NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS
To say that the conservative faction of the Supreme Court's historic ruling overturning 100 years of accepted law is shocking and dangerous generating a dark atmosphere potentially poisoning our philosophy of checks and balances is the understatement of the century. So at first glance it appears as if no silver lining could possibly be conceived. Yet fortunately for sensible Americans this dire precedent shattering decision may well lead to unintended positive consequences.
- The majority decision dispels the myth that this particular court is non active. It has been active since the creative manipulations of the law enabling President George Bush to slip into office without really letting the will of the people prevail.
- If the generalized anger apparently sweeping much of the voters continues to be directed to so called "insiders" then it is likely that the 2010 midterm election will witness a probable split between the two parties and perhaps even a reversal of power.
- The potential good news is that once back in power the obstructionist Republicans and the majority of the so called conservatives will likely continue to demonstrate their partisan simplistic failed policies so that by the next full term election those running for office may truly be in a position to assert a meaningful resurgence of values and integrity.
- If I am right the already corrupted system dominated by the big corporations will be so powerful that the only recourse for the rest of us is to mount a true populist revolt and finally push back with all we have to reestablish some true sense of reasonableness and fairness. We will soon have to determine who is truly our final authorities: we the people or them the consortium of power hungry - exclusively profit driven corporations.
- If this does not occur I am fearful that we may be participating or failing to participate in the decline of all of what has been best in our unique form of government.
- Throughout all I believe that the election of President Obama was and is based on an accurate reading of his true power and qualities. He seems to be remarkably balanced, steady, rational, fair minded, appropriately flexible, open to criticism, principled, pragmatic, decent, has a good sense of humor, tells it how it is, thinks through issues, is able to multi-task, is on the front line, shows up. His character is about one million miles above and beyond our last so called leader. Of course he has made errors - he says as much. But he is a quick learner, an altogether fine gentleman and for my money an exceptional leader.
- If I was ruling the United States and could impose change I would insist that each of us individually and collectively learn to distinguish between operating out of instinct rather than impulse. If we were to do that individually and collectively I have no doubt that despite our sometimes significant differences our fundamental sense of fairness, reasonableness, fair play, common decency and common sense would converge into an attitude of good will that would enable us to once again transform ourselves into the envy of the world.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 32
The chief reason for McCain/Feingold was to protect incumbents. It had nothing to do with protecting the voters from "bad" corporate ads. It empowered incumbents who had easier means of gathering funds and made it harder for challengers to gain funding from scratch. I note the chief screamers about this tend to be congressmen who gain heavily from legal firms/unions/and the limited means corporations had previously of donating.
Now corporations who often represent millions of investors/employees have some say about that destructive power of government. Maybe now they won't be just paying Dane Geld to the Dane but buy weapons to fight them.
SOME say? Charlie m'lad... they're gonna OWN government. There won't even be a pretense.
Look up their donation ratios, largely favors one party and surprisingly its not the business one. Its the one they pay the Dane Geld to.
This ruling is about ad, for or against candidates, that are not (do you believe that part) coordinated with a party or candidate.
They have been allowed, but a 503c non-profit had to be set up to run them.
Now a corporation, including Venezula's Oil seller Citgo, can spend as much as they want, no 503c needed.
And stop worrying about unions they don't have much money or power.
So a Corporation Citi BAnk, Goldman Sachs, Exxon, Ciggo, AIG, with all their money can actually by all the available ad time in selected markets and not only promote their idea or candidate or destroy a candidate. They can block any other ads.
And still you think it is good.
And still you pretend to have a clue about what has happened to our nation.
All these years that the Republicans held all the power, they got the most money.
Beginning in 2009, Democrats are catching up, but Republicans are still getting plenty.
http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
Cena,
LOL Charles doesn't like to be bothered by factual info. You make that statement after saying that unions have neither money or political power! If they have none, why does your party jump the minute they bark or disapprove of anything?
Venezuela's Citgo already pays for Reps Markey and Delahunt through various oil giveaway programs in their district. They don't have to so vulgar as to actually buy them. They've done this openly for years.
