What's that old adage? Beware of the unintended consequences. Clearly, that's something that neither the Supreme Court nor the Republican Party factored in before crowing about the heinous Citizens United v. FEC ruling last week.
For all his high-falutin' talk of free speech and transparency and being able to face down those big bullying unions, it has apparently never occurred to Sen. Jim DeMint that SCOTUS just opened doors to multi-national corporations--i.e. FOREIGNERS--meddling in our elections.
MORAN: OK. And, finally, are you in favor of foreign corporations being able to participate in American elections through this decision?
DEMINT: I don't believe that -- right now, foreigners cannot give to the political process. And I hope, as this thing is sorted out, that we'll make sure that this is an American focus, so we'll have to sort all that out. I hadn't read all the details of the court's decision.
Ooops! Guess what, Jim? That's not how it works in the ruling. There's no distinction made in the SCOTUS ruling, so any corporation with American interests (even if the largest stockholder is a foreigner, like from...gasp! Saudi Arabia (shudder)!) can now influence American elections. As Sen. Bob Menendez says:
The problem is, a corporation is a corporation is a corporation. And a foreign corporation is going to be able to spend their monies in determining who is elected to the United States Congress. That's not good for the average citizen.
No, it's not. But that doesn't play into the thinking of the Republican Party, does it?
I hadn't read all the details of the court's decision.
Yet, here you are on teevee spouting off like you know what you're talking about. Here's a thought. STFU.
He doesn't know the details of it but word on the streets is it will benefit Republican politicians so he's all for it. So, I'm really not sure of the specifics of a lobotomy but I'm for it if will leave Demint as a drooling idiot...Nevermind, really not needed, he's already there.
This man looks like he should be selling cars or life insurance. Instead South Carolinians have bought his shit.
is intended to be a factual statement
out his lies in the next sentence...And the pundits let them do it..Thanks Menendez---the talking heads do not get it! Call the Nets/Cable and slam them for not correcting the lies..CNN.com responds as does NBC.
PS: the Saudi's already own a block of Citi! The Iranians/ Chavez/the Chinese/ on and on..bets on who will buy the first Senator...'Depends' owns mcconnell already!
That's the perfect description. Applies to all his buds too.
like from...gasp! Saudi Arabia" Or even worse France.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
how about if even one of the shareholder's is a known terrorist.
First they need to pass legislation so transnational corporations and international corporations cannot donate to campaigns
Then they need to pass legislation so that corporations have to keep their books separate between private and business accounts with no intermingling
They need to require quorum of stock holders with a certain percentage in the lower percentile required ( a near impossibility),
Then that quorum has to agree to give to a candidate
Then there has to be legislation forbidding giving campaign contributions and PAC support to the same candidate.
Some of these laws are already in existence, but they MUST be enforced.
Then there should be an audit of the Supreme Court
And then there should be an audit of the individual Supreme Court Justices for any evidence of bribery.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
"First they need to pass legislation so transnational corporations and international corporations cannot donate to campaigns
That in itself will eliminate many corporations since most corporations have an international presence. How does one determine what nation a corporation belongs to? Would it be "Corporate Headquarters"?
Because you can have your headquarters in the US, but operate a non-taxpaying shell in Bermuda.
Stanley Works was considering that then didn't do it
So how about restricting off shore reincorporations from donating as well? Dodging taxes? No say in govt here then. That would be un-American.
me-oww!
We passed that line in the sand a very looooooonnnggggggggg time ago...
it doesn't always come across in my posts
:)
me-oww!
....miss kitty it is not so subtle ;-)
'Talk to the hand'
That would be the key.
But if any individual or group contribution comes from the foreign quarters that would have to be denied.
We want to make the accounting system so complicated it would make contributions more expensive than the amount actually given. We want the contribution itself to hurt profitability.
Then the corporation would have to decide between short-term and long-term profitability as well as dividends. We know from experience they will choose short term, and we'd be setting up a potential showdown between the officers of the corporations, and those who own the stocks.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
so I don't think that is the key.
The other thing, that is very non person or super person about this, is that if I, a person, move to another country, and don't live here at all, if I am still a citizen of here, I have to pay US taxes.
However if I am a corp, I can say I've moved to Bermuda, live here,enjoy the advantages of living here (send my goods out in trucks on federal highways, eg) and tell the taxman to piss off.
me-oww!
But right now their relocating expressly to avoid tax burdens, minimum wages, environmental laws etc.
