Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 22, 2010 Author Moderators Share Posted January 22, 2010 Oh, I gotcha now... I misread it. That's not terrible, I guess. It'd be funny to see an ad on HBO that says "Boy, so and so is a real piece of {censored}..." Can't wait to see all of the Focus on the Family campaign ads in 2012. This is why I started this thread. Do you think that we will see even more ads than before? It's already bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 This is why I started this thread. Do you think that we will see even more ads than before? It's already bad. Oh, for sure around here. Focus on the Family and Coors are huge moral right wingers. Can't wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 82Daion Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 The only minor inconvenience is your postings aren't very good rebuttals. It's kind of a tough read. Irony, thy sword is sharp... Considering that the quote in question is a quote from a Supreme Court decision, it's in the public domain. I do agree that we will almost certainly see more campaign advertising as a result of this decision. My concern is not so much with the quantity of said advertising as the agenda of those who are underwriting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mrs. Thrustin Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 My concern is not so much with the quantity of said advertising as the agenda of those who are underwriting it. Corporations have stakes in the outcome of elections just like average citizens do. They also have a duty to their shareholders to do what is best for the corporation. Shouldn't they be allowed to project their message? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 Considering that the quote in question is a quote from a Supreme Court decision, it's in the public domain. But only the parts one agrees with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 Corporations have stakes in the outcome of elections just like average citizens do. They also have a duty to their shareholders to do what is best for the corporation. Shouldn't they be allowed to project their message? Yup, they do. I just fear the outcome. Repub party approaches Coors: "Hey, I know you can't give us money but if you run an ad against so and so I'll make sure the roads are fixed up around your brewery." Or some oil company: "Hey run so and so ad and I'll do my best to tax the crap out of foreign oil.." Not at all saying the left won't pull the same {censored}, but big businesses are generally run by Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 22, 2010 Author Moderators Share Posted January 22, 2010 I do agree that we will almost certainly see more campaign advertising as a result of this decision. My concern is not so much with the quantity of said advertising as the agenda of those who are underwriting it.Yep. I think it will make the campaign season even more ugly and dirty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 82Daion Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 Corporations have stakes in the outcome of elections just like average citizens do. They also have a duty to their shareholders to do what is best for the corporation. Shouldn't they be allowed to project their message? Often, the best interests of a corporation are mutually exclusive to the best interests of numerous other entities. If the political result of their message enables them to act in spite of this fact, is the result ethical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mrs. Thrustin Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 I could be very wrong, but I've never seen any data that showed that corporations were geared more toward republicans. Plenty of major corporations lean democratic as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 Just a shot in the dark, but you tend to see more heavy industries, petroleum, and the like lean to the right and media, Wall Street and the tech sector lean to the left, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mrs. Thrustin Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 Often, the best interests of a corporation are mutually exclusive to the best interests of numerous other entities. If the political result of their message enables them to act in spite of this fact, is the result ethical? I'm not sure what you mean by 'other entities'. Do you mean it's shareholders? Other corporations? Other businesses? Individuals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 I could be very wrong, but I've never seen any data that showed that corporations were geared more toward republicans. Plenty of major corporations lean democratic as well. Found this... http://www.goodguide.com/contributions#sector=All%20Categories&sort=total&query= Sort by largest contribution and it's pretty interesting. --edit-- Holy crap, search by largest PAC percentage and it's almost all Republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 82Daion Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 I'm not sure what you mean by 'other entities'. Do you mean it's shareholders? Other corporations? Other businesses? Individuals? Mostly citizens, landowners, the environment, regulatory bodies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mrs. Thrustin Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 Found this... http://www.goodguide.com/contributions#sector=All%20Categories&sort=total&query= I've seen sites like this before. Unfortunately they're a bit misleading. Example: when sorted by largest total contribution, AT&T comes out on top with over $5 million given to republicans and $3 million given to democrats. Remember that corporations are not now, and weren't before, permitted to contribute to campaigns. The number takes into account PACs organized under the corporation AND individuals associated with the corporation. Both PACs and individuals are capped ($5,000 for PACs, $2,400 for individuals). This is not actually a measure of how much a corporation gives to a particular party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mrs. Thrustin Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 Mostly citizens, landowners, the environment, regulatory bodies... Many citizens have much more money than many corporations. Is it ethical to let citizens spend as much as they please when their interests compete with those of corporations who up until now could not spend? The principle behind the decision today is that the First Amendment does not permit a distinctions to be made based upon the identity of the speaker. It's all about the "marketplace of ideas": the more speech that is introduced, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 Corporations can be owned by foreigners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 22, 2010 Author Moderators Share Posted January 22, 2010 Corporations can be owned by foreigners.No kidding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 Corporations can be owned by foreigners. Dey Tk r jrbs!