hubiestubert: Actually, the blending of business and government interest goes into a slightly different direction...

Fascizzle.

ox45tallboy: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: CitizensUnited: You're welcome.

I came here for this, and am not leaving disappointed.

Yeah, quite a few of us have him on ignore so we don't have to listen to his crap. Thanks for quoting him.

That's why I have 'ignore replies to ignored' set in my preferences. Some trolls I keep around for the entertainment value, though.

ox45tallboy: PsiChick: Weaver95: Mrtraveler01: Does anyone outside of the dittoheads really give a shiat about Solyndra?.

no, not really. I'm sure it means something to the Limbuagh crowd, but to be honest - as a campaign year issue it's a non-starter. personally, I'd go after Obama for his inability to close Gitmo, his failures on protecting personal freedom and privacy and his refusal to acknowledge the well coordinated efforts of pro-cannabis reform groups to open a dialogue on our many (and well documented) failures in the 'war on drugs'.

Since the GOP's not smart enough to do that, Obama's going to win.

Really, until the GOP grows a working brain, I have no worries about them. Given that they're almost literally playing supervillain, that's saying something.

Technically, those two issues would mean a complete reversal of platform for the GOP. They're the ones who created Gitmo in the first place, and it is their base that are among the most vocal supporters of the War on Drugs. Ironically, the logical issues that one could use to run against Obama are the things the GOP are staunch supporters of.

The GOP cares about hypocrisy? No, they're very firmly hypocrites, that's not new, and their base would support them if they switched positions. The problem is that they aren't intelligent enough to.

/They're the party endorsing Mr. Moon-Base. Intelligence is not their key trait.

Weaver95: I have a different idea - ban ALL soft money

Unless you're using a different definition of soft money than I am, this would never and *should* never happen. For all the BS about money is speech, there are quite a few cases where money really *is* speech. What soft money that is speech may look like:



Every dollar that was paid for the guy to design that splash page is a dollar of soft money. If not, what's the difference between that and this?



Or this one, which doesn't mention a candidate or even a bill?



Organizations need to be able to engage in issue advertising. Blocking that sort of speech essentially prevents us from discussing our own government. It can get tricky as to what types of soft money advertising we want or do not want, but an outright ban on soft money should not be a goal, as it is not a good idea.

Mike_LowELL: Taxbongo usurps power from the American people: Good.
Wealthy, successful Americans try to take this country back and give it to We, the People: Bad.

Got it, libs.

I agree with you that Charles and David Koch and their friends are selfless patriots who have always acted in the interests of the American people as a whole rather than in their own selfish interests.

And speaking of interests, it just so happens that I am able to offer you one half of my own interest in the Lincoln Tunnel, with rights to half of all tolls collected, for a very low price, limited time only, call Ti-R Enterprises Inc., operators now standing by, don't miss this once in a lifetime opportunity before someone more on the ball than you snaps it up.

Sleeping Monkey: All with the hope that Romney will allow them to poison Americans with impunity.

We have to kill the environment, or else the hippies win.

And if there's one thing Jesus hates, it's hippies.

andrewagill: Unless you're using a different definition of soft money than I am, this would never and *should* never happen. For all the BS about money is speech, there are quite a few cases where money really *is* speech. What soft money that is speech may look like:

The Google censorship banner was directed at an issue, not at a candidate or an election. I may be wrong, but I don't think campaign finance rules apply to them at all. If we banned all soft money--and I'm not saying that doing so wouldn't cause any problems--but if we banned all soft money, I think issue ads like Google's would still be okay.

andrewagill: Organizations need to be able to engage in issue advertising. Blocking that sort of speech essentially prevents us from discussing our own government. It can get tricky as to what types of soft money advertising we want or do not want, but an outright ban on soft money should not be a goal, as it is not a good idea.

His position was obviously, as it pertains to election campaigns. Discuss an issue all you want, don't endorse or attack a candidate.

ArkAngel: Because Soros never did this to try and get Bush out of office

Citizens United was decided in 2010.

Unrestricted campaign financing of this scale wasn't possible during the 2008 election.