If corporations can be considered citizens, can corporations hold dual citizenship?
Probably the deciding factor is where they file documents of incorporation, there may be no requirement to locate the HQ where you filed.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Under the WTO, NAFTA, and, the FTA, foreign corporations have the same rights as national corporations, if such a thing exists. Under these international trade agreements, no signatory to the agreements can treat foreign corporations differently than they treat domestic corporations.
These judges have opened up a huge can of worms, and there will be hell to pay.
Let us say they need 60% majority of that quorum kinda like the US Senate when it votes on cloture. Then they would never get a damn thing done! Problem solved.
At least now the right has some small chance of standing up to ACORN,,,
There should be an audit! Shit always comes back to money. I would be shocked if they didn't get bribed.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves"- Abraham Lincoln
the prob isnt corporations donating directly
they can now create their own ads, with their own money
thats it
so china can create ads supporting a candidate or proposition that benefits them...and attack ads against those interests that do not benefit them
the supremes have just sold america to the highest bidder
i believe that the majority on the court can now be prosecuted for treason
Until 1985 Rupert Murdoch was Australian...
No matter what nationality, the man is a douche.
is occasionally useful. You might want to rephrase that.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
A douche is never advisable, another male dominance fabrication.
Discussion here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
And Rupert may therefore be correctly identified as a douche.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I hope the mostly male commenters on C&L will read your link.
I grow weary of them calling each other douches or douche bags, like 6th grade boys who have nary a clue. In fact, using sexual terms to describe anything or express an emotion or thought, is just boring and unnecessary in most instances ... though not all.
There are so many really, really good words available to use when flinging insults......I think creativity should count. &;)
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
did the Republican just say "the Democrat" process, or...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
yeah, he did say 'the democrat process'. And right at that moment I wanted someone to punch and crumple his face. He's not an American and shouldn't pretend to be talking for any.
I heard that this morning and was waiting to see if anyone else noticed. Republicans are trained to avoid the word Democratic always, so DeMint can't be blamed for not understanding that whole capital-D, small-D distinction.
Relaying Right Wing talking points is hard work!
So intent on speaking in code, normal discourse suffers. Plus, the guy is no Rocket Scientist. (Nor Brain Surgeon). He actually comes from Marketing, surprisingly enough.
what about those ahole corps that moved offshore? Representation with no taxation? Such a deal. Where do I sign up?
BTW, What Floridafish said. STFU.
me-oww!
Haliburton should not be allowed to donate to campaigns since they've moved their headquarters to Dubai.
I also think any business that has outsourced more than 25% of their business overseas should not be allowed.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
did he just say "carte blanche"?
wtf? This guy is an elitist and a moron at the same time. Nice blue suit and lapel pin though...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
The Frenchification of our great nation. next thing you know, he'll say laissez-faire, chauffeur and filet. Before you know it, it'll be all "Bon jour Mme Tebeau, comment tallez-vous?" and we're all vichy.
me-oww!
How'd you manage to get past the chimpy smirk on his face to notice his suit?
Multi-national corporations will of course be able to sway US policy, and this ought to be an issue that liberals and progressives have in common with conservatives and even Fox fans.
The flip side is also interesting. The ruling opens the doors for US corporations to influence US foreign policy. Halliburton will have an easy way to promote war by financing ads that paint anyone as an unpatriotic wuss if they don't vote for no-bid contracts etc etc. War Inc. It isn't an exaggeration to say that millions of innocent people may die for profits, and of course that includes US servicemen.
Good time to review the actions of the John Foster Dulles in Guatemala in 1954 when his brother's company, United Fruit, was getting worried about having to increase wages there.
If this BS is allowed to stand, then one day I predict that there will be companies that are Democrat and companies that are Republican. Surely I'm not the only one who's thought this.
Not everyone who works for Exxon or IBM or Monsanto are either/or. Will those who are as political as some people I've met be willing to work for a company that campaigns against them? Doesn't this also divide the work force of those companies even more. Alienate some while pleasing others. Not sure what effect it will have but I wouldn't work for someone like that.
For a multinational pharmaceutical company and I would often get emails requesting that I call my Congress person and tell them to vote in favor of the corporation (Medicare D). It made me angry and after awhile, I enjoyed collecting my salary and benefits and just sailed through my job until I could retire. I lost all motivation.
