Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Erik Christensen

Campaign Finance Law: McCain-Feingold overturned!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

They did (only the limitations on expenditures not coordinated with a candidate's campaign, so, i.e., if you're a third-party "issues" group, you can spend all the money you want pushing this candidate or that candidate as long as you're not coordinating with the actual campaign), but it's still a good sign.

There's been some really good news out there this week--first Scott Brown's election, now this. It's just dribbles so far (and there will probably still be lots of setbacks), but it's more good than there's been in a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is great, but it will be intentionally distorted by anti-capitalists and statists.

The glaring problem is that our government is NOT sufficiently limited in its use of power (including legal force and coercion AGAINST the individual without regards to individual rights). Therefore, government power and force CAN BE BOUGHT. Now, it obviously already happens and this will not, in reality, "make it worse". In fact, that power will, at least, be more freely pursued (i.e. less controlled). However, now, I think we all know that we have a brand new scapegoat to defend.

I hope there are enough people who know how to DEFEND this ruling on principle and will not moderate and compromise their defense of free-market capitalism. I hope they know to push for MORE in this same direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

And right on cue:

Grayson believes Congress can pass new campaign finance law

Congress has a realistic chance of passing a new campaign finance law to limit corporate elections contributions, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Thursday.

Grayson's words came after Senate Rules Committee chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that Democrats will push legislation to mitigate the impact of a Supreme Court decision Thursday that lifted restrictions on corporate political spending.

"Of course it's realistic. This is a threat to our democracy. The Supreme Court has put the law up for sale," Grayson told The Hill.

The decision 5-4 decision on the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission could lead to a deluge of corporate money in politics and knocked down a main tenet of campaign finance law.

The court's decision, however, upheld disclosure requirements on corporate donations.

Senate Minority Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) praised the decision as a victory for free speech and National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman John Cornyn (Texas) said that he hopes it will allow political parties to spend more money on elections.

But Grayson -- a freshman lawmaker who was a practicing attorney before being elected -- warned that the decision could prove dangerous to opponents of unlimited corporate money in politics.

"Before long there will not be any longer the senator from Nebraska or the senator from Wyoming," he said. "There will be the senator from GE and the senator from Exxon.

"Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos."

Source:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...ign-finance-law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court decision was good news though clearly already being whined about. Sad to say though in the same news broadcast I heard about this it was almost immediately followed by something saying Obama wants to make it so banks can no longer grow over a certain extent, to make it so they cannot do certain high stakes moves. He was saying something about the motive being that they shouldn't be able to profit when these things succeed and then have tax payers foot the bill when they fail -- obviously dodging the option of just not bailing out failing companies as the way to encourage more careful and responsible behavior, both by the companies themselves and other people interacting with the companies. Because the better option is just to forbid companies from being too successful and creating too much value, right? :(; One step forward, two steps back, government business as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama wants to make it so banks can no longer grow over a certain extent, to make it so they cannot do certain high stakes moves. He was saying something about the motive being that they shouldn't be able to profit when these things succeed and then have tax payers foot the bill when they fail -- obviously dodging the option of just not bailing out failing companies as the way to encourage more careful and responsible behavior, both by the companies themselves and other people interacting with the companies. Because the better option is just to forbid companies from being too successful and creating too much value, right? :(; One step forward, two steps back, government business as usual.

Don't you just love the irony of a government bailing out banks so that they can remain profitable and then turning around and taking their profits through taxes?

This is the form of Statism known as fascism.

Or, you can bail out the auto companies by taking them over and owning them.

That is the form of Statism known as fascism.

Notice the pattern?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you just love the irony of a government bailing out banks so that they can remain profitable and then turning around and taking their profits through taxes?

This is the form of Statism known as fascism.

Or, you can bail out the auto companies by taking them over and owning them.

That is the form of Statism known as fascism.

Notice the pattern?

Also notice that banks which did not take government bail-out money are to be penalized. What are they being penalized for? Being run in prudent and profitable fashion. Go figure.

This is the nastiest type of collective punishment. The entire banking business is to be whipped for the sins of a few. Collectivist and atavistic in the extreme.

Obama is no socialist. He is an outright fascist thug, Chicago style. The German fascists sent people to the concentration camps. Obama pushes his foes under the bus, which is to say he taxes them in a discriminatory fashion.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. ... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision." - President Barack Obama.

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington...
What's truly sad is when I read Obama's quote it sounds like a good thing. But in Obama's mind I should take the above statement to be the ultimate outrage.

Thanks to the Democrats, they could bully any industry of their choosing and those businesses would be effectively muzzled; it was illegal for them to even give a rebuttal to the Democrat talking points. THAT is what is un-American. But thankfully the playing field has finally been leveled.

With all the Democrat talk about passing new laws to override SCOTUS, what has John McCain said about all this? Since it was his bill that was overturned, is he as "outraged" as the Democrats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's weird to think that Obama may be more effective at getting all the things he DOESN'T want while he's in office than pushing through anything he DOES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. ... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision." - President Barack Obama.

:(

See, this kind of thing is exactly why our country was made with multiple branches and a system of checks and balances, to try to keep everybody in bounds. The congress can make as many unconstitutional laws as they will, and then the supreme court has their job of stepping in and calling it unconstitutional and null and void. I just hope any new replacement law will be quickly squashed by the court for being essentially the same as the one they just ruled unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that conservates were the real civil liberty-haters, (and they are) but man liberals really hate civil liberties too. This underscores the uselessness of the traditional left-right paradigm.

From the Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/21/82...atives-Fascists.

For the last year, during this unending debate on HCR, conservatives, Teabaggers, and generally idiots who listen to terrestrial radio, have labeled President Obama as a "fascist". We all knew that they didn't know what they were talking about. Well, after years of voting for Republicans, right wingers can now reap what they have sown.

