home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby Barbo on Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:58 am

Representative Grayson has introduced legislation in reaction to the ruling.

Jon
User avatar
Barbo
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
 
Posts: 2506
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: FL

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby areopagite on Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:53 pm

fedaykin13 wrote:What I am really not getting is this:

Some people on the 'right' are saying this is a victory, that it will hurt rich incumbents, and will help an average Joe get elected and somehow levels the playing field.

I've yet to understand exactly how this ruling does this.


It will help the average joe who is willing to be a likable, human deflector for a corporation's interests to get elected, certainly. Much in the same way the W was a likable, human deflector for the plans of the maniacal right. It's like how you can't get mad at the person who cold-calls your cellphone trying to sell you fake car insurance because they're a real person who's "just doing their job." I can see things getting pretty sinister.
User avatar
areopagite
tunnel
tunnel
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Alabama

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby Colonel Panic on Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:26 pm

This is why totalitarian regimes invariably make a primary agenda of eliminating the educated "intellectuals" in their society.
All that glitters is not aluminum.
User avatar
Colonel Panic
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 17039
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:12 am
Location: The Internet

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby fedaykin13 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:49 pm

someone made this point to me:

For my own argument, I didn't say that big business buying politicians is a good thing. That's silly. My argument is that this already happens and the laws in place have been ineffective at stopping it.

Thus only good can come of this, as the situation will either remain the same or real structural reform (I don't know what kind) will take place.
Tommy Alpha wrote:fedaykin13 is right


http://www.prfsinglesclub.com/
User avatar
fedaykin13
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
 
Posts: 4176
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby fedaykin13 on Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:54 pm

ugh

Joe Conason wrote:But to understand its actual impact, listen to Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, who drew this pithy comparison: Under the old dispensation, which prohibited direct corporate expenditures on elections for nearly a century, Exxon Mobil could spend only what its political action committee raised from executives and employees. In 2008, said Waldman, that was roughly $1 million. Under the new order, the world's biggest oil company can spend as much as its management cares to siphon from its earnings -- which in 2008 amounted to $45 billion.
Tommy Alpha wrote:fedaykin13 is right


http://www.prfsinglesclub.com/
User avatar
fedaykin13
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
 
Posts: 4176
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby iembalm on Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:57 pm

fedaykin13 wrote:someone made this point to me:

For my own argument, I didn't say that big business buying politicians is a good thing. That's silly. My argument is that this already happens and the laws in place have been ineffective at stopping it.

Thus only good can come of this, as the situation will either remain the same or real structural reform (I don't know what kind) will take place.


Gosh, that sounds a little bordering on naive to me.

And today, there's this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_ ... nance_ceos
iembalm
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:47 am

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby tbone on Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:23 pm

connor wrote:
iembalm wrote:And today, there's this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_ ... nance_ceos

Their annoyance at getting phonecalls from politicians outweighs their desire to buy and craft legislation? I find that a little hard to believe.


Oh thank god, those corporate fat cats at Ben & Jerry's will not be excercising their newfound right to jam all that delicious pro-ice cream legislation down our throats.
I play guitar in Mayor For Life and Jackhammer Hearts
User avatar
tbone
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4734
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:53 pm
Location: Chicago Proper

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby numberthirty on Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:25 pm

fedaykin13 wrote:someone made this point to me:

For my own argument, I didn't say that big business buying politicians is a good thing. That's silly. My argument is that this already happens and the laws in place have been ineffective at stopping it.

Thus only good can come of this, as the situation will either remain the same or real structural reform (I don't know what kind) will take place.


While I agree that this is true to some degree, a piece I saw on CNN made a very strong case against this.

Budweiser is currently a company owned by people without U.S. citizenship.
This ruling seems to say this company has the exact same right to use it's free speech during elections that a U.S. born citizen does.

Nevermind that a citizen has a limit on how much they can give while a foreign owned company will not.

To me, that is insane.