Yeah, companies have given to campaigns before, but never at the level we are about to see. How many of those employees that felt pissed before will just pack up and leave now? Of course with the economy as bad as it is, most would probably swallow hard and stick it out. Almost as if was planned that way really.
There is an industry that is Democrat, and that is Hollywood. Remember Fritz Hollings and the Fritz chip?
I remember:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZL1M845O4
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
No, I'm sorry I don't.
And I'm also not sure I totally agree with that statement about Hollywood. There's a long list of Repubicans in Hollywood and some suprised the hell outta' me.
Prominent Hollywood Republicans include Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Drew Carrey, Freddie Prinze jr. , Bo Derek, Charlton Heston, Chuck Norris , Clint Eastwood, Heather Locklear, Jean Claude van Damme, Kelsey Grammer, Lauren Bush, Matt LeBlanc, LL Cool J, Patricia Heaton, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Shannon Doherty, Sylvester Stallone, Tom Selleck and Tom Clancy.
I will say that they are mostly washed up.
Complete list: http://hollywoodrepublicans.com/recommendatio...
Incredibly wealthy and unwilling to let go of a single, solitary ruble that might benefit the common person...
Who among these Hollywood Republicans has given any money, time, or resources to Haiti?
Crickets.........
Their boss man Rush told them not to.
that's a depressing list.
That snotty legend at the top saying "not recommended" meaning anyone not Rethug just kills me.
Plus they seem to have Chuck Heston as still alive as well as Merv Griffin. But, I call BS on a lot of those names, too. Which they are incapable of alphabetizing properly apparently.
And Hollywood Republican is generally very different from the run of the mill asswipe in the rest of the country.
Who? Like LL Cool J?
If Congress puts restrictions on "multinational" corporations, then most corporations will have restrictions. On the other hand, Unions are American and "multinational" restrictions won't apply to them.
Exactly.
And there should be a way of lowering the amount corporations can give who keep a low tax rate due to shelters, special laws off-shore hq's etc.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Therefore, nothing plays into their thinking. They are androids that take their orders from the Republiborg Collective, a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of Corporate America.
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
The Republican is impulsive. The Republican is irresponsible.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
is both. Plus an activist.
Only when the last tree has died
and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught
will we realize we cannot eat money.
Senator from Saudi Arabia followed by the Senator from China.
Only when the last tree has died
and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught
will we realize we cannot eat money.
from Dubai yield the floor?"
me-oww!
Senator
fromrepresenting Saudi Arabia followed by the Senatorfromrepresenting China.FIFY
What these right-wing SC Judges rammed down our throats is paramount to treason! It opens the door WIDE OPEN for election corruption (as if we do not already have enough of a task at keeping these elections on the straight and narrow as it is!)
And where, exactly, was that table made?
me-oww!
is from IKEA...so it's from Sweden.....but Nancy likes her tables clear.
Where exactly was nancy made?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I would suggest this decision is in violation of
Article I, sec 4: Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The manner would seem to involve how the campaign was financed.
And then in Article II, Sec 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
That would seem to preclude such corporations as defense contractors or any other government contracts trying to affect policies, particularly in campaign contributions. What exactly is the legal distinction between campaign contribution and bribery and abuse of office? The court decision also seems to fly in violation of "...The Manner as the Legislature (state) thereof may direct.
The appearance is that the supreme court violated Articles I, II, Amendment X, and any laws and regulations the States have on their books in how to run elections.
And unlike those who wanted to impeach Earl Warren, they didn't do so in the attempt to expand rights, but to constrict them to an elite few.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
that voted for this travesty should be in jail, awaiting trial for treason.
The Washington Post said it was john roberts, samuel alito, antonin scalia and clarence thomas.
Even the moderates sided in the dissent.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And Kennedy.
With all the lobbying going on, the corporate corruption has been in full swing. All this Supreme Court does is open some propaganda to persuade us to like it. But, as we saw Baucus surrounded by Wellpoint advisors as he came up with his health plan, we're living in a corporate oligarchy.
I think one of Michael Moore's films said Saudi Arabia owned about 7% of the stock market alone. Obviously, we won't get any figures on total foreign ownership from the upcoming corporate infomercials.
But economic treason has been going on for quite a while now, starting with the Free Trade agreements and WTO.
Just when I think I've seen the worst that the rich and powerful can do to us, something like this happens...
Are we humans doomed to perish under the weight of our own hubris?!
I am so very disheartened...
Thank God we didn't elect stump stupid ignorant hillbillies into office or we'd really be in a heck of a jam.... wait a minute let me rephrase that.
