I can’t help but be curious: When you posted this, were you aware at the time that the “unpatriotic” “asshats” you were pitting were the liberal (and in some cases moderate, but by and large not conservative) members of Congress who supported the odious McCain-Feingold “reform” or are you learning it as a result of this thread?
“trade union”. My, what a quaint vernacular. Not meaning any derision, but I dont think I’ve actually heard the phrase in years…
No, I don’t think it would be equally valid. A union is a conglomeration of actual people, of common interest. Thier collective political clout is directly a result of thier individual rights, a numerical significance. A corporation is an abstraction, a device for moving money, goods and services about. Prick it, it does not bleed. It may sue, but not bleed. People have rights, legal abstractions do not.
So long as a union functions for the greater good, in that it promotes and defends egalitarianism, it does well. When it acts to restrict and retard the use of employable skills, and the teaching of same, in order to protect its economic interest, I think it does ill.
A union is a collective of people who are part of the union, a corporation is made up of people employed by the corporation. To me, that is a fundamental distinction.
And what are the shareholders? Robots?
Obligatory elucidator sneer aside…
You have got to be shitting me.
No, of course not, they are the widows and orphans whose milk money is generously supplied by the CEO of GreedCo. Such persons who do not shirk from applying that generosity to themselves, with such rampant enthusiasm.
But shareholders invest in an institution, and derive profit from said investment. They are certainly connected to said institution. But a union is precisely its members, nothing more, nothing less. The members embody the union in a fundamental way, they are the thing itself. If Amalgamated Poison were sold to George Soros tomorrow, and he owned every blessed share, would it cease to be a corporation? No. Hence, the stockholders do not embody the corporation in the same sense that union members embody the union.
Its rather like the old saw about ham and eggs: the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.
So, how many of you are going to re-think your support for McCain-Feingold now?
Some of us who were opposed to this pointed out some of the things like this that would result.
Another unintended (but predictable) consequence is increased partisan influence of and ownership of the media. Because one way to get around limits against advertising is to own the entire station (or newspaper, or whatever), and turn it into your partisan mouthpiece.
This is going to have an increasingly distortionary effect on the media. It’s going to be harder and harder to find honest, unbiased opinion because more of the media is going to come under control of the spinmeisters and partisans in each party.
Plus, the rise of ‘527’ organizations and other funding/campaigning tactics that are increasingly protected from scrutiny is going to make it even harder to tell who is pulling the strings.
The Democrats pushed hard for McCain-Feingold, because they thought it would limit Republicans more than them. They were looking for an advantage. There were no high principles here. Well, now it’s turned around to bite them in the ass. Serves 'em right.
Oh, those dastardly Democrats! Obsessed by their own self-interests, blindly and ruthlessly grasping for power! How unlike the noble Republicans, who only seek to preserve their monetary advantage for the good of the Nation. This should be obvious by the amount they spend on patriotic bunting, and how frequently they blubber their unstinting devotion to “our troops”.
One is almost ashamed to suggest that political self-interest is at play here.
If friend Sam is troubled that the regulations are burdensome, and poorly concieved, by all means, let us work to cobble together something more useful. No one can doubt that the path to campaign reform will be vexing and troublesome, with more false starts and stumbles than balletic leaps. The really big questions are like that, because there is so much at stake. In that regard, such input as his is welcome, and useful.
If, however, he wishes to suggest that the status quo is acceptable, and a parliament of whores the proper legislative body for a free people, that is a different kettle of piranha.
While you’re at it, could you tell me how many angels dance upon the head of this pin I’m holding?
Not me. I figure, if you’re so strongly opposed to it, then it must be a great thing. 
I am unclear what you are trying to convey. My point was beyond this one single argument. It was a general stipulation that any legislative “reforms” are coming from people whose entire lives are typically based on evading the spirit of a law. I am sure all posters understand the notion of finding a loophole in the law to win a case even though you are really wrong. Hence, my assertion that any campaign finance reform that comes from a legislative body comrpised of people who sneak around the law and who are devoted to the notion of finding loopholes, will be useless.
If I am mistaking your posts intent, excuse me, but it appears to be some pseudo form of attack against my own personal politics when they had nothing to do with the post.
Lissa, perhaps I misunderstood. You said:
My interpretation: the “spirit of the law” was to bar excessive political advertising, and that the “loophole” was the other side, claiming that Moore’s film fell into this category, when you felt it didn’t.
True?
If so, I stand by my statement; it’s pretty clear that by every definition, Moore’s movie is a political advertisement against Bush; even by his own declaration. Why should Moore be given some special exemption to pour money into what is obviously a political campaign, when laws specifically disallow it?
If you meant something different, please explain.
My refernece was not to this particular movie specifically, and I do not believe I made that reference at any time. As I explained in a previous post, I was making a comment on campaign finance reform in general (which is the bottom line of this thread) and the notion of laws being designed by the very people who attempt to evade them. Please refer to that for the further explanation you requested.
Your attempts to add on to my comments and make them appear to support one side and not the other are unfounded; especially since I think both sides (dems and pubs) are the culprits in the overall system.
I am sorry if my post was unclear to you.
Because the Republican principle of “one dollar = one vote” is a GOOD thing. :mad:
And the correct answer is:
Moneygrubbing pigdogs who don’t give a fuck about the people who work for the corporation or who buy it’s products/services, so long as their dividends increase.
For what it’s worth, Moore responds to the Citizen’s United campaign:
Is it? I always thought a coporation consisted of the shareholders.
In what way does an employee who is neither a stockholder nor a corporate officer have a right to say in the governance of that corporation?
Squeal like a Marxist. It so happens that the majority of shareholders are ordinary folk holding a 401K or other such savings/retirement plan, and often are indeed employees of the company.
Bullshit. I’ve BEEN am employee/shareholder when I worked as a lowly bakery employee for a huge food chain. Guess how much control I had over the company thanks to my shareholder status? If you guessed anything but “zilch” you are WRONG WRONG WRONG. I’m sure that’s the way it is with most employee shareholders, with the exception of CEOs and such, who have lots of control because of their jobs, not their shares.
Now you’re squealing like a greased Marxist. You didn’t say anything about control. You said that shareholders are “Moneygrubbing pigdogs who don’t give a fuck about the people who work for the corporation or who buy it’s products/services, so long as their dividends increase.” And now you’ve included yourself in that lot. Incidentally, most stocks, like Microsoft and Cisco, are growth shares and do not pay dividends.
Well, there’s shareholders who count and those who don’t. That’s reality, like it or not, conservative swine.