| Author | Message |
|---|
__BLAK__
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 23 Jan 2010, 07:33 · [Salvaged from Archive]
Well... it was already dead, but this puts the final nail in the coffin.......
A bitterly divided Supreme Court vastly increased the power of big business and unions to influence government decisions Thursday by freeing them to spend their millions directly to sway elections for president and Congress.
Full article: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9DCM9680.htm
Hmmm, so our last presidential election was bought for 500 million... how much do you think the next one will go for? 1.5 billion, 2 billion? I wouldn't doubt it...... |
HeyBuddy
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 23 Jan 2010, 07:42 · [Salvaged from Archive]
This will be interesting. Who will spend more? Will it be Corporate America, or SEIU, UAW and ACORN?
Who wants TARP money? Better spend your money wisely. |
MontysDouble
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 23 Jan 2010, 07:56 · [Salvaged from Archive]
Interesting article.
I read that the changes enable both corporate and union groups to advertise directly for or against a candidate: Surely in a democratic society both groups are comparable in power?
If not, get out there and support your local chamber of commerce. :D |
__BLAK__
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 23 Jan 2010, 08:04 · [Salvaged from Archive]
Interesting article.
I read that the changes enable both corporate and union groups to advertise directly for or against a candidate: Surely in a democratic society both groups are comparable in power?
If not, get out there and support your local chamber of commerce. :D
nah, definitely not comparable in power.. ESPECIALLY when money is involved. History has shown us time and time again that democracy and money are like oil and water.. They just don't mix. The candidates with the most money and sponsorships dwarf the other candidates. How can someone's ideas be heard, no matter how good and logical they are, when the other candidate goes as far as running infomercials on CNN? A limit on money means a limit on exposure. While an abundance of money means the opposite... |
HeyBuddy
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 23 Jan 2010, 08:23 · [Salvaged from Archive]
The good news is that Congress received a letter today from some of America's top leaders in business stating that they don't want to deal with phone calls from political fundraisers. Basically, don't call us. We'll call you.
I don't really blame the Supreme Court either. They're just protecting the first amendment. It's going to be up to us to be watch dogs, and follow the money. They DO have to identify where the money comes from, and I think someone could get a lot of free PR by telling GE to take their money and shove it where the solar panels don't work. |
Echo1
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 23 Jan 2010, 18:41 · [Salvaged from Archive]
i smell a second american revolution. |
ceehound619
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 23 Jan 2010, 18:43 · [Salvaged from Archive]
Well... it was already dead
this/end |
mousewallrat
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 23 Jan 2010, 18:46 · [Salvaged from Archive]
I'll shoot. Ma, you reload. |
Raidenator
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 23 Jan 2010, 23:04 · [Salvaged from Archive]
I agree. This is a step in the wrong direction. I understand the reasoning behind it, and usually I'm behind motions to stick to the consitution, but this is fucked up.
Our politicians are full of shit as is. Now we're moving into an even worse political system than we've had. Hello to politicians buying the elections. As if they didn't buy it easily enough... |
