Freedom of speech??

[briansd1]

[quote=bsrsharma]Purely as a business strategy, I think spending money on election campaigns has a lower return on investment compared to alternatives. For example, lobbying. Financing campaigns produces uncertain results whereas “buying” the politician after the election produces predictable outcomes. Look at the enormous success of lobbyists compared to voters in U.S. at every level of government.

Another issue many have raised is whether foreigners/foreign government have freedom of speech in U.S. I believe they have; but it would be stupid foreigner to push the commonsense limits. Again alternative modes are more effective. See the success of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Similarly, China achieves its objectives through U.S. Chamber of Commerce rather than engaging in “free speech”.[/quote]

Yes, I agree. Lobbying is much more effective. But I think that leaders do remember the ones who supported them from the very beginning when they got started.

China is learning that lobbying pays off.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/08/AR2010010803710.html

[UCGal]

I think this is potentially bad news for both parties… Under the system, prior to this ruling, candidates were beholden to the party bosses in order to get funds for their house or senate campaigns. Now they can blow off the DNC or GOP and align with corporations… They’ll serve the needs of the corporations and not the parties.

I think this is bad for small business – they can’t play at the level of the big boys and will probably see legislation coming out that favors the big corporations at their expense.

It’s ironic that corporations already had the right to make and pay for the airing of commercials, independent of a candidates campaign… This is how PACs do it. And corporations and individuals have been able to do this as well… This supreme court case was based on a 90 minute film: “Hillary: The Movie”. If the makers had PAID to air it, it would have been legal. But they tried to air it as entertainment and charge for it. If they’d aired it as an infomercial it would have been perfectly legal.

[UCGal]

I think this is potentially bad news for both parties… Under the system, prior to this ruling, candidates were beholden to the party bosses in order to get funds for their house or senate campaigns. Now they can blow off the DNC or GOP and align with corporations… They’ll serve the needs of the corporations and not the parties.

I think this is bad for small business – they can’t play at the level of the big boys and will probably see legislation coming out that favors the big corporations at their expense.

It’s ironic that corporations already had the right to make and pay for the airing of commercials, independent of a candidates campaign… This is how PACs do it. And corporations and individuals have been able to do this as well… This supreme court case was based on a 90 minute film: “Hillary: The Movie”. If the makers had PAID to air it, it would have been legal. But they tried to air it as entertainment and charge for it. If they’d aired it as an infomercial it would have been perfectly legal.

[UCGal]

I think this is potentially bad news for both parties… Under the system, prior to this ruling, candidates were beholden to the party bosses in order to get funds for their house or senate campaigns. Now they can blow off the DNC or GOP and align with corporations… They’ll serve the needs of the corporations and not the parties.

I think this is bad for small business – they can’t play at the level of the big boys and will probably see legislation coming out that favors the big corporations at their expense.

It’s ironic that corporations already had the right to make and pay for the airing of commercials, independent of a candidates campaign… This is how PACs do it. And corporations and individuals have been able to do this as well… This supreme court case was based on a 90 minute film: “Hillary: The Movie”. If the makers had PAID to air it, it would have been legal. But they tried to air it as entertainment and charge for it. If they’d aired it as an infomercial it would have been perfectly legal.

[UCGal]

I think this is potentially bad news for both parties… Under the system, prior to this ruling, candidates were beholden to the party bosses in order to get funds for their house or senate campaigns. Now they can blow off the DNC or GOP and align with corporations… They’ll serve the needs of the corporations and not the parties.

I think this is bad for small business – they can’t play at the level of the big boys and will probably see legislation coming out that favors the big corporations at their expense.

It’s ironic that corporations already had the right to make and pay for the airing of commercials, independent of a candidates campaign… This is how PACs do it. And corporations and individuals have been able to do this as well… This supreme court case was based on a 90 minute film: “Hillary: The Movie”. If the makers had PAID to air it, it would have been legal. But they tried to air it as entertainment and charge for it. If they’d aired it as an infomercial it would have been perfectly legal.

[UCGal]

I think this is potentially bad news for both parties… Under the system, prior to this ruling, candidates were beholden to the party bosses in order to get funds for their house or senate campaigns. Now they can blow off the DNC or GOP and align with corporations… They’ll serve the needs of the corporations and not the parties.

