Supreme Court lifts limits on corporate campaign donations

[Chipper173]

So the senate race in Massachusetts is dominating political news at the moment. While that's really bad, the Supreme Court just pulled something a hundred times worse today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

The decades-old system of rules that govern the financing of the nation's political campaigns was partially upended by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued just ahead of the pivotal 2010 midterm congressional election season.

Thursday's landmark decision, approved by a 5-4 margin, could unleash a torrent of corporate and union cash into the political realm and transform how campaigns for president and Congress are fought in the coming years.

Republicans and Democrats scrambled to untangle the full implications of the decision to overturn a 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling that barred corporations from spending freely to support or oppose candidates.

"It's the most major Supreme Court decision in the area of campaign finance in decades — and a significant First Amendment decision," says Nathaniel Persily, a political scientist and law professor at Columbia University. "We don’t know its practical impact yet, and I don't think it's the last word from the court," he said.

The new ruling blurs the lines between corporate and individual contributions in political campaigns. It also strikes down part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that banned unions and corporations from paying for political ads in the waning days of campaigns.

Even before the court's decision, national political campaigns had been growing increasingly expensive. Watchdog groups worry that by removing limits on expenditures by corporations that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns, the court will boost the role of special interests in politics.

"As long as they do it independently, they can spend whatever they want," notes NPR's Nina Totenberg. "It will undoubtedly help Republican candidates since corporations have generally supported Republican candidates more."

Some important limits do remain intact: Corporations still cannot give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees. That ban dates to 1907. The justices also upheld some other restrictions, including disclosure requirements for nonprofit groups that advocate for political candidates.

Persily says the ruling is just the latest in a series of decisions by a conservative court that has already whittled away at campaign finance laws.

Supreme Court Decision: Citizens United V. The Federal Election Commission
"On its own, it will not be responsible to opening the floodgates to corporate money ... because the floodgates were pretty wide open to begin with," Persily says.

In terms of the 2010 midyear elections, Persily predicts there will be some advertisements run by corporations and unions that wouldn't have been run otherwise; however, the previous standard was fairly permissive.

NPR's Peter Overby says that while the impact on national elections may not be fully clear yet, the decision is likely to be felt in judicial elections at the state level.

"There's a national trend of increasing spending in judicial elections, and the players who have the biggest stake in these elections are lawyers, unions and corporations," Overby says. "The corporations and unions have been trying to find ways to get in, and this decision seems to erase the restrictions that were there."

The Supreme Court decision on corporate spending in political campaigns overturns a 20-year-old ruling.
President Obama swiftly blasted the court's decision, calling on Congress to devise a "forceful response" as quickly as possible.

"The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," Obama said in a statement. "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."

On Capitol Hill, reaction was deeply divided between supporters of the campaign finance rules that were rejected and those who defended the court's ruling.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, said lawmakers have to use the decision to help voters understand how broken the system is.

"This has got to be a wakeup call to every citizen that they cannot allow the big corporations to call the shots on these elections," he said.

House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio called the decision "a big win for the First Amendment" as long as donors disclose every dollar they spend on campaigns.

"Let the American people decide how much money is enough," he said.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin said lawmakers must now focus on creating a system where campaigns can be financed fairly. "It is the only way [we] can ensure that our candidates and elected officials focus on addressing the nation's problems and not on the limited interests of the wealthy and powerful few," he said.

One potential vehicle for Democrats to try to limit the impact of the ruling is through a bill Durbin is co-sponsoring called the Fair Elections Now Act. It aims to allow candidates to choose to run for congressional office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists.

But with Thursday's decision, the Supreme Court came down with a sweeping free-speech justification that could restrict Congress's flexibility to re-establish new regulations.

"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."

In a powerfully worded, lengthy dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority "profoundly misguided." He said, "The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The original case before the court seemed an improbable vehicle for such a dramatic re-examination of campaign funding regulations.

Brought by Citizens United, a nonprofit group, against the Federal Election Commission, the case presented a seemingly straightforward question: Do campaign finance restrictions on corporate spending apply to Citizen United's plan to run advertisements for an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary at the peak of her 2008 presidential run?

But the high court ended up in a much broader examination of constitutional issues that questioned the entire system that has been built up over decades to regulate the role of corporate money in politics.

Ever since justices first heard arguments on the Citizens United case last March, they have gone to unusual lengths before rendering a decision.

The court scheduled a rare re-argument in September — a month before the fall term officially began. And justices ordered lawyers from both sides to expand their scope to address not just the corporate electioneering issue at play in Citizens United but the constitutionality of all limits to corporate political speech.

Thursday's decision was even issued on a day the court does not normally deal with such issues.

At the center of the court's inquiry is the McCain-Feingold Act, which prohibited "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations or unions from being broadcast or transmitted 30 days before a presidential primary and 60 days before the general election. Opponents of the law say it allows the Federal Election Commission to in effect restrict free speech.

But the court also reached even further back to re-examine a 1990 precedent that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates.

Citizens United, which filed the suit in 2008, is a nonprofit group that advocates for conservative ideals and candidates.

Citizens United wanted to air a 90-minute documentary chronicling Clinton's more than 30 years in public life from a conservative perspective through news clips, interviews with acquaintances and other material. Citizens United spokesman Will Holley said the film was sold online and through retailers for $19.95 and was in limited distribution at select movie theaters during 2008.

But questions arose when Citizens United sought to advertise Hillary The Movie on television in January 2008 — the same month as major Democratic primaries — without running any disclaimers or disclosures of donors.

The FEC barred the ads from running without the disclaimers. Citizens United claimed that the advertisements were commercial speech more akin to a documentary, rather than opposition to candidate Clinton.

tl;dr: The Supreme Court overturned rulings on campaign contribution laws (including the 2002 McCain-Feingold law) and decided that corporations can contribute as much as they feel like to any candidate of any election at just about any level of government, from state to national. What this means: corporations now have the capacity to have politicians in their pockets in ways never before imagined. The other guy's pushing for policy that does something Goldman-Sachs doesn't like? G-S is free to pump zillions of dollars into the campaign of whatever candidate is willing to back them up.

Take a moment to think about all the implications of this. Any corporation can back candidates who will do their bidding. McDonald's wants less regulation from the FDA? Just gotta sponsor some anti-regulation candidates for various offices, they have plenty of money for it. It's even possible Exxon could decide the middle east has some more of that delicious oil they want so much and buy warmongerers into office.