I wonder how they like their conservative supreme court now? The sad thing is, probably just fine.
If they stopped and thought about it, SCOTUS just gave China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and anyone else with money a constitutionally protected voice/vote in our country. Fox news just helped mightily in electing a republican senator, and the most powerful Fox owner other than Aussie Murdoch? A Saudi. Al-waleed bin Tala.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
If your political party as a whole has come to the decision to be bought off by the highest Corporatist bidder, doesn't it make sense to open the pool of potential bidders large enough to reach the widest audience, and the greatest available USD$ amount ?
If you have have a Rodan or Picasso or Rembrant painting, you don't put it up for auction at the Podunck County Fair, or a pawn shop in BFE North Dakota -- you take it to Christie's Notable Auctions or Sothbey's Auction House ...
Same Shite, Different Day ...
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
I've read some comments in an Arizona newspaper blog and others where there celebrating the decision, even going so far as to say this is the freedom of speech the founding fathers wanted.
Never mind that our founding fathers were dubious about political parties, never directly addressed the funding of elections, was suspicious of what they called "mobocracy," and restricted the franchise to property owning white men, so even a white man could be denied if he owned no property.
And will see how they like it when it comes time for future bail outs, tax benefits, tax cuts for corporations, and even more outsourced jobs.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I was pointing this very thing out on another board the evening after the decision.
Unintended consequences, indeed.
Perhaps these consequences are not "unintended."
2 U.S.C. § 441e(a)(1) (foreign nationals may not directly or indirectly make contributions or independent expenditures in connection with a U.S. election).
For those who are interested about what the fragmented Court actually said about the issue of the Free Speech rights of foreign corporations:
The majority opinion expressly declined to decide whether the government possesses a compelling state interest in barring the campaigning of foreign individuals and associations that would survive a First Amendment challenge:
"We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process. Cf. 2 U.S.C. § 441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process. See Broadrick, 413 U.S., at 615."
The dissent raises the concern that the majority opinion fails to distinguish betwen types of corporations, although it seems to indicate that domestic corporations have more free speech rights than foreign corporations (while completely failing to address the complex issue of multinational corporations):
"The Chief Justice is therefore much too quick when he suggests that, “[e]ven if considered in as-applied terms, a holding in this case that the Act may not be applied to Citizens United-because corporations as well as individuals enjoy the pertinent First Amendment rights-would mean that any other corporation raising the same challenge would also win.” Ante, at 4 (concurring opinion). That conclusion would only follow if the Court were to ignore Citizens United's plausible as-applied arguments and instead take the implausible position that all corporations and all types of expenditures enjoy the same First Amendment protections, which always trump the interests in regulation. At times, the majority appears to endorse this extreme view. At other times, however, it appears to suggest that nonprofit corporations have a better claim to First Amendment protection than for-profit corporations, see ante, at 20, 39, “advocacy” organizations have a better claim than other nonprofits, ante, at 20, domestic corporations have a better claim than foreign corporations, ante, at 46-47, small corporations have a better claim than large corporations, ante, at 38-40, and printed matter has a better claim than broadcast communications, ante, at 33. The majority never uses a multinational business corporation in its hypotheticals."
See fn. 12 (dissent).
And finally, here is the dissent's concern that the logical consequence of the Court's decision would be to invalidate the laws applying to foreign corporations:
"If taken seriously, our colleagues' assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government's ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by “Tokyo Rose” during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could “ ‘enhance the relative voice’ “ of some ( i.e., humans) over others ( i.e., nonhumans). Ante, at 33 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S., at 49).FN51 Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech."
Maybe DeMint could review my cheat sheet before he pretends to be an expert on the law on another "news" program.
That seems to support a suggestion I made a couple of days ago the progressive interests incorporate an umbrella group that contains units like the ACLU, Greenpeace, ACORN, Move-on etc, each incorporated at their turn.
My thinking was these are essentially non-profit corporations, that under what you described above would give them an advantageous position in regards to contributing to politicians.
And if the Democratic party wants those contributions they have to conform to our will, not us to theirs.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The only problem is convincing these organizations to pool and target their money in the right places.
The other larger problem is that we will always be outspent. If only the truth had a corresponding monetary value.
I haven't had a chance to read through the decision although I've downloaded it.
It may be hard to find surrounded by so much downloaded porn.
But what is their reasoning, that one has to prove quid quo pro and the previous restrictions were against Equal Protection Laws?
The case in question wasn't really addressing corporate contributions, but restrictions within 60 days of an election.
What's next saying voter intimidation at the polls are a form of free speech?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Consisted of making conclusive negative findings in the face of an empty record. The record was "empty" because Citizen's United stipulated to the dismissal of their facial challenge to the statute in response to the government's motion for summary judgment. This obviated the need for the government to prove a compelling state interest based on facts adduced at an evidentiary hearing.
The interests identified by the government were anti-distortion, anti-corruption, and coerced speech of share holders. The majority rejected these interests as unfounded even though there were thousands of pages of legislative history supporting the BCRA which would have provided ample support for these factual assertions.
The majority attempted to hedge at the point that the government could legitimately curtail speech if nececessary to prevent quid pro quo quo corruption. However, the Court never gave the government the opportunity to develop the record to prove that the regulations were necessary to address this problem.
Your point about contributions is very important because contributions constitute property and not speech. That is why we can address the problem by focusing regulation on the money/contribution end instead of the speech end (i.e., what the money is spent on).
There used to be a distinction between commercial and political speech.
I think the distinction was pretty much dropped after some adult entertainment cases of the early 70's.
This case of Citizens United v the Federal Election Commission seems to be making a curious hybrid of both.
I thought facial challenge was acne; did you mean factual challenge?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Of course it could be a form of the expression prima facie
But in this case the court's provided prima feces.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Facial challenges to a statute attack the statute on its face, without reference to its potential application. See also Constitutional vagueness and overbreadth challenges to a statute. Recent Court decisions limit facial challenges to "as applied" challenges, i.e., is the statute unconstitutional as applied to this particular litigant? The reason that the decision is such an activist decision is because it turns the normal presumption in favor of "as applied" challenges on its head.
You are correct about commercial speech (versus political speech) which is given limited constitutional protection. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Counsel, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976); accord Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
However, the relevant distinction in the instant case is that it is a commercial entity that is engaging in political speech as opposed to purely commercial speech. Therefore, the commercial speech cases are not considered on point.
Voter intimidation as a form of free speech. I'm sure Scalia would go for it, if its the Republicans doing the intimidating. If I remember right, I've actually heard Scalia say that torture is not unconstitutional because it is not cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, its not punishment at all, its only a means of extractig information.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
*Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
*Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
*Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Signed by 38,131 and counting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 22 the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts's nomination by a vote of 13 to 5, with Senators Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein casting the dissenting votes. :)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
I just read that NOW he's saying he never said That the death of Healcare Reform would be Obamas Waterloo and that'll break him. These Repugnivisionists are truly repulsive.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves"- Abraham Lincoln
to preclude corporations with any foreign ownership (1 share of stock) from buying political ads.
There should be laws to require available ad time on TV, radio, and space in print media to be divided evenly among all parties concerned (candidates, issues, parties).
There should be laws that require all political advertising to adhere to the same truth in advertising laws that any other company must follow: political ads cannot make false claims about the opposing candidate or state false benefits for voting for their candidate. This would stop election eve ads that tell voters the opposing candidate will, oh, create "death panels."
Political advertisers cannot lobby, intimidate, or threaten opposing elected officials at any level.
I am sure many of you have other great ideas. Send them to your congresspeople and senators. We have the right to petition our government. So far, Scalia, et al., haven't taken that away.
And both Alito and Roberts lied to the Senate about their judicial intentions. That would be impeachable.
Australian/Saudi owned corporation Fox News can now officially contribute limitlessly to the GOP. Oh happy tea bagging day. Kinda makes sense with all their 2012 GOP hopefuls prime-time lineup. It's American Idol style electing of a President. I just wish Simon was in the wings of the Palin/Huckabee hours ridiculing every word they spoke. Now that would be infotainment.
I can't wait to hear the screaming from Faux News when they learn that Hugo Chavez through Citgo and PDVSA will be backing some candidate that the conservatives are opposing...this is going to bite us all in the butt but the conservatives are too busy cheering to even read the decision and understand the consequences.
You know what is going to happen when the corporations turn against the republican party. And you know sooner or later they will, that is just the nature of politics. They are going to go crying to the SC that it is unfair for the corporations to give the democratic party. Then they are going to say this is not what the SC meant. You know they live in their own little world and everything they say is okay until it turns against them then they cry like babies. They remind me of the bullies at school and when confronted they cry and carry on something awful and want the rules changed in their favor.
certainly find a way to contribute....
and possibly even save America....
.....maybe we would be better off allowing European corporations to buy into the American markets.
They certainly have a greater respect for employees than the sociopaths that run our businesses.
'Talk to the hand'
I doubt that European Corporations are any more humane than your domestic corporations. They will do whatever the system they operate in will allow them to do.
In Europe, their systems are different because their labor unions are stronger and have a greater voice in government than they do in the US. In Germany, and some of the Scandinavian countries, labor must be represented on the board of directors.
However it must be said that having a wider range of stakeholder interests on these corporate boards, and keeping them accountable to their constituencies prevents sociopaths from taking over the corporations and running amuck.
That was satire ;-)
'Talk to the hand'
they equate wealth with free speech
What's odd is DeMint says he's a Christian. Christianity has a strong code of ethics and restraint. But when it comes to contributing money (as free speech), he wants no restraint. And I'd like to know what the Bible says about unions or deceitful business practices. Unions don't have near the money that corporations have. I get so sick of these right-wing Christian conservatives claiming the love of Jesus while they screw over ordinary Americans and constantly take the side of the wealthy over the not-so-rich.
Yup! and ... wait for it... Venezuela and Iran and China and even the little brown country to our south. Of course the dip shit right wing idiots didn't think about this did they. These idiots include O'Mousedick and Shammity and Boner and all the rest of the jerks who were shooting off their mouth. So Jimmy, maybe go have a little conversation with your dip shit friends at K street.
Quick, somebody get a note to Sarah Palin. Tell her that foreign corporations are going to run this country. Tell Beck too. And the Tea Baggers. Especially the Tea Baggers!!! Get the word out. Surely they have not heard it put quite this way. I think that this will be a good time for Rachel and Keith to put it in this context.
I had no clue that labor unions had as much power as you claim.
I wonder if union members got that memo?
'Talk to the hand'
Since we're now going to allow corporations to spend unlimited sums of money and, more or less, sponsor a candidate - at least some comfort can be taken in the fact that certain industries will decline while others rise. Saudi Arabia can buy Republicans, but what happens when the oil starts to run out? Maybe some environmentally conscious power systems corporations can replace their influence.
In any event, it seems that a majority of voters have proven that they are too ignorant and intellectually lacking in critical thinking skills to vote for good candidates. Maybe our new foreign corporate masters will do a better job of running our country than the current batch of politicians...
BP plc (formerly British Petroleum plc) is a British global energy company that is also the third largest global energy and the 4th largest company in the world.
The sign is green ;)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
So if Pat Robertson's 700 Club is a corporation (a religious one) but a corporation. Then this does break the seperation between church and state? So now pat Robertson's religious 700 Club can hold a "religious test" for the President of the United States?
With the SCOTUS 5-4 decision, means 5 people all selected of the same ideology can tell America what to do?
Their decision was not on the actual reason for hearing the case.
5 people overstepped their SCOTUS responsibilities. And we can't fire them.
There will be no cchance the republicans will be bi partisan to bring stability back to the American voters voice in elections.
They believe right now that the decision favors them for re election back into power.
And republicans say Judical activsm from the bench is a Liberal trait?
Wait till CITCO, Hugo Chavez's oil company begins injecting money into American politics. Citco sells their gas here and has their own stations.
Exxon/Moble can now gouge you at the pumps prior an election to raise money to inject for their candidates. making you their candidates financier....!
Now the corporations will have to decide which is more important, employees or political contributions. Employees of large corporations should prepare for layoffs occurring on a 2 to 4 year cycle.
What you should do, is find a way to use the corporation against itself. Years ago back in the late 1980s I was working as a construction estimator. I did not like the people I was working for, the owner lied to me and when I confronted him with it he said he could not remember hiring me much less telling what I had just told him. I say well I don't think I can remember my way back to this place anymore. I quit. I went home and contacted other construction companies. It took a while but I was working freelance for a lot of companies.
What I am saying is look over what you are doing and find some way to use it against them. They deserve it. But more so you deserve the freedom, the better wages, and the absense of all the bullshit associated with working for someone else.
remember.
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness!
Are Supreme Court judges above the law? If they break the law, who are they accountable to? In 2000, in Bush v Gore, both Scalia and Thomas were in a conflict of interest in the case and should have recused themselves but didn't. Scalia's son actually worked at the law firm representing Bush, while Thomas' wife was working for the Heritage Foundation, which was under contract to vet candidates for jobs in a then possible Bush administration.
