The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

If We the People choose to give a corporation the right of sanctity of contracts and enshrine it in the Constitution, we can (and we have) - there is no higher power stopping us.

And likewise remove it. Constitutional Amendments are hard (which is good), but this one sounds like a good idea that would be popular.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

or are you saying that you don't want labor unions to be able to make political contributions, because they are organized in corporate form, and no corporate entities should have the right to make political contributions?

This. Pretty much anything that gets money out of politics would be a good thing.

 

[Priceless]

Not according to 200+ years of legal precedent.

Not really. "Corporations" were awarded 14th Amendment rights in the late 19th Century.

If we can amend the Constitution (a long shot) it wouldn't matter anyway.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

At least one Senator "gets it".

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...d-to-corporate-tax-inversions?detail=facebook

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

This. Pretty much anything that gets money out of politics would be a good thing.

I don't expect that there will be a marked change in the public's perception of the political leaders or the end product if we were ever to make politics a money-free zone. The only real change would be that people wouldn't be able to point their fingers at the money and claim it to be the problem.

I base this upon what the Japanese did some 15 (?) years ago. They were going through some of the issues/gripes with regards to campaign contributions that we continue to see here. Since they were not constitutionally bound by free speech protections the way we are here, they made it illegal for politicians to take any money whatsoever; campaigns would be funded by the government to any candidate entering the race, and that limit was to a (then) 300USD equivalent in Yen.

After the law went into effect, there were a series of time-intervalled polls conducted, and satisfaction with the political process in Japan was either unchanged or even more disatisfied than when donations were still legal.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Maybe you do understand. PEOPLE have rights. CORPORATIONS do not. Congratulations.

You are flat out wrong. You may wish that corporations had no rights, you may think they should not have rights, but those are just your opinions. The fact is that corporations currently do have rights (and have always had rights), and the recent Supreme Court decision (Citizens United) established that among those rights is the right to pay for as much political speech as they choose.

Saying it ain't so don't make it...ain't so.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

This. Pretty much anything that gets money out of politics would be a good thing.

maybe this belongs in the "unintended consequences" file? You might wind up with a lot more Ross Perot / Michael Bloomberg / Linda McMahon type candidates. It's one thing to try to restrict peoples' / corporations' / unions' ability to donate to someone else's campaign, it's a different matter to bar people from spending their own money on their own campaigns.



Sometimes there are no "good" solutions to a problem, only a solution that is "least bad." I would prefer that we remove all donation limits entirely and replace them with full and complete disclosure. Not that I "favor" that approach, but only because I don't see anything preferable. Trying to restrict money in politics is like trying to stop a flood entirely by stacking up a few sandbags: far better to re-direct the flood into a controlled channel instead, where it will do the least damage with the most visibility.

The consequence of trying to "get money out of politics" is that we merely force the money into hidden and disguised channels. A politician sets up a foundation, someone makes a "donation" to the foundation....technically, that might have "gotten money out of politics", but realistically, it has not.

or, someone is a senator, another person wants to buy influence with the senator, and so he hires the senator's spouse to a job with a $350,000 annual salary yet said spouse never seems to do any actual work for the employer....similar concept, different disguise.

 

[Priceless]

You are flat out wrong. You may wish that corporations had no rights, you may think they should not have rights, but those are just your opinions.

Yes I know. But in a perfect world....

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You are flat out wrong. You may wish that corporations had no rights, you may think they should not have rights, but those are just your opinions. The fact is that corporations currently do have rights (and have always had rights), and the recent Supreme Court decision (Citizens United) established that among those rights is the right to pay for as much political speech as they choose.

Saying it ain't so don't make it...ain't so.

Citizens United was a 5-4 vote.
Hobby Lobby was a 5-4 vote with a scathing dissent from Ginsburg.

Both of those controversial decisions added rights to corporations that they did not have before. Let's not pretend that everything is the same today as it was just a few short years ago.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Citizens United was a 5-4 vote.
Hobby Lobby was a 5-4 vote with a scathing dissent from Ginsburg.

Both of those controversial decisions added rights to corporations that they did not have before. Let's not pretend that everything is the same today as it was just a few short years ago.

I said that the decision was recent - what more do you want from me?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Just keep the White House. Nature will take care of the Court.

We're in this mess because we lost 5 of 6. We'll get out of it if we can win 6* of 8.

(* 7, give or take one FL guv bro)

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

We're in this mess because we lost 5 of 6. We'll get out of it if we can win 6* of 8.

