Comments on: Supreme Court, money & politics http://blog.because.net/?p=1126 a blog by Nadine B. Hack, President of beCause Global Consulting Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:06:33 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: UGG Boots http://blog.because.net/?p=1126&cpage=1#comment-393 UGG Boots Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:05:07 +0000 http://blog.because.net/?p=1126#comment-393 I found this article useful in a paper I am writing at university. Hopefully, I get an A+ now! Thanks Bernice Franklin <a href="http://www.uggworld.eu" rel="nofollow">UGG Boots</a> I found this article useful in a paper I am writing at university. Hopefully, I get an A+ now!

Thanks

Bernice Franklin

UGG Boots

]]> By: Ruth Cowan http://blog.because.net/?p=1126&cpage=1#comment-390 Ruth Cowan Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:25:02 +0000 http://blog.because.net/?p=1126#comment-390 The decision speaks to the consequences of whom Presidents nominate to serve as judges. The decision speaks to the consequences of whom Presidents nominate to serve as judges.

]]> By: Paul Kazmercyk http://blog.because.net/?p=1126&cpage=1#comment-389 Paul Kazmercyk Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:56:49 +0000 http://blog.because.net/?p=1126#comment-389 Nadine: I disagree with the Court's decision in Citizens United. The notion that corporations--entities whose primary goal is to maximize profits and please shareholders--possess the same rights as me, an individual, is Alice in Wonderland absurd. I'm still trying to understand the "logic" that could have led five Justices to that conclusion. The decision goes beyond politics. It simply makes no sense. I too read Kirpatrick’s piece in the Times. I found it frustrating. Just as “You can’t prove a negative,…” I don't think you're being intellectually honest if you deny the obvious: entities, whether corporate or human give money to candidates and political parties because they agree with ideology and political goals. In this respect, corporations hold an immensely lopsided advantage over individuals, because of their vast resources. This goes for lobbyists and donors from both sides of the aisle, but I always try to point my "moral compass" in this direction: what does a contributor have to gain from the transaction? In the end, each individual or group hopes for something in return--a better world, favorable tax policy, etc. Call me naive, but In my mind, my neighbor's contribution made in the name of the greater good fits well into this democracy, but the contribution made in the hopes of ensuring bigger profits, tax breaks or direct influence over policy is simply corrupt. And I don't see how the Citizens United decision leads to anything but greater, legalized corruption. Nadine: I disagree with the Court’s decision in Citizens United. The notion that corporations–entities whose primary goal is to maximize profits and please shareholders–possess the same rights as me, an individual, is Alice in Wonderland absurd. I’m still trying to understand the “logic” that could have led five Justices to that conclusion.

The decision goes beyond politics. It simply makes no sense.

I too read Kirpatrick’s piece in the Times. I found it frustrating. Just as “You can’t prove a negative,…” I don’t think you’re being intellectually honest if you deny the obvious: entities, whether corporate or human give money to candidates and political parties because they agree with ideology and political goals. In this respect, corporations hold an immensely lopsided advantage over individuals, because of their vast resources.

This goes for lobbyists and donors from both sides of the aisle, but I always try to point my “moral compass” in this direction: what does a contributor have to gain from the transaction?

In the end, each individual or group hopes for something in return–a better world, favorable tax policy, etc. Call me naive, but In my mind, my neighbor’s contribution made in the name of the greater good fits well into this democracy, but the contribution made in the hopes of ensuring bigger profits, tax breaks or direct influence over policy is simply corrupt. And I don’t see how the Citizens United decision leads to anything but greater, legalized corruption.

]]> By: Israel Garcia http://blog.because.net/?p=1126&cpage=1#comment-388 Israel Garcia Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:04:32 +0000 http://blog.because.net/?p=1126#comment-388 Having personally fought of the front lines of the now historical "illegal" Texas redistricting debacle of 2002 (think Tom Delay), I am disheartened yet again at another failure of thoroughly educated American leaders to respect the fair playing field that we so passionately defend worldwide -- our nation's election system. I've seen first hand as lower-income "barrios" and minority "colonias" get gerrymandered into homogeneous districts here in my own backyard, and the resulting electoral free-for-all that can discourage whole generations of voters. Stay on the worldwide front lines Nadine, and continue to apply your own brand of common-sense to this seemingly endless juggernaut of corporate influence that aims to tilt our "ethical" playing field. When they try to unfairly tilt the machine, BE THE TILT MECHANISM!!! Having personally fought of the front lines of the now historical “illegal” Texas redistricting debacle of 2002 (think Tom Delay), I am disheartened yet again at another failure of thoroughly educated American leaders to respect the fair playing field that we so passionately defend worldwide — our nation’s election system. I’ve seen first hand as lower-income “barrios” and minority “colonias” get gerrymandered into homogeneous districts here in my own backyard, and the resulting electoral free-for-all that can discourage whole generations of voters.

Stay on the worldwide front lines Nadine, and continue to apply your own brand of common-sense to this seemingly endless juggernaut of corporate influence that aims to tilt our “ethical” playing field. When they try to unfairly tilt the machine, BE THE TILT MECHANISM!!!

