Thread: Thoughts on corporate spending

Well my friends looks like your next candidates will be bought and paid for by giant corporations (not like they weren't already but at least they had to work at it to keep it under the table)... now that's true capitalism at its best. It will no longer be the President of the United States; it will be the President of Pfizer (or your favorite corporation) giving the state of the union address. My how we digress - this is exactly what caused the great depression of 29. Brilliant. Whooooosh - (sound of US going down the tubes faster than we already were!)

From: NYTimes.com News Alert [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:12 AM
Subject: News Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Thu, January 21, 2010 -- 10:11 AM ET
-----

Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend
freely to support or oppose candidates for president and
Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in
federal campaigns.

The court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that
said corporations can be prohibited from using money from
their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The
decision almost certainly will also allow labor unions to
participate more freely in campaigns and threatens similar
limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark
McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and
corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election
campaigns.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010...ce.html?emc=na[/B]

Maybe I'm naive... but don't corporations already exert their influence in elections already? The only thing that changed when McCain-Feingold passed was that individuals and corporations donated unregulated sums to Political Action Committees or to non-profit groups who did the advertising on the contributor's (and candidate's) behalf. The whole passage of McC-F was heralded by the media to be a giant step forward in making politics "fair"... a noble endeavour on the surface BUT really only served to limit expression of choice/opinion and thereby make it easier for those who passed it (the incumbents) to retain their positions in perpetuity. With name recognition in their favor, ZERO advertising on either side of a race would suit the incumbent just fine.

At least with McC-F struck down, maybe it'll be a little more honest and straightforward... Hey, if you don't like "Corporation X" running ads against your candidate, boycott them!

PS - I have voted for Dems, Reps, and even a couple of independents/other.