Editorials A-Z Navigation
Ken Catalino by Ken Catalino
Jeff Danziger by Jeff Danziger
About Paul Conrad
Three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Conrad’s trenchant political observations give readers a short, but never sweet, look at the issues. As satirist Art Buchwald wrote, "Conrad’s name strikes fear in the evil hearts of men all over the world. Where there is corruption, greed or hypocrisy, everyone says, ’This is a job for Conrad.’"
© 2010 Universal Uclick - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (37) Jump to Comments Form
dtroutma said, 14 days ago
Has been for a while now.
believecommonsense
said,
14 days ago
The United States of Corporate Supremes
d_legendary1 said, 14 days ago
Might as well spend the money and change the name.
oldlegodad
said,
14 days ago
As a conservative, I deplore this decision. After years of decrying ” activist liberal judges,” We get the opposite. Rise up America and delete the house and 1/3d of the senate in 2010 and override by amendment this abuse..
Ken Warren said, 14 days ago
Classic, old style, good, true, and only the beginning of the end.
ANandy said, 14 days ago
A lot of misinformation out here.
cjkinsey said, 14 days ago
oldlego,
thank you for your honest review. From one from the far left, I agree entirely with you, on replacing nearly everyone we have in the house and senate up in 2010. I assume we may not agree on the replacements exactly, but ones who actually want campaign finance reform, making it public and reducing the lengths of campaigns down to 3 months. No adds for candidates more than 3 months before an election.
believecommonsense
said,
14 days ago
oldlego, I too am glad to hear of your position on the recent SCOTUS decision.
Re getting rid of all incumbents: until the system is changed, I don’t think it makes all that much difference. New congress people will face the same fundraising pressures to get re-elected, and for the House, that pressure starts the day they take office because they run again in only two years.
cjkinsey, one of the things that court struck down was the provision, already passed by Congress, to limit ads from corporations/unions 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days prior to a general election. It will take a constitutional amendment, or a reversal by a future SCOTUS to change that. Campaign finance reform is not truly possible under the recent SCOTUS decision, unless candidates enter into it voluntarily.
Sometimes I wish we’d go back to citizen/legislators who agree to serve for a limited period of time, thus not so dependent upon campaign contributions from special interests. But even that wouldn’t affect the possible results of the recent SCOTUS decision.
DrCanuck said, 14 days ago
Saw a statistic several years ago that noted 87% of the time, the candidate who spent the most money won the election. True at the federal, state, and municiple level. Americans, apparently, believe in advertising.
Few politicians other than the corporations’ choices will ever be in power again.
twieliczka
said,
14 days ago
dtroutma,
The only difference is that now it is Official.
By the way, where have all the concerned “Activist Judge” Senators been since the ruling?
DrCanuck said, 14 days ago
INanity should present a cogent argument rather than knee-jerk name-calling.
ANandy said, 14 days ago
DrCanuck said: “INanity should present a cogent argument rather than knee-jerk name-calling.”
ANandy replies: Just so you recognize how ignorant of our issues you are, but insist on butting in, the recent SCOTUS ruling does not allow corporate contributions to candidates.
Is that cogent enough?
believecommonsense
said,
14 days ago
^ but it allows unlimited amounts of commercial advertising on behalf of or against specific candidates
ANandy said, 14 days ago
Nice try. The issue was corporate contributions to candidates.
believecommonsense
said,
14 days ago
^ No, the issue was not direct contributions to candidates. Limitations on contributions to candidates still exist for corporations and individuals. You’re mixing apples and oranges. The issue was commercial “free speech” as spending on behalf of candidates (or against candidates). What I said is correct — the decision allows unlimited spending by corporations and union on behalf of or against specific candidates.
“The majority opinion did not disturb bans on direct contributions to candidates, but the two sides disagreed about whether independent expenditures came close to amounting to the same thing.”
HARVIN GWIN said, 14 days ago
Americans deserve the court they have.Enjoy it morons…for the next forty years.
lonecat said, 14 days ago
DrC – it might be interesting to describe a typical Canadian election cycle – I would give it a try, but I think you would do a better job. I’ll just say that in my perception the two neighboring countries run their elections in very different ways. (Not that I always like the outcome in either country.)
DrCanuck said, 13 days ago
ANandy said: “Nice try. The issue was corporate contributions to candidates.”
DrCanuck responds: Nice try. But I never once mentioned corporate contributions to candidates.
tracht47 said, 13 days ago
If money= free speech then some people have more freedom than others. That doesn’t sound like democracy to me.
believecommonsense
said,
13 days ago
^ that’s the idea, apparently.
lonecat said, 13 days ago
I guess DrC is ignoring me – alas. My point is that Canadian election cycles are typically quite short – six weeks or so (though the current minority government has created what untypically feels sort of like a perpetual almost election) and there’s much less corporate money involved. Canadians can also check a box on their tax returns to contribute to public funding of campaigns. The whole business feels very different and much simpler. (I’m not claiming that the results are any better.) But I don’t really know how it all works, so I was hoping DrC would help me out. Now that I’ve probably made a thousand errors perhaps he will jump in.
fennec said, 13 days ago
BTW, this is a Ohman ‘toon, not Conrad. Uclick strikes again…
DrCanuck said, 13 days ago
Oh sorry, lonecat. I just don’t know anything about politics.