Glenn Beck should be spitting up blood.
154 wrote:Are you in Voivod or something?
User avatar
numberthirty
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 20389
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:28 am

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby Wood Goblin on Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:34 pm

My thought this afternoon. You want to allow corporations to donate as much money to politicians as management wants? Fine. Require shareholder approval for every such transaction first.
User avatar
Wood Goblin
Guardian Diety of the Planet
Guardian Diety of the Planet
 
Posts: 5847
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:43 pm
Location: South Loop, Chicago

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby iembalm on Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:01 pm

I've been thinking Tessier-Ashpool, actually, but I get it.
iembalm
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:47 am

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby Andrew. on Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:23 pm

Wood Goblin wrote:My thought this afternoon. You want to allow corporations to donate as much money to politicians as management wants? Fine. Require shareholder approval for every such transaction first.


This level of commitment to "democracy" seems a bit anemic... So long as Monsanto's majority shareholders agree to flood elections with millions in propaganda, and not just the board, you're ok with it?
User avatar
Andrew.
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6702
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:02 pm

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby Andrew. on Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:32 pm

User avatar
Andrew.
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6702
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:02 pm

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby Andrew. on Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:45 am

Yup, you make a good case.

connor wrote:Now, if only that unified, well-organized construction that is the international left would listen to me...


Seriously signature worthy.
User avatar
Andrew.
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6702
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:02 pm

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby Cranius on Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:34 am

Analysis of the details:

REAL News Network: Court green-lights corporate election spending
User avatar
Cranius
World's Greatest Writer
World's Greatest Writer
 
Posts: 10334
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:29 am
Location: Bethnal Green, Tower Hamlets

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby frelnamp on Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:42 am

What part of the grouping of people, that together forms a corporation, gets to decide how and where to allocate the moneys to Candidate X? Is every employee of the corporation going to vote for Candidate X? No, some, maybe lots of them, will not like the candidate and won't vote for him. What's their recourse? What's their recourse if they feel bullied or harassed at work because they won't be voting for the candidate that their corporation/person is funding?
frelnamp
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: equimatic vomutenebril

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby Waverider on Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:59 am

I still don't know why no lefty NGO has followed through on that other overlooked corporate legal right - the death sentence. I'd be happy to start with de-chartering Monsanto.
Waverider
cookie monster
cookie monster
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:57 am
Location: L.A.

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby warmowski on Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:48 am

frelnamp wrote:What part of the grouping of people, that together forms a corporation, gets to decide how and where to allocate the moneys to Candidate X? Is every employee of the corporation going to vote for Candidate X? No, some, maybe lots of them, will not like the candidate and won't vote for him. What's their recourse? What's their recourse if they feel bullied or harassed at work because they won't be voting for the candidate that their corporation/person is funding?


The political interests of the company would in almost every case be interpreted finally by its management and its board. Commonly a big corporation over a certain size has a point person for governmental affairs who reports to the CEO. Often this is not an executive but a very, very well-paid consultant. Typically this person has a legislative or governmental background and is trading on their previous time in public service.

You don't have to tell anybody your vote. If your boss asks, you don't have to tell the truth. If your boss asks as part of intimidation - say, by implying the answer relates to your continued employment, you should consider getting a different job or calling the US Dept. of Labor or Federal or State Election Commission to complain, even anonymously.

Overtly pressuring a workforce to vote one way or another isn't really on the table generally -- yet. Wal-Mart's actions are a recent exception that might, especially with this Supreme Court decision, become more common. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say it will probably become more common.

Subtle pressure really works, and it always will inside any institution. In a corporation, letting it be known through the grapevine which candidate is better for the company will very, very often produce electoral volunteerism from toadies in middle management. In a union, the same can be expected from the stewards, (although their leverage over the rank and file is not as great).

For a corporation, if social conditions, regulatory laxitude, and organizational culture allow, electioneering arm-twisting of the rank and file by management can easily occur, and almost always comes from middle managers and middle manager hopefuls.

All kinds of worker pressure is on the rise in many areas. Sometimes it comes from a nice DVD presentation. There is a booming business in making videos and cartoons that communicate to uneducated workers the "right" way to do all kinds of things: how to not go to the doctor every time you get hurt at work, how to not bother the company benefits manager and look things up yourself on the not-very-complete company benefits website instead - it's a short hop from here to demonstrating the "right" way to interpret a local or national politcal news story.

