 Cato Institute scholars address several items in President Obama's first official State of the Union Address. Scholars include Daniel J. Mitchell, Mark A. Calabria, Neal McCluskey, Michael D. Tanner, John Samples, Jim Harper and Malou Innocent. |
|||
 |
Hidden PlacesLife outside of the mainstream |
|
|
|
|
Treason.
Serious Treason. Special interest groups now able to spend at will in the USA during elections.
Oh Boy.. The little remnant left of the once great Republic is now proverbially fucked.
"a simple judgment of my character is how I treat a person who can do absolutely nothing for me." -Stephen Howard
"The most thoroughly wasted of all days is one in which you haven't laughed" -Julian Howard
Actually...
It levels the playing field.
Before the SCOTUS decision (because of McCain-Fiengold, NOT 100 years of legal precident) only companies that were IN THE LOOP could spend whatever they wanted. Opposing companies/corporations could not. Simply because the corrupt corporations (DuPont, GE, Exxon to name 3) did not have to fear repriasal, so they just broke the law and ran with it. Now ALL companies are allowed to spend thier money and have an opiion.
This is a GOOD thing.
:)
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
I think you are hitting on something important here, and I cannot help but thinking there is a devious plan in the works. I could certainly be wrong, but where else do you share off-the-wall and diabolical theories?
Here goes: As you said, Devon, the companies who are "in the loop" are unaffected by any of these changes. They have the power they want regardless of what the supreme court or any laws says as longs the congress and President continue to give it them.
Immediately following the SCOTUS decision, there was a big backlash in the media and on the blog sites against giving corporations the "same rights as American citizens" (or something like that). So what is the answer? A law that says that corporations are not citizens, right? Everyone is happy because corporations are not individual people and those big nasty corporates who are taking over our country have been given a serious blow. Or have they? Read above: they are unaffected by the changes.
Now consider what this means for all of the other corporations. No first amendment rights. Things like the freedom of speech, religion, or... free press. Individuals are free to say whatever they like, but if any organization tries to produce a newspaper, they are suddenly a "corporation" and thereby not protected by the Constitution. Only those media corporations approved by the government can produce news (see: those in the loop). Individuals are free to believe whatever they want, but "organized religion" is no longer allowed. Some may even cheer this development without realizing that any religious group of two or more people is subject to government crackdown.
Am I being overly paranoid or is this a real possibility?
I see what you are alluding to....
However, it would be hard to pass a law that states that a corporation is not "created by, owned by and comprised of people."
It would also mean that you couldn't sue a company. You think lawyers would like that?
The only reason there was a big backlash in the media is that it wreaks havoc on the Liberal side of the equation in midterm elections coming up. It was important enough for Obama to bring up in the State of the Union address... it was also important enough for him to LIE about to change public opinion.
Before the ruling the only people who could run ads were the candidates themselves (through PACs, private fundes, etc) and corporations who broke the rules but knew that they would never be fined for it.
Now companies can use thier own monies to help those who they think will benefit them financially. LEGALLY.
Can you imagine how the Ron Paul campaign would have gone if Google decided to drop 1 billion in national advertising on him? They did love him, remember...
I see this as a huge net positive that is being given a bad spin because it doesn't do any favors for the powers-that-be.
:)
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
Yeah, you are probably right. There are other ways to accomplish what I was talking about that would probably be easier for them to actually do.
True!
They could just do what they have been doing and just ignore the laws.
Since a law is nothing if it is not enforced....
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~
wait..
Did I miss where it's the corporations that you're happy the field is leveled for. Foreign Investors. I mean AIPAC has a free Ticket to over run this country with overseas money.. Not that they don't already have an edge.. Seriously. How is that good?
Maybe I'm confused.
I mean at this point why don't we just dissolve the USA. If foreign investment can throw as much money at an election as they what whats the point.
I see both sides of the Coin.. and it seems that this is one more step away from the ideals of the founders. Then again they didn't see corporations ruling the world either..
"a simple judgment of my character is how I treat a person who can do absolutely nothing for me." -Stephen Howard
"The most thoroughly wasted of all days is one in which you haven't laughed" -Julian Howard
You missed the boat.
Foreign investors are still banned.. they did nothing with section E. Just section B.
It is actually a win FOR free speech.
Or do you really want to tell me that, as an owner of a company in the United States, I am NOT allowed to buy airtime within an election cycle to promote a candidate I want?
Because that is exactly what McCain-Feingold did.
SCOTUS ruled that part unconstitutional... as they should have.
Because it wasn't.
~Live life to its fullest... with open arms, an open heart and most importantly, an open mind.~