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mrs. Thrustin Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 According to the FEC, foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing or spending money in domestic elections. The term "foreign national" includes foreign corporations. I don't know if the decision today changes any of that, as it is very long and I haven't gotten through it yet, but I'll be looking into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flatcat Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 Often, the best interests of a corporation are mutually exclusive to the best interests of numerous other entities. If the political result of their message enables them to act in spite of this fact, is the result ethical? I'm not sure what you mean by 'other entities'. Do you mean it's shareholders? Other corporations? Other businesses? Individuals? This is an important point, though I'd phrase it a little differently; that is, the interests of a corporation are not always coincident with those of the public, other corporations, or other individuals within society. I'm not as concerned about ethics here. I'm mostly concerned about outcomes in issues or conflicts at the intersection of the public good and the private good of the corporation. As a simple example, it may be to General Motors' corporate good to move all the jobs in Detroit to China. This definitely contravenes the good of many individuals in Detroit (and in Washington DC). Suppose GM pays for ads supporting candidates in favor of offshoring, and because of the size of their megaphone, their candidates carry the day in the elections, and those jobs are lost. Or how about a relatively common occurrence - a corporation which knowingly pollutes bodies of water backs candidates interested in eliminating the Clean Water Act. I think the problem is that this isn't a question of speech. It's a question of power, because in the United States, money = power, not speech. I know that historically, money = speech in terms of precedent and court decisions; but it's my opinion that on the ground, in actuality, money = power. If you frame the question as a speech issue, then it makes sense. But in my opinion, the reality is that it's *not* a speech issue at all. Spending in this way will have a direct outcome on the political process, it seems to me, and because of that, a big money bankroll can effect changes in society that are not coincident with the public interest. Too often people equate government and business. They aren't the same. They don't have the same concerns. They aren't good at the same things. Each has a proper place. It seems to me this decision creates a very blurry line and it's individuals who will get the short end of the stick. Say what you want about the amount of individual contributions - they're not *organized* in the same way that the gigantic purse of some corporations are, and organizing those individual contributions into some sort of counterweight seems to me to be really, really unlikely. Many corporations are effectively dictating public policy at this point now anyhow. It's not just the insurance companies gutting actual health care reform, nor is it the banks writing the bills for banking reform. Large corporations already leverage their power to force policies that are friendly to themselves that are not necessarily in the interests of American citizens. This decision seems to me to be just moving closer to corporatism. Maybe having "The Senator from Texaco" or "Congressman Jones (I-Microsoft)" isn't so far away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 From the quality of Mrs. Thrustin's posts I have to say: Thrustin must be remarkably (and I mean diametrically) different in real life than he is here for him to be able to sustain Her attention and affection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 From the quality of Mrs. Thrustin's posts I have to say: Thrustin must be remarkably (and I mean diametrically) different in real life than he is here for him to be able to sustain Her attention and affection Maybe he's good at "Thrustin'"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 82Daion Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 Many citizens have much more money than many corporations. Is it ethical to let citizens spend as much as they please when their interests compete with those of corporations who up until now could not spend? Perhaps not, but what about corporations who have a much greater amount of money than any private citizen (or organization) could ever hope to hold? The principle behind the decision today is that the First Amendment does not permit a distinctions to be made based upon the identity of the speaker. It's all about the "marketplace of ideas": the more speech that is introduced, the better. I can agree with this in principle, but when some speakers have the financial ability to introduce a disproportionately large amount of speech in pursuit of their own self-interest, even when that self-interest hurts the citizenry at large, are we better off as a result of that speech? If that speech causes a candidate to be elected who will act for the needs of the few (i.e., the corporation) are his or her constituents better off, or is the notion of representative government failing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 22, 2010 Author Moderators Share Posted January 22, 2010 Perhaps not, but what about corporations who have a much greater amount of money than any private citizen (or organization) could ever hope to hold?You mean people like Soros, Gates and Buffett who have more at their disposal than most corporations ever could come up with for this purpose? It's also kind of unfair that those people have more influence than my union buddy down the block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mrs. Thrustin Posted January 22, 2010 Members Share Posted January 22, 2010 Maybe he's good at "Thrustin'"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.