« Massachusetts No Longer The Mass. Grave Of Our American Society....... | Main | Sunday Funnies from TFMo! »
January 21, 2010
Supreme Court v Campaign Financing
From the AP:
A bitterly divided Supreme Court vastly increased the power of big business and unions to influence government decisions Thursday by freeing them to spend their millions directly to sway elections for president and Congress. The ruling reversed a century-long trend to limit the political muscle of corporations, organized labor and their massive war chests. It also recast the political landscape just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way. In its sweeping 5-4 ruling, the court set the stage for a wave of likely repercussions -- from new pressures on lawmakers to heed special interest demands to increasingly boisterous campaigns featuring highly charged ads that drown out candidate voices.
Perhaps it's my own naivete, but why in the hell are BUSINESSES contributing to campaigns? Do businesses vote? Do they have voter registrations? Does some guy go to the booth and say “Hi, my name is Wal-Mart. I'll be voting today.”?
PEOPLE vote. PEOPLE have driver's licenses. PEOPLE register.
If a guy owns a business or several businesses, he is still ONE VOTE. The people who work for him are their own individual votes.
End the limitation on PEOPLE contributing to campaigns, and remove BUSINESSES from it altogether. If I want to contribute a million dollars to a candidate, then I should be able to do so. Restricting me to $2500 while allowing Soros to divert millions from his various businesses, unions extorting millions from their members then handing it to whomever THEY choose, regardless of the wishes of the members themselves, makes no sense. If Soros wants to contribute a million dollars, let it come from his own pocket.
No tax deductions, no loopholes, no BS. Make it a straight transaction, just like buying groceries.
Here's my CFR: Give as much as you want, if you are a human being and a legal citizen of this country, and not currently serving a prison term. Period.
If anyone out there can make a legitimate argument in favor of businesses contributing to campaigns, I'd love to hear it.
Posted by TFMo at January 21, 2010 03:33 PM
Useful? Then Digg It.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.christmasghost.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/369
Comments
This is from Matt Welch who says it better than I can: Citizens United, a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit that has funded a dozen political documentaries over the years, produced a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton in 2008 entitled “Hillary: The Movie.” By a decision of the federal government, which was enforcing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known more broadly as McCain-Feingold), this piece of political speech was banned from television.
Let’s boil it down to the essential words: Political documentary, banned, government.
You don’t have to be a First Amendment purist to intuit that political speech was, if anything, the most urgent subcategory covered by the First Amendment’s “Congress shall pass no law” restrictions. And you don’t have to be a Hillary-hater to imagine the shoe on the other foot. What if MoveOn.org’s 501(c)(4), Campaign to Defend America, had been blocked by George W. Bush’s Federal Elections Commission from broadcasting “McCain: The Movie”? Wouldn’t that stink, too?
Posted by: Rob at January 22, 2010 07:51 AM
Hm. Excellent point, Rob. I didn't consider non-financial contributions.
But I still have a problem with plcing restrictions on an individual's campaign contributions while a company has none.
Posted by: TFMo at January 22, 2010 12:31 PM
TFMo....I have to weigh in in favor of the decision. That [money] horse had already left the barn...now it will be M.A.D. for all political parties and there are quite a few corporations that favor conservative values...for their own bottom line.
I don't think businesses should have a vote either but until you get rid of lobbyists and lawyers they always will.Thanks to that idiot McCain the only people that were doing well under his bill were crazy lefties.
Besides anything that makes Schumer go batshit crazy I am all for.....
Posted by: christmasghost at January 22, 2010 05:28 PM
Having been given some good food for thought, I have no problem with restrictions being lifted on businesses. I'd just like to see the restrictions lifted on individuals as well.
Posted by: TFMo at January 22, 2010 07:05 PM
Agreed...and that legally should be the next shoe to drop. After all they ruled that the bill was a restriction of freedom of speech, right? I would love to see them claim that businesses have more rights than the individual.....
It would be a "fly meet wall" moment....
Posted by: christmasghost at January 22, 2010 08:27 PM