Not to mention Roberts little visit down to the Sunshine state, to have a talk with Jeb...
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Thinks it will be great because he thinks he will get more money! But money is the only reason a republican ever ran for office.
republican polls are the absolute scum. the dregs of our country.
these republicans are the terrorists that are destroying America!
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness and it is killing America. Not one republican that I have ever met, has the capacity to feel shame. They are shamefull people with shameless attitudes!
They're just doing what their creator told them to do? At least that's my observation/opinion.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
their creator told them to be worthless, lying douche bags?
Though I don't believe anyone is "worthless", at the same time, I understand your frustration. √
Study the symptoms not the virus...
A Real or Fictional Story of Corporate Deceit and Fraud; and the United States Governments involvement to cover it up.
Here’s the story (fiction or non-fiction, you choose):
There were a bunch of parent companies that owned retail banks, commercial banks, and investment banks (compliments of Congress by repealing the Glass Steagall Act and passing the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act - cooked up by Republicans who got a bunch of Democrats [and a Democratic White House] to go along with it).
-
The investment banks engaged in questionable trades and bought shares of stock (for themselves and other investors) in certain assets and companies that they either knew didn’t exist, or at best, were extremely risky . They got investors (individual and institutional) to buy into their questionable dealings. They also bundled a bunch of risky mortgages from the parent companies retail banks and mortgage companies, and sold them to people all over the world, thereby engaging in a worldwide ponzi scheme.
-
In addition to that scheme, they also used deposits from their retail banks and bought insurance from their own insurance companies or other insurance companies to hedge their bets. Many of these insurance companies they knew didn’t have enough reserves set aside if things went bad.
-
In the meantime, executives were siphoning off profits through insanely outrageous salaries and bonuses. Some of the large shareholders (who consisted of company executives, board members, and the “Wall Street connected” extremely wealthy) consistently voted for and wooed certain board members who agreed with these outrageous executive compensation packages, and they recommended to the smaller shareholders that they go along with their choices.
-
All these companies knew what the other was doing; and they were well aware that their schemes were built on a “house of cards” that could topple world economies; however, they didn’t really worry too much because they knew someone (a sheikh or two, the government, their retail bank depositors, corrupt insurance companies, etc) would bail them out.
-
[In addition, these companies and the military contracting companies they bought shares in, encouraged (lobbied) members of Congress, who engaged in the politics of fear [of real and imagined enemies], to use these military contracting companies.]
-
Anyway, when some of these companies “shit hit the fan”, and the stock market kept falling, and people started defaulting on their mortgages because they couldn’t increase their credit card
limits anymore or refinance their homes any more (property values that were over-valued had declined; many had lost their jobs because companies couldn’t compete with foreign imports and closed shop [compliments of NAFTA and other government trade policies]; or companies continued offshore outsourcing jobs to cut labor costs starting not at the top, but with middle and bottom wage earners ).
-
The small business owner lost business because various members of Congress (especially conservative members who championed deregulation), consistently engaged in policies and/or wrote laws that allowed large companies to get bigger (whereby small companies couldn’t compete).
-
People began realizing that they were living in a fantasy world and they never made enough money to pay for their kids college, or invest for retirement, or buy furniture, or dress for success, or buy a house, etc. They were living on borrowed money, and their bank executives and investment brokers, and other people’s bank executives and investment brokers were living high on the hog with their money [that was eventually mostly gambled away].
-
The government, to cover up their duplicity in the schemes, yelled the “sky is falling” and feigned gross ignorance. They allowed investment banks to become bank holding companies, and got other countries (debt), the FDIC and tax-payers to loan and bail out all their asses.
Finally (to put the icing on the cake), the (majority conservative) Supreme Court, used a case before it (under the guise of free speech), to allow corporations to further influence politics, thereby giving their blessing to the continuance of these schemes and cover-ups.
-
If “Capitalism 201 Gone Wild” hasn’t infected your (especially European) country yet … the story above may become a reality for you.
-
BEWARE ...
-
-
ENRON
AIG
-
WORLDCOM SCANDAL
-
NY Fed Used National Security To Keep
Bailout Details Secret From The Public
I myself do find the concept plausible, as intricate as it may sound. What causes me to yield, is the belief that there would sooner or later be loose lips... kinda like that UBS guy that spilled the beans.