]]> By: Robert Kesten http://blog.because.net/?p=1126&cpage=1#comment-387 Robert Kesten Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:13:53 +0000 http://blog.because.net/?p=1126#comment-387 There is not one founding father (or mother) who equated free speech with money. Certainly as the franchise to vote expanded money played a bigger and bigger role, including the purchase of votes and bringing in ringers to vote in specific districts, although they did not live there and often were not even citizens. Elections turned on this, but for most of this time only white males could vote, so it was easier to identify fraud. It is ironic that the US Supreme Court made its decision in the 150th anniversary year of Abraham Lincoln's election as president. That too was a time of national division, a Court disrespected by a vast part of the population due to the Dred Scott and other decisions and a period when Know Nothing Party's power was ebbing and the historic Democratic party was in tatters. Although it is sometimes too easy to point to history to prove a point, it is essential that we remember history so that we don't repeat its mistakes. It would be a shame if Justice Roberts becomes another Justice Taney. There is not one founding father (or mother) who equated free speech with money. Certainly as the franchise to vote expanded money played a bigger and bigger role, including the purchase of votes and bringing in ringers to vote in specific districts, although they did not live there and often were not even citizens. Elections turned on this, but for most of this time only white males could vote, so it was easier to identify fraud.
It is ironic that the US Supreme Court made its decision in the 150th anniversary year of Abraham Lincoln’s election as president. That too was a time of national division, a Court disrespected by a vast part of the population due to the Dred Scott and other decisions and a period when Know Nothing Party’s power was ebbing and the historic Democratic party was in tatters.
Although it is sometimes too easy to point to history to prove a point, it is essential that we remember history so that we don’t repeat its mistakes. It would be a shame if Justice Roberts becomes another Justice Taney.

]]> By: carl silverbeg http://blog.because.net/?p=1126&cpage=1#comment-386 carl silverbeg Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:57:13 +0000 http://blog.because.net/?p=1126#comment-386 Money buys access and that's usually it unless someone is corrupt. My experience has been that it's an ex-post facto thing; people support elected officials who support their point of view. The perversion with unlimited corporate money is not that they tend to support Republicans and therefore that is bad for Dems, it's that free speech protects individuals. A corporation is not a living breathing entity. A corporation is a collection of people. I don't get the free speech protection. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction so it's not the large public corporations we need to worry about, it's the ability of the "Swift Boat" types to pour enough money into a campaign, from people who are not publicly identified to impact a race. That's the big concern. Let them do what they want and make all contributions public and up on the internet within 24 hours. That levels the playing field and then it becomes grassroots vs. the oligarchs! Money buys access and that’s usually it unless someone is corrupt. My experience has been that it’s an ex-post facto thing; people support elected officials who support their point of view. The perversion with unlimited corporate money is not that they tend to support Republicans and therefore that is bad for Dems, it’s that free speech protects individuals. A corporation is not a living breathing entity. A corporation is a collection of people. I don’t get the free speech protection. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction so it’s not the large public corporations we need to worry about, it’s the ability of the “Swift Boat” types to pour enough money into a campaign, from people who are not publicly identified to impact a race. That’s the big concern. Let them do what they want and make all contributions public and up on the internet within 24 hours. That levels the playing field and then it becomes grassroots vs. the oligarchs!

]]> By: JERRY DUNFEY---PRES---GLOBAL CITIZENS CIRCLE http://blog.because.net/?p=1126&cpage=1#comment-385 JERRY DUNFEY---PRES---GLOBAL CITIZENS CIRCLE Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:52:43 +0000 http://blog.because.net/?p=1126#comment-385 WELL SAID ------WELL DONE WELL SAID ——WELL DONE

]]> By: Susan http://blog.because.net/?p=1126&cpage=1#comment-384 Susan Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:47:16 +0000 http://blog.because.net/?p=1126#comment-384 My only hope is that this will backfire on the conservative element. Over the years I have seen it happen again and again. I have found that the consequences of any change are unknowable. Anyway, I tell myself this so I can get through the day. My only hope is that this will backfire on the conservative element. Over the years I have seen it happen again and again. I have found that the consequences of any change are unknowable. Anyway, I tell myself this so I can get through the day.

]]> By: Gary Pollack http://blog.because.net/?p=1126&cpage=1#comment-383 Gary Pollack Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:42:56 +0000 http://blog.because.net/?p=1126#comment-383 I'm trying to find efforts that will minimize the "private" influences on our government and now this decision? I just wonder if companies will be considered humans when they are prosecuted for injustices. I’m trying to find efforts that will minimize the “private” influences on our government and now this decision? I just wonder if companies will be considered humans when they are prosecuted for injustices.

]]> By: Theresa http://blog.because.net/?p=1126&cpage=1#comment-382 Theresa Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:22:13 +0000 http://blog.because.net/?p=1126#comment-382 I still can't believe it nor can I imagine the consequences. I fear the actual impacts of this decision. Thanks, Nadine for your insightful thoughts. I still can’t believe it nor can I imagine the consequences. I fear the actual impacts of this decision. Thanks, Nadine for your insightful thoughts.

]]>