Thursday, January 21, 2010

The Best Government Money Can Buy


This is so damn depressing I'm not even gonna put myself through the irritation of writing about it.

I'm outsourcing it to Cesca -- since he sums the situation up nicely.

Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!: Who's With the Corporations?: The SCOTUS Citizens United Decision/1.21.10

Just keep telling yourselves they're on your side, you Tea Bagging morons.

(Update, 8:30pm: Jason Linkins over at HuffPo may have the best possible headline for this. It's both succinct and correct: The Huffington Post: The Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision is Terrifying/1.21.10)

16 comments:

Michael said...

This is actually the worst piece of news in months. And it will be buried I can guarantee it.
I don't normally say it but at this point I have little hope left for us as a union. More than anything else this makes me want to consider an out of country move.

And someone else mentioned a good point earlier, most us corporations are held by majority that may not be us citizens. I don't want to get all xenophobic but that cant be a good thing for us.

Marsupialus said...

Between the tea-baggers and the Supreme Court, we're beginning to look like a version of Lewis's It Can't Happen Here.

Anonymous said...

Why are the republicans being blamed for this? Don't get me wrong, the whole teabag thing is about as dumb as you can get without being legally retarded but do you think that democrats won't be more than happy to take giant campaign contributions as well? It's pretty well known at this point that the ass-clowns at Wall Street who basically robbed us and the government guys who gave them the money without oversight are basically one in the same. All the apologies and talks of being "disappointed" are just lip service. Might as well end those speeches or statements with a little wink or that new sarcastic punctuation mark. Can't wait to see campaigns that are "Vote for [insert politician]! Brought to you by Pepsi"

Anonymous said...

How will this decision effect or "dilute" the voices on the internet? As I understand it, the fear is that corporations and labor unions will now have too big a megaphone and will be able to speak over everyone else. So don't shout. Whisper. Beat them with a gazillion whisper campaigns.

Or come up with some other martial arts-type technique that either uses their newfound strength against them, or that targets the peoples' small voice so tightly that it becomes like David's pebble was to Goliath.

It's certainly a big change and, as such, problematic. But it's likely not worthy of the hyper-ventilation it's causing all the drama kings and queens.

Spencer said...

"They're on your side". Not "their". Sorry to be the asshole.

Chez said...

Thanks for the catch. Obviously I typed this out really quickly. Sorry. Dumb mistake.

I actually agree that the Dems will in reality appreciate this just as much as the Republicans, since they'll be getting heaps of money too. But the fact that the GOP has been so brazen in its public defense of corporations -- and its push to make them essentially real people, with all the rights of an American citizen -- is deplorable. I guess at least it isn't hypocritical though -- for once.

Anon said...

"We the Wal-mart" has a rather ominous ring to it.

thruwithbuzz said...

I posted this on Cesca's blog.

So the next step is selling the naming rights? The Supreme Court should be first. How about this? The Budweiser Supreme Court. I can't wait for the State of the Union Address, brought to you with limited commercial interruptions by Geico. Just think of it, we can get the gecko to introduce the President.

SteveR said...

It won't be "democrat vs. republican" any more. It will be "corporate interest A vs. corporate interest B". The winner will be the one with the most money and best marketing team.

There's no humor in this, sad to say.

However ... the only hope is the internet.

But then there are those electronic voting machines ...

Capt Aclow said...

Well, I completely understand the Republican's excitement about this, given their long history of supporting free speech since NEVER.

But the second half of this is that this isn't actually "free" speech, it's PAID advertising...

Except that political ads don't have to conform to the standards of product ads. You know, the parts about having to be "true", not misleading, and all that good stuff.

Weight Watchers just sued Jenny Craig over their advertising, saying they lied in their comparisons.

With unlimited funds now able to be spent on lying, it seems like the same accountability now needs to be applied to political/policy ads.

L. said...

Well this makes me feel great about the fact that the Supreme Court is due to rule on a case that involves the company for which I work within the next few months.

Michael said...

All I have to say is this
Anon at 9:05 PM you are totally right, and wrong at the same time.
What do you think one of the first things that Comcast, and Verizon do? It will be to pay for politicians who are ready to destroy net neutrality. It wont take long for the internet to be squashed under the thumb of corporate control. They will be able to monitor everything, and if you think I am getting all tin foil hat ready, you may want to look into some of the available monitoring capabilities of the government, and corporations will have that same capabilities and then some.

After thinking about this for a while the only hope I see is a constitutional amendment that clearly states once and for all corporations are not people, and do not have the same rights as such.

Spencer said...

I would just like to point out that I am not the grammarian above.

Kennedy is so fucking afraid of being perceived as banning speech that he hides behind the 1st amendment straw man with his partners in crime. Never mind the 1st amendment only applies to living, breathing human beings and not statutorily created entities (well, I guess not anymore). McCain-Feingold doesn't even propose a "ban" on any form of speech (written, or otherwise). It simply states that material deemed to contain express advocacy cannot be financed from corporate treasuries and cannot be distributed within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. That doesn't sound like book banning to me.

slouchmonkey said...

"...a country of the CORPORATION, by the CORPORATION, and for the CORPORATION - shall not perish from the earth."

Mart said...

Greg Palast notes that any foriegn company with a US addtress can now dump unlimited money into our political system. Before it was restricted to US citizens. Any Senators open to being bought by team China, Bin Ladin Construction? Ruling essentially legalizes bribing and/or threatening candidates. Hopefully this will get under the Teabaggers skin and get some populist push back from both sides.

Anonymous said...

Michael @ 11:19: A corporation IS nothing more than an artifice that is given legal rights - just like a person has - by government charter granted pursuant to statute. It also is given legal obligations like persons have - e.g. to pay taxes and to submit to being sued in law courts.

I seriously doubt that eliminating corporations is the answer. Also "we" should probably rule out dropping a nuclear bomb on "them."