But yes, during my review of financial history to date... I find the names change but many of the players haven't. From the OCC, FDIC, board of governors, so on and so fourth. I find it hard to believe from an ethical and conscientious perspective... but, then again, who help Maddof?
Ya can't get blood from a stone... we'll see if it's true eventually. :-/
PS. From a Corporate identity standpoint, not unlike our currency. The people holding the most stock certificates... "Preferable" and "Notes" win the game!
Study the symptoms not the virus...
I received this letter that seemed to come from the office of Jim DeMint as the return address was labeled…
Jim DeMint
United States Senator
National Right to Work Committee®
8001 Braddock Road · Springfield, VA 22160
(Mailed from zip-code 17345)
Page 5 of 5**
Re. National Right to Work Committee,
I'm convinced that with the Committee's plan to mobilize Americans against the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill, you and I can stop this bill, or similar legislation -- and the rest of Big Labor's agenda -- dead in its tracks.
Please return your signed petitions and contribution of $1,000 500, $200, $100, 50 or $35 -- or whatever you can -- in the enclosed envelope.
Sincerely, Jim DeMint
United States Senator
P.S. The Card Check Forced Unionism Bill, or a similar Big Labor power grab, could come up for a vote any day.
Please sign and return the enclosed petitions demanding your Congressman and Senators vote AGAINST Bid Labor's Card Check Forced Unionism Bill, or any other similar legislation, before it's too late.
Please also send a generous contribution of $1,000, $500, $200, $100, $50, $35, or whatever you can afford, to the National Right to Work Committee -- IMMEDIATELY!
**(Printed at the bottom of page 1 of 5 reads: “NOT PRINTED OR MAILED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE”)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mapped it out below... this was "not" on the mailing.
Mailed from PA 17345 roughly 200 miles from the office at 8001 Braddock Road / Springfield, VA 22151-9986
Where is the DNC chair from? Cross your fingers :-/
Study the symptoms not the virus...
In our global economy, what's to stop a foreign corporation from meddling? In fact, I've often wondered about the Fox Propaganda News Network, owned by Murdoch, an Aussie.
Maybe like Carlyle Group buying controlling interest of all those foreign corporation. So we can feel safe in the knowledge that "Real Mericans" like Pappy and his ilk are controlling our destiny.
Anyone can incorporate with a post office box in Delaware and contribute from that division of the company.
If everyone promotes the illusion that UNIONS will now have UNLIMITED power to change election outcomes and get the word out everywhere, the Republithugs will want to stop that in it's tracks. The ONLY thing Republithugs HATE worse than Poor People and Minorities, are UNIONS who not ONLY give THOSE PEOPLE jobs, but actually have the audacity to FIGHT FOR A DECENT SALARY for them.
We all know Unions will have NO power whatsoever, because Corporations OWN all the media outlets that exist, but if we use Republithug tactics to tell the lie often enough for THEIR BASE to take it as gospel, THEIR BASE will be SCREAMING for them to FIX those UNIONS and put a stop to them, but THEIR BASE will not have the intelligence to think out the consequences to their corporate leaders.
The fact is, we still have laws for how much an INDIVIDUAL can contribute to election campaigns, and it seems to me that if Corps are now individuals, they are also limited to the amount an INDIVIDUAL can contribute. The corp, as an individual, may collect the same amount from each employee, but cannot THEN give one dime more on it's own then each employee. That limits them to just the limit times number of employees. Before Traitor Roberts Court decision, corps contributed millions as the corp, through PACs and drives, etc. and then collected from employees as well.
I may be completely off base here, but I just hope we have enough truly knowledgeable people left who do know and can route out all the loop holes and restraints that exist to stop Traitor Roberts in his smug tracks before he succeeds in destroying the country.
All 5 swore to uphold and protect the Constitution from ALL enemies, BOTH foreign and domestic, and these 5, instead, have BECOME enemies of the state and ARE subject to impeachment. However, if Bush is any example, we all know the current crop of conservadems have no stomach for protecting the U.S. from DOMESTIC TERRORISTS and that's what they are. Not ALL terrorists use BOMBS to force their will on others. Republithugs have done it for over 30 years.
Al Qaeda will name its new corporation that it creates for influencing American elections? How about Hugo Chavez? How about Aramco? Chinese interests? Pablo Escobar? The Burmese junta? Russian oil companies? How much will Osama give to the campaign of Sara Palin? The possibilities are endless.
Comments are closed on this entry