|
It turns out the oft-repeated narrative by the left may not hold much water.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/m...?pagewanted=all Here's an excerpt to pique your interest and to get you to read the entire article. NYT posted:The reason for this exponential leap in political spending, if you talk to most Democrats or read most news reports, comes down to two words: Citizens United. The term is shorthand for a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations much of the same right to political speech as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics. The oft-repeated narrative of 2012 goes like this: Citizens United unleashed a torrent of money from businesses and the multimillionaires who run them, and as a result we are now seeing the corporate takeover of American politics. You should also take a look at Ira Glasser's (Executive Director of the ACLU 1978-2001) piece from 2010. He explains why the Citizens United decision was actually a good one. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-g...z_b_447342.html (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 14:32 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 07:03 |
|
|
I may not have any credentials as a political analyst and no one really cares about my opinion on the matter, but I'll give it anyway because I'm an rear end hole: It hasn't changed anything, it's still a huge joke.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 14:36 |
|
|
The real question is when can we vote corporations into office?
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 14:37 |
|
|
No matter what people may say, cramming enormous amounts of money into the political system from anonymous donors shouldn't be covered under freedom of speech. This isn't a good thing because while we don't know who those donors are, you bet your sweet rear end that the people getting elected will. Money translates into favors for special interests. More money means more influence, more influence means more corruption. Every year we're moving further and further from a republican system to a full out plutocracy. Both candidates are jokes, but you're compelled to vote for one because you would otherwise be throwing your vote away. Or you just withdraw completely. So no, injecting more money into the system is a bad idea. It gives special interests more leverage on candidates. The article may have a few good points, but ultimately it is trash.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 14:44 |
|
|
Hey, that's a good point! Good thing that 80% of all political funds haven't come from just 196 individuals, otherwise you'd be completely wrong. No, honestly, do you really think this is still a right versus left issue? Cremnob, what will it take for you to realize that the color of armband you wear won't stop the elites from robbing you blind and leave you to die in the streets?
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 14:44 |
|
|
It should be known that Ira Glasser is a hilarious libertarian astroturfer disguised as a "civil libertarian."
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 14:52 |
|
|
Whether it has changed anything massively from how it was before or not is immaterial, surely? It is still wrong that this kind of funding can take place.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 14:55 |
|
|
Not sure how anyone can think allowing billions of dollars more in special interest campaign funding with the new catch of also being able to do attack ads is a good idea for any democracy.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 14:55 |
|
|
Peven Stan posted:It should be known that Ira Glasser is a hilarious libertarian astroturfer disguised as a "civil libertarian." Must have been a pretty good disguise if he was head of the ACLU for thirty years.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:07 |
|
|
All Citizens United does is lets the people in power remain in power. They're the ones with the money and they're the ones that have the power to prevent third parties from ever gaining a foothold in the joke that is American politics. Everybody I know thinks there are only two people running for the office of President this year. And realistically, there are only two people that have a chance, because their giant and all-powerful political parties will make sure it stays that way. A regular old dude like me can only use his vote to change the outcome of the election. But boy howdy, if I had a billion dollars, I could put in the oval office Big Bird if I so loving desired.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:10 |
|
|
etalian posted:Not sure how anyone can think allowing billions of dollars more in special interest campaign funding with the new catch of also being able to do attack ads is a good idea for any democracy. Attack ads aren't a new thing. They're as old as the newspaper. Here's a famous one from Lyndon Johnson! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63h_v6uf0Ao Whenever an attack ad is aired you have a decent idea if the left or the right is funding it. What is important is understanding who is funding it, why they're funding it and how much they're using for the candidates.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:11 |
|
|
It seems my tease has failed to get people to read (and comprehend) the article.CornHolio posted:All Citizens United does is lets the people in power remain in power. They're the ones with the money and they're the ones that have the power to prevent third parties from ever gaining a foothold in the joke that is American politics. This is interesting because it is the exact opposite of what has happened since McCain-Feingold and Citizens United. Incumbents have less staying power than before. It's discussed in the article, I suggest you read it.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:23 |
|
|
If Zappos ran for office, I would absolutely vote it in.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:29 |
|
|
cremnob posted:It seems my tease has failed to get people to read (and comprehend) the article. Who they are is irrelevant. Corporations will only finance someone's campaigns if they think that person is going to return the favor by acting in their interest, even if it means acting against the interest of their constituents.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:35 |
|
|
