Josh Rebuts the State of the Union

K · Post by K » Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:39 am

Data Vampire wrote:
[url=http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-alito-ruling-state/2010/01/28/id/348341]Obama's Clash With Alito Triggers Firestorm[/url] wrote:Heritage Foundation senior legal expert Hans A. von Spakovsky tells Newsmax he can't recall a president scolding the Supreme Court during a State of the Union message before. "And what makes it even worse is he was patently wrong," von Spakovsky says. "I mean I'm just amazed that he would do that, and he's not even right."

The Supreme Court ruling in no way opens the door to foreign influences in U.S. elections, he says.

"There is a specific provision of the law which was not at issue in the case which prohibits foreign nations, and is specifically designed to include foreign corporations, from contributing or donating any money not just in connection with federal elections, but also with state and local elections," he tells Newsmax. "…And they can't make any independent expenditures for an electioneering communication. So that is just a flat out lie what he said about foreign corporations."

The problem is that "foreign corporation" doesn't really have meaning these days when corporations are run transnationally and owned by shareholders who are not necessarily American.

I mean, is Coca-cola "foreign"? Considering that they have offices in Bahrain and their chief administrative officer was born in Liberia.... well, you can see that just because a corporation chooses to pay its taxes in the US doesn't mean anything about their interests or loyalties or its people making decisions about how to use its money and power.

Of course, Coca Cola is most likely not a front for foreign interests. But how about Sony, a Japanese corporation with American tax-paying divisions? Nokia, which has 30% of the world cell phone market and has European leadership despite being basically everywhere? Anheuser-Busch, makers of American icon Budweiser beer, who are now owned by a Dutch company? Each of these corporations has American subsidiaries who can make donations by proxy according to the new law.

The "personhood" of corporations has always been shitty law designed for no other purpose than to shield the actions of powerful men who don't want to play by the same rules and consequences as everyone else.

So no, Obama was not wrong. The Heritage Foundation is a privately-owned conservative thinktank who look for ways to make Obama look bad because conservatives will do anything to appear relevant and they are not a legal authority of any kind.

Next time ask a lawyer. Or at least someone remotely objective.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:20 pm

I've alway thought that the idea of 'Corporate personhood' was bullshit, you can't send a corporation to jail if it acts criminally. So it's a law I'd like to see revoked, I don't think it will because both parties are too beholding to corporations. I'm sure someone would like to rebut this idea by saying it would force corporations out of the country, but where are they going to go? The US is still the largest market, no company has a true monopoly (Microsoft comes closest), so I say revoke it, all the sore losers can set up shop else where and watch as their competitors gobble up their market share.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:05 am

Google has way more of a monopoly.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:20 am

cthulhu wrote:Google has way more of a monopoly.

I'd argue they have more market share, but aren't as close to being a monopoly. If someone wants to switch search engines it's free to do so, Google can't really force you to use their products.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:31 am

K wrote:Next time ask a lawyer.

Good point. Let's ask some lawyers.

Bill of Rights wrote:Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Supreme Court of the United States wrote:Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.

(Emphasis mine.) Well, that seems pretty cut and dried. Thanks, lawyers!

I will follow in the steps of Jon Stewart when I feign shock at the fact that corporations can spend money to influence politicians. Holy crap!

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:46 am

Gelare wrote: I will follow in the steps of Jon Stewart when I feign shock at the fact that corporations can spend money to influence politicians. Holy crap!

While this is worrisome with respect to politicians, how it could allow corporations to affect public discourse is what I find worrying. It has gotten pretty bad with all the PACs running around and the partisan hacks on cable news, now it's only going to get worse.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:11 am

I will follow in the steps of Jon Stewart when I feign shock at the fact that corporations can spend money to influence politicians. Holy crap!

Apparently undemocratic influence is a binary rather than being a continuum. Because everyone knows that LBJ's and Reagan's administrations were equally influenced by corporate money.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:17 am

Juton wrote:While this is worrisome with respect to politicians, how it could allow corporations to affect public discourse is what I find worrying. It has gotten pretty bad with all the PACs running around and the partisan hacks on cable news, now it's only going to get worse.

