Printable View
Over the past 48 hours you've made a series of posts that seem to contradict each other in many ways. I'm sorry, but it's really hard to get over post #75, in which you summarize your support of the principles behind the Citizens United vs. FEC ruling while saying that you don't support it.
Dread, you'd have to be living under a rock not to see the negative consequences of Citizen's United: the political groups formed to bypass FEC rules, funneling political money without full disclosures, RNC/DNC and candidates not accountable for any political speech by super PACs or 501-(C)s...because they're "not part of the campaign". It's a crock of bull, and everyone knows. :rolleyes:
Transparency shouldn't mean teams of investigative journalists having to match up tax-deductible corporate donations, follow the money trails that move between groups and sub-groups, playing connect-the-dots to learn who's funding the thousands of negative campaign and attack ads. *Surprise! It might be the Koch Brothers using their various subsidiaries, but you'd need a forensic accountant to figure it out.*
It's a new form of legal bundling, hiding under the cloak of Free Speech, that has out-scaled influence over our elections and legislation. Didn't you say you were against anything that unfairly effected the legislation process....especially if one entity had more speech rights than others? :confused: I'm pretty sure that if a group like moveon.org or labor unions were using their funding the same anonymous/obfuscated way, you'd be singing a different tune.
And it's surprising that you say:
....since donations to opaque super PACs can mean they don't want to have their views "known" by the general public. :bulb:Quote:
It's simply the view the organization has, and it's choosing to make its view known.
Yes, there's a difference between individuals making their views (via donations/contributions) "known", and corporations with huge amounts of money doing the same. Not just because individuals have lower donation caps, but because of the Billions held by Fortune 500 companies and some ~400 private 'entities' that own the largest chunks of national wealth....and political clout. That's what the Occupy and 99% movements were all about.Quote:
I don't see how that's any different than me making my view known.
I recall a previous debate about political donations, where Loki (and Ghost ? ) were worried about protecting the privacy of individuals, and any coercion or 'punishment' by their employers. Well, that's one reason why Corporations Aren't People -- they don't have the same standard of personal privacy.
A big fan of Peanuts, are ya? It's like Charlie Brown and the football...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
What in the hell do smoking weed and covering up sexual assault have to do with the topic at hand?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Their freedom of assembly/speech. And you have the freeedom to mock the protesters and joke about it, as a way to diminish any "legitimacy" of their activism....you're even free to ignore it all, if that's how you roll. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Speaking of Occupy Wall Street --- looks like our illustrious leaders and legislators haven't done such a bang-up job of getting rid of Too Big To Fail, or breaking up the Big Banks into less "systemically important institutions". News today reported that the top six banks now own an even larger proportion of US wealth and GDP than they did before the Financial Crisis. And everyone's probably read about Apple's 9% effective tax rate, using legal loopholes like Double Dutch or Irish Sandwiches (or whatever the hell they're called, by breaking up into several subsidiaries and trading 'intellectual property' overseas....). And we all remember GE's zero federal tax bill after special classifications, subsidies, and reimbursements.
Sounds great for megacorporations to be so clever, maybe return those profits to their shareholders, expand business and hire US workers.....even if it's hiring international tax attorneys or specialized accountants, right? Meanwhile, who's funding our Infrastructure projects, government R & D, national security and military "endeavors", or veterans benefits? The shrinking middle class. How's that Trickle Down theory work again? :confused: