Nick Anderson for April 03, 2014

I think the Supreme Court Decision was correct and because of several lines of reasoning.

First – Using money to buy Adds and have your say in public is not the equivalent of buying votes. It certainly gives you a louder voice but if your message or candidate is bad you still won’t get the votes of the people. To me, this is a freedom issue. If I want to use my hard earned money to have my say in the political forum then I should be able to.

Second – It balances the playing field. In the bad old days, Unions could spend unlimited dollars on candidates by distributing it through their membership. This gives corporations a chance to offer a counter point. A much needed counter point.

Third – Prior to the loosening up of Campaign finance laws; the Mass Media had an overwhelming advantage in the public square because they could say anything they want and call it news (not adds). The press (TV, Newspapers, Magazines) became king makers. And I, for one, am quite happy to see their power dimished

Finally – The rules were byzantine and gave the power of speech to bundlers and denied it to honest taxpayers who wanted to have their say.

I think the Supreme Court did the right thing!!!!

best little whorehouse in Washington

@Nantucket – In the past Unions had the only voice in town so now Corporations can offer another message. I don’t want to stop Unions from having their say. I just want to allow corporations to alos have a say (There is a difference).

Second of all – I can’t be forced to buy into a coproration. If I’m in a Union Shop state I can not opt out of the Union. I am forced to be a part of the group and even if MY money isn’t funding the add my membership makes it appear that I support that position. If I feel that a corporation that I own stock in is making statements with which I disagree. I will drop them immediately and buy into corporations that better represent my interests.

And don’t try to tell me that Unions are open and straight up with their money. I live in a Union State. I know how they operate (thugs and liars). Some CEOs are as well but at least I’m not forced to support them. I can choose where I work and where I invest. In my state I can’t choose to belong to the Union if I’m in a Union shop.

Removing Campaign finance limits puts EVERYONE on the same footing and that is a good thing. Everyone gets to have their say and the PEOPLE get to decide which message they agree with at the Polling booth.

You know, I’m always suspicious of people that don’t want to let one group have their say. It tells me they are afraid the message will resonate more with the voters then their own.I want Unions to have their say in the Political sphere. I think when their ideas are exposed to the light of day they crumble under their own hypocracy but I wouldn’t deny them the right to have their say. You, on the other hand, don’t want to let people in corporations even have a say. What are you afraid of?

All of the above misses the point that this is about graft. Corporations can now openly pay for advertising for a candidate in exchange for future favors. There used to be a limit on the graft, now there is no limit to the corruption.

Every two weeks send a them a new speaker instead of a check, then ask for a new vote.

@Nantucket – It seems to me, in the last election a rich CEO (I can’t remember her name) from California ran for Senator and lost. She spent the proverbial boatloads on her candidacy but her message didn’t resonate so she lost.

I am not in favor of public financing of elections because I don’t think the government should be funding the election process. They should govern it but not fund it.

Next – Why are you trying to limit anyone? I want to learn as much about a candidate as possible and the way to do so is to hear the messages. Your use of the term Smear is a dead giveaway that you didn’t like what someone said about your candidate. Grow up. Politics is a tough business. I don’t always like what is said about my candidates either but it is the nature of elections. The voters are smart enough to figure out which claims have substance and which claims are without.

You claim you need to get infomation about the candidates that is unbiased. That seems like a lofty and wholly unrealistic goal. All information comes with spin. In the absence of your ivory tower I’ll prefer that they get as much say as possible and I’ll sort out truth from fiction.

Finally – What the hell is dark money? I invest in the Kochs and other companies involved in political activities. If I thought they were misrepresenting me I would disinvest but I’ve seen there statements and I agree with them.

Your half right. Money IS free speech..@If my words offend you – you don’t have the open mind you claim to have.Don’t count those chickens before they hatch. Democrats have been switching gears towards talking about minimum wage which is always popular with the mathematically challenged set and the Justice department has been arresting corrupt Democrats; word on the street is that they are “cleaning house” and they will do the same with Republicans only much closer to the election to inflict maximum damage..Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see a HUGE upset and Obama lose all of his “mindless rubber stamps with paychecks” to turn him into a lame duck (as opposed to a economy killing duck) for the rest of his term.

“Yes, I do. So I own you, too.”.:)

It is astonishing to see that Republicans/Fox “news” viewers actually believe that big corporations are benevolent, open, democratic institutions that have only the best interests of the American people at heart.