//you dolt

bugontherug: andrewagill: Unless you're using a different definition of soft money than I am, this would never and *should* never happen. For all the BS about money is speech, there are quite a few cases where money really *is* speech. What soft money that is speech may look like:

The Google censorship banner was directed at an issue, not at a candidate or an election. I may be wrong, but I don't think campaign finance rules apply to them at all. If we banned all soft money--and I'm not saying that doing so wouldn't cause any problems--but if we banned all soft money, I think issue ads like Google's would still be okay.

leaving any group the ability to campaign on issues will cause problems.
why should google be able to do that just because you agree with them? how is it any different from Disney running adverts on abc or whatever networks they own pushing for SOPA? what if instead of buying youtube google had bought a big stake in hulu? what if google didn't agree with you? I'd ban it all. all pac, interest group, union, and corporation advertisements of any kind. I wouldn't even let them put up signs or cold call people. then publicly fund all national campaigns. the problem that would create is news organizations become incredibly powerful if you let them inject opinion into broadcasts. but I think the cure is still better than the disease.

bugontherug: andrewagill: Unless you're using a different definition of soft money than I am, this would never and *should* never happen. For all the BS about money is speech, there are quite a few cases where money really *is* speech. What soft money that is speech may look like:

The Google censorship banner was directed at an issue, not at a candidate or an election. I may be wrong, but I don't think campaign finance rules apply to them at all. If we banned all soft money--and I'm not saying that doing so wouldn't cause any problems--but if we banned all soft money, I think issue ads like Google's would still be okay.

Neither billboard I posted mentioned any candidate, election, or even any current piece of legislation. I'm not sure about Google's advocacy but the EFF produced a statement naming Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) as people opposing SOPA. That's directed at a candidate. Should we not do that?

Soft money, as I understand it, includes issue advertising. If you're not talking about banning issue advertising, then I may wind up agreeing with you, so long as I know what you are talking about.

wedun: ArkAngel: Because Soros never did this to try and get Bush out of office

Citizens United was decided in 2010.

Unrestricted campaign financing of this scale wasn't possible during the 2008 election.

//you dolt

of course it was, you dolt.
CU didn't strike down individual limits. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
and soros has already done what a source has claimed the koch brothers have merely pledged to do. ..according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003-2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 groups dedicated to defeating President Bush. A 527 group is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after a section of the United States tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 527.
is this projection or are you a retard?

ox45tallboy: bugontherug: andrewagill: Unless you're using a different definition of soft money than I am, this would never and *should* never happen. For all the BS about money is speech, there are quite a few cases where money really *is* speech. What soft money that is speech may look like:

The Google censorship banner was directed at an issue, not at a candidate or an election. I may be wrong, but I don't think campaign finance rules apply to them at all. If we banned all soft money--and I'm not saying that doing so wouldn't cause any problems--but if we banned all soft money, I think issue ads like Google's would still be okay.

I agree with you here, but what if it were related to a referendum, like the Gay Marriage bill in California last year? Would that count as "influencing an election"?

I'm in full support of Google and Wikipedia for what they chose to do, but 'm honest enough to say that it is only because I agree with them on this particular issue. We have to decide to what degree corporations can do things like this. What happens if Google does something similar if we get a progressive Congress attempting to pass privacy legislation that says Google can't keep as much personally identifying data as they currently do?

andrewagill: bugontherug: andrewagill: Unless you're using a different definition of soft money than I am, this would never and *should* never happen. For all the BS about money is speech, there are quite a few cases where money really *is* speech. What soft money that is speech may look like:

The Google censorship banner was directed at an issue, not at a candidate or an election. I may be wrong, but I don't think campaign finance rules apply to them at all. If we banned all soft money--and I'm not saying that doing so wouldn't cause any problems--but if we banned all soft money, I think issue ads like Google's would still be okay.

Neither billboard I posted mentioned any candidate, election, or even any current piece of legislation. I'm not sure about Google's advocacy but the EFF produced a statement naming Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) as people opposing SOPA. That's directed at a candidate. Should we not do that?

Soft money, as I understand it, includes issue advertising. If you're not talking about banning issue advertising, then I may wind up agreeing with you, so long as I know what you are talking about.

Unfortunately, I don't know much about campaign finance law to say. I just don't think issue ads fall within the scope of existing campaign finance regulation, or even pre-Citizens United regulation. Steven Colbert still did his satire all through the 2006, 2008, and 2010 election seasons, and still does it today, as the Republican primary elections unfold. I think as long as he stops short of endorsing a particular candidate, "soft money" expenditures of the type you're talking about are okay.

