Supreme Court Corporation Decision

[Working Class Hero]

What do you think about the decision to allow corporations to fund candidates?

[mimartin]

You know, actually linking the court's decision or a news story discussing the decision would be not only helpful, but could actually stimulate the discussion. Just a thought…

 

Moved thread to Hot Topics as the thread is a political thread.

 

WSJ

 

WSJ, by Ralph Nader

 

LA Times

 

NYDailyNews.com

[Working Class Hero]

How's this?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/264057/february-09-2010/corporate-free-speech---chris-dodd

[machievelli]

The corporations already fund candidates. They call it soft money and lobbyists. When you take a Freshman Senator to a five star resteraunt, wine him and dine him, then slip him a few thou for expenses, just so he will listen to your proposal, they are funding him.

 

Every election every major corp finds ways to slip the candidate on both sides money to spend. They do this because if your candidate does not win, at least you can point at that large contribution and say 'you still owe us'.

 

YOu want frustration, having the American people agree to what used to be one dollar and now is 3 for the matching funds crap, which only goes to whichever of the major two parties has the least. The last time it went to someone else was when Perot ran.

 

Why not spend it on the lower 60% of the parties and tell the 80% (Assumed) who support the dems and Rep not only where to go, but give them a bloody road map

[mur'phon]

Ah, just what the US needs, a ruling to make the parties even more acountable to groups other than the public. If corporations want this right because they are "a group of individuals" I say let them have it, and remove limited liability and other laws that treats them diferently than "individuals" in the process.

[Web Rider]

Honestly, while I don't like what it opens up for corporations, it also opens up larger-scale donating from special interest groups and organizations. While the latter certainly can't compete with the former in sheer dollar value, it is of course still up to the candidate if they want to accept donations and what they're going to do when they get them.

 

Of course, if I see a candidate wearing a Toyota pin, I'm outta here.

[Totenkopf]

I'm not sure it's a real big deal b/c historically, the corporations essentially split their contributions between the two parties as a hedge. The problem becomes the special interest groups (like unions, for instance) that tend to heavily favor one side over the other. Besides, spending a lot of money to get elected doesn't gaurantee success at the ballot box (granted it helps, but no lock). People have to realize that if they don't get off their arses to vote, they'll get what they deserve (and sometimes even if they do, but nothing's perfect ).

[Darth Avlectus]

I think this is rather unfortunate and throws the USA back about 100 years.

 

This flat out sucks. But ce' le vie, that's life: Money talks and bull **** walks.

 

Ah, just what the US needs, a ruling to make the parties even more acountable to groups other than the public. If corporations want this right because they are "a group of individuals" I say let them have it, and remove limited liability and other laws that treats them diferently than "individuals" in the process.

 

For once I simply agree agree with you. That'll improve accountability. Making them think twice b/c they are just as vulnerable as we the people.

Sheer genius. If we ARE going to have more on the table in terms of moneyed powers that be, and vested interests, no safety net for them either. We'd clean out so much corruption that way.