Support NeoGAF

[eznark]

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.

I think the alarmism should be reigned in a bit. They still have shareholders to answer to, and spending $10m on a campaign ad for most companies is still going to be untenable, especially when the country is fairly evenly divided. Whole Foods isn't going to start multi-million dollar campaigns for libertarians just because they can. Commonly corporation implies the entity is publicly held, will this ruling affect private companies in any way?

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

Actually they are, according to the law

 

[thefit]

The ruling does away with any type of perceived notion that unions could just as well match any multinational corporation because the amount of money that a multinational corporation can funnel could never be matched by any US union and so the outcome will be that corporations will grow in influence and that could very well be the end of unions all together. There is no level field here this is entirely one sided.

 

[eznark]

Yes you can.

Edit: Oh... funding.

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

Yeah, I'm getting around to reading about it now. Interesting how fucked the Solicitor General knew she was going into it.

In an unconventional line of argument, Kagan seemed prepared to grant that non-profits like Citizens United, which produced the critical Clinton documentary, were not subject to the restrictions of 2002's McCain-Feingold bill, so long as restrictions for for-profit corporations remained in place.

In response to the suggestion by Chief Justice John Roberts as to whether she — and by extension the government — had decided to strategically “give up” the particulars of the case to preserve the broader impact of McCain-Feingold, Kagan responded:

“If you are asking me, Mr. Chief Justice, as to whether the government has a position as to the way it loses, if it has to lose, the answer is yes.”

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I think the alarmism should be reigned in a bit. They still have shareholders to answer to, and spending $10m on a campaign ad for most companies is still going to be untenable, especially when the country is fairly evenly divided. Whole Foods isn't going to start multi-million dollar campaigns for libertarians just because they can. Commonly corporation implies the entity is publicly held, will this ruling affect private companies in any way?


Actually they are, according to the law

It should be the same for all the corporations. And a place like Whole Foods certainly would be limited in its direct involvement, but a place like Goldman Sachs can easily do it. In fact, considering that some of these organizations already spend Millions or dollars on lobbying, this would just be direct lobbying to the public.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

-Health care reform is over. I really don't see House DEMs working together to butch the bill. Just reading the headlines on political sites going back and forth shows you that nobody in congress has their shit together.

-Drug companies and unions controlling our government about what to add and what to remove in health care reform is a joke.

-Timothy Geithner is a crook. That's all I have to say about him.


This country is going down the toilet faster than a Rodney King beating.

 

[JoeBoy101]

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.

Yeah, but wait a second, what about PACs and 501 groups that get formed. They get funded heavily from corporations and are not held to the same level of scrutiny as corporations. 501s were the big loophole of McCain/Feingold to being with. So, previously, they funded attack ads from 'The Committee to Elect Barack Obama'. All this ruling strikes me as doing so far is removing the need to have different boilerplate on the ad.

 

[NewLib]

I have an easier time with the rationale for corporations shouldnt be people than I do that money isnt speech.

 

[Jex]

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

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

Beautiful and legal. There are ofcouse perfectly logical reasons to restrict donations by corporations e.g. they have more money then anyone. If you already accept that they have more power simply through their wealth it seems like a bad idea to say that they should be given even more power in the political arena.

 

[eznark]

It should be the same for all the corporations. And a place like Whole Foods certainly would be limited in its direct involvement, but a place like Goldman Sachs can easily do it. In fact, considering that some of these organizations already spend Millions or dollars on lobbying, this would just be direct lobbying to the public.

Sure but lobbying and publicly campaigning are two different things. We live in a hyper-politicized climate. If US Bank decides to back Sarah Palin you can bet they will lose a not-insignificant portion of their retail and commercial business. It's not a route that most boards will decide to take, simply because putting your brand on a political ad is not a safe move.