On a scale of one to ten I am disgusted.

[Marc v4.0]

Well, Fuck

[Professor Smarmiarty]

But, guys, it's in the constitution! And nothing in the constitution is bad! Nothing!

[Bells]

and little by little i See in the horizon the Ticket for 2012 shapping up as "Brown & Palin 2012" with Fox and most banks dumping as much cash and press as possible on the team to push them to win.

...you guys up there are really fucked. I mean... i'm fucked a tad too since everything that happens on the USA affects pretty much everybody else in the world... but you guys? Ouch....

[Donomni]

On a scale of 1 to 10, our assholes will be so raw by the fucking over this will make that we'll more or less bleed to death.

I mean, ow.

On another note, Wal-Mart could literally turn into Buy-N-Large, now. :/

[Solid Snake]

...I think actually going to law school and understanding the legal and socio-political significance of this will prevent me from a conservative candidate ever again.
Why didn't I just remain in blissful ignorance? It was kind of fun to have been a kneejerk Republican, way back when. The world was a simpler place! The Republicans loved our country and the Democrats were misguided socialists!

For the last time Supreme Court, Corporations are Not Individuals, We Need to Stop Treating Them as if They Were Individuals, IT IS CORRUPTING OUR SOCIETY ARGH THIS IS SHUTE V. CARNIVAL CRUISE ALL OVER AGAIN

[BitVyper]

On the upside, once everyone works for Wal-Mart, you will have achieved perfect equality.

[MasterOfMagic]

Man, you guys are spoilsports. I'm excited. :D

[Wigmund]

So we're now a Corporatocracy?

The groups cheering the loudest seem to be the special interest groups such as the NRA, AFL-CIO, and the Chamber of Congress - most articles think most actual corporations will avoid campaigning to keep from alienating their shareholders and customers (hahahhahahahaha)

[bluestarultor]

So we're now a Corporatocracy?

The groups cheering the loudest seem to be the special interest groups such as the NRA, AFL-CIO, and the Chamber of Congress - most articles think most actual corporations will avoid campaigning to keep from alienating their shareholders and customers (hahahhahahahaha)

Great, like the NRA needed more power. :shifty:


Frankly, what the hell? Seriously, thanks a ton, Bush. Can't keep wrecking the country on your own, so you put a couple of cronies we can't get rid of in power? Not that I wish ill on anyone (it's against my moral code), but someone needs to get off the bench to make way for a NOT-reactionary Court.




Edit: Okay, that came off really nasty, but seriously, having a whole branch of government that you CAN'T GET RID OF going about reversing every sane decision ever made is a really bad idea.

[Mesden]

There's always assassination.

[Wigmund]

I'm hoping for a plane crash involving Scalia and Thomas after one of their golfing trips. Preferably landing on Dick Cheney.



Only good thing is that this seems to have lit a fire under the asses of the Democrats and Obama to counter the Supreme Court on this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_campaign_finance). Maybe they can find their balls and spines to do this. Maybe this decision and the Massachusetts Senate election was what was needed to accomplish this. I'd have hope, but that's been shattered too much in the past ten years.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Won't this also lift limits on unions? Even so, I can't imagine that offsetting corporate buyouts.

[Solid Snake]

In other news, with the pharmaceutical companies now even more empowered to prevent Health Care legislation from ever being passed by paying for incumbent official's re-election campaigns, I highly doubt we'll ever have a chance to reform the Health Care system like the Obama Administration had last year.

While it's easy to blame the Republicans -- and they certainly will profit the most from this ludicrous decision -- it's worth noting that the Democrats had their perfect chance last year and instead they spent the whole damn time bickering and now they've shot themselves in the foot.
I have a feeling that this could very well suck the wind right out of the sails of the progressive movement. Think of how much effort went into electing Obama only to have the last two days happen. I've spoken to at least two friends today who played roles in helping Obama get elected -- one in particular is a diehard liberal Democrat, the type who busted his ass off as an intern for the Obama campaign for eighteen months prior to Obama's election -- and he's like a dead man. He can't hide his despair. It's sad to witness. And with 59 senators the Democrats think Health Care Reform legislation is dead? It's no wonder liberals are turning on the Obama Administration -- and as the circular firing squad gets ready to unleash hell, the Republicans may well find a way to capitalize.

[Wigmund]

I wonder how easy it will be for a shareholder or shareholders to sue a corporation they hold stock in if that corporation is using their money to campaign for something they dislike?

[POS Industries]

There's always assassination.
It has to be right for the country! I mean, you can't spell "assassination" without "nation"!

Also "ass." Twice.

[Chipper173]

Won't this also lift limits on unions? Even so, I can't imagine that offsetting corporate buyouts.

Yes, and yes.

I'm hoping for a plane crash involving Scalia and Thomas after one of their golfing trips. Preferably landing on Dick Cheney.



Only good thing is that this seems to have lit a fire under the asses of the Democrats and Obama to counter the Supreme Court on this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_campaign_finance). Maybe they can find their balls and spines to do this. Maybe this decision and the Massachusetts Senate election was what was needed to accomplish this. I'd have hope, but that's been shattered too much in the past ten years.

Yeah, the one good thing is that Obama seems pissed and ready to fight it. Dunno how effective he'll be, especially considering a democratic supermajority couldn't do jack for him when a fairly evenly split congress let Bush do whatever the hell he felt like.

(I am saying that in addition to being impotent, bickering do-nothings, the democrats are mostly practically on the right anyway)


On another note, Wal-Mart could literally turn into Buy-N-Large, now. :/

Yes, literally this.

...I think actually going to law school and understanding the legal and socio-political significance of this will prevent me from a conservative candidate ever again.
Why didn't I just remain in blissful ignorance? It was kind of fun to have been a kneejerk Republican, way back when. The world was a simpler place! The Republicans loved our country and the Democrats were misguided socialists!

For the last time Supreme Court, Corporations are Not Individuals, We Need to Stop Treating Them as if They Were Individuals, IT IS CORRUPTING OUR SOCIETY ARGH THIS IS SHUTE V. CARNIVAL CRUISE ALL OVER AGAIN

I remember you posting fairly standard right-wing opinions in here on one of my previous yearly visits here. Good to see you're coming around.

There's always assassination.

Just gonna toss this in too.