As for national referendums, we don't have them. I'm pretty sure federal campaign finance law only applies to federal elections.

PsiChick:
Since the GOP's not smart enough to do that, Obama's going to win.

Really, until the GOP grows a working brain, I have no worries about them. Given that they're almost literally playing supervillain, that's saying something.

This kind of thinking is so dangerous. Look at what Republican governors are doing.

relcec: leaving any group the ability to campaign on issues will cause problems.
why should google be able to do that just because you agree with them? how is it any different from Disney running adverts on abc or whatever networks they own pushing for SOPA? what if instead of buying youtube google had bought a big stake in hulu? what if google didn't agree with you?

My focus isn't on whether or not I agree with the message. My focus is on factors like:

1) does X kind of spending subvert democratic values?
2) does X kind of spending implicate other compelling public interests?
3) are there less onerous means than bans available to achieve the same compelling public interests?
4) does X attempt to regulate a given type of spending leave open other avenues for interested parties to speak?

Based on these factors, I believe, for example, that all hard money contributions, and certain types of soft-money contributions by for profit, non-media, commercial corporations may and should be banned.

1) Political spending by for profit, non-media, commercial corporations (hereafter "corporate spending") subverts democratic values by giving concentrating disproportionate political influence into the corporatist class, a tiny cadre of elitist insiders unconcerned with the public interest. In so doing, corporate spending makes political actors less accountable to voters than to the corporatist class.

2) Corporate spending implicates other compelling government interests than subversion of democratic values. Corporate spending transfers massive political influence from the hands of people who invested money in order to obtain a financial return, to a tiny cadre of elitist insiders who may or may not share their investors' political values. There is a compelling public interest in protecting investors from abuse of their investments. Even when a corporation stands to profit from a particular policy outcome, people who invested money in that corporation may or may not support said policy outcome.

3) To the best of my knowledge, no less onerous means exist to vindicate the public interests in maintaining political accountability to voters, and to protecting investors from abuse of their investments.

4) Banning corporate spending leaves open plenty of avenues for other interested parties to speak. Even with a 100% ban on corporate hard money spending, every person who works for those corporations could still permissibly march in demonstrations, carry placards in public places, write letters to the editor, or even spend an unlimited amount of their personal wealth to advance their political values. In a regime with a 100% ban on corporate political spending, nobody, not one single person is truly denied the freedom to speak as he or she pleases.


I'd ban it all. all pac, interest group, union, and corporation advertisements of any kind. I wouldn't even let them put up signs or cold call people. then publicly fund all national campaigns. the problem that would create is news organizations become incredibly powerful if you let them inject opinion into broadcasts. but I think the cure is still better than the disease.

I think that goes too far. I think that infringes on freedom of association, for example. In the Citizens United case, the Court could have delivered the same outcome with a narrower holding. Citizens United said basically all limits on corporate political spending are unconstitutional, and it didn't need to. There's a world of difference between, say, General Electric and Citizens United.

That difference relates abuse of investor funds rationale for regulating corporate spending. That rationale just doesn't exist when dealing with corporations formed specifically for advocacy purposes. General Electric's primary purpose is to generate returns for its investors, and its investors invest contemplating financial outcomes, not political spending. Citizens United, by contrast, was formed specifically to advocate against Hillary Clinton. Everyone who invested in Citizens United did or should have known that his money would be spent for political purposes.

Neither does the concentration of political influence rationale apply, or at least not to the same degree. There just isn't going to be the same amount of money invested in advocacy corporations as in commercial, for profit corporations. Advocacy groups like Citizens United will never threaten to subvert democratic values in the same way corporate spending does.

thamike: This is the answer to all of your questions.

*That you are a dumbass whose responses almost always show an inability to understand what is being said?

I don't see how that answers my question to "not you." But thanks for reminding me*.

bugontherug: I just don't think issue ads fall within the scope of existing campaign finance regulation, or even pre-Citizens United regulation.

They do not. Weaver95 said we should ban all soft money. I don't think we should, for the reasons I've explained above. I suspect that he was either not thinking it through or he meant something else, which I might actually agree with

I feel like I should quote Kuni from UHF, and ask ``What's it gonna be, Weaver?'' but I don't want to actually be confrontational.

ox45tallboy: Colbert actually endorsed McCain in 2008; he had a large McCain banner hung above the bookshelf where he keeps his Emmys, Grammy, and O'Reilley's microwave.

