Active Users:196 Time:19/03/2024 10:27:03 AM
Because selling government to the highest bidder is not democracy or republicanism, but plutocracy. Joel Send a noteboard - 15/02/2012 06:24:29 PM
Do you really think Obama isn't getting the exact same thing? The problem with McCain-Feingold is it just forces the PACs to be more sneaky while impinging on the free speech rights of other people. What is more, it's only money. The election is not decided by money, though how it is spent CAN have an effect. What the money does is buy advertising. And that is the REAL reason Obama and his ilk are so adamant about "campaign finance reform" and shutting out corporations. With the corporate media overwhelmingly in his and his party's favor (for example, the NY Times has not endorsed a Republican since Eisenhower, who was a Democrat up until 1952), outlawing corporate donors leaves him and the Democrats as the sole recipients of corporate campaign donations. The difference is, where other corporations can only donate money, the media conglomerates can donate the very thing that money is primarily used for - airtime & newsprint. Editorials almost entirely favoring the left and slanted coverage are as good as, or better than all the ads the GOP can buy with a Super PAC's money, especially because in election years people start tuning out the ads, but actually give the editorials and supposedly objective coverage at least a cursory read. And McCain's co-sponsorship of the bill hardly indicates any sort of bipartisanship: the NY Times' favorite Republican thought he had little to fear when it came to being cut off from a platform or publicity source. Of course, when his editorials were suddenly no longer welcome in the paper of record when he was running against The First Black Candidate, and his victory would deprive them of a good story, he may have had a rude awakening...

What was the last thing I said?
Just to be clear: That Obama and the AFL-CIO are making hay while the sunshines with PAC money does not make it any less garbage; on the contrary, banning that mystery money from shuffling between PACs and candidates in perfect collusion while pretending the opposite makes every bit as much sense as banning the rest.

When the Crips respond to a Blood driveby with one of their own, it keeps things nice and fair between them, but makes things worse, not better, for everyone else. In the years leading up to McCain-Feingold people asked Gore why he took soft money while calling for laws against it; his response was "I do not believe in unilateral disarmament." I agree with that philosophy, but let us not kid ourselves Obama is any more serious about campaign finance reform than about the many other things he endorses rhetorically while abandoning legislatively.

The public opposes both major parties buying elections with national media blitzes shouting their names like a homecoming queen shouts the quarterbacks name on prom night, until it looks like no one else is running. Most Dem politicians simply oppose Republicans benefiting more from their shared unfair advantage over everyone else. Since the FEC began giving presidential candidates matching funds, the norm has been for Republicans to reject those funds and the spending limits that go with them while Democrats accepted both. That the opposite was true in 2008 should have told everyone the score (and who would win.) Obama talks a good game on this as on so many other issues, but it is only talk.

When people said, "do you libs realize McCain-Feingold bans all that union soft money, too?" MY reponse was "yes, and that is another selling point."

Seriously though, the Dems are the only recipients of corporate campaign donations? Romney and Gingrich are Dems now? :P
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
One for the Road: Super PAC Money Untraceable - 13/02/2012 04:05:54 PM 720 Views
So what? - 15/02/2012 02:20:36 PM 83 Views
Because selling government to the highest bidder is not democracy or republicanism, but plutocracy. - 15/02/2012 06:24:29 PM 88 Views
As opposed to a media-ocracy? - 17/02/2012 07:33:03 PM 156 Views
Sorry, not buying that. - 19/02/2012 02:56:43 AM 133 Views

Reply to Message