[01d55]

it's worth noting that the Democrats had their perfect chance last year and instead they spent the whole damn time bickering and now they've shot themselves in the foot.

How? None of of those "centrist" assholes are anywhere near a dangerous primary challenge. And even if they were, even if they did lose their seats, they're still rich. Every Senator is set for life.
I have a feeling that this could very well suck the wind right out of the sails of the progressive movement. Think of how much effort went into electing Obama only to have the last two days happen. I've spoken to at least two friends today who played roles in helping Obama get elected -- one in particular is a diehard liberal Democrat, the type who busted his ass off as an intern for the Obama campaign for eighteen months prior to Obama's election -- and he's like a dead man. He can't hide his despair. It's sad to witness.
That's exactly what the Democratic party is supposed to do. It is their vocation, their calling. That's why the elite executive class funds their campaigns - to ensure that only the crud of the crop rises to the top of the structure, where they can frustrate their ostensible constituents. And after the voters become more disgusted with their losing than afraid of the Republicans' crazy? They are all set for life.

Losing Kennedy's seat in Mass. so that they can fail to pass a bill with a 18 vote majority, after Lieberman turned it into the shittiest possible bill that could be called "reform" with a straight face? Just. As. Planned. Every Democrat involved is going to die rich and happy, in a hospital, with the best goddamn healthcare money can buy. All of their kids are going to college, without taking loans. And so on. They got theirs, jack.

[Solid Snake]

I have to confess that, given the sheer statistical probability of a high number of fully competent, capable progressive liberal Democrats in Massachusetts to run for higher office, the fact that Coakley of all people was chosen as Kennedy's successor pretty strongly establishes the possibility that pharmaceutical companies bought the Dems off.

"Hey guys, we really need to stop this healthcare reform bullshit before it costs us more money. Yeah, we know, we already got Lieberman to torpedo the thing, but we don't even like the new version with all its compromises. Can you do us a favor and screw yourselves over by nominating the least intelligent member of your party? And then national Democratic advisory committee folks, don't make Obama any recommendations to campaign there until it's too late. 'Kay thanks!"

The irony given Kennedy's championing of Healthcare Reform is that apparently now his very senate seat is the seat that will result in the reform movement dying. That's what I don't get! The Democrats have such a strong narrative to attach to passing this HCR bill. And they still have an eighteen vote majority! Why the fuck are they just giving up? They should be fighting harder than ever to make sure this passes through so Kennedy doesn't toss and turn in his grave and so all their hard work over the past year is rewarded! That way the progressives feel like they've accomplished something, the American people will at least respect (if not unanimously agree with) the Democrats for sticking to their guns and fulfilling their promises, and....

UGH!!! 0d1 is right! It's like they really wanted to give up all along!

I want to go back to being a conservative again, like I was a few years ago! Back then I might have dead wrong, but at least the Republican party was devious and intelligent and downright efficient in their evils! It's almost better to be led by an Honest Devil than by a bunch of either A: dumb-as-bricks politicians with collective IQs below 70 OR B: liars who've outright betrayed the wishes of their own diehard constituents.

EDIT: Attention Obama: Politically speaking, switching gears haphazardly to the financial crisis after Brown's election was the stupidest thing you could possibly do in the history of stupid things for two very significant reasons:

1: You've lost tremendous political capital by conceding the HCR fight: now the banks are barely going to sweat over your provocative speeches, as you've already failed once. If the pharmaceutical companies can beat you to a pulp, why would banks be afraid?

2: Even if you somehow accomplish the impossible and pass legislation through the House and Senate to regulate banks, guess what?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/business/18bank.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-bank-tax-is-unconstitutional-2010-1

...You see, as a law school student I gotta confess one thing: Banks and their legions of lawyers are smart.
They'll let Obama run amok with his plans to regulate banks through executive agency statutes and laws passed through the House and Senate.
Why should they sweat? So long as they have the Supreme Court, any excessive regulation on the banking industry, including additional taxation, will be struck down as unconstitutional.
It's brilliant. Brilliant! Through labeling any additional taxation levied upon banks as "Bills of Attainer", the Supreme Court can prevent banks from paying much of anything to the government.

...I just don't know how Obama, after throwing up a white flag to the pharmaceutical industry, can dare believe he has a chance in hell against the one industry with arguably better legal teams at their disposal. If the banks were demoralized a while back -- and they certainly would be demoralized now if HCR passed and Obama had political capital -- they're certainly doing much better today.

EDIT2: What Obama needs to do instead is concentrate on issues where the Supreme Court cannot overrule him -- he needs to concentrate on building some momentum with issues under the strict purview of the executive branch. Hey Obama, here's an idea: make your Constituents happy by closing down Gitmo, reforming our intelligence agencies and preventing gratuitous torture practices, or by bringing troops home from Iraq! The Supreme Court can't fuck those up for you. The military and foreign policy matters are more exclusively the President's turf. Also, pass your goddamn health reform. Then you could have the political capital to make the banks squirm.

[Chipper173]

I have to confess that, given the sheer statistical probability of a high number of fully competent, capable progressive liberal Democrats in Massachusetts to run for higher office, the fact that Coakley of all people was chosen as Kennedy's successor pretty strongly establishes the possibility that pharmaceutical companies bought the Dems off.

Despite being the guy who posted this thread and all, I actually don't think this was the case. Coakley ran a pretty terrible campaign, all things considered. The fact that she was the democrats' successor is more evident of the sorry state of the party rather than any kind of bribery; it's a textbook example of taking your voting base for granted. I mean, she spelled Massachusetts wrong in an ad. She spelled the name of the state she was going to represent incorrectly. Plus Brown ran a competent campaign in the face of her disaster. Massachusetts is a super liberal state, but it just goes to show that a solid presentation is important, even when the message might conflict with your views.

[Solid Snake]

Okay, but still, it just boggles my mind. How could Obama have been caught so unprepared? He barely started campaigning for Coakley until, what, the weekend before the election? This despite the fact that Obama is still a fairly popular political figure in Massachusetts, who voted for him overwhelmingly over McCain.

Didn't he realize what the stakes were? Did it not occur to him that the entire narrative of his first year in office would change based on the results of this election? Coakley gets in, and Obama's first year is an overall success! He passes (at least some form, no matter how butchered or decayed) HCR! He can move on with some degree of political capital or at least a success story to offer before tackling his next major issue! Subsequent reforms could continue improving HCR! The public option could eventually be reintroduced! There wouldn't be talk of a huge conservative resurgence in America and the progressive and centrist Democrats wouldn't be breaking off into circular firing squads and blaming each other for this loss!