There's definitely an issue as to whether or not that was a "true endorsement." I.e., endorsing McCain was well within his satirical character.

bugontherug: relcec: leaving any group the ability to campaign on issues will cause problems.
why should google be able to do that just because you agree with them? how is it any different from Disney running adverts on abc or whatever networks they own pushing for SOPA? what if instead of buying youtube google had bought a big stake in hulu? what if google didn't agree with you?

My focus isn't on whether or not I agree with the message. My focus is on factors like:

1) does X kind of spending subvert democratic values?
2) does X kind of spending implicate other compelling public interests?
3) are there less onerous means than bans available to achieve the same compelling public interests?
4) does X attempt to regulate a given type of spending leave open other avenues for interested parties to speak?

Based on these factors, I believe, for example, that all hard money contributions, and certain types of soft-money contributions by for profit, non-media, commercial corporations may and should be banned.

1) Political spending by for profit, non-media, commercial corporations (hereafter "corporate spending") subverts democratic values by giving concentrating disproportionate political influence into the corporatist class, a tiny cadre of elitist insiders unconcerned with the public interest. In so doing, corporate spending makes political actors less accountable to voters than to the corporatist class.

2) Corporate spending implicates other compelling government interests than subversion of democratic values. Corporate spending transfers massive political influence from the hands of people who invested money in order to obtain a financial return, to a tiny cadre of elitist insiders who may or may not share their investors' political values. There is a compelling public interest in protecting investors from abuse of their investments. Even when a corporation stands to profit from a particular policy outcome, people who invested money in that corporation may or may not support sai ...

I think your focus is completely on whether you agree with the message, and this is obvious once we take a look at some facts. the UAW spends money tens of millions on getting obama elected, as a quid pro quo obama responds by handing out $20 billion in tax payer cash to make their retirement funds whole, while Chrysler bondholders are made to take a bath even though in normal bankruptcy law these two stakeholders would be equally soaked.
in 1997 years of lobbying by the AMA finally paid off when congress passed the balanced budget amendment that included a freeze on residency slots paid for by medicare. this was designed specifically by this non for profit to jack up physician salaries by creating a shortage of doctors at the expense of patient. beyond the health problems this legislation has surely created, it has also cost the American citizen probably several billion if not half a trillion dollars by this point.
in the scarce allocation of public funds profit or non profit status means nothing, both groups will equally try to soak the taxpayer. there are no good guys. they all want to fleece the american public through regulation.

it's not in the public interest to have the president of the united state more beholden to 390,000 UAW workers or the AMA than he is to the rest of the 310 million of us because they are allowed to spend money on his election because of your arbitrary decision about what particular message happens to be in the public's interest at the moment.
it all needs to be shutdown.

one man. one vote. everyone with an equal voice.

A Dark Evil Omen: Gulper Eel: Fart_Machine: Or we could instead turn to public financing and close all the loopholes.

I believe you'll find the results under "Foxes, henhouse-guarding proficiency of, pp. 32-1198"

Except that public campaign financing works the world over, and you just look like a moron saying it doesn't. This isn't an experiment. It's like public health care; we know it works because we have dozens of good examples to choose from. You're just a lying shill.

Alright, here we go...I realize this is hard for you to believe but the United States is not the rest of the developed world. We are the most greedy opportunistic mother lovers who have walked the face of the earth with a massive alienation complex. Our interactions between the private and public spheres should make that apparent in giant neon signs...

You would have to be apocalypticly stupid to suggest that publicly funded elections would be the solution to our political cronyism and corruption problems. You are giving the political class the power to further determine how to set barriers to entry for the political system. I can in no way see incumbent politicians trying to change the rules of campaign finance to hobble their competition...political economy read up on it you twit.

///also, don't get me started on healthcare. if you think medicare in this country is a "model" program, you must have had an end of the year clear-out in the cranium department.