Sorry. As Ron puts it, everyone pays those in power in an attempt to have them aim that damn tax/regulatory machinery elsewhere. This ruling simply overturns the arrogance of pretending one corporation's money is better than another.
Yeah, the Center for Responsive Politics is a non partisan entity. Riiiight. I thought you would put up something at least with a pretense of being center at least. If your "facts" paralleled your theme of Repubs got all the money because they had all the power, the money flow should have sharply reversed in 2006 when the Dems got control of Congress. Even allowing that this posted info is suspect, there is no such indication that your hypothesis is supported by your own facts.
I won't accuse you as you did me. That serves no purpose if supposedly we are in an exchange of ideas/info.
On file with all the various government elections offices are filings showing contributors.
Don't look those up either.
Stay in your delusional state.
You actually have looked at CATO? I'm impressed.
Labor Unions aren't doing well, are now sure to do worse, and most union members are in government these days. They won't be much of a factor.
I am very discouraged. The bright optimism that I shared with a majority of Americans with Obama's election is gone. The bad guys are winning. They have too much money and too much power...and now their friends on the Supreme Court have fixed it so they will have even more of both.
Reform is dead.
The more I read, the more I know why a "movie company" won this case as predicted. If you can ban a movie, you can ban a book etc. It was discussed in oral arguments in the case. The laws were messy, not equitable, and let States pick and chose what they could do locally as well by the way.
I think a different type approach is needed as far as law goes on the subject.
The insurance industry buying Congress is why health care reform is dead - not Obama.
Obama is now going to try to regulate the Banks again (they were once, but Reagan made sure that changed, saying "The Great Depression is Over" ha ha foolish man). That will be a harder one, I bet, with the power they have.
Congress makes the laws.
Not the President.
But sure go ahead join the Republican Obama haters.
Well, I will admit that I am naive, then. I really think he DID mean what he said. And his efforts on health care reform, in the face of a blistering, intransigent, very well-funded opposition shows that. The fact that he will be unsuccessful does not mean that he did not intend to accomplish true health care reform.
The worst thing I will say about him is that he probably overpromised. In fact, I have been saying since before he was elected that this would happen. The Righties would oppose everything he tried to do, and when he attempted to compromise, the Lefties would scream their disillusionment. There is no way he can win when his opposition consists of Corporate America, and the people are too dumb, too apathetic, and too confused by the blizzard of misinformation they are being fed. It is fulfilling my worst nightmares.
He knows what Faux/Limbaugh tells him is what is right. . . .
As you see from Charles and what I have seen from gather.com conservatives, they truly believe this is a good thing. One even titled her post God Bless SCOTUS.
They believe unions are their natural enemies and that this will end them forever.
And there is this. Faux and CATO, Heartland, Heritage, American Enterprise, all the very lavishly endowed conservative think tanks are going to flood the nation with anti-amendment messages.
They will have Pat Robsertson and Rick Warren predicting the end of the world, if the corporations don't get their way.
But I am glad someone is feeling some optimism.
And of course I will do what I can for an amendment.
There will also be tax consequences, since corporations are taxed as "individuals" so the amendment will have to be carefully worded.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx
61% also say the spending should be limited.
And once again this ruling is not about campaign spending, but ads run (free of consultation with a candidate or party)
The swiftboat ads are the best known example.
The point is that a majority believe the ruling was correct. That doesn't mean that new laws shouldn't /couldn't be passed to limit, or somehow modify spending on an even basis or something. As I have mentioned above in comments and elsewhere, when politicians get all their emotional rhetoric out of the way, maybe they can get together and take a different approach to this.
The Court doesn't write law, just rules on existing ones challenged against the Constitution.
gibbs williams Jan 27, 2010, 9:16am EST
John - In this particular case the majority of the court over ruled 100 years of precedence thus qualitifes to be called activist - refuting their stated insistence this should never be done. This discontinuity is a double message no matter how one slices it and no matter whether one is angreement or disagreement with this particular judgment. These hyopocrits cannot have it both ways. Neither can human beings nor the majority of this decision be half pregnant.