This ruling makes possible these fire and brimstone scenarios but I do not see any board of directors allowing significant political campaigns to be run on behalf of any client. (I only picked Whole Foods because Mackey is so outspoken, not because they are small)

Beautiful and legal. There are ofcouse perfectly logical reasons to restrict donations by corporations e.g. they have more money then anyone. If you already accept that they have more power simply through their wealth it seems like a bad idea to say that they should be given even more power in the political arena

I don't think the Supreme Court should rule based on the fear the outcome.

 

[mckmas8808]

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

And you didn't answer the question. Typical you of course.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Just reading through the WSJ articles on the ruling, it seems that the limits on donations to committes was also struck down i.e. Corporations can now donate as much money as they want to DNC, RNC.

 

[GhaleonEB]

-Timothy Geithner is a crook. That's all I have to say about him.

I'll admit to being unpleasantly surprised by him, despite some warnings from others here.

Just reading through the WSJ articles on the ruling, it seems that the limits on donations to committes was also struck down i.e. Corporations can now donate as much money as they want to DNC, RNC.

Who can then funnel it to candidates; they're just a pass-through.

We. Are. Fucked.

 

[empty vessel]

Yeah, I'm getting around to reading about it now. Interesting how fucked the Solicitor General knew she was going into it.

Yeah, to lawyers who watch the Supreme Court and understand its members political ideologies--ideologies that lay persons would find extreme if they understood them--these cases are rather predictable. Once the Supreme Court accepted cert, it was immediately understood why they accepted the case and what the outcome would be.

Surprise, law is politics.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Who can then funnel it to candidates; they're just a pass-through.

We. Are. Fucked.

Pretty much.

Corporations now have direct control over the political coffers of both Democrats and Republicans.

 

[eznark]

I'll admit to being unpleasantly surprised by him, despite some warnings from others here.
.

Didn't Obama just issue an edict saying no tax cheats can work in government. Seems like an easy way way to fire him to me.

Corporations now have direct control over the political coffers of both Democrats and Republicans

.
As though it were ever any different.

 

[empty vessel]

Yeah, but wait a second, what about PACs and 501 groups that get formed. They get funded heavily from corporations and are not held to the same level of scrutiny as corporations. 501s were the big loophole of McCain/Feingold to being with. So, previously, they funded attack ads from 'The Committee to Elect Barack Obama'. All this ruling strikes me as doing so far is removing the need to have different boilerplate on the ad.

These are decent points, but the ruling enshrines corporate political speech in the First Amendment and gives it constitutional protection it never had before, advancing the damaging corporations-are-people-too trope. Congress always could have changed the law to cover or amend the loophole or try something else entirely. Now they can't, which was what the Supreme Court intended.

 

[GhaleonEB]

As though it were ever any different.

This takes it to a whole new level. No pretending any more.

 

[Skiptastic]

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

Oh shit, it's like Shadow Complex! :O

 

[eznark]

These are decent points, but the ruling enshrines corporate political speech in the First Amendment and gives it constitutional protection it never had before, advancing the damaging corporations-are-people-too trope. Congress always could have changed the law to cover or amend the loophole or try something else entirely. Now they can't, which was what the Supreme Court intended.

They can try and make corporations non-people still. That would be a fun battle to watch.

I was only marginally in favor of this, but after seeing some of the DK reaction I'm pretty gung-ho about this ruling. I really hope if Citigroup buys an elected official the person can afford more than a $500 suit. Matter of fact, I'm filing my papers now. Senator eznark, officially endorsed by Wal Mart.

This takes it to a whole new level. No pretending any more.

My whole point is they will still have to pretend or risk losing business. All the government backing in the world won't help Wal Mart if they lose their customers.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Yeah, to lawyers who watch the Supreme Court and understand its members political ideologies--ideologies that lay persons would find extreme if they understood them--these cases are rather predictable. Once the Supreme Court accepted cert, it was immediately understood why they accepted the case and what the outcome would be.

Surprise, law is politics.

People were surprised that the Court took it this far.

The Roberts Court's M.O. was to make narrow holdings, and gradually chip away at precedent they didn't like.

This was a karate chop.

 

[mckmas8808]

You aren't against freedom are you?

god got fucking damn, you're an idiot

So are you saying labor unions can't take advantage of this ruling too?

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

I didn't say that. I directly said that labor unions have less power than corporations. They only thing I said was "labor unions can take advantage of this ruling too."

Anything else stated would be someone lying about what I said.

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

He's listening to Paul Volker not McCain. Stop making it seem as if Obama doesn't have people on his team to direct him into the right direction.

And I'm glad he's doing this too.

 

[GhaleonEB]

:lol

 

[empty vessel]

The Roberts Court's M.O. was to make narrow holdings, and gradually chip away at precedent they didn't like.

That's Roberts' publicly expressed position, not his actually-existing position. Scalia and Thomas never even pretended.

 

[LosDaddie]

They only thing I said was "labor unions can take advantage of this ruling too."

Which was an odd statement to make when no one was disputing that.

 

[The Librarian]

-Health care reform is over.

No it's not. The Democrats know they have to get a bill through. Pelosi knows that, Obama knows that, and Reid knows that.

 

[Doc Holliday]

So who are the activist judges now? Fucking hypocritical assholes....

 

[RiskyChris]

This fucking ruling is going to make every member of Congress incredibly vulnerable to pissing off special interests. Jesus Christ.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Again, corporations don't get a vote. They can't directly elect anyone, and so are not directly engaged in the democratic process. Why should they be given any room to influence a process they are not involved with? PEACE.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Can someone explain to me why, more than 48 hours later, the WH is still silent on where things should go? Things have settled down a bit but the house is still confused as fuck. Why hasn't Obama or Emanuel laid out a plan for them. The only option is pretty damn clear: get the house to pass the senate bill. Pelosi says she can't get it done with the senate bill as it's written now, but honestly I wonder if that's a cry for help. If Obama steps in and guarantees a second bill done through reconciliation, this can get done.

The idea of waiting until summer to finish this is ridiculous; the last thing we need is high gas prices making people even more disgruntled and open to hearing GOP nonsense. I don't know what the fuck is going on.

 

[RiskyChris]

I don't know what the fuck is going on.

WH is in the same boat.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Can someone explain to me why, more than 48 hours later, the WH is still silent on where things should go? Things have settled down a bit but the house is still confused as fuck. Why hasn't Obama or Emanuel laid out a plan for them. The only option is pretty damn clear: get the house to pass the senate bill. Pelosi says she can't get it done with the senate bill as it's written now, but honestly I wonder if that's a cry for help. If Obama steps in and guarantees a second bill done through reconciliation, this can get done.

The idea of waiting until summer to finish this is ridiculous; the last thing we need is high gas prices making people even more disgruntled and open to hearing GOP nonsense. I don't know what the fuck is going on.

I thought Obama said that they should wait until Brown takes his seat?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I thought Obama said that they should wait until Brown takes his seat?

That's in reference to not passing anything until Brown's seated. It doesn't mean "lets run around with no direction/plan until Brown is seated."

 

[mckmas8808]

Which was an odd statement to make when no one was disputing that.

Not every statement here has to be a fight. I was just stating one extra part of the ruling. Nobody made that distiction known at the time, so I wanted to update people here that didn't know that extra information.

Then all of a sudden everybody attacks me for it. Seems alot of people have a huge heart of unions here.

 

[Chichikov]

I think the alarmism should be reigned in a bit. They still have shareholders to answer to, and spending $10m on a campaign ad for most companies is still going to be untenable, especially when the country is fairly evenly divided. Whole Foods isn't going to start multi-million dollar campaigns for libertarians just because they can. Commonly corporation implies the entity is publicly held, will this ruling affect private companies in any way?

Lobbying and campaign donations have probably the highest return on investment of any corporate activity.

If anything, the shareholders should (and will) demand more of it, as it's one of the best ways to increase your profits.

 

[ralexand]

Can someone explain to me why, more than 48 hours later, the WH is still silent on where things should go? Things have settled down a bit but the house is still confused as fuck. Why hasn't Obama or Emanuel laid out a plan for them. The only option is pretty damn clear: get the house to pass the senate bill. Pelosi says she can't get it done with the senate bill as it's written now, but honestly I wonder if that's a cry for help. If Obama steps in and guarantees a second bill done through reconciliation, this can get done.