I mean I'm sorry I know a lot of you guys are very impressed by the man and frankly I like Obama a fair bit myself but this was just a dumb move, Mr. President. You have to anticipate stuff like this in advance and tackle these issues by any means necessary. And even after you lose? You gotta fight like Churchill until the very end. Push the Republicans hard. Try to force the House Dems to give up their petty superficiality, make a sacrifice for once in their pathetic existences, and agree to pass the Senate's version of the damn bill. Do something. Don't just throw in the towel.

If there's one and ONLY one lesson I wish Barack would learn from Dubya it's: You're the President. Act like you are the President. Be a decider. Unlike Dubya, you have the advantage of some intelligent policy positions. Now just borrow enough of Dubya's assertiveness to stuff 'em through, hell or high water.

[Mirai Gen]

Bluuuuugghhhh.

So, is green party invite-only? Do I need to get 01d to hook me up or something? Cause that's looking super tempting right now.

EDIT: Obama get your ass in gear or so help me....

[Sithdarth]

Not that I think they would but at this point Microsoft and Google could each separately form their own political party and have a decent chance of getting a few electrons and converts. Between the disenfranchisement on both sides and the stupidly large amount of money they can now funnel into campaigns they could pretty much skip right over actual politicians and put CEOs in office.

[Marc v4.0]

I for one welcome our Microsoft Overlords

[Loyal]

Would be a pretty entertaining scenario to run for a few years at least. I mean we all know they both wanna take over the world to some degree, might as well get started on politics while the gettin's good, right?

[Sithdarth]

I'm reasonably sure the "treat cooperations like an individual thing" stops at allowing them to run for elected office. Otherwise that'd be a neat thing to see instead of CEOs.

[Seil]

Hey, guess what America? I'm in Canada. Your laws don't apply to me. ...But I guess your politics kinda do. Damn, I was all excited there for a second.

[Wigmund]

I would give my firstborn and a dozen other firstborns if we could have an undead Teddy Roosevelt rise from the grave and unleash some whoop-ass on the Supreme Court.

[Osterbaum]

For the last time Supreme Court, Corporations are Not Individuals, We Need to Stop Treating Them as if They Were Individuals...
Hooray for classical liberalism (or neoliberalism) and the 'new right'! Hooray for laissez-faire!

[BitVyper]

and have a decent chance of getting a few electrons

I didn't realise electrons were so difficult to come by.

In less off topic news; just how badly is someone going to have to fuck up before the general population stops taking all this shit anyway?

[Donomni]

I assume at this point it'd require shutting down the internet.

[whereami]

This is obviously the greatest idea ever!

this post endorsed by Target-Walmart

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Guys, there is a lot of undue negativity here. The very heart of our capitalism system is that everyone is free to fuck everyone else. This limiting of campaign donations is totally socialist control by an evil government.
Do you guys really hate freedom that much?

[Green Spanner]

Why do I still have a great interest in politics when shit like this that makes me both angry and depressed seems to be getting more frequent?

Seriously, what the hell?

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Why do I still have a great interest in politics when shit like this that makes me both angry and depressed seems to be getting more frequent?

Seriously, what the hell?

It's all about the schadenfreude, methinks. That or you're an underground masochist...maybe both. Then again, those imply you like watching this and since all it really does is make you depressed, I dunno.

[Osterbaum]

Guys, there is a lot of undue negativity here. The very heart of our capitalism system is that everyone is free to fuck everyone else. This limiting of campaign donations is totally socialist control by an evil government.
Do you guys really hate freedom that much?
As I said: Thank the powers that be (the market) for laissez-faire.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

At one point we used to think we were smarter than the market and tried to control it. Dark days indeed!

[Masaki-kun]

I would give my firstborn and a dozen other firstborns if we could have an undead Teddy Roosevelt rise from the grave and unleash some whoop-ass on the Supreme Court.

For a moment, I was all in favor of sacrificing children to commit necromancy. How fucked does that mean we are?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

While we're all about freedom, I'd like my right to murder people back. You're impinging on my freedom government! I'm watching you!

[Amake]

As a foreigner who was laboring under the impression this new development had always been the case I can only say nice knowing you, Americans.

I predict the country will be renamed to United States of Coca-Cola inside ten years.

[Loyal]

I would give my firstborn and a dozen other firstborns if we could have an undead Teddy Roosevelt rise from the grave and unleash some whoop-ass on the Supreme Court.We could maybe pull a Dexter's Lab and make everyone on Mt. Rushmore come to life?

That would solve a lot of problems.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Problems like too many black people on the streets and citizens thinking that they live in a democracy? They'd sort those out hardcore.

[Loyal]

......what?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm just saying Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln would wreak far more havoc than the guys in power right now. They were pretty right-wing even by 19th century standards. It'd be pretty much George Bush 1, 2 and 3 though really Lincoln is George Bush 0 because that's where George Bush got all his crazy plays from.
I mean hoshit Lincoln wasn't averse going "Ho shit, you going to vote in ways I don't like? Meet my army motherfucker" like some kind of tinpot banana republic leader.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Well, while I don't know if it'll happen, but I've heard somebody suggest that the Obama administration & Congress try to make the change only work for organizations that do not have any foreign investors or stockholders.

You can find out more here (http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2797):

Kevin

[BitVyper]

I'm reasonably sure the "treat cooperations like an individual thing" stops at allowing them to run for elected office. Otherwise that'd be a neat thing to see instead of CEOs.

But just think; a corporation can continue forever. It doesn't get sick, or sleep, or take vacations. You can't shoot it or poison it. A single (gestalt?) will to rule all for eternity. This is the closest we can get to having an immortal godking.

I foresee no problems whatsoever.

[Solid Snake]

I mean hoshit Lincoln wasn't averse going "Ho shit, you going to vote in ways I don't like? Meet my army motherfucker" like some kind of tinpot banana republic leader.