I have no reason to suspect it will actually get worse, because corporations already had a ton of very accessible loopholes that they were using completely shamelessly. Like buying senators brand new houses, for example. This, if anything, will make the process more transparent, because it'll be cheaper for corporations to do their political campaigning directly rather than by funneling through a bunch of PACs and whatever else. So when you see an ad on TV that was sponsored by a corporation, you'll actually know that Coca-Cola or the United Auto Workers or whatever is the group that's buying themselves access.

My point is not that restricting corporations' ability to send out political messages is a bad thing. It might be, I haven't decided yet. But what is true is that (1) if you're going to try to do so, don't do it half-assed so that all you accomplish is increasing paperwork and wasting taxpayer dollars, and (2) if you want to do so, do it within the framework you have available to you, which for the U.S. is the Constitution.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:42 am

Gelare, don't be an idiot.

Free speech does not have to mean unlimited use for money in any damn way you please. It could easily have never addressed the spending of money at all and that would be equally valid.

And the issue actually being talked about, whether or not corporations count as persons, is pretty much dumb as shit and could obviously be ruled otherwise.

I don't see you railing against pornography laws, or child porn laws, or obscenity laws, or sedition laws.

So get down of your high horse until you take an absolute position.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:44 am

Juton wrote:
cthulhu wrote:Google has way more of a monopoly.
I'd argue they have more market share, but aren't as close to being a monopoly. If someone wants to switch search engines it's free to do so, Google can't really force you to use their products.

Google's monopoly isn't the search engine, it's the ad market.

Google is more of a monopoly than microsoft.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:12 am

Kaelik wrote:I don't see you railing against pornography laws, or child porn laws, or obscenity laws, or sedition laws.

So get down of your high horse until you take an absolute position.

Wow, that is a fantastic point. Your completely unassailable logic has helped me to see the light. I understand now that I have to simultaneously hold all the positions you tell me to, even and especially ones not related at all to the issues we were discussing, and I have to talk about them all at the same time or else the points I'm trying to make aren't valid.

Gosh, I wonder why that didn't make sense before.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:03 am

Gelare wrote:
Kaelik wrote:I don't see you railing against pornography laws, or child porn laws, or obscenity laws, or sedition laws.

So get down of your high horse until you take an absolute position.
Wow, that is a fantastic point. Your completely unassailable logic has helped me to see the light. I understand now that I have to simultaneously hold all the positions you tell me to, even and especially ones not related at all to the issues we were discussing, and I have to talk about them all at the same time or else the points I'm trying to make aren't valid.

Gosh, I wonder why that didn't make sense before.

Since apparently you are too stupid to think:

1) You quoted the Constitution saying "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."

2) Congress has lots of laws that you think are constitutional that abridge the freedom of speech.

Therefore: You obviously don't have any ground to stand on when you demand that 1) Any spending of money on anything is speech. 2) Congress can't make any laws that prevent spending money because it would abridge that free speech.

You like it when Congress passes some laws that abridge speech more clearly than this case, to then demand uncompromising inability to limit speech in this one occasion is hypocritical.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:21 am

More germanely, the right to free speech is there because in a democratic society free exchange of ideas and news is vital for a citizenship that is A) informed and B) safe. And if you don't have those things then you don't have a democracy.

This is precisely why you don't have the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater or to impersonate an officer; those things hurt society. But a press completely beholden to the government or a person unable to speak out against a government official or even just to whine about the speed you get your Social Security check also hurts society.

Getting all drooly-mouthed over words in the Constitution rather than the principle/government the Constitution is supposed to support is idolatry. You should be supporting rulings that help democracy, not rulings that jack off to some words on a piece of paper.