The idea of waiting until summer to finish this is ridiculous; the last thing we need is high gas prices making people even more disgruntled and open to hearing GOP nonsense. I don't know what the fuck is going on.

Yeah, that's stupid as fuck. "We can't have our bill so hand the freakin' repukes a victory by killing everything." Do these idiots think they are going to get a bill more to their liking once it has to go back to the Senate or go through reconciliation. It's going to be gutted of everything meaningful.

 

[dave is ok]

I think the alarmism should be reigned in a bit. They still have shareholders to answer to, and spending $10m on a campaign ad for most companies is still going to be untenable, especially when the country is fairly evenly divided. Whole Foods isn't going to start multi-million dollar campaigns for libertarians just because they can. Commonly corporation implies the entity is publicly held, will this ruling affect private companies in any way?

Actually, most find that lobbying/political donations have a much higher return to the company in the form of profits than advertising, reinvesting, etc.

EDIT: Beaten

 

[GhaleonEB]

Not every statement here has to be a fight. I was just stating one extra part of the ruling. Nobody made that distiction known at the time, so I wanted to update people here that didn't know that extra information.

Then all of a sudden everybody attacks me for it. Seems alot of people have a huge heart of unions here.

Pointing out that unions can also take advantage of this is sort of like saying a fish has a chance of swimming up Niagara Falls because they can pump their tail back and forth really fast.

We all know they can do that, but it doesn't matter because of the sheer size of the opposing forces. It's an utterly irrelevant footnote. There are individual multinationals that will eclipse the entire collective power of unions, all by their lonesome.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Can someone explain to me why, more than 48 hours later, the WH is still silent on where things should go? Things have settled down a bit but the house is still confused as fuck. Why hasn't Obama or Emanuel laid out a plan for them. The only option is pretty damn clear: get the house to pass the senate bill. Pelosi says she can't get it done with the senate bill as it's written now, but honestly I wonder if that's a cry for help. If Obama steps in and guarantees a second bill done through reconciliation, this can get done.

The idea of waiting until summer to finish this is ridiculous; the last thing we need is high gas prices making people even more disgruntled and open to hearing GOP nonsense. I don't know what the fuck is going on.

Last I heard, the Dems were caucusing, a new strategy will be coming out of there. If you believe the NY Daily News, reconciliation is at the forefront.

 

[eznark]

Lobbying and campaign donations have probably the highest return on investment of any corporate activity.

If anything, the shareholders should (and will) demand more of it, as it's one of the best ways to increase your profits.

My point is that lobbying gets them that return without the exposure.

 

[thefit]

Obama at this moment is at the risk of pulling a W. Bush. He needs to make it clear whether he believes in the current WH strategy that is pissing the progressives off or whether he gets that we are angry and that we wanted a progressive agenda from the get go and start turning the ship in that direction. Not coming out with any message is going to come off as extremely arrogant and he is going to get pinned with the "stay the course" stigma.

 

[mckmas8808]

Pointing out that unions can also take advantage of this is sort of like saying a fish has a chance of swimming up Niagara Falls because they can pump their tail back and forth really fast.

We all know they can do that, but it doesn't matter because of the sheer size of the opposing forces. It's an utterly irrelevant footnote. There are individual multinationals that will eclipse the entire collective power of unions, all by their lonesome.

It's not a irrelevant footnote when you look at the grand scope of things. Unions have power too. We tend not to pay attention to their power because we are more liberal. But conservatives have noticed the power that unions have.

Unions were the ones that got the President and the leaders in the Senate to change the excise tax so that it didn't include them until 2017. And they got the limit raised up some. Unions have had their hand in creating laws too. Not to the level of corporations, but they do have power too.

I just don't want to act like their power is useless. When it comes to a jobs bill unions will be heard more due to this ruling. Lets not fool ourselves.