In Lincoln's defense, the entire Civil War was basically the fault of an extreme overreaction by the South because, OMG, a Republican with ambiguous feelings about slavery got legally elected into office. I mean the whole concept of leaving the Union simply because "everyone voted for the wrong guy" was explicitly prohibited against even in the Declaration of Independence. The south never even gave Lincoln the chance to make any cohesive policy decisions. Imagine the kind of havoc that kind of philosophy would lead to in modern-day America: every time a Democrat got elected, all the red states would jump ship, and vice-versa if it were a Republican. It'd be like, Obama gets elected, and before he even raised a finger, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh galvanized a bunch of red states to declare their independence. Chaos! Disunity! Disorder!

So yeah I can understand why that'd piss Lincoln off. And in terms of "terrible, overrated presidents who fucked everything up but are placed on Mount Rushmore and lauded today," Lincoln's got nothing on Teddy Roosevelt.

[Gregness]

My history of the American Presidents is pretty shaky at the moment. What exactly did Teddy screw up so bad?

[Solid Snake]

My history of the American Presidents is pretty shaky at the moment. What exactly did Teddy screw up so bad?

Read this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Cruise-Secret-History-Empire/dp/0316008958

...I read it all in one sitting, on the airplane to Germany over Christmas break.
The writing isn't exquisitely polished, but Bradley does a great job exposing some ugly facets of American history others prefer to keep obscured.

EDIT: I also feel kind of bad for Bradley, actually. He was really a beloved author with Flags of our Fathers, in large part because the book could be interpreted as fairly 'pro-America', or at least 'pro-the-American-commoner.' (It certainly painted the average American soldier in a favorable light, even if it less deferential to the government. And nearly everyone agrees that WW2 was a necessary conflict.)
This book pretty much tears America to shreds, though...it was actually a very uncomfortable book for me to read...so it's not surprising that so many reviewers disliked it.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Read this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Cruise-Secret-History-Empire/dp/0316008958

...I read it all in one sitting, on the airplane to Germany over Christmas break.
The writing isn't exquisitely polished, but Bradley does a great job exposing some ugly facets of American history others prefer to keep obscured.

EDIT: I also feel kind of bad for Bradley, actually. He was really a beloved author with Flags of our Fathers, in large part because the book could be interpreted as fairly 'pro-America', or at least 'pro-the-American-commoner.' (It certainly painted the average American soldier in a favorable light, even if it less deferential to the government. And nearly everyone agrees that WW2 was a necessary conflict.)
This book pretty much tears America to shreds, though...it was actually a very uncomfortable book for me to read...so it's not surprising that so many reviewers disliked it.

I always look at the comments section before grabbing a book like this and the comments for The Imperial Cruise mostly seem to condemn the book and its author.

Not that I would doubt you, Snake (would I ever really do something like that <3 ).

[Solid Snake]

Yeah you see the criticism of Bradley's writing style, I can understand. The guy's never really been a gifted author. If you strip Flags of our Fathers of the emotional core regarding a man's search through his father's history, and just read it as a regular ol' history book, it's really nothing special. Bradley's something of an amateur historian, after all, so I don't expect him to hit me with the polished, methodical prose of, say, Jack Weatherford or David McCullough.

What concerns me more when it comes to history books are the factual bases of the author's contentions. In Bradley's case, I found the facts he alluded to in The Imperial Cruise highly, highly disturbing, but also largely true. I'm sure he screwed up a few dates and I'm sure he made a few improper citations. But as a whole, I still "enjoyed" the book, about as much as anyone can enjoy a book that slams America as much as The Imperial Cruise did.

The problem I have with a lot of the criticism is that many critiques seem thinly veiled accusations of Bradley being anti-American or some bullshit, which is just ridiculous. Should we really stop listening to critics of American policies just because their messages could be interpreted as 'bashing' this country? Should we really turn a blind eye to our horrific missteps just out of sheer patriotism?

[krogothwolf]

The thing that's most exciting is that these corporation now can spend billions of dollars on campaigns so that they can get billions in bail out money for their corporations! It will truly be a wonderful never ending cycle!

Till it becomes the United States of the NFL.

[Tev]

Best thing to come of this so far.... (http://rawstory.com/2010/01/grayson/)

...
Fearing this decision before it became official, Grayson last week filed five campaign finance bills and a sixth one on Thursday. Grayson said the bills are important to securing the people's "right to clean government."

The bills have names like the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act and the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act. The first slaps a 500 percent excise tax on corporate spending on elections, and the second mandates businesses to disclose their attempts to influence elections. More details are available on the congressman's Web site.

"These bills will save us from drowning in corporate money and special interest money," Grayson said. "They should have been passed a long time ago but after the Supreme Court opened those floodgates, I think it's imperative we get these things done."

[Wigmund]

God I love Alan Grayson, the man's great.

This is from his website (http://grayson.house.gov/2010/01/grayson-save-our-democracy.shtml)...
GRAYSON: "SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY"
(Washington, DC) – Congressman Alan Grayson (FL-8) has introduced legislation to prevent a corporate takeover of government in America. His “Save Our Democracy” Reform Package (H.R. 4431-4435) aims to stave off the threat of "corpocracy" arising from today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision.

“The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can buy elections. If that happens, democracy in America is over. We cannot put the law up for sale, and award government to the highest bidder.” Congressman Grayson said.

Here are the bills that Congressman Grayson has introduced, and what they aim to accomplish:

1) The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
2) The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
3) The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
4) The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.
5) The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.

The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission legalizes the use of corporate funds in political campaigns, striking down campaign finance laws that date back more than a century. Congressman Grayson introduced the bills on January 13th, in anticipation of the Supreme Court's ruling. Each of the five Grayson bills is clear and concise; none is longer than four pages.

“By gutting the 100-year-old Tillman Act ban on corporate contributions, the U.S. Supreme Court has opened the door to political bribery and corruption on the largest scale imaginable. As Teddy Roosevelt said at the time, 'property belongs to man, and not man to property.' That's why we have federal election laws, and that's why we need them, both then and now,” Congressman Grayson said.

[Loyal]

God Bless Alan Grayson.

[Solid Snake]

Hey at least we can all agree that despite their crazy policy objectives, the Supreme Court conservatives are united by a true understanding of the framer's intent. After all, that's what the Supreme Court majority is always up in arms about, right? How they respect the will of the founding fathers who painstakingly crafted our Constitution?

"As a charter of incorporation the bill creates an artificial person previously not existing in law. It confers important civil rights and attributes, which could not otherwise be claimed."