cremnob posted:This is interesting because it is the exact opposite of what has happened since McCain-Feingold and Citizens United. Incumbents have less staying power than before. It's discussed in the article, I suggest you read it. Your argument is that citizens united was a good thing. I counter by saying it is a bad thing. I don't have to work hard to justify my reasons, you do. If you want to take an edgy political view then you should try hitting the high points and briefly discussing why you think that way. Instead you shove not one, but two articles at us. The total word count of those articles are just under 5300 words. Normally that would be about 21 pages, but this is dense, so I'll be generous and assume 25 pages of dense political reading. Not everyone understands law and political theory even when it is pre-chewed. So you criticize us for not reading 25 pages of articles when you can't even give more than a bare bones effort for two paragraph of quotes, two links, four original sentences and a single smilie. That's all you did for 25 pages of moderately thick text on this law. If you want to be taken seriously then write a serious first post. Until then you're going to get poo poo upon for defending your topic with a weak argument. Don't write lazy first posts if you don't want lazy answers. Edit: Not trying to chew your head off OP. Give an honest attempt at an argument and I'll debate it. You should fix it if you want to salvage the thread.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:38 |
|
|
cremnob posted:
Okay, so let's ignore the reality that Democrat and Republican are really just decals and in terms of overreaching strategy have the same goals and methods, just different means of presentation to cater to leftsmond and Richie Right. Let's ignore the fact that politicians are beholden to their (publicly anonymous) campaign donors to get into and stay in office. And that in order to continue to have a political career and finances for said career, a political figure must give back to said donors in the form of tax breaks, favorable contracts, and policy. Let's also forget that it's a very small fraction of people with money that want to make more money that own the overwhelming majority of businesses that contribute to political financing Yes, the staying power of incumbent political figures is reduced.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:45 |
|
|
Why the loving poo poo did you not just post the whole article? What the gently caress. Like, there are rules against posting articles without commentary but you've done one worse and not posted the article, without commentary.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:50 |
|
|
wargames posted:The real question is when can we vote corporations into office?
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:51 |
|
|
What a terrible OP. At least lay out some of the points you claim support your position. And I'll just go ahead and say now that it doesn't matter, CU is still a terrible loving ruling regardless of how much effect it has had (to date). Money is not speech and campaign finance is hideously broken in this country.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:53 |
|
|
Dr. Eldarion posted:I'd be all over a Google/Amazon ticket. Opposed by Wal-Mart/Costco.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:54 |
|
|
Nah, you need Abercrombie & Fitch as the VP to pander for the youth vote. Plus, that way you get to have 2 VPs at the same time.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:54 |
|
|
cremnob posted:It seems my tease has failed to get people to read (and comprehend) the article. Hey OP great thread. I especially loved the incisive and intelligent commentary that you added over the two articles in the OP, and your follow-up replies which weren't just ultra smug requests to read the articles themselves. PS: Here's my dissertation for a reply to the thread: Citizens United Bad
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 15:56 |
|
|
lorn Wayne posted:Hey OP great thread. I especially loved the incisive and intelligent commentary that you added over the two articles in the OP, and your follow-up replies which weren't just ultra smug requests to read the articles themselves. I'm going to need scholarly citing for your dissertation for Citizens United Bad, Wayne. And you can't just use wikipedia this time. 
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 16:05 |
|
|
Quasimango posted:Must have been a pretty good disguise if he was head of the ACLU for thirty years.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 16:09 |
|
|
It may be weak form to not provide an interpretation of the article, but the OP is still right to protest when someone posts an interpretation of the topic that clearly contradicts the information in the article, without addressing the article. Personally, I've taken the conclusion that money flowed into US politics following Citizens United because of a direct causal relationship somewhat for granted, and I think it's completely legit, not to mention interesting, to take a critical look at that. As their expert on campaign finance says: quote:“If this was not caused by Citizens United,” he wrote, “we have a mighty big coincidence on our hands.” (edit: point being that 'mighty big coincidences' are the #1 global cause of massive misunderstandings) I haven't read all the material yet, but I think it deserves a better shot than it's gotten here so far.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 16:11 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 07:03 |
|
|
QuiteEasilyDone posted:Okay, so let's ignore the reality that Democrat and Republican are really just decals and in terms of overreaching strategy have the same goals and methods, just different means of presentation to cater to leftsmond and Richie Right. Let's ignore the fact that politicians are beholden to their (publicly anonymous) campaign donors to get into and stay in office. And that in order to continue to have a political career and finances for said career, a political figure must give back to said donors in the form of tax breaks, favorable contracts, and policy. Let's also forget that it's a very small fraction of people with money that want to make more money that own the overwhelming majority of businesses that contribute to political financing "The guy we have now isn't as big a pushover as this other guy we found, let's package this as some kind of reactionary anti-incumbent movement and we'll be hailed as heroes!" -The conversation that founded the Tea Party. No, seriously, QED hit the nail on the head here.
|
| # ? Jul 22, 2012 16:18 |
|
