Question about healthcare repealFollow

It's a position I just don't understand, personally. Elections and their outcomes effect companies and unions just as much as anything else in this country. Why they should be precluded from trying to educate voters about their positions is beyond me.

It's a fucking organization. Its coherent position can be stated as "do anything to keep existing; lie if you have to". If the individuals who compose that organization want to contribute money, I have no problem with that; but quit wasting the consumers' money by funneling it towards candidates they may not agree with. If they wanted to contribute money to candidates, they would have done so.

Also: for whatever reason, one $50,000 check speaks louder than five hundred $100 checks. Which is stupid, and shouldn't be an influence.

I would say that people can be convinced by sheer volume of an expressed opinion. A huge factor in elections is the exposure and repetition of a candidates message regardless of what that message is. Massive corporation donations allow this to happen in a way that could not otherwise happen. If people are flooded with constant attacks from multiple angles, even if the attacks are totally baseless, and I've certainly seen ads that were completely baseless, then people will be convinced.

This also creates an environment where you need to spend massive amounts to be elected, money which people will want to recoup, which leads very very easily to corruption.

I'd also support a cap on campaign spending and restrictions on third party advertising.

Edited, Nov 6th 2010 12:10am by Xsarus

There's a lot of supposition and speculation in that theory. As far as the corruption angle, America is not a nanny state. It is being nudged in that direction with every new law passed, but at its core it is not. If corruption occurs, prosecute it. Don't assume a person will drive drunk because he owns a car and has a drink.

And when it comes to what you'd support, I'm sure the Canadian government is glad to hear it. It means slightly less in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Silly Canadians.

I would say there is very little speculation or supposition in the first paragraph.

I agree about prosecuting corruption when it's found, and not assuming it's there, but I would say that's different than trying to avoid creating an environment which encourages corruption.

Do you disagree with what I said?

They weren't options to pick, they're separate issues. Or were you saying that avoiding an environment that encourages corruption is the proffered option to, well, I'm not sure what. I assume you're being snide, but I could be misunderstanding you.

Edited, Nov 6th 2010 12:36am by Xsarus

The same could be said about individuals.

And a 50k check speaks louder than 500 $100 checks because organized direction almost always beats disorganized chaos. That and it's much cheaper to get the 50k to either come or not come rather than the smaller denominations.

Where are you getting this? The direct ruling that was overturned was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. That 1990 ruling upheld a Michigan law which prohibited corporations (and only corporations) from openly supporting candidates in an election. Note that it didn't prohibit anything, but it allowed for the prohibition of political speech if aimed at corporations (but said nothing about unions). Many states (including the one I live in) passed laws which restricted corporations from participating, but not unions.

12 years later, McCain-Feingold was passed, which evened things out a bit. It restricted both unions and corporations equally, but only with regard to electioneering within a short term just prior to the election (60 days for general, 30 days for primary).

That is the law which was challenged in court. But this time, the court ruled that neither corporations *nor* unions could be restricted. This overturned the ruling from 1990 which said that corporations could be restricted. I am not aware of any ruling which allowed for restriction of unions at any point in time.



What happened is that the laws for a couple decades have been skewed to allow unions to speak, but not corporations. This persisted until 2002 when the law was changed to treat both corporations and unions equally. Amazingly enough, now that unions were finally in the same boat as corporations the court decided that it was unfair to infringe their political speech. Shocking, I know.



Unless you have some alternative version of events?



No. The ruling overturned a law that said that both couldn't. The previous rulings on this matter allowed laws to prohibit corporations, but said nothing about unions.



Do I really need to? It's obvious you did no research at all on this. How about googling and reading? It's not hard.

Only in one area of political speech. The prohibition from corporations contributing to political campaigns has remained intact, while no such restriction has applied to unions. Like I said earlier, you're trying to paint something which gave both groups "equality" as though they both gained the same amount.

If that was really the case, then why are liberals going so nuts about this? Clearly, they understand that this has changed the landscape of political speech. If both were treated exactly the same before and exactly the same now, then why the screaming and yelling?



Which *only* applied to the creation of their own ads or documentaries or films within a short amount of time prior to an election. The ruling *also* overturned a prohibition from campaign contributions which had only applied to corporations. I suspect that this is the part you keep failing to get.




Ok. I'm going to play English Professor for a moment and write in red ink next to your essay: "Prohibited from what???".

Write a complete sentence. What were they prohibited from doing by McCain-Feingold? What did the ruling by the court change? They are not exact matches. The court ruling threw out *all* restrictions which applied to both corporations and unions with regard to political speech. This removed one restriction which applied to both equally, but also removed another set of restrictions which applied only to corporations.





I thought I was clear. Let me outline it for you:

1. Many states have passed laws over the last 50 years or so which limit campaign contributions from corporations. To my knowledge there are no states which do this to unions.


2. In 1990, the Supreme Court upheld such a law in Michigan, which effectively allowed the practice to continue unchecked. It's important to note that this wasn't the start of the unfair skewing of political speech with regard to corporations and unions, but was the final nail in the coffin for any sort of fairness to exist.

3. In 2002, Congress passed a bill which restricted a subset of political speech (broadcasts of political opinions) by both corporations and unions within a short period of time directly before an election. This in no way changed the other restrictions that applied only to corporations. Those were still in full effect.

4. Finally, the court ruled that the restriction of speech represented by McCain-Feingold was a violation of free speech. They further ruled that both corporations and unions were to be treated the same as individuals with regard to political speech.


That ruling not only overturned the law in question but *also* reversed the 1990 ruling which made laws restricting corporate donations to political campaigns constitutional. Now, those laws are unconstitutional.


Is that clear enough for you? The effect of the ruling is broader than just the law in question. That law restricted both unions and corporations equally, but the earlier ruling (and numerous state laws) singled out corporations. Thus, this ruling benefited corporations more than unions, but only because corporations were treated less fairly than unions prior to the ruling.

Edited, Nov 8th 2010 4:57pm by gbaji

The irony is delicious. It tastes like strawberries.

Seems like an interesting read.