Tom Toles for October 11, 2010

And the lesson is, you only need to control one branch of government if you have the corporations behind you. With them, you run the country anyway.

^ Jack, I thought the Tea Partiers/Right wing have been saying Obama’s a Communist/Socialist/Fascist because, ya know, they’re all really the same thing (and so is he)

^jackson’s a fun guy, if he sticks to form. next he’ll accuse you of calling HIM a Nazi.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has seen the attack ads on Progressive/Democratic candidates. During the football game I was watching after the beer lite commercials came the negative ads on those types of candidates.

Why is it odd you may ask?

Because normally the only ones who purchase air time during any nfl, nba, or mlb game are the beer guys or the blue pill guys. In other words corporations. So how does somebody who is running for a local office get the money to air a campaign ad during a major league game (which by the way are expensive)?

Isn’t it getting obvious? - the corporate oligarchs are getting richer fast, and the middle class is circling the drain.

jack is one of the little guys who believe the poor corporations need help defending themselves from the wicked socialists.

I think the next -gate is: out of state organizations getting even more involved in local politics.

Corpo-gate?

Tigger, That’s terrible that all of those Democrats are ganging up on one lone Republican candidate.

Human passed the Godwin Law rule in one step.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

In 2008 Soros and Lewis gave $100M to the Democrats. Why didn’t you complainers scream out unfair? Or is it only wrong when the other side wins?

This election unions have guaranteed $100M for the Democrats. Do you object? Think about it, polls have shown 40% of union members will vote Republican. Their forced mandatory dues are being used to fund their opponents. Will you speak out?

Libertarian: you need to check up on your facts (or lack of them). Unions cannot use dues money for campaign donations. They can solicit contributions from members for political purposes strictly on a voluntary basis. Corporations, on the other hand, have no such restrictions. If it increases their profit, it’s good. Greed is good. Nothing else matters. I really hope you’ll take a look around from a fresh perspective.

Also, I do object to Soros, etc giving huge amounts to Democrats, but only in the sense that no one should be putting money into campaigns at all. True campaign finance reform would eliminate all political contributions, take the corporations and the unions out of the picture and let the candidates discuss issues, sensibly and without passion or distortion on public radio and television. As it stands now the unions have to contribute huge amounts of money to provide at least some leverage against the fortunes of the corporations.

“Isn’t it getting obvious? - the corporate oligarchs are getting richer fast, and the middle class is circling the drain.”

You shouldn’t have wealth envy. *

Bottom line: our Democracy is for sale.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/99103-unions-100m-to-save-the-dems

Toles has stated this sad fact in one tragic image. Can Supreme Court Justices be recalled for serving corporate interests, rather than the citizen’s interests?

Tom, just for curiosity how would you reconcile your desires with the Bill of Rights 1st amendment?

Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press?

Would you stop newspaper endorsements? How about a Bloomberg who spend millions of his own dollars?

Or is your desire another one where the constitution should be ignored for your greater good?

Judicial activism is only considered “bad” when it’s a Liberal. Conservative activists are given carte blanch.

^ Lib 1 Thanks for the note on Godwin’s Law. Good one.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a similar law that starts the name calling, socialist or communist.

I prefer Yellow Dog Democrat

They sent the manufacture of black cloak hoods and testicle jumper cables overseas, too

Libertarian, the individuals who make up corporations have no constraints on their First Amendment rights, and they are welcome to say what they want. Corporations, however, are not people. Furthermore, the Supremes made money equivalent to speech – something that would have horrified the Founders and should horrify you as someone against federalist structures – which means we are no longer even trying for one-man/one-vote. Now it’s dollars = votes. That’s not good for the American voter, regardless of your party, unless you happen to be rich. And now that we know that foreign-owned companies are free to manipulate American elections through their money, why aren’t you outraged?

MM

For 40 years an activist liberal court made laws with which I was not in agreement. We argued for all those years to no avail. Nevertheless they were the law of the land and we all had to obey.

I personally am very strongly pro-choice but for literally millions that is considered murder. But it is the law of the land.

Citizens United is the law of the land. if you don’t like it, too bad. The libertarian sites i read think not only was the decision constitutional but mandatory. There was no other option to be consistent with the 1st A.

The political point made by Democrats about foreign companies has not been proven. Axelrod today said it was up to the Republicans to disprove the accusation. That is not how we do it in our country. i have seen zero proof of what is becoming a strictly damage control no proof accusation.

The chamber of congress says they are an international organization and foreign companies are more than welcome to assist in their foreign contributions.

As of today the whole charge seems to be baseless.

Since the Republicans are accused of being in bed with Big Business, then it would stand that they would benefit most from the Supreme Court’s ruling, which should make their decision unconstitutional since it helps one party more than the other.