Unlimited campaign contributions hurts democracy, big time. If someone with a lot of money is able to buy influence beyond what they could get with their votes or organizing other people to vote that undermines the fundamental principle of democracy--one person, one vote. But since the Supreme Court loves the Constitution more than it loves free society we shouldn't really be surprised at this ruling.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:17 am

If someone with a lot of money is able to buy influence beyond what they could get with their votes or organizing other people to vote that undermines the fundamental principle of democracy--one person, one vote.

I feel that this is more a failing of the people rather than the Supreme Court itself. If the populace are so easily swayed by a few pretty words and a commercial or three, then that is their doing.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:55 am

Two things. First, this:

PR wrote:I feel that this is more a failing of the people rather than the Supreme Court itself. If the populace are so easily swayed by a few pretty words and a commercial or three, then that is their doing.

However, Lago, let me address this:

Lago wrote:Getting all drooly-mouthed over words in the Constitution rather than the principle/government the Constitution is supposed to support is idolatry. You should be supporting rulings that help democracy, not rulings that jack off to some words on a piece of paper.

Because that's a claim that's got some teeth to it. (Not the rest of your post; that's just nonsense.) But certainly, why should we pay any attention to the legal document that is the foundation of our entire government? We should just be doing whatever's best all the time. I have, to this, two responses:

1) Even if you're right, the system that was in place allowed corporations to funnel money into various schemes which they used to buy influence anyway. Thus, allowing corporations to run televised ads that they have to put their name on simply promotes transparency without changing the outcome of corporations buying influence with greedy and corruptible politicians.

2) But you're wrong. The Constitution is important for many reasons, one of them being that it provides citizens with an understanding of what things they can expect to happen and what things they can expect not to happen regarding the legal structure and substance of the country. Which is something that, admittedly, you'd probably only want if you also wanted a country with a functioning economy at all. A system where the decision makers have no idea what to expect retards growth and makes everyone worse off. If you don't like the established law, the solution, if you want to have any consistency to your legal system (and you do) is not to ignore it, but to change it.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:36 am

The whole Ad campaigning thing doesn't bother me much. I don't honestly think that the change in the law does anything but make the money funneling process easier and most likely cheaper for corporations. I believe it is probably just a stepping stone and that they (the people with money) are going to use as leverage to do make ever more radical moves. But that's just me. I don't even believe in our electoral process even works like most people think it does. Hell I believe its just a dog and pony show that the powers that be market to give the illusion of choice and to keep the populace satisfied.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:04 am

MGuy wrote:I don't even believe in our electoral process even works like most people think it does.

Out of curiosity, how do you think most people think our electoral process works? I'm genuinely curious; I'm extraordinarily cynical about the whole thing, and have no clue whatsoever how most people think it works, so I'd like to hear what you think they think.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:04 am

They either believe it is fixed (it isn't), that money buys elections (it helps, but cannot literally buy them), and that a majority opinion of all is the same as the electorate.

Generally, elections in the US are chosen by a minority of people. This is how it has always been. And this is why 1% of the population gets favorable laws. However, there is no reason aside from sheer education and economics that elections could not be chosen by a wider group. (Which is why it's both easy and hard to buy elections, the pool of voters changes each election.)

However, Gelare, the problem isn't a program with a company's name on it. In fact, the transparency in the election finance laws are a new thing. When Schwarzenegger supporters 'just happen' to schedule all his movies on election day (there are economic reasons to air his movies during an election), that really does constitute support for his candidacy, because of how name recognition works in the poll booth.

At no point will the US Coal Council air those stupid 'CO2 isn't pollution, it's life!' ads with their member's names on it, or an ad blatantly for mountaintop removal. No, they'll air far more insidious materials from unlisted private subsidiaries' names on them touting 'Clean Coal' that looks like it's from an environmental group.

-Crissa

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:38 pm

I think that most of the seats in our government are all carefully manipulated. Most people are pretty simple/don't care and because of this you have incumbents who sit on a seat for life and act as just another vote. There is almost never any significant change.