I think this is bad for small business – they can’t play at the level of the big boys and will probably see legislation coming out that favors the big corporations at their expense.

It’s ironic that corporations already had the right to make and pay for the airing of commercials, independent of a candidates campaign… This is how PACs do it. And corporations and individuals have been able to do this as well… This supreme court case was based on a 90 minute film: “Hillary: The Movie”. If the makers had PAID to air it, it would have been legal. But they tried to air it as entertainment and charge for it. If they’d aired it as an infomercial it would have been perfectly legal.

[bubba99]

It surprises me that anyone thinks this will really be a change. For years corporations have hired lobbyists to clear the way with plenty of cash.

Foreign governments like Israel, Japan, and China have their own lobbying arms with a lot of cash. In the past 10 years, there does not seem to be a limit to what these lobbies can do for their own foreign citizens. Our citizens seem blind to the many concessions we are making to foreign governments because of the massive amount of cash spent in Washington.

No, the latest Supreme Court ruling will change very little.

[bubba99]

It surprises me that anyone thinks this will really be a change. For years corporations have hired lobbyists to clear the way with plenty of cash.

Foreign governments like Israel, Japan, and China have their own lobbying arms with a lot of cash. In the past 10 years, there does not seem to be a limit to what these lobbies can do for their own foreign citizens. Our citizens seem blind to the many concessions we are making to foreign governments because of the massive amount of cash spent in Washington.

No, the latest Supreme Court ruling will change very little.

[bubba99]

It surprises me that anyone thinks this will really be a change. For years corporations have hired lobbyists to clear the way with plenty of cash.

Foreign governments like Israel, Japan, and China have their own lobbying arms with a lot of cash. In the past 10 years, there does not seem to be a limit to what these lobbies can do for their own foreign citizens. Our citizens seem blind to the many concessions we are making to foreign governments because of the massive amount of cash spent in Washington.

No, the latest Supreme Court ruling will change very little.

[bubba99]

It surprises me that anyone thinks this will really be a change. For years corporations have hired lobbyists to clear the way with plenty of cash.

Foreign governments like Israel, Japan, and China have their own lobbying arms with a lot of cash. In the past 10 years, there does not seem to be a limit to what these lobbies can do for their own foreign citizens. Our citizens seem blind to the many concessions we are making to foreign governments because of the massive amount of cash spent in Washington.

No, the latest Supreme Court ruling will change very little.

[bubba99]

It surprises me that anyone thinks this will really be a change. For years corporations have hired lobbyists to clear the way with plenty of cash.

Foreign governments like Israel, Japan, and China have their own lobbying arms with a lot of cash. In the past 10 years, there does not seem to be a limit to what these lobbies can do for their own foreign citizens. Our citizens seem blind to the many concessions we are making to foreign governments because of the massive amount of cash spent in Washington.

No, the latest Supreme Court ruling will change very little.

[Casca]

It’s disconcerting to see how many people comment here without actually understanding what this decision was about. Fundamentally, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. If you want to rule out specific organizations of individuals, where do you stop? Unions are OK, but corporations are bad? What kind of whacko thinking is that?

Whomever observed that the real problem is the size and scope of government is right. Return to the days when our constitution meant something, and the problem will resolve itself.

[Casca]

It’s disconcerting to see how many people comment here without actually understanding what this decision was about. Fundamentally, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. If you want to rule out specific organizations of individuals, where do you stop? Unions are OK, but corporations are bad? What kind of whacko thinking is that?

Whomever observed that the real problem is the size and scope of government is right. Return to the days when our constitution meant something, and the problem will resolve itself.

[Casca]

It’s disconcerting to see how many people comment here without actually understanding what this decision was about. Fundamentally, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. If you want to rule out specific organizations of individuals, where do you stop? Unions are OK, but corporations are bad? What kind of whacko thinking is that?

Whomever observed that the real problem is the size and scope of government is right. Return to the days when our constitution meant something, and the problem will resolve itself.

[Casca]

It’s disconcerting to see how many people comment here without actually understanding what this decision was about. Fundamentally, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. If you want to rule out specific organizations of individuals, where do you stop? Unions are OK, but corporations are bad? What kind of whacko thinking is that?

Whomever observed that the real problem is the size and scope of government is right. Return to the days when our constitution meant something, and the problem will resolve itself.

[Author]

Posts