One Way to Fight this Supreme Court Idiocy – Comedy!
Remember the recent landmark decision (Citizens United) by the US Supreme Court on corporate contributions to election campaigns? The ruling allows corporations to make unlimited contributions to such political action committees as “Super PACs” without any disclosure. These Super PACs can then spend this money on any political campaign which involves an issue or a candidate – for or against.
If you recall, in a very unusual deviation to the norm, President Obama dinged the Court on this issue during his 2010 State of the Union Address. Even though I believe that President Obama is in the pocket of Wall Street Casino ‘Banks’, I agree with his take – albeit hypocritical – on this issue:
“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said.
“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.”
In short, the right-wing tools on the Court bench delivered the democracy on a silver platter to the big money interests. Here is the simple logic these tools ignored: corporations, who can make unlimited contributions have perpetual life. Individuals, who are limited on how much they can contribute to a campaign, can now incorporate themselves and donate unlimited money to campaigns. This was the death of democracy in a country that championed democracy. Yet, there is no outcry. At least not yet.
Stephen Colbert through his brand of sarcastic humor, just fired a salvo at the Supreme Court lunacy. Hats off to Stephen’s bravado. Public awareness through comedy: this is a much watch speech.
Today, the definition of Democracy is that the 51% majority claim the moral right to steal from 49% minority at gun point.
I personally do not want any caps on corporate campaign contribution.
1) You separate the state and economy, just like we’ve separated church and state. Corporations will not be found in the 1000 mile radius of politicians.
2) Now, politicians go out and offer all sorts of freebies to people to win their vote. It often involves looting from the minority (usually the rich and the corporations) to feed a parasite majority. Corporate campaign contributions are a good way to balance these excesses. If it were not for all the money Obama got from banks, he would have nationalized them all at this point.
3) Why just hung up on corporations? Have you seen the influence that unions have on politics? I don’t see you complaining about them. Why? Because they are not rich. Fact of the matter is, you can’t stand the rich that have become successful through their ingenuity, because Professor garu always think of the rich as having built their empire over sweat and toil of the poor- that is the communist way of thinking.
Have you seen the influence that unions have on politics?
Not at all surprised at this standardized answer – as if the influence by both is anywhere close to being comparable.
In any event, I am for banning all political contributions – union or corporate – above certain limit.
You separate the state and economy, just like we’ve separated church and state. Corporations will not be found in the 1000 mile radius of politicians.
Corporations will then be the center of corruption, monopoly and coercion. In fact, this platitude (separation of state and economy) is as naive as asking all human beings to be compassionate and sacrifice for others (the socialist doctrine).
Democracy is on sale since a long time. Only difference is – now it became legal.
One more area where corporates can make a difference (good or bad?)…