 

[empty vessel]

It's not a irrelevant footnote when you look at the grand scope of things. Unions have power too. We tend not to pay attention to their power because we are more liberal. But conservatives have noticed the power that unions have.

Unions were the ones that got the President and the leaders in the Senate to change the excise tax so that it didn't include them until 2017. And they got the limit raised up some. Unions have had their hand in creating laws too. Not to the level of corporations, but they do have power too.

I just don't want to act like their power is useless. When it comes to a jobs bill unions will be heard more due to this ruling. Lets not fool ourselves.

The power of the unions is not in their money, it's in their vote. Enshrining First Amendment protection for corporations and unions to spend money to advertise for particular candidates does not enhance a union's power, because spending money is not where the union's power (as relatively weak as it is) resides.

 

[RiskyChris]

I just don't want to act like their power is useless. When it comes to a jobs bill unions will be heard more due to this ruling. Lets not fool ourselves.

Of course they will be heard more, but compared to the status quo their voices will be even quieter!

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yeah, that's stupid as fuck. "We can't have our bill so hand the freakin' repukes a victory by killing everything." Do these idiots think they are going to get a bill more to their liking once it has to go back to the Senate or go through reconciliation. It's going to be gutted of everything meaningful.

Do they honestly think killing health care is going to gain them seats in 2010? Or that waiting until after the elections is the perfect time to revive the issue? They seem completely out of touch with the base. Becoming Mr. Populist today isn't going to work if dems are willing to back down on everything else.

 

[cntr]

So are you saying labor unions can't take advantage of this ruling too?

So are you trying to be misleading?

stop avoiding what I said, you essentially say nonsense questions that are exactly like "Do you hate freedom?"

 

[PhoenixDark]

The White House will move health care reform to the back burner, in order to "let the dust settle" after Democrats lost their Senate super-majority.

Asked today if health care was on the back burner, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "The president believes it is the exact right thing to do by giving this some time, by letting the dust settle, if you will, and looking for the best path forward."

He said the administration wants to give Congress time to figure out their next move.

"The President thinks the speaker and the majority leader are doing the right thing in giving this some time and figuring out the best way forward," he said.

He also noted that President Obama "has a very full plate" with financial reform, the economy, the wars and other matters.

"As the majority leader and speaker continue to look to the best way forward, the president has a very full plate," Gibbs said. "There's plenty of work for the president to do in the meantime."

"The president obviously knew from the beginning of this that finding a solution to a very complex problem would be a challenge," he said.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ts-let-dust-settle-on-health-care.php?ref=fpa

smh

 

[mckmas8808]

Of course they will be heard more, but compared to the status quo their voices will be even quieter!

I don't disagree with that. I never did. All I said was that unions could take advantage of it too and it wasn't just for corporations only.

That was my only point.

So are you trying to be misleading?

stop avoiding what I said, you essentially say nonsense questions that are exactly like "Do you hate freedom?"

I was being funny with that particular question. The point still stands that I just made a quick point and some decided to jump on me for it.

 

[Nert]

Just as an aside, it seems like there is a lot more sympathy for unions in here than for corporations. This is something I struggle to understand; when either type of group actively lobbies the government for some kind of special treatment, they're both demanding that the government allow them to receive greater compensation (of some sort) then they would receive in the marketplace alone. Unions seek greater wages and benefits than other workers, who may very well be just as productive, would ask for, while corporations try to exploit legal loopholes and seek out subsidy money.

If anything, many sectors of society are more dominated by union interests than corporate interests; an example of this would be our education sector, where figures like Arne Duncan and Barack Obama frequently cite the inflexibility and payment structure of teacher's unions as a factor impeding reform.

Is there just more sympathy for "blue collar" workers acting in their self interest over net welfare than for "white collar" workers acting in their self interest over net welfare?

 

[RiskyChris]

I don't disagree with that. I never did. All I said was that unions could take advantage of it too and it wasn't just for corporations only.

That was my only point.

Do you understand the definition of take advantage of?