Which is strange, since the US govt sponsors political campaigns in foreign countries.JohnG@lt wrote:
No. Foreign owned corporations are not US citizens. US owned corporations are.eleven bravo wrote:
foreign governments have a free hand in sponsoring political campaigns now through corporations owned in the US.
yer right forgot about CITGO. Well, they are on the defensive anyway, they have been boycotted enough in the states that they are undertaking a big PR campaign to try and boost their image, don't think it is working though.eleven bravo wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citgo
I believe that is correct. got me wonderin' noweleven bravo wrote:
the decision says that ANY company that was incorporated in the US has the same rights as an individual or no?
Where is that damn chipmunk?Turquoise wrote:
True... it could easily be argued that the system has been bought by special interests from the very beginning.JohnG@lt wrote:
No. It just makes it more open. If you don't think it was happening before behind closed doors... I mean really.eleven bravo wrote:
not a conspiracy theory. if a foreign interest owns 49% of a company are you saying that they arent going to even try dipping their feet in the water? foreign lobbying interests are already rampant. this decision just makes it so much more easier to influence a campaign.
Granted, the same could be said for a lot of governments.
No matter what fancy principles we claim to believe in or so-called safeguards we put into place, the elite will always hold the power.
What makes our system especially resilient is how well we've convinced the people that they're free and actually represented by government. Of course, this facade is quickly fading with this recent ruling.
Hmm same here.lowing wrote:
I believe that is correct. got me wonderin' noweleven bravo wrote:
the decision says that ANY company that was incorporated in the US has the same rights as an individual or no?
Well, typically, big business funds both. I mean, if you've got loads of money, why not do that? That way, it doesn't matter who wins, because you'll still have influence either way.Cybargs wrote:
Corps shouldn't fund campaigns imo... Wouldn't it make the work place weird if your company is funding republicans and you're a democrat?
They should do it old school again. Person who comes second is vice-president.Turquoise wrote:
Well, typically, big business funds both. I mean, if you've got loads of money, why not do that? That way, it doesn't matter who wins, because you'll still have influence either way.Cybargs wrote:
Corps shouldn't fund campaigns imo... Wouldn't it make the work place weird if your company is funding republicans and you're a democrat?
We just have 2 candidates to pretend there's a choice.
Perhaps... That would guarantee all this gridlock so many seem to prefer.Cybargs wrote:
They should do it old school again. Person who comes second is vice-president.Turquoise wrote:
Well, typically, big business funds both. I mean, if you've got loads of money, why not do that? That way, it doesn't matter who wins, because you'll still have influence either way.Cybargs wrote:
Corps shouldn't fund campaigns imo... Wouldn't it make the work place weird if your company is funding republicans and you're a democrat?
We just have 2 candidates to pretend there's a choice.