(I’m joking, of course. But I’m in the middle of grading the first papers of the term and I don’t have time for a more reasoned discussion. I’ll get back to you.)
human said, 13 days ago
Dr Cunook if you are unfamiliar with Canadian politics then either make a statement that you are not really a Canadian (Canuck is a derogatory remark for some) or make no comments on the state of USA politics.
Having lived in border states much of my life *(New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota & Washington) I would have to say from my very limited experience that Canadian politics has changed but it was always seems a more polite confrontation, more of I am the better candidate because and less of my opponent is a. Not that mean spirited politics does not exist but that far less of it is reported or seen in the USA. And living on a border state you will see and hear of the politics on the other side of the border. Also their election cycle is different I don’t remember how as I write this.
Mean spirited politics works and it works very well or it would not be used.
Removing money from the election process would help but it is not possible to eliminate the rancor between the two parties until there are many more political parties so that they have to form some sort of friendly partnerships.
If You are an American *(USA) citizen vote Green or Libertarian or American Independent or anybody else other than Democrat or Republican. Vote both of those parties out of existence. < That alone will not solve the problems but it is a good start.
Anybody who thinks that corporations and the money brokers will not use this decision to put their puppets in office is delusional.
cfimeiatpap said, 13 days ago
Simple solution;
Term limits for all public service. Elections should never be about money. Elections should be about ideas and the freedom to express them and institute law protecting our freedoms and rights. We have allowed the corporate and special interest entities to distract us from the path; making us lazy and allowing them to speak our minds. We really need to return to that fork where we allowed ourselves to become distracted from the source of our rights and freedoms. We should all be willing to spend a few years of our lives offering our knowledge and life experience for the improvement of our republic without the expectation of becoming millionaires………. Professional thieves (politicians) are not and never will be the solution; how can anyone who holds an office for more than a few years relate to us folk who have to live in the world we have allowed them to create for us?……….
believecommonsense
said,
12 days ago
(sorry, can’t say it again)
I like Sargent’s take on the issue. Money = speech; the middle class, average working American just got silenced.
Justice Alioto is now a certified liar. He said “that’s not true” when Obama said the recent decision “will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”
Apparently Alioto didn’t bother to read the decision. The talking head pundits on both the right and left agree it will. Every expert said it opens the door to foreign entities spending on ads for/against specific candidates. Really inspires confidence when a supreme court justice reveals he doesn’t even understand the impact of the decision he voted on.
churchillwasright said, 12 days ago
^ I’m shaking my head at you.
Since you love to link to left leaning Politifact.com, their take on your premise is that it is “barely true”.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/27/barack-obama/obama-says-supreme-court-ruling-allows-foreign-com/
believecommonsense
said,
11 days ago
^ I responded in more depth on another. Yes, it seems the extent of campaign spending by foreign owners, or foreign entities, will eventually be adjudicated later.
There is no disagreement that the decision will open the floodgates to more influence (spending) by special interests.
churchillwasright said, 11 days ago
All of a sudden people are against the likes of foreigners like George Soros, who spend their money to influence elections and profit from the economy they help create politically.
Maybe now we’ll see his name at the bottom of the ads, instead of the PACs he created and funded to skirt McCain-Feingold.
fennec said, 11 days ago
George Soros is a naturalized American citizen. You can check it out on the web. Google “George Soros citizenship”.
churchillwasright said, 11 days ago
^ Thank you. I stand corrected.
(I actually checked wikipedia before posting that, but they didn’t make it clear. They only gave the year he emigrated, but never mentions his status. Oh well….)
cabrobst said, 10 days ago
Delete the Supreme Court and 41 senators and change the Constitution by amendment so that justices are elected not appointed.
ribbie149 said, 9 days ago
Republicans had the nerve to question Sotomayor’s judicial competence? The GOP (Grand Oil Party) already has a TV network- imagine what do they will do with unlimited money from the companies that are ALREADY lobbying for their agenda. (Funding attack ads against Democratic candidates and progressive initiatives.)
NeoconMan said, 8 days ago
Oh, things are gonna change in this country now!
(We’re in the money, we’re in the money…)
That shaking you feel is a 385 pound man dancing.
ahab
said,
8 days ago
How soon can they revisit this decision?
comYics
said,
6 days ago
He’s a winner. Thing’s are gonna change, he can feel it.
longtimecomicsfan said, 4 days ago
Apparently the High Court feels they can no longer appoint a President, so they’re delegating that responsibility to corporations.
The 2012 election will no doubt be sponsored by Halliburton, Goldman Sachs, and Toyota.