The Best Democracy Money Can Buy?

As if our political system wasn't horribly corrupt and "pay to play" enough already...

The big corporations that run our government aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

Woohoo!! Lets give more power to the corporations! Why dont we let them run for office!? Think about it, it could be called the Ronald McDonald house! Wouldnt that be great?! While we're at it, why dont we privatise EVERYTHING and let politicians accept whatever "gifts" from any individual they want! Since government regulation is bad, this would be a step in the right direction right? We could have monopolies, be slaves to the corporation, it would be great!
What a great vision some politicans have. :)

If a group of people with a common interest wish to rally for/against a candidate, why shouldn't they?

If a group of people with a common interest wish to rally for/against a candidate, why shouldn't they?

Oleg_Huzwog

Good. Free Speech FTW.Stumpt25

Good. Free Speech FTW.Stumpt25

... Uhhh :roll: businesses can already do this through 527 committees, and PACs..

Good. Free Speech FTW.Stumpt25

Big, evil multinational corporations with billions of dollars to influence politics FTW.

Thank you, conservative majority.

And people think that buying politicians is bad enough already?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/campaign.finance.ruling/index.html?hpt=T2

If a group of people with a common interest wish to rally for/against a candidate, why shouldn't they?

Oleg_Huzwog

Good. Free Speech FTW.Stumpt25

I've gone ahead and added your link up to the original post and credited you PannicAtack. Thank you!nocoolnamejim

Wow... This is a bummer. I don't think anything good can come from this.:(rragnaar

Because we already got that through interest groups..sSubZerOo

We already have interest groups.PannicAtack

Right. We do have interest groups. How is a corporation not just another interest group? Is it just the size of their wallet or is there something else? Why are corporate ads worse than ads from interest groups?

the USA is really weird. i mean its a strong country, with great capabilities, but i always hear its citizens complain about the stupidity and injustice of the government. GazaAli

Besides countries like North Korea, what country's citizens don't openly complain about the government?

If a group of people with a common interest wish to rally for/against a candidate, why shouldn't they?

Oleg_Huzwog

I'll have to agree with this fellow. I am happy about the decision.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Because we already got that through interest groups..Oleg_Huzwog

We already have interest groups.PannicAtack

Right. We do have interest groups. How is a corporation not just another interest group? Is it just the size of their wallet or is there something else? Why are corporate ads worse than ads from interest groups?

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]the USA is really weird. i mean its a strong country, with great capabilities, but i always hear its citizens complain about the stupidity and injustice of the government. JML897

Besides countries like North Korea, what country's citizens don't openly complain about the government?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Because we already got that through interest groups..Oleg_Huzwog

We already have interest groups.PannicAtack

Right. We do have interest groups. How is a corporation not just another interest group? Is it just the size of their wallet or is there something else? Why are corporate ads worse than ads from interest groups?

Interests groups represent demographics of people (ideally, at least). A corporation represents a hell of a lot less people, but can also contribute a great deal more money depending on how much the company makes. So, you have more money coming from less people. Somewhat unbalanced.PannicAtack

A corporation represents its shareholders which typically number in the 10s of thousands, many in the 100s of thousands.

Why is it ok for a guy like George Soros to poor billions of dollars in to the political marketplace via his MoveOn.org and MediaMatters organization, but WalMart can't spend any of its money to influence govt policy. Why is it ok for NYC Mayor Bloomberg to spend his personal fortune to get elected, and conduct a personal campaign against private gun ownership, but Smith & Wesson can't use its resources to counter his agenda?

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Political speech should be a free-for-all with everyone participating as much as they can. What is critical is disclosure. As long as we all know who is paying for what message, we are supposed to be intelligent citizens who can discern what is in our best interests.

I really don't understand those of you who want to entrust great power to government but think a private entity such as a corporation is the greater evil that must be restrained. Last time I looked WalMart does not have a police force that can deprive me of my liberty and/or property.

The government definitely should not be able to pick and chose who gets to publicly endorse candidates. This was a good decision. 1st admendment rights are far too valuable to allow tinkering with on any level.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

If a group of people with a common interest wish to rally for/against a candidate, why shouldn't they?

PannicAtack

Good. Free Speech FTW.Stumpt25

John McCain actually spear headed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.. Which struck down the use of soft money by political parties for purposes that it was not meant for (namely it was used for campaigning, when it was suppose to be used for party building..).

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]Good. Free Speech FTW.PannicAtack

It's not about paying politicians. It's about private entities running ads on their own accord. That IS a free speech issue.

Thanks for bringing this up nocoolnamejim. It's terrible news in my opinion and will surely prove to have negative effects on our already questionable democracy.Vennligsinnet

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]the USA is really weird. i mean its a strong country, with great capabilities, but i always hear its citizens complain about the stupidity and injustice of the government. GazaAli

Besides countries like North Korea, what country's citizens don't openly complain about the government?

Meanwhile, in Canada, lobby groups can only spend $150,000 nationally and $3,000 per riding...

I will never understand how someone can assert that free speech is somehow being defended by ensuring that only those can be heard who can raise and spend sufficiently exorbitant amounts of money.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="JML897"]

Besides countries like North Korea, what country's citizens don't openly complain about the government?

PannicAtack

Meanwhile, in Canada, lobby groups can only spend $150,000 nationally and $3,000 per riding...

I will never understand how someone can assert that free speech is somehow being defended by ensuring that only those can be heard who can raise and spend sufficiently exorbitant amounts of money.

GabuEx

Meanwhile, in Canada, lobby groups can only spend $150,000 nationally and $3,000 per riding...