Obama has raised a billion dollars from wall street and the rich elites in hollywood and you guys are worried about 100 million? Obama is going to outspend the GOP by so much, liberals have nothing to be crying about.

relcec: I think your focus is completely on whether you agree with the message, and this is obvious once we take a look at some facts. the UAW spends money tens of millions on getting obama elected, as a quid pro quo obama responds by handing out $20 billion in tax payer cash to make their retirement funds whole, while Chrysler bondholders are made to take a bath even though in normal bankruptcy law these two stakeholders would be equally soaked.
in 1997 years of lobbying by the AMA finally paid off when congress passed the balanced budget amendment that included a freeze on residency slots paid for by medicare. this was designed specifically by this non for profit to jack up physician salaries by creating a shortage of doctors at the expense of patient. beyond the health problems this legislation has surely created, it has also cost the American citizen probably several billion if not half a trillion dollars by this point.
in the scarce allocation of public funds profit or non profit status means nothing, both groups will equally try to soak the taxpayer. there are no good guys. they all want to fleece the american public through regulation.

I'm struggling to elicit much meaning from this word salad, but no, my focus is not on whether or not I agree with the message. I think at least one of the rationales, the concentration of political influence into the hands of a few, applies to unions as well as corporations. That might settle the question for me, except that unions seem to me to fall arguably into the "advocacy" role than commercial for profit corporations do. People invest in GE without considering political spending. Nobody takes a union job not knowing the union is going to engage in political activity. So unions are a gray area for me. If my focus were entirely on whether or not I agree with the message, I'd say unions should be unregulable, but corporations should be regulable.

I'm not 100% clear on the status of the AMA, and it doesn't look like I agree with their policy outcome. But unless people give money to the AMA mainly to gain returns on their investment, I don't think their spending should be regulated.

hugram: So they spend 60 millions to stop Obama's tax raising policies, which if implemented, the new tax amount they would probably spend will be less than 60 millions. Make sense to me...

It is not like they have not made money during the Obama Administration... The DOW is up over 60%, the S&P 500 is up over 65% and the NASDAQ is over 101% since 1/20/2009...

What other possible reason could it be that they want to get rid off Obama?

You obviously don't get it.

He's Black. BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA

ox45tallboy: bugontherug: ox45tallboy: Colbert actually endorsed McCain in 2008; he had a large McCain banner hung above the bookshelf where he keeps his Emmys, Grammy, and O'Reilley's microwave.

There's definitely an issue as to whether or not that was a "true endorsement." I.e., endorsing McCain was well within his satirical character.

His entire PAC has been operated "in character," from his hearing at the FEC to its administration to handing it off to Jon Stewart, everything is completely in character, and the FEC ruled that he has every right that the other PACs do.

His PAC is NOT satire. He's 100% serious in demonstrating exactly what a PAC can do in an election. And he's doing a damn good job at it.

Do you think Colbert's audience understood his McCain endorsement as a real encouragement to vote for McCain?

And having a "serious" message doesn't undermine satire's character as satire. On the contrary, when I used the word "satire" here, I meant "satire bearing a real political message." Colbert's definitely wraps political and cultural messages up in his satire, and in my mind, most satire does.

Weaver95: Free_Chilly_Willy: It was a "safety net" during the depression. Barely. Now its an entitlement.

you don't think we need a safety net anymore?

no he is saying people who are utterly dependent on the government are being "bought" in their own way...some people would argue a more socially justifiable way but they are basically "bought" all same.

also, social security, and later medicare, were originally conceived as programs to basically take care of you for the few years you lived after you became too old to keep working. now they are functionally treated like retirement/pension programs which were not the original plan.

Mrbogey: bugontherug: Based on these factors, I believe, for example, that all hard money contributions, and certain types of soft-money contributions by for profit, non-media, commercial corporations may and should be banned.

So Exxon creates a group called Exxon News Service... oh well... let's not make it so obvious, let's call them the New York Times. So they create a corporate subsidiary that pumps out news. They can have full speech rights, correct?

No, I don't think it's impossible or even difficult to sort out real advocacy organizations from corporate shells funded by corporations themselves. Under my view, Exxon employees would be perfectly free to found Exxon News Service, and then invest their own money in it, and solicit investments from other people, for the purpose of advocating for Exxon's interests. But I don't think any of Exxon News Service's financing should come from Exxon corporation's treasury.


Can we shut down non-media groups that intend to subvert democracy? Groups like Google, Paypal, or Wikipedia or the non-professional bloggers at livejournal, blogspot, and wordpress?

Wikipedia, and non-professional bloggers strike me as media groups. Google falls into a gray area that I'm not sure how to talk about. And Paypal is a commercial, for profit corporation. So no, I don't think we should regulate any postings on Wikipedia, or by non-professional bloggers. I do think we should be able to ban political spending by Paypal. I'm not sure what to do with Google.

