Shocking report from the WSJ:
Corporations, labor unions and other political entities are gearing up to play a larger role in influencing elections in 2010 and beyond after a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down elements of campaign-finance law.
The Supreme Court on Thursday made it easier for entities to influence elections for Congress and the White House by stripping away rules that limited their ability to fund campaign advertisements. The court also struck down a part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law that prevented independent political groups from running advertisements within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
No. Really?
I love the fiction we are ever going to alter what is going on during Wall Street. Does anyone here think the Goldman boys and their friends would flinch at the notion of dumping a couple billion in advertising to save their 150 billion in bonuses? Anyone?
Comrade javafascist
It’s the banksters world now and we’re just allowed to be the base of the pyramid so they can touch the sun. On the plus side, we do get pissed on now and again so we can buy a Wii or some beer and forget how screwed up the whole system is.
Sue
Advertising that’s paid for by profits, I might add. Next time your fees get jacked up, remember you’re an important part of the electoral process.
Tim H
The good news is a couple of years from now none of us will be able to afford TV, so all the advertising will be a waste of money.
jenniebee
But those billions in campaign expenditures would reduce the amount they could lend out to small businesses! And they seemed so committed to devoting every penny they had that way!
cyntax
So given how hard it was to get even the most toothless HCR bill past all the senators who are in the pockets of healthcare insurance and big pharma, does anyone think that this SCOTUS ruling won’t kill HCR for the next ~30 years?
Alex S.
All the efforts to “change Washington” are dead now.
The Grand Panjandrum
I can see a Walmart on every vacant corner of every American city. Every mayor and city council person who doesn’t get with the program is in peril of being unseated.
AhabTRuler
Can I get an Effexor Martini, with a twist of hemlock? Actually, make it a double.
wilfred
Labor unions? Back in 1993, just before I left Homeland for good, I was involved in the street level fight against NAFTA. When it was passed, labor leaders (Kirkland? don’t remember now) said: “We’ll remember in November!”
Catchy, yes? Only they didn’t. Nafta killed organized labor as a political force, except at very local levels. Throwing unions in with corporations is a lame attempt at objectivity – as if they carried the same weight. Silly, really.
Michael
On the good side, instead of pocketing their bonuses or adding a 5th expansion wing on each of 12 mansions, they can at least spread the money around a little – albeit to advertising and lobbying douchenozzles that you’d sooner punch than look at.
El Cid
@Sue: Exactly — we are part of the greater, superhuman ‘person’ that is a corporation.
You know, I don’t often haul out these analogies, but one of the central themes of Mussolini-era fascism was that, contrary to soci@list and Marxist arguments that nations were divided by class rivalry and splits, instead nations were literally — I mean, many of them argued that literally, in a mystical supernatural sense — a super-organism, and that the reason classes couldn’t conflict is that they were really like the various organs & tissues in the body.
Thus, Mussolini’s ‘corporatism’ wasn’t about ‘corporations’ in purely the economic sense we think of them but ‘corpus’ as in body — private companies had to become one large organ of the state; labor had to become one large organ of the state; farmers, military, etc.
So, welcome to the revival of that early 20th century super-organism theme in nationalism. Except I guess with there being multiple corporations, it’s at least a diverse population of super-organisms, not just one, so therefore FREEDUM.
Econwatcher
GS is the Standard Oil of our time. Eventually, their overreaching will cause such a backlash that they’ll be broken up.
That time could have been right now, if Obama had spent last year building the foundation for it. And he could be reaping the political rewards right now as a dragon-slayer. But he didn’t do it, and I doubt the steam can be built up to accomplish anything substantial this year.
He just isn’t as smart as I thought he was.
Bob L
Tim H @
It’s that almost the case now. The traditional advertising models have broken down under the internet?
El Cid
@Bob L: But the seed corn is delicious!
Anonymous At Work
I think that concerned citizens need to register to form corporations in each state with names like, “bid Laden, al-Qaeda, and Iranian National Guard Bribery, Inc.” to show how bad things can get with this ruling. The argument, if I understand the majority’s ruling correctly, is that Congressional officers are good at rejecting free money if it comes from an entity that they don’t full and a priori agree with, 100%.
Let’s test that.
New Yorker
I’d like to once again thank Ralph Nader for his “there’s no difference between Bush and Gore” narcissistic whine-fest in 2000. I mean, we may be rid of Bush now, but hey, we’ve got Roberts and Alito for a loooong time. Hey, I’m sure Gore would have nominated them too, right Ralph?
It’s even more depressing when you realize that the two justices most likely to keel over during Obama’s presidency are Stevens and Ginsburg.
Joshua Norton
Hey! Corporations are people too. Up with people!