I will never understand how someone can assert that free speech is somehow being defended by ensuring that only those can be heard who can raise and spend sufficiently exorbitant amounts of money.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] i know people always complain about governments, but americans take it to a whole new level. you fight, and go crazy on each other(people vs government).EMOEVOLUTION

Meanwhile, in Canada, lobby groups can only spend $150,000 nationally and $3,000 per riding...

I will never understand how someone can assert that free speech is somehow being defended by ensuring that only those can be heard who can raise and spend sufficiently exorbitant amounts of money.

GabuEx

Let me try to explain.

In the U.S.A. we have freedom of association. You can organize like-minded folks around a political principle or issue and pool your money to get your message out.

For instance, I belong to the National Rifle Association, the largest grass roots political organization in the country. Me and my fellow members pool our resources to fight against enemies of the 2nd Amendment and support its friends. So far, no other grass roots organization, or corporation, or billionaire, or political party has been able to match our muscle on this issue.

See, its not so hard to understand. Its called the free exchange of ideas.

What I don't understand is why people want to equate the ability to put out a message to the ability to vote. Only an individual can vote. Why are you so convinced that your fellow citizens are too stupid to discern where a message comes from, what agenda might be behind it, and what, in the end, is in their own best interest.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Meanwhile, in Canada, lobby groups can only spend $150,000 nationally and $3,000 per riding...

I will never understand how someone can assert that free speech is somehow being defended by ensuring that only those can be heard who can raise and spend sufficiently exorbitant amounts of money.

PannicAtack

Sometimes I really do feel as though America is some sort of bizarro world. Take a look at this Pew poll, for instance, or specifically the part about health care. Among opponents of health care, if the proposed health care reform passes, 31% believe it will become more difficult to get coverage if youhave pre-existing conditions, and 38% believe it will become more difficult to get coverage if you lose your jobs.

These aren't really points of debate; these are both things that are... provably false. In other words, people who oppose health care reform believe things about it that are not just debatable, but are just flatlywrong. And that's depressing.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Meanwhile, in Canada, lobby groups can only spend $150,000 nationally and $3,000 per riding...

I will never understand how someone can assert that free speech is somehow being defended by ensuring that only those can be heard who can raise and spend sufficiently exorbitant amounts of money.

GabuEx

Sometimes I really do feel as though America is some sort of bizarro world. Take a look at this Pew poll, for instance, or specifically the part about health care. Among opponents of health care, if the proposed health care reform passes, 31% believe it will become more difficult to get coverage if youhave pre-existing conditions, and 38% believe it will become more difficult to get coverage if you lose your jobs.

These aren't really points of debate; these are both things that are... provably false. In other words, people who oppose health care reform believe things about it that are not just debatable, but are just flatlywrong. And that's depressing.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Meanwhile, in Canada, lobby groups can only spend $150,000 nationally and $3,000 per riding...

I will never understand how someone can assert that free speech is somehow being defended by ensuring that only those can be heard who can raise and spend sufficiently exorbitant amounts of money.

collegeboy64

Let me try to explain.

In the U.S.A. we have freedom of association. You can organize like-minded folks around a political principle or issue and pool your money to get your message out.

For instance, I belong to the National Rifle Association, the largest grass roots political organization in the country. Me and my fellow members pool our resources to fight against enemies of the 2nd Amendment and support its friends. So far, no other grass roots organization, or corporation, or billionaire, or political party has been able to match our muscle on this issue.

See, its not so hard to understand. Its called the free exchange of ideas.

What I don't understand is why people want to equate the ability to put out a message to the ability to vote. Only an individual can vote. Why are you so convinced that your fellow citizens are too stupid to discern where a message comes from, what agenda might be behind it, and what, in the end, is in their own best interest.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Meanwhile, in Canada, lobby groups can only spend $150,000 nationally and $3,000 per riding...

I will never understand how someone can assert that free speech is somehow being defended by ensuring that only those can be heard who can raise and spend sufficiently exorbitant amounts of money.

collegeboy64

Let me try to explain.

In the U.S.A. we have freedom of association. You can organize like-minded folks around a political principle or issue and pool your money to get your message out.

For instance, I belong to the National Rifle Association, the largest grass roots political organization in the country. Me and my fellow members pool our resources to fight against enemies of the 2nd Amendment and support its friends. So far, no other grass roots organization, or corporation, or billionaire, or political party has been able to match our muscle on this issue.

See, its not so hard to understand. Its called the free exchange of ideas.

What I don't understand is why people want to equate the ability to put out a message to the ability to vote. Only an individual can vote. Why are you so convinced that your fellow citizens are too stupid to discern where a message comes from, what agenda might be behind it, and what, in the end, is in their own best interest.

The U.S. has not known uncorrupted democracy for many decades already. This is just hilarious.

I will never understand how someone can assert that free speech is somehow being defended by ensuring that only those can be heard who can raise and spend sufficiently exorbitant amounts of money.

GabuEx

It's simple. Free Speech (in the constitutional sense) only applies to government restrictions on private entities. It has nothing to do with private vs private. However right or wrong it may seem, a law that silences private group A so that private group B may be heard, is a clear violation of A's rights.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]I will never understand how someone can assert that free speech is somehow being defended by ensuring that only those can be heard who can raise and spend sufficiently exorbitant amounts of money.

Oleg_Huzwog

It's simple. Free Speech (in the constitutional sense) only applies to government restrictions on private entities. It has nothing to do with private vs private. However right or wrong it may seem, a law that silences private group A so that private group B may be heard, is a clear violation of A's rights.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]I will never understand how someone can assert that free speech is somehow being defended by ensuring that only those can be heard who can raise and spend sufficiently exorbitant amounts of money.

Oleg_Huzwog

It's simple. Free Speech (in the constitutional sense) only applies to government restrictions on private entities. It has nothing to do with private vs private. However right or wrong it may seem, a law that silences private group A so that private group B may be heard, is a clear violation of A's rights.