WH prepares for 2 possible SCOTUS vacsFollow

Sure, but you can easily have an arm of a company operate and be owned in the US while the company itself is still a multinational. If even that wing can fund elections, then you have the foreign interest problem, which hasn't been addressed. It's not about Cutmeownthroatdribbler in EcksEcksEcksEcks using his meat pie money to sell advertising in the states, it's about companies that have American parts. What about American companies that have foreign arms?

I mean, it's a horrible horrible ruling even without the foreign issue, that just makes it worse.

Edited, Feb 4th 2010 3:18pm by Xsarus

Citgo has donated campaign funds, and they're a foreign corporation
So has Sony Corporation, a Japanese company
As has BP


Those are all totally American corporations.

Which makes a stretch about death pannels more errant than claiming that foreign companies can now influence elections. I so do enjoy being right,.

I have little problem with the 1:1 swap during this nice, short Obama reign. He should likely hope they retire in the next couple of months though, as ideologically "acceptable" nominees will likely have issues getting confirmed after the new year.

As to that, I have absolutely no problem with candidates having to pass bipartisan approval.

Seriously, why? What's the problem with money in politics, as long as you know where it's coming from? Why should it matter who is spending as long as we know who is spending? If Apple wants to try to buy a senate seat, who cares? Tell people they're trying to buy it and see if they succeed.

I, for one, tend to believe they'd fail.

You're cute when you're naive.

And welcome back. Must be Flea's pheromones.

GE currently employs nearly 300,000 people. It's probably over 50,000 in the U.S. alone, so I'd be ok with limiting them to $125,000,000. I think GE's politics blow, too.

If I give the same right to a dog and a cat, it's still very easy to tell them apart.

I'd be fine with limiting them to $0. I see no reason why a company should have a voice. I don't see how your agreement or disagreement with their politics matters, but ok?

Edited, Feb 4th 2010 3:56pm by Xsarus

This is something that Republicans have proposed in the past, and it's always booed down by the Dems and their mouthpieces on the left. It's apparently perfectly ok to restrict big business, cause they are "bad", but non-profits and unions? The left likes those guys, so they can't be restricted. That would just be "unfair".


Look. This becomes a complex issue as well. You are correct that if we restrict it, we should restrict all of them. But then where do you draw the line? Does this actually reflect the ideals of free speech? If a thousand individuals all donate by themselves, it's clearly protected as free speech, right? But if they form a non-profit with their money, and then pool it together to lobby and donate to campaigns, it's not? Why? It's the same money, right? What if that thousand people all just happen to post on a website together and organize their donations that way? Is that legal? Or is that just a way of running the same organization illegally in order to get around the campaign finance laws?


That's why I said earlier it can get "murky". While I'd love to see some method to fairly restrict "big money" donations and participation in campaigns, in all the years I've thought about this and debated this, I've never run across any idea on how to do this which would avoid the potential for abuse and infringement of people's rights.


If you don't allow "the people" to participate via some mechanism, then only rich people can afford to run and win. I'll assume most people don't want that, so where does that leave us? The second you allow anyone else to participate and donate, you get yourself into trouble by placing restrictions on *who* gets to do so. Any system you come up with is going to be subject to loopholes and tricks to get around the system. Striving for "perfection" is kind of a waste of time, but perhaps "as fair as possible" is the best we can do?

That has got to be the worst analogy ever.

Amusing, except that your point is completely irrelevant as free speech doesn't apply to companies. It applies to the people within the company sure, but not the company itself. If the people want to do something, as a group, or by themselves good for them, there are processes in place for that.

Yeah, I sort of figured that was your angle. It's bullsh*t of course, and the weakest sort of argument, but whatever. Oh you're so sacrificial allowing a company you disagree with to speak. The issue is not whether I agree or disagree with a companies politics, but that I don't think they should have any voice either way. There would be plenty of money flowing to both camps, so as I said, pretty pointless statement on your part. Good for you though. Sorry I had to explain it to you, maybe you'll have better luck in the future.

Edited, Feb 4th 2010 4:11pm by Xsarus