/repig speak
Ana Gama
The worst of it is I don’t see any restraint or limits on foreign corporations with a presence in the US being limited either. The Saudi ARAMCO is here in TX. So is Venezuela’s Citgo/PDVSA. All the foreign automakers. Foreign drug manufacturers. Shell Oil, a big presence here, is not a US corporation, neither is BP.
This mess goes beyond our own Exxon’s and GE’s.
Paul in KY
New Yorker, hear hear! If any of you were in Florida in 2000 & voted for Nader: A most hearty ‘fuck you’ is sent your way.
polyorchnid octopunch
Mark it on your calendars. How long will it be before they say the corporations can become citizens?
And along that mode of thinking… the next logical course of action for reformers to the current electoral funding model would be to make it illegal for anyone but citizens to put money into elections. You want to donate a bunch of money GS? Well, Lloyd, it’s got to come out of your pocket, ’cause you’re a citizen and GS is not.
Seriously, that’s the only approach to the law that might be able to make it. It’s the one to try, imho.
jrg
I’m really looking forward to when the country-folk wake up and realize they have been getting screwed.
It will probably happen about 20 years from now, right around the time I retire. At that point Social Security will be bankrupt and the hicks will start raiding worker’s 401(k)s.
Meanwhile, the bankers will be enjoying their offshore accounts, buying off politicians, and purchasing air time on Fox news, just so they can keep the dumb-asses from figuring out who really stole the loot.
PaulW
Actually, Paul in KY, it was the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County that cost the election: there’s no way all those people voted for Pat Buchanan. If you even shifted half of the votes Pat got over to Gore, Gore woulda won.
PaulW
Here’s the thing I think people are missing:
Yes, the corporations are going to spend billions of dollars now in unchecked funds to buy every election they can electing brain-dead pro-business puppets.
Just remember: you get what you pay for. You want brain-dead politicians, you get brain-dead pols, and their lousy lawmaking that will get so screwy that even $500 billion in ads aren’t going to convince voters to re-elect them. Sooner rather than later: Teh Stupid loses its welcome real damn fast.
And remember also: the CEOs and other management types are not the geniuses they think themselves to be. They are undoubtedly, once they get their way on everything, going to drive this entire nation over the cliff like they almost did in 2008, only next time there won’t be a safety net. Next time, those corporations are going to fall same as the rest of us… and they’re not going to like it.
If those corporate heads had any true brains, they’d be proceeding more cautiously than they are. ‘Course, like I said, they’re idiots, they’re going to end up bulldozing in like always. Yes, we will get hurt. This is why we need to be more zen about it…
John S.
Also remember that the advertising landscape has changed dramatically in the last decade. I say this as an Art Director for an Ad Agency.
The traditional one-way messaging of pumping a message to your customers doesn’t really work that great anymore. Consumers are getting better at cutting through the bullshit. They also don’t trust the messaging in the way they used to, and are far more skeptical of traditional advertising.
That is what has really opened up some of the two-way channels via social networking. Corporations say something, consumers respond and you ignore them at your own peril.
PTirebiter
Anyone know who’s designing our new new flag?
United States of America LLP
Not Responsible – Park and Lock It
Bob L
El Cid
Yes, the politicians will certainly enjoy the taste since it means traveling around in style.
PaulW @
Yes, they came awfuly close to the rest of the world taking their money back and telling them to FU.
hmm, ironically the best government money can buy may fix that. If say some big foreign government like the PRC decides they are sick and tired of their loans going into ponzee schemes the will to do something might suddenly be there.
Barry
jrg
“I’m really looking forward to when the country-folk wake up and realize they have been getting screwed.
It will probably happen about 20 years from now, right around the time I retire. At that point Social Security will be bankrupt and the hicks will start raiding worker’s 401(k)s.”
Have you actually not heard the joke about 201(k) being the new term for 401(k)? They’ve been screwing most Americans for years, and most Americans like it.
Re – Paul, @23: remember that (a) if the corpocracy drives the country over the cliff, we’ll get hit far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, harder. And (b), they already did that – they just went to Uncle Sam for 3/4 $trillion, and to Randroid Heaven, the Federal Reserve, for a couple of trillion more (nobody knows, ’cause the Fed doesn’t tell anybody).
Then, after refilling their tanks, they got back on the highway to hell, and got back up to full speed.
If there’s one lesson that we should have learned in the last 30 years, and one which should be burned into the flesh of all Friedmanites before they’re burned at the frikkin’ stake, is that the market does not correct itself at the macro level. It requires regulation and government bailouts.