Ahahaha this is hysterical it's almost as if James Madison, the federalist turned anti-federalist who was primarily responsible for giving speeches that assisted and practically crafted both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is here speaking that the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional as such a national corporation would be endowed with the rights of a person hahaha it's almost as if Madison here is saying that he very strongly opposes such a concept.

But clearly Madison is in the minority here it's not as if this text was actually given in a speech to Congress and it's not as if Madison himself, in his own journals during the secret conventions that resulted in drafting the Constitution, made note of the fact that during his federalist days (before he swapped sides) he proposed a provision in the Constitution to mandate a National Bank and this proposal was documented as defeated under similar concerns!

Why no, our founding fathers clearly envisioned an America run by large corporations...

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

...Okay, so the man who drafted the Declaration of Independence has betrayed the cause of his allies. But Jefferson and Madison must have been in the kooky minority! Surely their opinions were not widespread. It's not as if the founding fathers were afraid of corporations due to the raw, unrestricted power wielded by such entities as the East India Trading Company in Britain. It's not as if an entire basis for the revolution involved chartered corporations from Britain receiving favors that resulted in raised taxes and other burdens on the colonists. It's not as if charters creating national corporations back in those days only lasted ten to forty years before the charters were ripped up and the corporations ceased to exist, in large part because governments feared lending private entities such power. It's not as if charters actually actively restricted the products corporations could make so as to prevent corporations from expanding into too many disparate fields.

It's not as if Adam Smith, the author of The Wealth of Nations, written during the revolution and used as a bastion of free-market capitalism, with the invisible hand and all, actually argued against large corporations, right?

The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own .... Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less in the management of the affairs of such a company.

...WHAT?!?! Adam Smith is arguing against the existence of corporations that are larger than mere partnerships among small Mom and Pop business-owners? This is MADNESS! This can't be true!

Noam Chomsky has argued that several aspects of Smith's thought have been misrepresented and falsified by contemporary ideology, including Smith’s reasons for supporting markets and Smith’s views on corporations. Chomsky argues that Smith supported markets in the belief that they would lead to equality, and that Smith opposed wage labor and corporations.

...Okay but that's just Noam Chomsky, crazy liberal guy, and this is just Wikipedia, who's clearly misquoting Chomsky's work.

Hey Sam Adams you're practically the one man responsible for the American Revolution with your Sons of Liberty and whatnot so what do you have to say on this critical issue...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the Tranquility of servitude better than the Animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you."

...Okay?
Hey Abe Lincoln I know you're not a Founder but everyone loves you, you're our favorite President and:

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."

...Is Lincoln a prophet, or what?

Here's one final whopper.
Back in the days of the Founders?
A corporation making a political contribution would be found guilty of a criminal offense.

Ahahahahaahahaha I wish I was making this up.
These Justices aren't even consistent with their own justifications for their own beliefs!

Of course, Justice Stevens tried to make this clear to the five majority Justices in his dissent:
"The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind. While individuals might join together to exercise their speech rights, business corporations, at least, were plainly not seen as facilitating such associational or expressive ends. Even the notion that business corporations could invoke the First Amendment would probably have been quite a novelty, given that at the time, the legitimacy of every corporate activity was thought to rest entirely in a concession of the sovereign."

But hey, there's always Fox's interpretation:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/22/ken-klukowski-supreme-court-amendment-mccain-feingold/?test=latestnews
Oh man clearly Fox News knows more about what the Founders believed than the Founders themselves!

EDIT: Oh God why did I decide I wanted to go learn all this shit in law school I rather preferred living in the blissful ignorance of not knowing how the monied aristocracy of modern America was fucking us all up the ass and relying on exploitation of base prejudices to ensure that voters bought into their bullshit about how the founders believed America was going to be a corporatist shithole.

[Wigmund]

Originally Posted by James Madison, Regarding the Constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States
"As a charter of incorporation the bill creates an artificial person previously not existing in law. It confers important civil rights and attributes, which could not otherwise be claimed."
Ahahaha this is hysterical it's almost as if James Madison, the federalist turned anti-federalist who was primarily responsible for giving speeches that assisted and practically crafted both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is here speaking that the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional as such a national corporation would be endowed with the rights of a person hahaha it's almost as if Madison here is saying that he very strongly opposes such a concept.

Out of all the quotes you have there, this is the vaguest just because of the way it's phrased. I have a hard time telling if Madison's alright with the creation of corporations and granting them rights or is opposed to it - needs more context...
FOUND: James Madison’s Speech on the Bank Bill 2 February 1791 (http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=875&chapter=63865&layout=html&Itemid=27)
Welp, solved my problem.


NOTE: Sorry for reposting something you just posted Snake, I couldn't grasp what Madison's intent was, so I had to find the entire speech to understand him.

[Solid Snake]

Madison was against the Constitutionality of the United States authorizing the creation of a federal bank, which would have been a monopolistic enterprise (competing national banks literally would be punished by criminal persecution, if Hamilton had his way.)

The point is a bit obscure but, then again, my Constitutional Law class so far has been fairly obscure. Let me see if I can dig it out. In regards to constitutionality, if the government's creation of a bank were to be found as explicitly permissible within the confines of the Constitution, that implies that the Bank would actually have protections under said Constitution. Namely, the government would protect the bank against competitors and provide the bank with funding. Yet beyond that, the bank would also perceivably have rights of free speech and the rights to sue in court to collect payment.

The point here is subtle: Madison is noting that the Constitution enumerates Congress' authority over the people. But if a corporation is not a person -- and this was generally assumed by individuals in Madison's time, as national corporations then were temporarily created by charter by other nations like England and were generally disapproved of in the independent, big-corporation-despising, still-bitter-about-the-East-India-Trade-Company States. If the Constitution only enables the government to regulate the behaviors of the people it governs (as well as the States that comprise the Union,) then wouldn't the Bank have to by definition be an "artificial person" in order to fit into the framework the Constitution provides?

(One difference you might pick up on is, surely, as businesses did exist even back then, corporate entities on a local or regional level had legal protections. Several key differences: first, back then those legal protections would be provided by states, not the federal government, which interfered in 'interstate commerce only,' and even the interstate commerce provisions took a long time to develop through cases. The most important distinction however is that as private corporations are created by individual people, theoretically speaking the government has the right to regulate the creations of private citizens insofar as the Constitution enumerates the ability for the legislators to levy taxes and regulate the governed. Of course the federal government was limited in scope back then and really didn't protrude in such a manner. But here the concept of the government only reacting in a sense to the governed is superseded, as the government creates its own private institution.)

