discriminate.

I posted this in the other topic, but I'll repost here, because it's relevant to this comment.

As to Democrats getting corporate money, that is only because the previous structure required corporations to hedge against public opinion. In other words, if it looked like public opinion was turning against one party such that another would gain governing power, corporate money would follow, so as not to be left out when the new party took over. Now they can shape public opinion directly, which will free them from its constraints and give them much more direct control (as if they didn't have enough already). It's a terrible day for American democracy, fragile as it already was.

 

[SimpleDesign]

As someone who has followed the HCR bill, you should already know that Big Business does not discriminate.

Which is why ALL Americans should be outraged by this decision.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I posted this in the other topic, but I'll repost here, because it's relevant to this comment.

As to Democrats getting corporate money, that is only because the previous structure required corporations to hedge against public opinion. In other words, if it looked like public opinion was turning against one party such that another would gain governing power, corporate money would follow, so as not to be left out when the new party took over. Now they can shape public opinion directly, which will free them from its constraints and give them much more direct control (as if they didn't have enough already). It's a terrible day for American democracy, fragile as it already was.

Could be true ... but I still feel as if money follows power. I don't really see the hedge game changing much (just getting exponentially larger).

Obviously, I think this decision will play a bigger role in presidential politics (in favor of the Republicans).

 

[empty vessel]

Could be true ... but I still feel as if money follows power. I don't really see the hedge game changing much (just getting exponentially larger).

Probably a mix of both. Public opinion, when expressed ferociously enough in an organized manner (and that last part is important), tends to carry the day, and I think it will continue to do so notwithstanding this. Still, it gives corporations more direct control and moves us in the wrong direction. And corporations will now make it harder to organize and express public opinion through the disinformation campaigns they will run against the public.

 

[cntr]

Scott Brown: Inadvertent hero of banking reform?

If Scott Brown's election was very bad for health-care reform, it looks like it was very good for financial reform. Desperate to add a new issue into the news cycle and give Democrats something they can actually fight for, the White House is set to propose a raft of regulatory reforms that go far beyond anything that Congress has suggested so far, or that the White House has hinted might be in the offing.

The new rules would do two things: Limit what banks can do and how big they can get. The early reports aren't so clear on how the administration will handle size (some imply it's just the bank tax while others focus on vague, new regulatory powers), but the new limits seem pretty defined: Banks that have both a commercial banking division (where they take your money) and a proprietary trading division (where they invest in things like subprime mortgages to increase their money) will no longer be able to use the cash from their commercial accounts to finance the trades in their proprietary accounts.

This makes a lot of sense. No one worries about their commercial deposits because they're insured by the government. That means the lenders (me, say) don't worry about what the borrowers (the bank) are doing with that money. Conversely, if my bank account weren't insured, and I heard Wachovia was running a hedge fund funded by my deposits, I'd be out of there in two seconds. This amounts to a large subsidy from the government to the bank's trading arms, and it should stop.

The idea appears to have come from Paul Volcker, who most people thought had been largely sidelined in the administration. This shows, I guess, the utility of keeping a few more radical folks around. When the politics changed and the administration suddenly wanted to go a lot further than the political constraints would suggest, they had someone who'd been drawing up proposals along those lines for some time.

That said, I'd like to see some hard numbers on how many banks this will actually affect, and how much it will affect them. Goldman Sachs got itself a commercial charter at the depths of the crisis because that allowed it to take money from the Federal Reserve. But it doesn't actually have a serious commercial loans division, so it's not clear how this would change its behavior at all. And this wouldn't have done anything to stop Lehman, which also had very little to do with commercial banking.

 

[Pimpwerx]

I thought this ruling just gave corporations the ability to run commericals for certain candidates. I don't think they can give money directly to people running for office.

They'll attack through proxies. I read this as allowing big business to dump more money into 509 groups, or whatever the Riverboat group that attacked Kerry was. I hope I'm wrong, but it's still an awful decision. Corporate influence needs to be reduced, as they don't have a vote. If they don't participate directly in the legislative process, they should have no right to influence it. PEACE.

 

[Sirpopopop]

They don't even need proxies.

They can do it directly.

 

[cntr]

TPMDC Morning Roundup

WaPo: Brown's Win Hardly Repudiation Of Health Reform -- Massachusetts Already Has It
The Washington Post points out that Sen.-elect Scott Brown's (R-MA) win was not a repudiation of health care reform, but something much more complex. Massachusetts already has health care reform and a very low rate of uninsured people, which Brown supports, and Brown ran effectively against a national plan: "Brown's message underscores a little-noticed political dynamic in a country where rates of the uninsured vary widely, from Massachusetts to Texas, where 25 percent are uninsured. Seeking national universal coverage means sending money from states that have tried hard to expand coverage, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest, to states that have not, mostly in the South and West."

Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama and Vice President Biden will receive the presidential daily briefing at 9:30 a.m. ET, and the economic daily briefing at 10 a.m. ET. Obama will meet at 10:30 a.m. ET with senior advisers. Obama and Biden will meet at 11:10 a.m. ET with Presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board Chair Paul Volcker, and Obama will deliver remarks at 11:40 a.m. ET on financial reform. At 2 p.m. ET, Obama will address a delegation from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. At 3:45 p.m. ET, Obama and Biden will meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President Biden will attend President Obama's morning briefings and meetings listed above. In addition, he will meet at 12 p.m. ET with British Foreign Secretary David Milliband. In the afternoon, he will introduce Obama at a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. At 3:45 p.m. ET, he will join with Obama to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Scott Brown's Meeting Senators On Capitol Hill
Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) will be touring Capitol Hill today. He will meet at 10:10 a.m. ET with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), at 10:30 a.m. ET with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), at 11 a.m. ET with interim Sen. Paul Kirk (D-MA), and at 11:45 a.m. ET with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Obama To Appear With Reid In Nevada
President Obama will make an appearance next month in Las Vegas, alongside Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. It is not yet clear whether the event will be overtly political, but any public appearance by Obama in Reid's home state would likely be seen as an attempt to help Reid, who for his part has been trailing Republican opponents in the polls.

GOP Works To Channel Euphoria Into Recruitment
Roll Call reports that Congressional Republicans are working to channel the excitement from Sen.-elect Scott Brown's (R-MA) victory into helping them with more candidate recruitment. "We have been recruiting for a long time but there's some people that when you are [recruiting them] you think, they will be great for the job, great to run, the community wants them, but this might not be the best time in their life," said Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-MA). "I called a lot of them today and said if there ever was a time, it was now."

Massachusetts Dem Congressmen Brace For Re-Election Fights
The Boston Globe reports that some of the ten members of Massachusetts House delegation, all Democrats who usually run without significant opposition, are preparing to face real challenges after Scott Brown carried their districts. "Some people will come out of the woodwork to go after me. There is clearly a lot of angst out there," said Rep. James McGovern, who also added: "We need to do a better job of communicating that we are spending the people's money wisely."​

 

[mckmas8808]

Probably a mix of both. Public opinion, when expressed ferociously enough in an organized manner (and that last part is important), tends to carry the day, and I think it will continue to do so notwithstanding this. Still, it gives corporations more direct control and moves us in the wrong direction. And corporations will now make it harder to organize and express public opinion through the disinformation campaigns they will run against the public.

Don't forget that this gives labor unions more power too! Don't act like it gives power any to big business.

 

[gkryhewy]

Don't forget that this gives labor unions more power too! Don't act like it gives power any to big business.

:lol :lol Labor unions in 2010 compared to corporations. You're so funny sometimes.

 

[devilhawk]

Well that effectively eliminates any interest I'll ever have in politics. Americans will never have the spending power of Big Business.

Anyone care to guess which political party Big Business will run non-stop ads for?

Corporations often give money to both candidates. Can't lose that way. Corporations couldn't care less about parties.

 

[radioheadrule83]

No-one should try and sugarcoat or play down that supreme court decision. Its a horrible decision that will only see money funnelled into spurious propaganda. "Big business" and certain media institutions already help decide elections, now they'll pay more for even more of a say. That's NOT democracy. Its NOT meritocracy. They will NOT have the interests of the common voter at heart. Motivations will be completely self-serving, and it will all revolve around money. Allowing already wealthy profiteers to wade deeper into the political arena is a horrible horrible idea.

