BF2S Forums No More Campaign Funding Limits for Corporations

If you can buy a mind what difference does it make anyways?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you can buy a mind what difference does it make anyways?

The loss of democracy?  The corporations ruling America?

This is a win for free speech.  If you want to take that right away from people because they have wealth, America is not the country for you.  “The court's ruling Thursday lets corporate America start advertising candidates much as they market products and tell viewers to vote for or against them.”  How is this different than any ads we see now? 

“Campaign finance watchdogs predict members of Congress now will cast their votes on controversial legislation with an eye to whether their position on it risks inviting a barrage of special-interest ads against them before the election, or on the flip side, could draw outside spending favorable to them.” 

… and they do that now anyway.  The contribution limits have not changed, just the ability to spend funds on ads to support a given candidate.  This also means that citizens are no longer limited in pooling funds to run ads.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Narupug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you can buy a mind what difference does it make anyways?

The loss of democracy?  The corporations ruling America?

If people are swayed by campaign ads then they get what they deserve. The market has already surpassed the saturation level anyway. I can't tell you the last campaign ad that I actually paid attention to. I'm numb to them and I know I'm not alone.

Personally, I'd like to see all campaigns funded through reasonable levels of tax income with both (or multiple parties) all receiving an equal amount of money to run their campaigns. It would mean running on issues instead of being a matter of who has more money in their campaign war chest.

This isn't just about campaign ads, this is about lobbying to the extreme.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you can buy a mind what difference does it make anyways?

Yeah...  I have to agree.

It appears we've come full circle.  The sad truth of the matter is that freedom is always contingent on the balance of power between the elite and the masses.   The elite have clearly won this battle.

Yet, what does that say about humanity in general?  Advertising and media in general have a lot of power over people's perceptions.  Since most people don't bother to educate themselves on the issues, their views are largely dependent on what they're being fed by media.

So it begs the question: what purpose is there in having a democracy if people are so sheep-like?

It's only a matter of time before, as Narupug mentioned, elections are truly and utterly bought.  We've had our suspicions before about this, but the plutocracy our system has become is too blatant to give the benefit of the doubt now....

FEOS wrote:

So I guess limitations on the First Amendment are OK then?

Because all this SCOTUS decision did was remove limitations on First Amendment rights of certain portions of our populace.

Here we go again with the siting a more then 200 year old document written by people who couldn't even dream of all the ways people with a lot of money can influence your decisions.   The first Amendment was written to guarantee certain freedoms to the American people, and while I know it seems like it but Corporations are NOT people.  I also would like to point out that freedom to buy an election is not one of those freedoms listed in the First Amendment.  I'm pretty sure if the founding fathers were here today they would be against signing the death warrant for democracy.

Last edited by Narupug (2010-01-25 05:19:24)

Narupug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you can buy a mind what difference does it make anyways?

The loss of democracy?  The corporations ruling America?

The corporations are already ruling the world ...

Narupug wrote:

Here we go again with the siting a more then 200 year old document written by people who couldn't even dream of all the ways people with a lot of money can influence your decisions.

Just how old does a law have to be before you get to ignore it?  I'm getting pretty tired of that silly old income tax law, and that crusty old thing was enacted almost 100 years ago.

Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2010-01-25 06:35:31)

Narupug wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Narupug wrote:

Here we go again with the siting a more then 200 year old document written by people who couldn't even dream of all the ways people with a lot of money can influence your decisions.

Just how old does a law have to be before you get to ignore it?  I'm getting pretty tired of that silly old income tax law, and that crusty old thing was enacted almost 100 years ago.

That doesn't change the fact that corporations are not people, and the freedom to buy an election is not an unalieanble right.

Corporations ARE people. Do some research before talking out of your ass.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Narupug wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Just how old does a law have to be before you get to ignore it?  I'm getting pretty tired of that silly old income tax law, and that crusty old thing was enacted almost 100 years ago.

That doesn't change the fact that corporations are not people, and the freedom to buy an election is not an unalieanble right.

Corporations ARE people. Do some research before talking out of your ass.

As soon as we set that legal precedent after the Civil War, it basically was the beginning of the end for any sense of long term equality between the individual and big business.

This is just the final nail in the coffin of this illusion of choice.

Im gonna need to intern soon

Narupug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you can buy a mind what difference does it make anyways?

The loss of democracy?  The corporations ruling America?

If people are so easily manipulated anyway, what difference will it make? Especially when both parties have the same goals of absolute power.