(It's important to remember that back then governments were small and even the concept of government agencies with intensive, concentrated authority over the States was beyond most of the Founding Fathers. The Constitution was enacted in large part to correct taxation and majoritarian 'mob rule' issues with the Articles of Confederation and enable the government some power over individuals in each State -- namely, the federal government could directly tax the people. In return, the people received a Bill of Rights enumerating their liberties. The snide comment Madison is making here may well be more comical than serious -- the idea of a corporation being created by a government and treated as a person with applicable legal rights and a corresponding relationship with its government was so far-fetched and so monarchistic that it's really just Madison laughing at the concept that a Constitution designed to give the government power over the people would lead to the creation of a corporation.)

EDIT: Perhaps an even stronger argument involves, for example, the ban that existed back during the time of the Founding that prevented corporations from donating to the political campaigns of national legislators and Presidential candidates. Clearly, such a ban would be effectively impracticable with a National Bank insofar as the entirety of the bank's operation would be made possible by the government. The interrelationship fostered between the bank and the feds would almost inevitably lead to collusion. If the bank were ever to get into financial pitfalls, for example -- say, a depression hits and no one can pay the bank the money -- then the Federal Government now has a very strong incentive to actually coerce debtors to repay with all kinds of threats, circumventing the Bill of Rights protections along the way.

Why? Because the feds would pick up the bank's tab (or be forced to allow the bank to collapse, which would have disastrous impacts on the federal government itself, insofar as the feds would do all their own borrowing and lending and whatnot through BUS.) The interrelationship would enable collusion as feds and the national bank could easily conspire to dethrone regional banks through passing ludicrous laws. Of course, the real latent concern here is that a relationship between the US and the Bank of the US would resemble the kinds of bureaucratic horrors you saw in monarchistic states everywhere throughout Europe at the time -- lots of backhanded deals among an aristocratic elite, lots of bribery and corruption, lots of arbitrary laws enforced to protected moneyed interests, lots of huge corporations chartered by Kings to make shitloads of money at the expense of the people, etc. Basically, just like modern America today.

[Amake]

Grand things
These men, so powerful in their convictions, so sure in their knowledge of right and wrong: Was it because the world back then was simpler, or was it that they had balls?

[Solid Snake]

The sad thing is that neither liberals nor conservatives really seem to have a complete picture of the Founding Fathers. Liberals seem to unduly criticize the founders without realizing just how strongly the Founders would agree with many (certainly not all, but many) of their assertions, while conservatives laud them and raise them on false pedestals without actually understanding the principles the Founders stood for. (And, for that matter, without contemplating the extensive nature of the Founders' shortcomings and sins.)

When judging the Founders it's always important to view them relativistically and interpret their beliefs based on the standards of the era in which they lived, and in that context the Founders (with notable exceptions like Hamilton) were genuinely likable people, and more left-wing radicals than anyone's written them to be. They despised large corporations. They believed human beings (well, white men at least, the rest would come later) were endowed with inalienable natural rights, prior to the conceptualization of governments or divine monarchs, all of which was revolutionary. They understood the Constitution was mutable. Hell, some of the Founders outright state in their Constitution-era writings that they expected future generations to alter its content and adjust it to handle future developments! They abhorred many of the monarchistic European practices we now associate with our current economic system. They distrusted large banks. They did not favor a massive army or navy, and indeed, were wary of military engagements abroad. They valued personal liberties far greater than national security concerns -- heck, Britain's extensive quartering laws, unspecified arrest and seizure warrants, and taxations were all done in the name of "security," and the colonists rebelled over it!

Even many of the southern Founders were deeply ashamed of slavery. I won't pretend they were perfect -- they all had their strange prejudices, moments of damning stupidity and utter incompetence, and most damning by far, genocidal rage against Native Americans. But compared to common Americans in their era, and compared to most aristocracies in foreign governments? The Americans were doing well then.

But all that aside? One strategy I'm shocked liberals haven't used yet to lure middle American 'values voters' who tend to buy into the conservative hype and vote Republican: define the Founding Fathers appropriately! Don't let Fox News and Limbaugh and Gingrich misidentify them as staunch supporters of corporate America and traditional American values when they, in fact, foresaw a future in which future generations of unborn Americans would rise to create a better world.

Allowing the conservatives to unilaterally define the Founders does them -- and all of us -- a great injustice and completely distorts the shades-of-grey historical context in which they actually lived. It also lures impressionable voters into assuming that America today looks something like the Founders had hoped. And that simply isn't true. This Supreme Court decision would not have pleased the Founders, as Fox News claims: it would have depressed the crap out of most of them. Maybe not Hamilton (although even Hamilton wouldn't have expected modern corporations to look like this,) but nearly everyone else.

A liberal who can speak idealistically about the past as eloquently and authoritatively as he speaks idealistically about our future would be a hot commodity in American politics, that's for sure.

[Wigmund]

is being an eloquent bastard.

Goddammit man, you should run for Congress.

[BitVyper]

These men, so powerful in their convictions, so sure in their knowledge of right and wrong: Was it because the world back then was simpler, or was it that they had balls?

Little of column A, little of column B. Any large scale government that's around and unchallenged long enough gets big and bloated, and selling out to the merchant class is not something unique to modern western society. It's all just something that happens as future generations start to get complacent. In fact, I think one of those guys (or someone else, I can't remember) suggested that there should be a revolution - successful or unsuccessful - every twenty years or so for pretty much just that reason.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The sad thing is that neither liberals nor conservatives really seem to have a complete picture of the Founding Fathers. Liberals seem to unduly criticize the founders without realizing just how strongly the Founders would agree with many (certainly not all, but many) of their assertions, while conservatives laud them and raise them on false pedestals without actually understanding the principles the Founders stood for. (And, for that matter, without contemplating the extensive nature of the Founders' shortcomings and sins.)