 

[mckmas8808]

They'll attack through proxies. I read this as allowing big business to dump more money into 509 groups, or whatever the Riverboat group that attacked Kerry was. I hope I'm wrong, but it's still an awful decision. Corporate influence needs to be reduced, as they don't have a vote. If they don't participate directly in the legislative process, they should have no right to influence it. PEACE.

You aren't wrong. And it will help big businesses and labor unions to directly advertise to everyday people.

But they still can't give people running for office money directly.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader and a longtime opponent of that law, praised the Court’s decision as “an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day.” The case had unlikely origins. It involved a documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” a 90-minute stew of caustic political commentary and advocacy journalism. It was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, and was released during the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008.

This is the guy that some people in this thread think Obama should be doing a better job of working with it.

Oy vey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp

 

[mckmas8808]

:lol :lol Labor unions in 2010 compared to corporations. You're so funny sometimes.

Yeah labor unions are under financed (compared to corporations), but I just wanted the truth out there. You aren't against telling the truth are you?

This is the guy that some people in this thread think Obama should be doing a better job of working with it.

Oy vey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp

The GOP are for this Court decision?! :lol :lol
How can the DEMs lose to these boneheads?

 

[thefit]

2010 is about to get really fucking ugly. My advice to Unions and non corporation entities is to expose what the corporations do directly and pin it to whatever candidate they are funding.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Christ, what a bad week for the country. Pharmaceuticals and insurance companies defeat healthcare reform, Supreme Court formally hands the keys to the country on over to corporations - right after they demonstrate they've had them all along. At least now we don't have to pretend.

America, fuck yeah.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

:lol :lol Labor unions in 2010 compared to corporations. You're so funny sometimes.

Sometimes psychotic works for mckmass up there.

You think corporate interests own the country now? Just wait.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I thought this ruling just gave corporations the ability to run commericals for certain candidates. I don't think they can give money directly to people running for office.

I was giving a hypothetical example.

 

[gkryhewy]

Yeah labor unions are under financed (compared to corporations), but I just wanted the truth out there. You aren't against telling the truth are you?

Sometimes I wonder if you are a software script on somebody's work PC.

 

[cntr]

You aren't against telling the truth are you?

You aren't against freedom are you?

god got fucking damn, you're an idiot

 

[eznark]

Just got home, have not read the ruling and might be asking a dumb question, however can I use this ruling to skirt individual contribution limits?

I have an LLC, can I essentially use it to funnel an unlimited amount of money to some candidate of my choosing?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

How long does it take Dems to start passing through individual parts of the HC Reform e.g. One bill that deals with not being able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions?

Just got home, have not read the ruling and might be asking a dumb question, however can I use this ruling to skirt individual contribution limits?

I have an LLC, can I essentially use it to funnel an unlimited amount of money to some candidate of my choosing?

I don't believe so. The limits stay on campaign cash.

But indirectly, a corporation can run as many ads as they want supporting or opposing a candidate, with or without the candidate's approval.

 

[GhaleonEB]

How long does it take Dems to start passing through individual parts of the HC Reform e.g. One bill that deals with not being able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions?

Republicans will block all of those.

Really, the House passing the Senate bill and then modifying it in the Senate via reconciliation is pretty much the only option right now, unless they want to push a handful of stand-alone reforms through reconciliation.

The former still looks more likely than the latter, but Pelosi just stopped that train in its tracks.

 

[empty vessel]

Just got home, have not read the ruling and might be asking a dumb question, however can I use this ruling to skirt individual contribution limits?

I have an LLC, can I essentially use it to funnel an unlimited amount of money to some candidate of my choosing?

LLCs aren't technically corporations at all, although I have no idea what the language of the (former) prohibitions related to corporate political advocacy were like. If you weren't already able to do so, this decision lets you buy advertisements directly supporting particular individual candidates. In other words, if you have enough money, candidates will now need to directly court you for your advertising support. In short, politics will now be more like NASCAR.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Just to ask the question, cause honestly it surprises me:

Does PoliGAF really think corporate money wasn't getting funneled to ads and campaign support for candidates previously?

Yes, this decision makes it easier, but given the loopholes in McCain/Feingold, its not like it was difficult to begin with. How does this decision make the situation any worse that what it already was?

 

[Fatalah]

Drudgereport is... down? Oh nose!

