'Democracy After Citizens United'

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by midcan5, Oct 31, 2010.

  1. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,790
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,300
    "Instead, this is “corruption” because it weakens the integrity of the institution, of Congress itself. The framers intended Congress to be "dependent upon the People alone.""


    By Lawrence Lessig

    "Institutional corruption does not refer to the knowing violation of any law or ethical rule. This is not the problem of Rod Blagojevich, or, more generally, of bad souls acting badly. It instead describes an influence, financial or otherwise, within an economy of influence, that weakens the effectiveness of an institution, especially by weakening public trust in that institution. (An “economy of influence” rather than the simpler “system of influence” to emphasize the reciprocal character of such influence, often requiring little or no direct coordination.)

    Congress is a paradigm case. Members of Congress run privately financed campaigns. The contributions that fund those campaigns are not illegal, or even unethical. To the contrary, they are protected speech under the First Amendment.

    Yet arguably—or maybe obviously—those contributions are (1) an influence (2) within an economy of influence that has (3) (quite likely) weakened the ability of Congress to do its work, by (4) (certainly) weakening public trust in Congress. The vast majority of Americans believe money buys results in Congress; less than a quarter of Americans believe the institution worthy of their trust. When “free-market” Republicans vote to support milk subsidies or sugar tariffs, or when “pro-consumer” Democrats vote to exempt used-car dealers from consumer financial-protection legislation, it is easy to understand the mistrust and hard to believe that the influence of money hasn’t weakened the ability of members to serve the principles, or even the interests, they were elected to represent."

    Boston Review — Lawrence Lessig: Democracy After Citizens United
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,244
    Thanks Received:
    14,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,025
    Wahhh wahh SEIU, AFL-CIO and the Teachers Union now have competition Wahhh wahhhh.
     
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,244
    Thanks Received:
    14,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,025
    We had a media monopoly and that's gone wahhh wahhh and now our union monopoly on campaign cash is gone wahhh wahhh wahh wahhh wahh wahhh wahwahhahh wahhhahwhah wahhh
     
  4. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,790
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,300
    Did you ever in your whole life have an original intelligent thought? Just asking....
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,244
    Thanks Received:
    14,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,025
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Hot damn, you really do shove your head up your ass, Frank. Amazing how easily programmed you are by Fox News.

    Midcan, how can we amend the constitution to fix Citizens United? I think drafting a public finance law for elections is easy-peasy...but how do we stifle free speech by anyone under the First Amendment? I have pondered on this and haven't a clue.

    This fucking decision has allowed Communist China to buy US elections. Mao must be dancing in his grave.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2010
  7. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,244
    Thanks Received:
    14,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,025
    You are correct, you haven't a clue.

    Progressives lost their media monopoly and now that they lost their election funding monopoly you want "Public financing."

    Again, that's just too fucking bad for you.
     
  8. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Frank, mebbe you should study on the issue at a site that is not a fetid Rove-Koch-Murdoch clusterfuck? Citizens United (a) recognizes corporations as "persons" for First Amendment purposes (and we'll be seeing one ding-a-ling decision after another following this caselaw) and (b) eliminated the reporting and tax laws on campaign finance that allowed us humans to peek behind the curtain and see who has made contributions to who.

    You think China isn't funneling cash in through the Chamber of Commerce? Dream on. If we do not overturn Citizens United via a constitutional amendent, we can kiss democracy good bye.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,244
    Thanks Received:
    14,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,025
    You Progressives are not the brightest people on the planet so I'll say it again:

    You lost your media monopoly and now you've lost your campaign funding monopoly and that's just too fucking bad for your side.

    The hysteria about "CHINA Buying elections!!!" just reinforced your notion that you haven't a clue.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2010
  10. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Frank? Read mayhaps?

    Editorial: Court opened up floodgates with its campaign ad decision - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

    http://www.brennancenter.org/?gclid=CM_ygsew_aQCFc1K5wodx2Dqhg

    We now have a SCOTUS decision that a corporation is a "person" under the First Amendment. Does that mean it is also a "person" under the rest of the Bill of Rights? The main body of the constitution? Do we now have to give corporations a "right to counsel" or "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure"?

    It was a bad decision and it gummed up our already flawed campaign finance laws. I dunno why you seem to think we'll be better off now that any nation, company or person on Planet Earth may contribute to our politicans and can do so tax-free, in complete secrecy.

     

Share This Page