Shygetz
@PaulW: Sorry, but you’re wrong. First of all, these aren’t “brain-dead pols”, just unethical sell-outs. They know how to throw the proles a meaningless bone every now and then, and they know how to work the social division issues to mask their military and economic goals…see how well they did it within the Republican party so far? Second, even if a pol overreaches and becomes unsellable to the public, nothing keeps the corps from buying a fresh face with their billions and tossing the old pol aside. Finally, it doesn’t take a genius to privatize profits and socialize losses. No, the corps will do fine and dandy. I think our best hope (barring Congressional action) is if the more highly segmented New Media makes advertising less potent overall and actual free speech more potent.
Niques
Niques
ShyGetz . . .
That is, if they don’t eliminate net neutrality first.
Steve M.
What — is this as opposed to the complete lack of influence these guys have had up till now?
Please. Our government is already for sale to the maximum extent possible. The only thing this ruling changes is the specific way the money changes hands.
tworivers
Thank you to the “genial” Judge Roberts, who never met a corporation he didn’t love (or side with in a court of law).
What I would love would be for the head of a wealthy corporation to pony up billions of dollars to pay for nationwide anti-Roberts/Scalia/Thomas/Alito advertising (billboards, tv commercials, etc.). The commericals could elucidate the numerous ways in which these justices suck ass. It’d be some nice poetic justice.
Glocksman
@tworivers:
Unless you’re willing to adopt a Randall Terry maskirovka strategery of plausible denialability WRT encouraging some whackjob to shoot Roberts, Alito, et.al, what’d be the point?
SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment not subject to re-election.
tworivers
@Glocksman:
I’m well aware of the fact that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. My post was facetious in intent.
Besides, advertising that just points out how beholden to corporations Roberts is (and how often he has sided with corporations in court rulings) doesn’t necessarily invite assassination, does it?
You need to lighten up.
Wile E. Quixote
@Paul in KY
Shut the fuck up!. Seriously, shut the fuck up! I’m sick and tired of useless, ignorant, retards like you and New Yorker, both of whom are every bit as stupid as any Sarah Palin worshipping teabagger,continually spouting this shit. Do you know what cost Gore the 2000 election you worthless, ignorant pile of garbage? It wasn’t Ralph Nader, although that is a convenient narrative for the stupid, it was Al Gore.
Al Gore ran a campaign that was almost as incompetent as Martha Coakley’s, he had no message and was all over the board, he never responded to any of the Republican attacks against him and he appointed Holy Joe Lieberman to be his VP. Yeah, heckuva job Al.
If Gore had won in West Virginia, a state that Clinton won by 14 points in 1996 Florida would have been irrelevant. If Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, which Clinton won in 1996, Florida would have been irrelevant. If Gore had won Arkansas, Bill Clinton’s home state, which Clinton won in 1996, he would have won in the electoral college and Florida would have been irrelevant. You can look this up, thanks to the internet all of this information is at your fingertips. But that would take like, five minutes of your time, five minutes that useless, lazy, ignorant morons like yourself would rather use for repeating the myth of the Nader dolchstoss.
Al Gore ran shitty campaign, appointed a corrupt, ineffectual, anti-charismatic hack as his VP, distanced himself from Bill Clinton, who was incredibly popular, never pointed out that Americans did better under eight years of Bill Clinton than they had under 12 years of Reagan/Bush, never responded in any effective way to the right wing attack machine, didn’t fight in Florida and because of this ended up losing to a man who can barely construct a coherent sentence.
The myth of the Nader dolchstoss is not only convenient for worthless, do-nothings like you and New Yorker, it’s also convenient for Al Gore, who gets to look like a noble martyr instead of a complete and total fuckup who lost to the man who ended up being the worst president in American history.
Wile E. Quixote
@Ana Gama
I know, and if there were any Democratic politicians who had half a brain they’d be hammering on the court’s ruling for exactly this reason as would President Obama if he were anything other than an empty suit who’s really good at making pretty speeches. And of course if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.
Martin Gifford
Because Obama was clearly in cahoots with Wall Street, he can’t argue against it now. The Reps can just say, “Hypocrite!”
OBAMA has NO MORAL AUTHORITY to influence anything positively anymore.
ominira
@PaulW:
CEOs to Hill: Quit calling us for campaign cash.
deadrody
And why is it that we think the dumb sheep of the US cannot see through this ad campaign ? As if Goldman Sachs spends a billion dollars and the electorate just cannot resist or something.
Goldman Sachs would probably be better off spending that billion dollars on mind control rays.
I would also point out to you fools that it would be better for them to advertise up front for candidates that support their issues than it is for them to spend billions lobbying behind closed doors. Far better for transparency that they advertise than it is for closed door lobbying.