In the end, nobody really has to vote for anybody and nobody has to talk about what they did in the voting booth. The main part of the problem is that greasy little douchebags looking to score brownie points with their boss will happily do so.

Waverider wrote:I still don't know why no lefty NGO has followed through on that other overlooked corporate legal right - the death sentence. I'd be happy to start with de-chartering Monsanto.


Along a similar train of thought for management...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-warmo ... 32633.html

-r
User avatar
warmowski
Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness
Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness
 
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:34 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby evanrowe on Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:32 am

warmowski wrote:Along a similar train of thought for management...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-warmo ... 32633.html

-r


Just so's you know, a friend of mine here in town just posted this to his Facebook wall. Cool to see your name there. Good piece.
Ty Webb wrote:The gutters are filled with bullets, blood and bacon. No room for "petrol".


Maple Stave
Today's Forecast
Heather Loves Silkworm!
User avatar
evanrowe
wolf
wolf
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Durham NC

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby frelnamp on Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:25 am

warmowski wrote:The main part of the problem is that greasy little douchebags looking to score brownie points with their boss will happily do so.


Did you mean greasy as in "smoothe", or greasy as in "sweaty and desperate"?

You don't have to tell anybody your vote. If your boss asks, you don't have to tell the truth. If your boss asks as part of intimidation - say, by implying the answer relates to your continued employment, you should consider getting a different job or calling the US Dept. of Labor or Federal or State Election Commission to complain, even anonymously.


It might be obvious who you're going to vote for based upon opinions expressed at work, or just personal style. The temptation for the company to compel employees to have the same political opinions as management is too great (plus the fact that even management may not be in consensus), and is another good reason for the corporate world to stay out of political candidate financing.

Have you ever decided to alter something you were writing for huffpost because it wouldn't set the right type of tone for what Huffington (editor-in-chief), Lerer (owner), Hippeau (CEO), or Sekoff (editor) preferred to put across? Have you ever experienced problems when resisting revisions that any particular higher-up(s) suggested for a piece you wrote?
frelnamp
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: equimatic vomutenebril

Re: Supreme Court to dismiss all pretense of democracy

Postby warmowski on Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:11 am

evanrowe wrote:Just so's you know, a friend of mine here in town just posted this to his Facebook wall. Cool to see your name there. Good piece.


Hey, thanks.

frelnamp wrote:
warmowski wrote:The main part of the problem is that greasy little douchebags looking to score brownie points with their boss will happily do so.


Did you mean greasy as in "smoothe", or greasy as in "sweaty and desperate"?


I was trying to get at a type I've run into many times: a kind of person who isn't in a big organization by accident. They could be smooth, they could be desperate, but they are 100% in the right place because they're kind of permanently small and need lots of help to impose themselves.

It might be obvious who you're going to vote for based upon opinions expressed at work, or just personal style. The temptation for the company to compel employees to have the same political opinions as management is too great (plus the fact that even management may not be in consensus), and is another good reason for the corporate world to stay out of political candidate financing.


That is a great point, and yet another reason to distance one's political and other personal preferences from one's institutional life. For some, it also helps to avoid as much institutional life as possible.

Have you ever decided to alter something you were writing for huffpost because it wouldn't set the right type of tone for what Huffington (editor-in-chief), Lerer (owner), Hippeau (CEO), or Sekoff (editor) preferred to put across? Have you ever experienced problems when resisting revisions that any particular higher-up(s) suggested for a piece you wrote?


Nah. I don't write op-eds for any particular audience. It's like here at EA or at my blog, except I formalize it a bit and cut the fucking profanity. I kind of try to figure out what I think and write that. I haven't once been edited, and short of the day I was invited there, have had zero contact with the place's staff. I would not like it one bit if I was edited for content. At the same time, I'd see it as a luxury if I had a copy editor. I wouldn't mind if someone came along behind me and cleaned up my clause inversions and other bad habits, but I'm not Alec Baldwin.*

-r

* No proof, but I have my suspicions
User avatar
warmowski
Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness
Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness
 
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:34 pm
Location: Chicago

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests