Posted on 06/15/2015 2:06:14 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Hillary and the Left want to overturn the Citizens United decision.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.
In the case, the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA"). Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.
The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications". The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office............."
----------
The only way to put ethics where it belongs, at the center of the political debate, is for progressives to mount a full-bore, grass-roots anti-corruption campaign. It isn’t a task they often take on, perhaps because the issue is something of an ideological outlier. To some, it’s an issue for the judicial branch. Like Bono, many liberals fail at first to see its connection to other fundamental issues of the distribution of wealth, income, opportunity and power. But that’s starting to change.
This should be interesting.
Liberals invariably ignore why businesses get involved in politics.
There are two main reasons.
1. The more obvious is that crony capitalism can be a whole lot easier and more profitable than the free market variety. Small (relatively speaking) amounts “invested” in campaign contributions can pay much larger ROIs than the same amounts invested in product development or equipment.
2. The second is simply a matter of self-defense. When government regulations and taxation policy can make the difference between profitability and bankruptcy, businesses are quite literally forced to get into the game. If company A plays politics, so must its competitors.
The quickest way to reduce the influence of business on government is to reduce and simplify government control of business.
Yet the liberal mantra is always to create more and more stringent regulations, constantly maximizing the incentive of business to influence government.
This man seems to be completely confused, he sees “corruption” as consisting of political contributions. Now, there may be some corruption involved with that, but it is not in and of itself corrupt.
And his love of the Dems and hatred of the Republicans twists his mind and leads him astray. Hillary is clearly, clearly, clearly a completely corrupt pol, and if he cared about this issue as much as he says he does he’d be calling for her to be defeated, which he is not.
He doesn’t mention any of the “corruption” that has flourished under Obama. I’m thinking of the VA scandal, the Bergdahl “trade”, etc.
And I don’t think even Ron Paul wants to “kill” the government.
And this part is just wrong “Voters now espouse liberal views on most big issues: climate change; income inequality; immigration; same sex marriage; gun control; prison reform; foreign interventions.”
Mr. Currry is an uncertain trumpet.
Through the years, business has been forced to approach Capital Hill on bended knee, with hat (and contributions) in hand - and bow to an ever growing and expanding and more powerful Big Government. They have to play the game and pay the piper, in their efforts to keep free market killing regulations placed on their businesses at bay.
Then they have to adapt - make lemonade out of global warming to survive (as one example) or get run over.
Sorry, I searched but....
??
The politician/business relationship is invariably portrayed as one of bribery by business of the politicians.
I think it is at least as reasonable to portray it as extortion of business by politicians
The truth, of course, is that it’s some of both.
I may have missed something, but is the VA scandal really corruption? Incompetence and butt-covering and cover-ups, sure. But were people being paid off?
climate change; Nope.
income inequality; Voters are worried about it. Have not seen any evidence most voters support the liberal "solutions."
immigration; Emphatically not.
same sex marriage; Sadly, yes.
gun control; Emphatically not, again.
prison reform; I'm not even sure what the "liberal view" is on this. Everybody is in favor of "reform."
foreign interventions. Again, not sure what the liberal vs. conservative view is. Liberals are the ones who intervened in Libya and arguably have supported Islamist rebels in Syria. What is the liberal vs. conservative view on Ukraine?
I think this guy has a cartoon view of what "conservatives" believe and then pats himself and other liberals on the back for disagreeing.
Power's been bought and sold since the dawn of mankind. That equation likely will never, ever change. When there's less power in Washington, there's less buying and selling going on.
Eggzackly.
Not that long ago, tech businesses had a justified reputation of not getting involved in lobbying.
Then the government went after Microsoft to demonstrate as clearly as possible the consequences of that way of doing business. Microsoft and others duly got the picture, and now donate heavily to campaigns.
To summarize.
That’s one No, one Yes, two “Hell nos,” and three “What was the question?”
The Mob’s got nothing on the FedGov. There’s no way they can compete!
As I’m sure you’re aware, the same games are played at a lower level in state and local government. One of the memes on FR that irritates me, though I’m not accusing you of spreading it, is the idea that state governments are somehow less corrupt than the feds.
My not inconsiderable experience in dealing with both is that it’s the other way around. State governments are often, though perhaps not always, more corrupt in the classic sense of the term. They just do less damage because they have less power and their scope is so much smaller. One major reason for the greater level of corruption is that the press has so much less incentive to expose it. Nobody ever won a Pulitzer for exposing corruption in the LA state government.
“Nice little business you’ve got there...”
And neither state nor federal have a thing on local government. I do a local newsblog and cover our local school board, city council, courts, county commission, etc. It’s everywhere, I assure you. And the the drones that populate them worry only about their gold-plated medical plans and fat pensions. Taxpayer funded, of course.
Well, except for some of the posse comitatus fruitcakes.
“But were people being paid off?”
I see corruption as not just being on the take, but also being derelict in your duty.
And certainly Lois Lerner, et al. were completely corrupt but there’s no reason at all to think she was lining her own pockets.
But my impression is that some of the fraud that went on at the VA was done to garner (undeserved!) performance bonuses, etc.
I really don’t know a lot of the details of it, so others may correct me or provide more info.
“Wealth Redistribution” is literally the definition of corruption. No wonder progressives spend so much time trying to take wealth away from its real sources, and to give it to themselves and their allies.
“Wealth” and not “Income” inequality is their real focus, but no one should doubt who will be the arbiter of the remedy; they would be. Corruption personified.
“Income” at least implies work or a word they have forgotten... “earning”, and real economic activity. Neither of which even exists in their psycho-fanstasy world.
And the lobbyists aka retired politicians, and lawyers make their fortunes being the go betweens.
But “income” can be more easily redirected (redistributed) through taxation and regulation - and why the middle class is squeezed the hardest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.