Being against CU is supporting a layer of gov't control on free speech that works okay against a ruling authority that is open but can be used by a wannabe despot to silence their opposition.

Not if the principles are clearly articulated. In the real world, a despot is far more likely to arise from massively funded corporate interest groups than from the federal election bureaucracy charged with regulating corporate political speech.

bugontherug: I'm struggling to elicit much meaning from this word salad, but no, my focus is not on whether or not I agree with the message. I think at least one of the rationales, the concentration of political influence into the hands of a few, applies to unions as well as corporations. That might settle the question for me, except that unions seem to me to fall arguably into the "advocacy" role than commercial for profit corporations do.

Interesting. So for you, all corporations must fall into either advocacy or profit realms (or in theory neither, though I'd expect the number to elect to cut themselves off from advocacy to be vanishingly small).

I won't say whether or not I agree with that position, but I will say that it would seem to imply that all for-profit corporate lobbying must be behind closed doors, since spending money to make their opinions known publicly could be seen as advertising.

LordJiro: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Citizens United?

YOUR WELCOME!

so you're ok with Unions outright buying politicans then?

Except unions will never have anywhere near the same level of money speech as international megacorporations...or even just the CEO of one.

This is what you've done, 'Conservatives'. By deciding that money = speech, you've legitimized the fact that the uberwealthy possess enough "speech" to drown out normal people, and to override their interests in favor of profit.

But then, profit over people is the Republican motto, after all.

Goldman Sachs was one of the largest Obama presidential campaign contributors in 2008.

Link (new window)

///the amount of liberal cognitive dissonance in this thread is completely nauseating.

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: ox45tallboy: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: CitizensUnited: You're welcome.

I came here for this, and am not leaving disappointed.

Yeah, quite a few of us have him on ignore so we don't have to listen to his crap. Thanks for quoting him.

That's why I have 'ignore replies to ignored' set in my preferences. Some trolls I keep around for the entertainment value, though.

I don't know why you'd want to ignore me. That's like ignoring a sunrise, a bald eagle, or even the sublime beauty of oil and gas pipelines crossing a wildlife refuge.

Gulper Eel: Weaver95: that's an obscene amount of cash to dump into a political race

Having dumped an obscene amount of cash into the federal government, and having granted it obscene powers especially at the executive level, to complain that an obscene amount of money is being thrown around in an attempt to get at all that money and power is like...I dunno, putting out a giant tray of bacon in front of a dozen ravenous Farkers, complaining that they ate it, then putting out another tray of bacon twice as big and being astounded that 50 Farkers showed up to om nom nom it the second time around.

So when Obama wins in 2012 (and he will) the cock brothers and their toadies will have wasted $180 million of their own money too?


we call that a win/win

andrewagill: Interesting. So for you, all corporations must fall into either advocacy or profit realms (or in theory neither, though I'd expect the number to elect to cut themselves off from advocacy to be vanishingly small).

It's okay if corporations with a primary advocacy mission make a profit too. It's not okay if corporations with a primary profit mission engage in advocacy. Are you imagining that GE will amend its charter to become primarily an advocacy group?

I don't think so. But I think even that problem is solvable, just by reference to how much of advocacy vs. other commercial activity the corporation engages in. I.e., Citizens United formed to sell a message about Hillary, and virtually all of its spending went to that purpose. If GE tries to amend its charter to include "advancing the political interest of GE," but then GE spends most of its money running its energy empire, and only a fraction on lobbying, then I'd say its amended charter is bullsh*t, and it should be banned from advocacy.

But even if you don't like that approach, I think it's acceptable to require corporations to affirmatively state in their corporate charters whether that they intend to authorize treasury funds to be used for political purposes. I think that's still an improvement over the existing rule, because it gives investors easily accessible information about whether their investments really amount to political contributions.



I won't say whether or not I agree with that position, but I will say that it would seem to imply that all for-profit corporate lobbying must be behind closed doors, since spending money to make their opinions known publicly could be seen as advertising.

Lobbying probably falls into the category of soft-money spending I'd ban for profit corporations from engaging in.

Mrbogey: bugontherug: In the real world, a despot is far more likely to arise from massively funded corporate interest groups than from the federal election bureaucracy charged with regulating corporate political speech.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x331]

How you doin'?

Chavez arose from Venezuala's federal election bureaucracy?

Citation needed.