I have no doubt that IF more people paid attention/knew how the government worked/tried to go for an office/wanted more third party officials that my vote would go farther. But as evidenced in Mass. the parties aren't really even trying in a significant number of cases and STILL they are supplying, almost exclusively, the only "choices" we have. So the trick just seems to be to carefully manipulate these "choices". As long as you keep teetering things a bit you keep most people from suspecting that both parties are actually copies of each other that both heed the call of the people with money, only ever making moves as the money demands and only making any real moves when public outcry gets just loud enough to push them to do so. And I mean actual public outcry instead of the engineered kind.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:48 pm

You do know that anyone can run as a Democratic candidate, and that it merely takes money, hence the 'choice' often being someone with money and ties to money?

-Crissa

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:00 pm

Crissa wrote:At no point will the US Coal Council air those stupid 'CO2 isn't pollution, it's life!' ads with their member's names on it, or an ad blatantly for mountaintop removal. No, they'll air far more insidious materials from unlisted private subsidiaries' names on them touting 'Clean Coal' that looks like it's from an environmental group.

-Crissa

Ugh. That reminds me of this horrible advertisement I saw on TV a few weeks ago, where two young kids are sitting around a table, eating breakfast cereal or some shit. One of them goes, "Dude, this stuff has high fructose corn syrup in it. You know what they say about that?" And the other kid, like 12 years old, goes, "What, that it's just as healthy as sugar and makes you fart rainbows?" or something along those lines. And then at the bottom it says paid for by the conglomerated corn consortium. It made me want to vomit. And punch whoever aired that ad in the face.

Fuck corn subsidies. Seriously.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:57 pm

Crissa wrote:You do know that anyone can run as a Democratic candidate, and that it merely takes money, hence the 'choice' often being someone with money and ties to money?

-Crissa

I know its possible (especially considering that Dems hardly exert control over their members) but it doesn't change anything. Few people are going to jump into a seat just for the fuck of it and the few that do are conjoined with a largely disjointed party that seems ineffective and often times lost. Still not a very good "choice". Despite Reps seeming like the Evil Corporation at least they are effective.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:58 pm

HFCS makes me want to eat it.

I believe this ad is what they call "trolling".

Who's the guy playing the brother in black bullying the brother in red?
He's not well informed but he's cute!

go suck his dick

Companies use it because it's cheaper, but when they tested it on rats a male rat and female rat, they had many problems and the female rat's heart even exploded!

my brother haz been putting high fructose Corn Syrup on hiz boyfriends scrotum sack and licking it off for years now and claims its just fine. Before he was hooked, he liked girlz and weighed no where near hisz current 404 lbs

Why do they add mercury to the corn syrup?

Because it's the most metal thing you can do when you have that job.

Do you fuck dogs?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:10 pm

Gelare wrote:
MGuy wrote:I don't even believe in our electoral process even works like most people think it does.
Out of curiosity, how do you think most people think our electoral process works? I'm genuinely curious; I'm extraordinarily cynical about the whole thing, and have no clue whatsoever how most people think it works, so I'd like to hear what you think they think.

I can tell you how I think most people think it works. Take Joe Lieberman as our example.

People form his state thought that after electing him into office, that he would work FOR them to do what they want, and yet there is an overwhelming gap in what many of them want, and what he does. He doesn't even listen to what people say they want in regards to health care, and does exactly the opposite. Be it because he just doesn't want to listen, or feels its his choice now so he can do what he wants to leave his mark, rather than actually to represent his constituents.

People think they are voting a representative into a political office, when in fact they are just voting in someone to take charge and do what they want.

It used to be that political officials did kind of listen to people other than just at times of elections, but now it has become just a way to put someone in charge that ignores you, so in reality you are just voting for the lesser of all the evils that someone else chose for you to pick from.

The electoral process has nothing to do with a segment of people choosing someone to represent them anymore, but a way for people to have the illusion of choice in who controls them.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:21 am

Hmm. One of my Senators is like that, the other one listens.

I like her better. I like my Representative, too.

-Crissa