@braindead08 – While I can’t speak for most Republicans I can say that Big Corporations are Open and Democratic. All the information that I need can be garnered from the SEC. I do not think they are benevolent nor do I expect them to be. I expect them to try to maximize the return on my investment that I put into them.

Corporations were not created to be another charitable arm of the government. They were created to give investors a limited liability ownership stake. But they are far more Democratic then the US government. Only shareholders get to vote. Deadbeats and freeriders don’t.

I do have to ask though. Why is it liberals always feel the need to ascribe conservative opinions to Fox News? As though we conservatives sprang up with the Advent of Fox in the 1980s. I don’t ascribe your opinions to MSNBC or Michael Moore or some even less savory groups.

If you disagree with the substance of our arguments then offer a rational and reasoned counter argument. But you show yourself to be very shallow by assuming the only way one could come to a conservative postition is because they got it from some television news source.

America, the land of expensive speech.

But they don’t do any work. They just let their money do it all so they can sit back, do nothing and watch the poor get poorer and poorer while they get richer and richer. The upper class are the only ones who have any increase in income through all of the financial crises in the past few years. Wonder why??

You must only be reading the polls published by FOX news and their affiliates. Most of the unbiased polls see it a little differently. That’s OK. Just keep thinking that way. I feel a lot safer when the radicals think they are safe.

excuse me…but, the trolls seem to be under the impression that the conservatives spend more on candidates than the leftists…WRONG….and they also seem to think that the Koch brothers are republican NOT…they are libertarians….hello?

@Adrian – When I spoke of the better Democracies in corporations I was referring to the fact that only those who are invested in the corporation get to vote.

I’m not willing to say only those who are rich should vote but I am willing to draw a distinction between a resident of this country and a citizen (In a very Roman sense).

Citizens contribute to society. They may not be rich and they may not pay a lot of taxes but I know plenty of people who contribute to society in ways other then taxes: Scoutmasters, Priests, 4-H leaders, town council members, etc. etc.

In contrast Residents just take up space in society. There are many in this country who don’t pay taxes and don’t do anything to make their society better. IMO they shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they are only interested in our Democracy for what it can do for them.

This isn’t a Rich/Poor issue. This is an issue of Citizenship vs. Residency.

I own a car too but it doesn’t have rights or vote.

Considering their behaviour in the House this past session, none of them deserve to be elected. Oh yeah, there are Democrats that deserve to lose their jobs too.

@braindead – When I spoke of transparency I was talking about what I need to know as an investor. When I decide to invest in a company I can find all of the financial data I need at the SEC.

All of the companies in which I hold stock have websites that discuss their political positions and actions. I go there to see what interactions those companies are having with the government.

I think part of your distrust comes from a very poor understanding of how stock ownership works. It is partial ownership of the company.

I don’t blame you for being mistrustful of corporations with whom you have only a consumer relationship or no commercial relationship at all. I share that same distrust.

But I still think they should be able to have a voice in the political realm when decisions made by politicians will affect the corporation, it’s employees, and it’s shareholders.

Is there a risk that a corporation could BUY a politician like Unions Bought politicians in the 60s and 70s? Absolutely!!! So we, as voters, must be ever vigilant to make sure that are politicians are representing us or vote them out.

Money is Speech – Not a vote.

Money is speech when Unions do it too. The difference is – They used to be allowed the only voice in town.

As for ATT giving money to politicians in secret – WTF? If it was secret then how do you know about it? I’m not even sure to what you are referring.

@Nantucket – There are votes held at board meetings that are nonbinding. And you can’t just add or remove a board member without some process instituted by the company. That doesn’t make them less democratic. Those bylaws are usually put in place to allow for stability.

If a group of voters get together in Wisconsin and outs a Governor (think Walker) They can’t just say GET OUT. They have to follow a process. Its the same thing.

Stop pissing and moaning about Fox. You aren’t angry at them. You are angry at anyone who doesn’t agree with your point of view. We all come from different backgrounds and have different life experiences. Thanks to our different experiences we have fairly opposite positions on the role of government and the control the majority should be able to exercise over the minority.

Of course, come Fall you will find your opinion under represented in the Senate and then I’ll get to listen to you complain when Republican majorities force stuff down your throat you don’t like.