 

[thefit]

The worst part about corporations having so much say in our politics is that they are all entirely multinational that means that they don't even answer to American entities and that makes this decision so dangerouse to our national security. Expect more needless wars on behalf of corporations on behalf of foreign countries that do not share our democratic views and it will be all legal.

 

[empty vessel]

The worst part about corporations having so much say in our politics is that they are all entirely multinational that means that they don't even answer to American entities and that makes this decision so dangerouse to our national security.

Important point.

 

[eznark]

LLCs aren't technically corporations at all, although I have no idea what the language of the (former) prohibitions related to corporate political advocacy were like. If you weren't already able to do so, this decision lets you buy advertisements directly supporting particular individual candidates. In other words, if you have enough money, candidates will now need to directly court you for your advertising support. In short, politics will now be more like NASCAR.

Yeah, I didn't know how the actual legal language read and often corporation is just thrown around to mean multiple-interest owned entity in the press.

Without reading it the ruling seems to make sense. Restrictions on funding/campaigning always strike me as a limit on freedom.

Drudgereport is... down? Oh nose!

I was just thinking the other day, how is that site NEVER down? Oh, as I typed this it popped back up.

 

[Fatalah]

The worst part about corporations having so much say in our politics is that they are all entirely multinational that means that they don't even answer to American entities and that makes this decision so dangerouse to our national security. Expect more needless wars on behalf of corporations on behalf of foreign countries that do not share our democratic views and it will be all legal.

I read this book about the "silent takeover" of the government by corporations. Pretty scary stuff.

 

[LosDaddie]

I can't tell if mckmas seriously believes unions have the same amount of influence / money as corporations in politics or not. Or that he is surprised Repubs love this ruling.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Just to ask the question, cause honestly it surprises me:

Does PoliGAF really think corporate money wasn't getting funneled to ads and campaign support for candidates previously?

Yes, this decision makes it easier, but given the loopholes in McCain/Feingold, its not like it was difficult to begin with. How does this decision make the situation any worse that what it already was?

The corporation can run any kind of attack ad it wants. Previously, it was limited to them through their employees donating to campaigns. So, for example, we can say JP Morgan donated 1.7 million $ to Obama (random number picked here), which pretty much meant that people working at JP Morgan donated upto 2300$ max adding upto 1.7 million.

Now, some of these could actually be Obama supporters and not just funneling campaign cash.

Now, the top executives at JP Morgan can decide to run a 10 million $ ad campaign for/against Obama in 2012 if they want.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Well at least Obama is finally listening to McCain and is proposing a lighter version of Glass-Steagall. Banks really don't like this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34967521/ns/business-us_business

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Well at least Obama is finally listening to McCain and is proposing a lighter version of Glass-Steagall. Banks really don't like this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34967521/ns/business-us_business

I am pretty sure most Republicans will oppose it to.

1. Obama proposes something
2. Republicans oppose it all
3. ???
4. Profit

 

[empty vessel]

I read this book about the "silent takeover" of the government by corporations. Pretty scary stuff.

Looks good. Added to wish list.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I am pretty sure most Republicans will oppose it to.

1. Obama proposes something
2. Republicans oppose it all
3. ???
4. Profit

Well McCain has been pounding his fist for it, so they can't filibuster it.

 

[cntr]

Anyway, looking over what we can do about this ruling − you know how 2/3rds of all state legislatures can call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution? Apparently, it's scholarly consensus that while the Congress can't limit the convention,the states can limit the subject matter of the convention! Such limitations could prevent idiots from suggesting "Gay people are evil! Amendment", "US is Christian Nation Amendment" and other shitty things.

Hmm.

It's 'not important' at the moment, but it's something to consider in the next few years, since this'll probably be a major issue in the future.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Just got home, have not read the ruling and might be asking a dumb question, however can I use this ruling to skirt individual contribution limits?

I have an LLC, can I essentially use it to funnel an unlimited amount of money to some candidate of my choosing?

Yes you can.

Edit: Oh... funding.

Nope, you can't do that. That part of McCain-Feingold is still preserved.

 

[Sirpopopop]

That doesn't really comfort me in any way.

Got to take any silver lining you can get!

 

[Matt]

Without reading it the ruling seems to make sense. Restrictions on funding/campaigning always strike me as a limit on freedom.

Except that corporations aren't people and money isn't speech.

It's incredible that, legally, the opposite is true.