The founding fathers were ridiculously mistrustful of democracy and expressely sold out the future of democracy in the US by shackling it to a constitution which so brazenly attacks the rights of people and the rights of man, all whlie selling it as a way beyond the days of feudalism when it was barely any better.
Even by the standards of the 18/19th century the founding fathers as a group were evil, greedy little pedants and were outdated and backwards in many of their views. The constitution is about as empowering as the magna carta. The fathers primary ideas came from the writings of Locke and Hobbes some near 100 years before and authors in the Roman Empire, nearly 2000 years before. Hardly at the core of academic debate.
The idea that the founders were "left wing radicals" is completely untrue. The founding articles of the US were absolutely savaged by the left-wing radicals in Europe. They were very much centerist and those in Europe's centre found much inspiration from them. These are the works that are often preserved today because they were the majority but they were certainly not the view of the radical left.


Edit: I'll clarify a bit from my anger filled rant.
The founding fathers WERE progressive and quite left-wing by the standards of the politics and somewhat the public debate at the time. However, these standards were being savaged by the progressive thinkers at the time and these thinkers were starting to have an effect and were beginning to gain influence. In the founding of a new country unconstrained by tradition and hurdles of the past there was great hope that America could set a standard and be the birthplace of a new world- this is where a lot of the rhetoric of America as the land of the free, the land of hope came from- but they were bitterly disappointed by what ended up happening- even if it was better than many contemporary parliaments- these were ensconsced powers and would need revolutions to overthrow, America had no such excuse.
The problem is, most of our sources came- for various reasons- from the ensconced European political elite or its fringes so America did look progressive and radical to them.

You do have a point that the democrats are somewhat similar to the founding fathers but they are hardly left-wing.

[Geminex]

I'd have thought more like "United America Ltd.".

[bluestarultor]

Hey, guys. I got this as an assignment in Business 101 to write Congress with my views and support for them on the situation. How's this?

Dear Representative Obey,

I am sure you are aware of the recent Supreme Court decision to remove limits on corporate campaign funding. I am writing to you to voice my concern and to ask you to pursue some means of fighting it.

The Constitution clearly says, “We the People.” Corporations are not people. Despite their legal entity status, they do not think, they do not feel, they do not vote. They do not have a voice outside of the people running them. This decision has given terrifying governmental influence to things which have no right to even be classified as beings. They are unliving puppets of a small elite class, who now are able to use not only their own money, but the money of every shareholder to forward their own political views. This act was neither asked for, nor decided in the best interests of the people of America, and ignores decades of precedent.

The people who built our nation would not have allowed this kind of action. Abraham Lincoln shows in plain terms that he is against a corporate America in his words, "I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe… corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." The Founding Fathers, themselves, were against giving power to corporations. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as having said, “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Samuel Adams took a patronizing approach in his words, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the Tranquility of servitude better than the Animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you."

America was not founded with any intention of handing the country over to business. Some of the greatest men we thank for America today are rolling in their graves over this betrayal of the American people. Corporations don’t just have more money to use to buy campaign ads and other publicity than I do, they have my money and that of many others who may not agree with their choices to spend as their own. They are providing the voice of the few using the resources of the many. The Constitution clearly says, “We the People.” This decision may well have corrupted those words into “We the Corporations.”

I ask you, Mr. Obey, to give us, the people of America, our voices back. Money talks, and corporations have a lot of money to drown out the true voice of America with nothing but a voice from behind a curtain and so much green.

Sincerely,

Joseph Bauer

[Aklyon]

Very nice. convinced me.

[bluestarultor]

Very nice. convinced me.

Thanks. I just realized I had a typo and sent it that way, though.

"The Constitutions clearly say..." :gonk:

Edit: I blame MSWord's auto-correct. Even if it didn't do it. XP

[The Wandering God]

Would you mind terribly if I copied that?

I'd even cite your name if you like.

[bluestarultor]

Would you mind terribly if I copied that?

I'd even cite your name if you like.

Typo's fixed; sure, go for it.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

But then again I could use similiar arguments to argue we should eliminate the jews or the poor or the middle class.

Relying on authority, especially incredibly outdated authority with a completely different environment than today, is a ridiculous strategy. Make actual arguments .

[bluestarultor]

But then again I could use similiar arguments to argue we should eliminate the jews or the poor or the middle class.

Relying on authority, especially incredibly outdated authority with a completely different environment than today, is a ridiculous strategy. Make actual arguments .

While I won't disagree with this, that's why I pulled a logical appeal of money disparity at the beginning and then personalized it into an emotional appeal at the end.

Besides, it's a letter, not a paper. I COULD have written a paper (although that's not what the assignment was), but a letter is a bit less stringent. You'll notice I also linked those authorities into the concept of a betrayal of America, the people, and all the great men who built our country.

[Premmy]

You'll notice I also linked those authorities into the concept of a betrayal of America, the people, and all the great men who built our country.
That's kind of what we're talking about.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Yeah, you still going back to the same shit I had a problem with in the first place.

[Azisien]

Yeah in grade 9 history class we learned that slaves built America, has this changed? I mean yeah a bunch of white dudes ordered things but they didn't actually build all that much.

[bluestarultor]

Okay. I'll concede. On the other hand, even if they didn't lift a finger, it still shows a lot of precedent.


Actually, I'm not going to argue much on my content. I threw this together in one day and it probably could be better, but it's heartfelt and has some support, which is more than most of my classmates can say.


You can say what you want about the views coming from outdated times, but I think we can all agree having corporations choosing the people to place in the government is kind of like telling a fox to guard a chicken coop.

[Azisien]

We wuz just kidding Blues! It's a fine letter.

I mean come on, it's not like Smarty or Prem could produce a letter of similar length that's half as good. Or can you?

[Loyal]

Half the things we do these days are grounded firmly in rhetoric and appeal to "what matters".

Blues' letter is fine. :P

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It used to be my job to criticise assignments like this so I hope I could do better. That's what we told the people I was marking anyway. An unproven entity.

[Kepor]

You could argue that corporate personhood is a legal fiction initially brought about for the purpose of simplification rather than actually making corporations people, that because corporations are groups of people and not people themselves allowing corporate donations is effectively allowing a few people more of a say than others.

But whatever, I think your letter's fine as it is.

[bluestarultor]

You could argue that corporate personhood is a legal fiction initially brought about for the purpose of simplification rather than actually making corporations people, that because corporations are groups of people and not people themselves allowing corporate donations is effectively allowing a few people more of a say than others.

But whatever, I think your letter's fine as it is.

I think I might have covered that in an oblique way.

Thanks for the feedback, guys. Hopefully, despite sending it with a typo, it still gets a strong message across to my Congressmen.