You all know about the Robert's Court decision. You all know what it means to our republic.

Now we can, without guilt, call every conservative a fascist. They bought it. They own it.

In the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt:

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

Yep.

So, now we can call anyone who, in the last 20 years, that voted for a Republican a fascist.

[...]

Allow me to point out the 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism, pay particularly close attention to #'s 9 and 10:

9.Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10.Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

Sorry, conservatives of america, it is what it is and you are what you are.

BTW, because of this decision I will now and forever refer to america with a lower case "a". It deserves no more.

How about no government subsidies for industries? How about no bailouts? How about no corporate welfare? How about no pressure group warfare? How about seperation of state and economy? How about individual rights? Oh but left-liberals love the power of the state and love expanding it in any way they can, so of course they will scream about lobbyists if it helps them reduce free speech and expand the negation of liberty. I used to think liberals were broadly supportive of civil liberties and were just followers of the mind-body dichotomy, genuinely opposed to fascism and corporatism, but now I see "fascist" is nothing more than "anyone who is not left-liberal" and their ideology is more totalitarian in nature than I once thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Mod's note: Merged topic. - sN ***

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/201...ampaign_finance

The Supreme Court ruled that there is no limit to how much money campaigning politicians make.

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, I imagine the objectivist position is that campaign refinance does not work, and special interest groups will find a way around directly giving them money, and still being able to bribe politicians. I highly doubt that Big Pharma, Enron, and whatever you have to say will have much leverage against unions.

But you gotta admit... it is pretty disconcerting that the first time we move toward economic liberty in a while, it favors the politicans. :( I wouldn't be so worried about this if we didn't already have our amendment separating economy and state, but we don't quite yet, if ever.

It's pretty interesting that one of my friends actually decided to start a movement called "Separation of Corporation and State" (well, that was his first idea). I pointed out to him that that implies the corporation is free to do what it wants under that clause, and he seemed slightly reluctant. God damnit, he dissapointed me.

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't help the politicians. It helps people get rid of those politicians, legally, by removing an advantage the two parties and their shady network of fundraisers had over smaller, but necessarily honest (since they don't have the political connections to get away with it) independents. Besides, it's a matter of political freedom. If you wanna put your money behind a politician, you should be allowed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are liberals listening to, extra-terrestrial radio?

I think the "terrestrial radio" comment was typical liberal academic/intellectual snobbery. I read the comment as implying that intelligent people listen to satellite radio (or streamed internet radio, podcasts, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like pushing a constitutional amendment forward may be the only way to challenge this. Not looking good, but we have allies on both sides of the aisle on this.

Sign MoveOn.Org's petition for a Constitutional Amendment

As well as the more non-partisan movement,and one that strikes to the core of this issue:

Motion to Ammend:

* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.

* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

Other unintended consequences of this are seeming more dire.

This essentially means corporations could be using a consumer's money to sponsor candidates supporting views they may oppose. This could lead to politicization of corporations in local and national politics, and could strangle-hold innovation by pooling support to protect their interests. Zoning laws could be overturned in favor of others, for example.

That also applies to multi-national corporations--consumers from China, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, etc. would invariably be supporting and funding a political perspective in our government.

But the real area at issue is in the candidates themselves--in order for them to compete with each, they may be unable to rely entirely upon individual donations to fund their campaign, as we saw with both Barak Obama (D) and Scott Brown ®. Candidates will be led to instances where they must choose between serving a corporate interest over a community interest, the corporate interest simply has a bigger platform and megaphone with which to express its views, and drown out their detractors.

That begins to be the real problem--perception. Corporate interests come to be perceived as being the majority opinion simply because of the pervasiveness of the message.

What we have here is the court deciding that MONEY is SPEECH--something that was certainly never intended by the founders, an example of SCOTUS activism. And then also deciding that a CORPORATION is a PERSON--again, something the founders never intended.

All of this is negative interpretation--because the founders did not say corporations weren't persons, then we can say they are.

While in our history that sort of interpretation has had positive effects--such as in terms of slavery and minority rights--here I think we see it abused against the public interest.

In a time of populist activism and individual political action on both sides of the aisle, this may drown out the voice and platform thos people had finally earned.

Well, it seems we've sparked some sort of activism from the liberals, now. Now they're pushing to get an amendment passed to ensure that a "corporation" is not a person.

I don't know what the point of that statement is, really. A corporation is an establishment. A person should be allowed to set rules for that establishment as long as it does not resort to force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statists are already framing their straw men; "Corporation=Person" and "Money=Speech", much like they did with the ever popular "Health Insurance=Health Care" and "Health care is a right" proposition. Will these fallacies "stick" and allow their argument to gain traction? Unfortunately, I think they probably will as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As it turns out, yes. Radio from outer space, imagine that:

sirius_xm_orbits.gif

That wouldn't be extra-terrestrial. Those dishes point toward the Earth. To pick up extra-terrestrial radio signals, you'd need something pointing away from the Earth. Like: Nvidia-Cuda-Graphics,A-I-210330-13.gif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The statists are already framing their straw men; "Corporation=Person" and "Money=Speech", much like they did with the ever popular "Health Insurance=Health Care" and "Health care is a right" proposition. Will these fallacies "stick" and allow their argument to gain traction? Unfortunately, I think they probably will as usual.

But why, though? Who brought up "Money = Speech" first? I don't think it was the corporations.

You should have the freedom to give your money to whoever you want to, now that I think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is that quote from?

A forumer on another forum.

But yes, MoveOn.Org is definitely pushing for a constitutional amendment to combat this. An amendment based on the notion that a corporation should never have the same rights as a person, even though they're the ones anthropomorphizing the corporation in the first place.

Edited by Black Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...