The Koch brothers had power, but Citizens United and other Supreme Court decisions have ADDED to their power: they can make donations in UNLIMITED amounts, in secret, to SuperPACs. That’s where those half a million dollar checks have been coming from. And only a naive fool would believe that corporations/plutocrats make donations of that size without expecting some specific paybacks down the line, or that politicians don’t give full attention to individuals who write half million dollar (or more) checks to a SuperPAC that helps get him elected. Finally, only a naive fool does not believe that SuperPACs don’t secretly coordinate with the SuperPACs that help get them elected). I know you don’t hold these beliefs, elucidator, just wanted to get those thoughts out there in a probably futile effort to reduce the amount of fake naivete around here.
Oh, I can easily resolve your difficulties here, rat. I don’t advocate forbidding corporations from indulging in political speech. I advocate controls on the amount they can spend on political speech. We should be able to establish a limit that coffee stands and dog walkers can spend on political speech that would give them more than ample ability to express themselves monetarily … say, $2500. Which would at the same time curb the excesses of the big corporations. You’re welcome!
Actually, ambition is not a cognate of “wants to make money” – one can be ambitious to achieve any number of goals, not related to money making. But you apparently think it’s the same thing as “greed.” Very revealing! Thank you!
Well at least you are honest about wanting to further your views by removing the voice of others.
I personally find that moraly repugnant and will fight it but thanks for being honest Evil Captor.
I think the words “and other Supreme Court decisions” are intended to convey that Citizens United is not the only and unique decision that enhances the power of the monied to affect elections. Hence, your objection may be charitably described as a misunderstanding.
Though it must be noted that **Evil’s ** posts *are *awfully dense and difficult to understand… Not for me, of course, 'cause I’m really fucking smart, but we must be mindful of the limitations of others.
Newspapers, TV stations, churches, political parties, charities, social groups, political activist and human rights groups…all not humans, all strickly legal entities.
Should they have no rights?
Or should only those who want to make a profit have no rights because there’s a conflict of interest with the good of the public? Including humans?
How about you stop trying to control the process and let the voters handle it?
So what? They can still speak. It’s often a fundamental part of their mission. If the government leaves them alone, fine, but when it comes after them, they have a right to speak out against it.
And hey, there are thousands of groups that were formed specifically for the purpose of speech, particularly to affect public policy. Just check the Washington DC phone directory and you’ll see.
The “noun” I was “conjugating” was “the desire to make money.” My point was that when I want to make money, it’s healthy ambition, but when the other guy wants to make money, it’s evil greed.
This was a jab at your calling corporations “amoral” and “greedy” simply because their purpose (SOLE purpose, you seem to think) is to make money. I’m sorry; I should have stated that less subtly for you.