Who is the "we" of which you speak? I highly doubt there is any reciprocity on their part whatsoever. Do you truly think, when the microphones are turned off, there is any more respect for you than there is for anyone else?

In their minds, there is a very small, elite ruling class, and then three classes of those who are ruled by them: the sycophants, the unruly ones, and the sheeple.



Hint: I would be very surprised if they considered you part of their insider circle.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Speaking of 6* of 8, how hard has it been, historically, to hold the WH after a 2-term (or greater) incumbency? I'd have guessed very hard. Not only does a 2-term incumbent roll up 8 years' worth of vulnerabilities, but anger trumps contentment and after 8 years on the outs the losers are more highly motivated.

Election (after at least a 2-term incumbency), Result for incumbent party

06, W
07, W
08, W
(note, while 9 and 10 were also won by the D-Rs, those were essentially primaries since the Federalists by this time were dead)
11, L (although the D-Rs split in this election, the incumbent lost)
13, W
14, L
19, L
21, W (though Lincoln technically didn't run as a R in 20, a re-election is by definition an incumbency win)
22, W
23, W
24, W (that's 6 straight terms -- the Civil War was a bitch)
25, L
30, W
31, W
32, L
36, W
37, L
39, W
40, W
41, W
42, L
44, L
46, L
48, L
51, W
52, L
54, L
56, L


So, 15-13 overall, but just 1-7 since the end of the FDR-Truman run and, perhaps not coincidentally, the rise of TV and truly national messaging. The really long runs:

7*: Democratic-Republicans 1800-1828 (Implosion of the Federalists; * only the first 5 really count)
6: Republican 1860-1884 (Democratic blame for the Civil War)
4: Republican 1896-1912 (Collapse of the Third Party System; Democratic blame for the 1893 Depression)
5: Democratic 1932-1952 (Collapse of the Fourth Party System; Republican blame for the Great Depression)

were in response to national trauma.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

So, 15-13 overall, but just 1-7 since the end of the FDR-Truman run and, perhaps not coincidentally, the rise of TV and truly national messaging. The really long runs:

7*: Democratic-Republicans 1800-1828 (Implosion of the Federalists; * only the first 5 really count)
6: Republican 1860-1884 (Democratic blame for the Civil War)
4: Republican 1896-1912 (Collapse of the Third Party System; Democratic blame for the 1893 Depression)
5: Democratic 1932-1952 (Collapse of the Fourth Party System; Republican blame for the Great Depression)

were in response to national trauma.

If there's an extended run here (knock on wood), in part it could be due to Republican blame for the Great Recession, although I still don't think they've caught nearly enough.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

If there's an extended run here (knock on wood), in part it could be due to Republican blame for the Great Recession, although I still don't think they've caught nearly enough.

As you say, they should have caught more -- they should have been driven into a 1932 death spiral -- but they didn't and that won't be the reason. If there's an extended run here (knock on wood) it will be because they are boxed in by what they fed their base the last 30 years: white supremacist fundamentalism.

Hillary running as center-right will just force them even farther out on their loony limb. Imagine the kind of crap they'll have to stake out on militarism to get distance from her. And, naturally, no matter how hard the RNC tries to keep a lid on it, their sexism is going to be weapons grade.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Will people be voting for Hilary or Bill?

How did she lose to Obama in 2008? It was supposed to be a slam dunk, wasn't it?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Will people be voting for Hilary or Bill?

How did she lose to Obama in 2008? It was supposed to be a slam dunk, wasn't it?

She lost because Obama ran an amazing campaign and she ran a horrible one. We'll see whether she's learned the lesson; if not, she doesn't rate the office anyway.

Men over 40 will vote for Bill; women over 40 will vote for Hillary. We'll see if that's enough in the primaries. In the general, they'll be joined by everybody under 40 voting against whoever pops out of the GOP clown car.

 

[joecct]

She lost because Obama ran an amazing campaign and she ran a horrible one. We'll see whether she's learned the lesson; if not, she doesn't rate the office anyway.

Men over 40 will vote for Bill; women over 40 will vote for Hillary. We'll see if that's enough in the primaries. In the general, they'll be joined by everybody under 40 voting against whoever pops out of the GOP clown car.

Does that imply that men over 40 are stupid?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Will people be voting for Hilary or Bill?

How did she lose to Obama in 2008? It was supposed to be a slam dunk, wasn't it?

No. It just proved that you actually have to run a competent campaign. There is no sure thing.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The one thing I remember was where Clinton's camp didn't even know how the primary's were set up.