Coorperate campaign controbutions are now legal
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us.../22scotus.html
Welcome to the new united states of fucked.

I don't think it'll be any different than it is now. There are always underhanded things going on, now it's all legal.

This is clearly in response to the increased activity in regulating and monitoring cooperate bodies of late. If they need this to combat that, you bet your noexistant booty that this is a huge win. Private donations will be feeble in comparison to what big businesses are capable of. Every election that has ever been won has always been given to those who spent the most money, everyone from nixon to obama, the biggest spender wins, and this used to reflect to whoever had the most support from small private donations. No longer. Don't be niave.

Bloomberg spent umpteen million dollars of his own dough, compared to a number significantly less for the other guy, in order to buy the election and he only won by 4%. I don't think elections can be totally bought. He won, but by so small a margin. There'll always be people salivating and waiting to pull the lever for whoever tosses them the most cash or favors. But public opinion, even ill-informed, is very powerful and should be given its due. Do you think George W. Bush would have won a hypothetical third term even if he spent $500 Billion?

Its not just ANYBODY, but I believe a Sarah Palin could definitely win with proper funding. But the bloomberg thing is a perfect example, if he didn't spend 86 million dollars, he wouldn't have won, now imagine that with every election, not just the ones involving billionaires. It isn't about who can bribe the most people, or get the most favors really, but who can get the most television time, hire the most people on the street, have the biggest campaign team. Take the most recent elecion in massachssets, the republican party has been making a superficial war on obama where every win means rupert murdok can report that Obama is failing, so they poured tons of money in it while the democrats ignored it. And requiring that much money is just where you have to overcome great odds, imagine more close races... those could be bought easily. Imagine a presidential race, where they are almost always close. With 10 or 15 huge cooperations all throwing in 80 mil to whatever canidate would most likely be good for business, the competition has no chance with private contributors. You mentioned the power of public opinion, but the last presidential elections public opinion reflected the amount of private campaign contributions.

Now I know I am being over paranoid about this and it is only IFs. But the fact that it is possible now and it wasn't before, that is scary. It will takes years and years for us to feel the effects of this. BUt with the POSSIBILITY of every election being bought from here on, it could potentially create a snowball that will get too big to stop.

I do appreciate your optimism, and I pray I PRAY (to the god that doesn't exist) you are right, but this is too ominous for me to ignore.

Aye, aye. I've thought that the government is on the road to disaster, anyway. The way we handle money and credit and debt is very...bad. Every few years now, the stock market plummets and the last time it did, things got really bad. People buy a lot of shit and that affect their opinion. It's all gotta do with how Americans consume things. Coca Cola endorses Sarah Palin. Commercials galore. And it's double exposure for both Coke and Palin.

The passing of this puts the U.S. one step closer to Candidate Coke and Candidate Pepsi. It'll be at a point where they won't bother with names. In fact, it'll just be voting for the whole company. Perhaps thats naive and a little too dystopian of me. But it's just one more thing. I don't know if it'll end up that way, at least in my mind. It's really fucking scary, though.

Though, I'm a person with an irrational and perpetual distrust in their government, so take that as you will.

that is kinda naive but just because i think soda companies would be on the same team because regulations against one of them should theoretically affect the whole industry.

I was just posing an exaggerated hypothetical. Yeah, if there was anti-soda legislation, they'd fight it and back a candidate who'd also do so.

But imagine corporately sponsored and groomed candidates. PRESIDENT STEVE BALLMER.



And America as a publicly traded company. Maybe if I get in now, I'll be rich when the "boom" happens.

Again, naivete. However, nobody thought Hitler would try and take over the world and commit genocide until he tried to take over the world and commit genocide. They just kept giving him stuff and hoped he'd go away.

The point is that we can't say that something won't ever happen. Every concern should be considered legitimate when talking about changing the way a government functions and is created, a la elections and such.

There's a lot to be afraid of.