The worst Supreme Court decision ever.

[larry kremis]

Corporations will be electing our leaders from now on. As I understand it, there is no cap on what can be spent to elect future nominees. Too many stupid voters will fall for the advertisements, resulting in votes going the way of special interests.

 

I believe a better way would be to outlaw all political advertising. Instead, the voters could choose more wisely if the government sponsored live television debates during election season, even paying the way to the debates for qualified nominees.

[TeeBubbaDee]

I usually avoid political threads, but I'm with you on this one Larry. Can you imagine what a circus the next election cycle is going to be like? I find it insane that corporations, with their billions, have been given the right of free speech when it comes to electing the politicians that are supposed to be working for the people. Unfreakingbelievable.

[Bull]

I posted this in one of the groups but think it fits here.
I find a couple of effects of this ruling worrisome.
One would be the amount that multinational corps can "donate". It lets foreign money flow freely.
It gives corporations the same rights as individuals. Individuals who own the corporations already have rights does this not double those rights? Part of the reason to incorporate is to limit liability should the individual right of said corp. also be limited?
The last is it will just let elections get even uglier, just my opinion.

[larry kremis]

My opinion also Bull.

[Nick Danger]

You do realize that virtually every study on the subject has shown that there is actually a loss less correllation between money spent and electoral results. You only have to look at the 2009 elections in the State of New Jersey, where the Democrats outspent the Republicans by 2.5 to one and lost. In New York City, Bloomberg outspent his opponent, Bill Thompson by something like 10:1 and the election was surprisingly close.

I understand that it is counterintuitive to think that money may not mean as much as we think it does but that has, in fact, been shown to be the case. Think about your own reaction to all that political advertising. After a certain point, don't all those ads on TV actually turn you off? (It certainly does, me) Do you think you are special?

The other part of the problem is, in fact, that most of the efforts to curb campaign spending have been totally ineffective. Despite McCain-Feingold, political advertising has increased every year. Candidates have had little trouble finding ways to raise (and spend) money. As a result, it has become a piece of "feel good" legislation that makes it seems as if we are "doing something" but its practical effects have been minimal. Again, think about your own experience. Have you noticed a drop-off in political ads the past several years? Or have they increased?

So far, all the efforts to mimimize the effects of potentially-excess campaign spending had concentrated on drying up the supply of money. They also haven't worked. The problem is that, as long as money is needed to run a campaign, candidates (and their parties) will find ways to raise it and spend it.

If you really think that money has a pervasive influence on elections, what we might do, instead, is try and attack the problem from the other end: Demand. If we limit the amount of time for an election (as they do in Great Britain, I believe), we allow access to the media by all the candidates who have demonstrated some demonstratable amount of support, and we prohibit/limit electoral advertising in newspapers, TV, and radio, then the need for money will decline (because you won't be able to spend it). I'm not saying this will work but it couldn;t hurt to try.

[Kittycat]

Nick said : and we prohibit/limit electoral advertising in newspapers, TV, and radio, then the need for money will decline

I believe that Larry was saying basically the same thing: outlaw all political advertising.

I like what you suggested, Nick, about limiting the amount of time for an election. Two and sometimes longer years is way too much time spent on getting elected or reelected. Who's running the ship if they're out campaigning for reelection?

The supreme court saying that a Corporation is like a person and has the same rights as a person is ridiculous. Have you ever tried to shake a corporation's hand???

The money situation with unlimited advertising $$ allowed to corporations to push their agenda with adverising for or against candidates is outrageous. If you think it's bad now, just wait for this next election cycle.

OK...I'm off my soap box for now....:)

[Bull]

I do believe now it would take a constitutional amendment to limit advertising. Why would polititions want to do that?

[P.A.]

The only good thing I can see coming from this is maybe the corporations will spend all of their money on campaigns and then not be able to afford lobbyists.

[Kittycat]

Pickle, they wouldn't need lobbyists because the lobbyists would be the people they helped to elect!!! They'll in essence be buying the polititians' vote.

[P.A.]

I know you are right. Just wishful thinking.
This what we get for electing so many Republican presidents over the last 30. A Supreme Court packed with rabid right wingers. And even then they only got a 5 to 4 vote on this one.

[Nick Danger]

The only good thing I can see coming from this is maybe the corporations will spend all of their money on campaigns and then not be able to afford lobbyists.

This ought to cheer you up.

CEOs to Hill: Quit calling us for campaign cash
January 22, 2010 1:10 PM ET advertisement

WASHINGTON (AP) - Dozens of current and former corporate executives have a message for Congress: Quit hitting us up for campaign cash.

Roughly 40 executives from companies including Playboy Enterprises, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's, the Seagram's liquor company, toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines and Men's Wearhouse sent a letter to congressional leaders Friday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers — and fear it will only get worse after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling.

The court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on ads urging people to vote for or against candidates. The decision was sought by interest groups including one that represents American businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They argued that restrictions on ads they could finance close to elections violated their free-speech rights, and the court agreed.

Congressional candidates who find themselves attacked by a flood of special-interest TV ads in the 2010 elections will likely reach out to their party's biggest donors for money to help them counter the blitz.

"Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors," the business executives' letter says. "And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress. With additional money flowing into the system due to the court's decision, the fundraising pressure on members of Congress will only increase."

Among the others signing the letter are current or former executives of Quaker Chemical Corp., Brita Products Co., San Diego National Bank, MetLife and Crate & Barrel.

They sent the letter through Fair Elections Now, a coalition of good-government groups who hope the Supreme Court ruling will lead Congress to pass public campaign financing legislation they have long been seeking. Others supporting public financing include former campaign strategists for President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush.

A Senate proposal would fund campaigns with a fee on businesses that get $10 million or more in government contracts. The House would finance it with revenue from auctioning off the television broadcast spectrum, which was opened when the country switched to digital broadcasting. Spectrums are the airwaves used by the government, television and radio broadcasters and cell phone companies, among others.

[Nick Danger]

Have you ever tried to shake a corporation's hand???

No, but I've crossed their palm with silver.

[larry kremis]

I can answer one of your questions with a definate yes Nick, I am special, but not everybody thinks so. Maybe there is a loss correllation between money spent and electoral results, I didn't know there was a study, I wonder what that cost. I would love to see campaign time limited like they do in Great Britain. I don't see this law doing our election process any good, it's totally opposite of what they should have done, as in outlawing all political advertising. Taxpayer sponsored debates one month prior to election day. I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of qualified leaders who will never get a chance to run because of their own inadequate funding and the refusal to kiss special interest ass.