Political Theory

Re: Can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet

Clayton — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:37:53 GMT

TelfordUS:

Recently, the Supreme Court repealed the laws that capped the amount of money that can be used to fund a political campaign. Obama released a video criticizing the repeal, stating the ruling was "A blow to democracy":

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31884.html

Was this repeal a smart move in legislation? Surely there has to be something wrong with it, I mean look at all the politicians who are up in arms about it.

All the big media seem to be the most bent out of shape about it. I think that its most immediate effect is that it dilutes the near monopoly on opinion-molding held by the media corporations, so they see it as a threat to their ability to lobby the government through the masses.

Clayton -

Re: Can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet

Esuric — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:48:52 GMT

Some of the little guys (small banks and businesses) may start promoting libertarian candidates. This could be why the establishment, especially the democrats, are so against it.

Re: Can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet

sicsempertyrannis — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:48:16 GMT

Snowflake:

Doesn't sponsoring politics (the state) count as aggression?

You should know that that isnt a universally held belief. If a candidate is extremely anti-gun rights, for instance, that fact should be blasted from the mountain tops.

My own personal thoughts are leaning toward a positive view.

Re: Can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet

sicsempertyrannis — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:46:20 GMT

It'll make for some interesting ads during political campaigns, thats for sure.

Re: Can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet

Michelangelo — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:23:42 GMT

washington:

Individual contributions are not in par with the amount a corporation can give. Individuals do not have paid lobbyist to pull on polititians coatsleeves. Individuals can't (with rare exceptions) provide the polititions with access to business contracts or return favors like a mega corporation can. What you are o.k. with is licensed Fascism and is a major step toward tyranny.

Corporatism has prevailed in the United States for ages, this court ruling is ultimately of little consequence to changing that.

What I'm a bit happy about is that, in principle, the supreme court has recognized that the briber isn't in the wrong - at least in this limited case. Its the bribed, the politicians who usually run on a platform of reform and anti-corruption, who have a(n alleged) moral responsibility to their constituents use their power without bias, who are in the wrong. I wager most politicians are happy inside that the amount of contributions they can get has been increased. Payday all around!~

I remember watching a small documentary a few months ago about how campaign contribution reform made by McCain and friends had actually made grassroots political attempts near impossible due to all the paperwork. I can't remember its title though.

Re: Can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet

washington — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 05:42:12 GMT

Individual contributions are not in par with the amount a corporation can give. Individuals do not have paid lobbyist to pull on polititians coatsleeves. Individuals can't (with rare exceptions) provide the polititions with access to business contracts or return favors like a mega corporation can. What you are o.k. with is licensed Fascism and is a major step toward tyranny.

Re: Can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet

chloe732 — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 05:05:22 GMT

TelfordUS:
Was this repeal a smart move in legislation?

Two years ago, I would have thought, "good, the Supreme Court struck down an unconstitutional law". Now, since I've come to reject the idea that government is legitimate, Supreme Court decisions don't mean anything to me. As for politicians who are up in arms about it, I think it's a sham. Those screaming the most can, in reality, hardly wait for the next waive of contributions to flood in.

Re: Can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet

Sieben — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 04:50:56 GMT

Michelangelo:
Corporations (those who had grouped themselves into 'corporations') should be free to use money they have accumulated legitimately in so long as they do not use it to innate aggression onto others.

Doesn't sponsoring politics (the state) count as aggression?

Imo the should cap all contributions to the government at zero. And then set everything else government gets from us to zero, and that's the best government you can have.

Re: Can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet

Michelangelo — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 04:46:32 GMT

I haven't read the official statement by the Supreme Court yet, but unless its badly written, this is actually a step in the right direction. Corporations (those who had grouped themselves into 'corporations') should be free to use money they have accumulated legitimately in so long as they do not use it to innate aggression onto others. Property rights and such.

Now one could argue that politicians who take bribes should be held responsible and be ousted from office, but then you'd have to oust any politician who has received money from third parties that he (or she/it) didn't earn himself. Why should only money given by corporations be considered a threat against 'democracy'? What about the millions of dollars given to Obama by his supporters during his campaign? What makes money given a Corporation any different from money given by a single individual, presuming both have earned that money legitimately and so the proper owners of it?

Whether I send a check in my name or in Michelangelo Co. does not change that it is my money, my property, and so up to me to decide how to use it.

Can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet

TelfordUS — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:40:40 GMT

Recently, the Supreme Court repealed the laws that capped the amount of money that can be used to fund a political campaign. Obama released a video criticizing the repeal, stating the ruling was "A blow to democracy":

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31884.html

Was this repeal a smart move in legislation? Surely there has to be something wrong with it, I mean look at all the politicians who are up in arms about it.