State of the Union

[jbrettlip]

This whole speech was a fucking lie and a joke. People that clap for this shit are the reason that our country is in the shitter. "We need a jobs bill, to give people money to start businesses" The government doesn't have any money of its own. It simply TAKES money from elsewhere and filters it through bureaucracy and gives it to someone else. It is a scam and anyone that believes it is probably a college kid that is going to graduate with a $70k communications degree and won't be able to pay back their student loans while tending bar in Applebees.

Everytime I come to these forums, I wish a) I hadn't and b) we had fucking nuked Europe in WW2.

[Snorri1234]

It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.
It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.
It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.
It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.
It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.

Corporations could spend unlimited money on campaigning for a candidate or an issue?


What the f*ck?

[Snorri1234]

It is a scam and anyone that believes it is probably a college kid that is going to graduate with a $70k communications degree and won't be able to pay back their student loans while tending bar in Applebees.

Wait, I thought those college kids were hippie anarchists who wanted us to live in communes.

[thegreekdog]

It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.
It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.
It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.
It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.
It was like that prior to the Supreme Court decision.

Corporations could spend unlimited money on campaigning for a candidate or an issue?


What the f*ck?

No... multinationals could form Political Action Committees; international citizens could put money in an organization and donate that money to a political candidate... before the Supreme Court decision. Do you remember the whole scandal with President Clinton and some Chinese ambassadors (not official ambassadors)?

I'm not sure how I can get this through any better than I've already tried to... the only thing this case did was strike down one section of one law that prohibited US corporations from creating advertisements supporting one particular issue or candidate some number of days before an election. That's it. Nothing else.

[thegreekdog]

All...

'Member how the president said that he wanted bipartisanship? 'Member how stahrgazer and I discussed this?

Well, the president and some House Republicans met today...

Here's some of that meeting from msn.com:

There was some grumbling when he remarked — after being pressed about closed-door health care negotiations — that most of the legislation was developed in congressional committees in front of television cameras.

"That was a messy process," he acknowledged.

Several Republicans challenged Obama with lengthy complaints and sharp questions.

"What should we tell our constituents who know that Republicans have offered positive solutions" for health care, "and yet continue to hear out of the administration that we've offered nothing?" asked Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga.

Obama showed little sympathy, disputing Price's claim that a Republican plan would cover nearly all Americans without raising taxes.

So, we can see here that President Obama acknowledges that the health care negotiations were "messy" and we can infer that Republicans were not invited to the party.

[Snorri1234]

No... multinationals could form Political Action Committees; international citizens could put money in an organization and donate that money to a political candidate... before the Supreme Court decision.

I see, and that's the same because???

I'm not sure how I can get this through any better than I've already tried to... the only thing this case did was strike down one section of one law that prohibited US corporations from creating advertisements supporting one particular issue or candidate some number of days before an election. That's it. Nothing else.

And because we're talking about Magic Land of Justice and Love and not the United States there will be no consequences.


Just because it's one section of one law does not mean it's not a very important thing.

[thegreekdog]

You win on account of I can't do it anymore.

[pimpdave]

You win on account of I can't do it anymore.

In that case, brother, let me help shoulder your load.

Here goes.

FUCK THE POOR! YEEEHAW! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, BITCHES!

I LOVE PROFITS MORE THAN I LOVE HAVING A NATION TO LIVE IN! A WHACKITY SCHMACKITY DOO!




Don't worry about thanking me, greekdog. I'm just glad I could help.

[thegreekdog]

You win on account of I can't do it anymore.

In that case, brother, let me help shoulder your load.

Here goes.

FUCK THE POOR! YEEEHAW! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, BITCHES!

I LOVE PROFITS MORE THAN I LOVE HAVING A NATION TO LIVE IN! A WHACKITY SCHMACKITY DOO!


I'm just glad I could help.

Much obliged.

[Snorri1234]

Seriously, can you explain to me why I'm wrong in pointing out that the situation WASN'T the same before the ruling? Because I'm seriously mystified as to what you're talking about.

[thegreekdog]

Seriously, can you explain to me why I'm wrong in pointing out that the situation WASN'T the same before the ruling? Because I'm seriously mystified as to what you're talking about.

Okay... with respect to the "international" part, here are some examples:

Before the ruling - You have a corporation that is run by multinationals (let's say the major shareholders are citizens of China). That corporation has a United States subsidiary corporation (let's call it Company X... my favorite company). Company X wants to run an advertisement for Joe Smith, a Democrat candidate for the senate. So, Company X forms a Political Action Committee which accepts donations from other people, and runs an advertisement. They can only run it up until 30 days before a primary and up until 90 days before a general election (or whatever the days are).

After the ruling - You have a corporation that is run by multinationals (let's say the major shareholders are citizens of China). That corporation has a United States subsidiary corporation (let's call it Company X again). Company X wants to run an advertisemetn for Jim Smith, a Republican candidate for the senate. So Company X runs an advertisement and can now run it whenever the f*ck they want.

In both examples, internationals can run an advertisement. They just have to do it differently than before. Before the ruling, internationals could run ads. After the ruling, internationals could run ads. No difference.

There are only two differences, which apply to ALL CORPORATIONS - (1) they can now run ads whenever they want (instead of being restricted) and (2) they can do it without forming a Political Action Committee. This ruling did not make it so that non-US citizens could influence elections.

Seriously though, this is my last one.

[pimpdave]

Yeah guys, for cereal, it's Friday night. We can pick up solving the world's problems again next week.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah guys, for cereal, it's Friday night. We pick up solving the world's problems again next week.

Meh... cereally, I'm still at work.

Time to leave! SUCK IT WORK... SUCK IT HARD! Now I can finally read that Axe cartoon that Sultan posted!

[Snorri1234]

Seriously, can you explain to me why I'm wrong in pointing out that the situation WASN'T the same before the ruling? Because I'm seriously mystified as to what you're talking about.

Okay... with respect to the "international" part, here are some examples:

Before the ruling - You have a corporation that is run by multinationals (let's say the major shareholders are citizens of China). That corporation has a United States subsidiary corporation (let's call it Company X... my favorite company). Company X wants to run an advertisement for Joe Smith, a Democrat candidate for the senate. So, Company X forms a Political Action Committee which accepts donations from other people, and runs an advertisement. They can only run it up until 30 days before a primary and up until 90 days before a general election (or whatever the days are).

After the ruling - You have a corporation that is run by multinationals (let's say the major shareholders are citizens of China). That corporation has a United States subsidiary corporation (let's call it Company X again). Company X wants to run an advertisemetn for Jim Smith, a Republican candidate for the senate. So Company X runs an advertisement and can now run it whenever the f*ck they want.

In both examples, internationals can run an advertisement. They just have to do it differently than before. Before the ruling, internationals could run ads. After the ruling, internationals could run ads. No difference.

There are only two differences, which apply to ALL CORPORATIONS - (1) they can now run ads whenever they want (instead of being restricted) and (2) they can do it without forming a Political Action Committee. This ruling did not make it so that non-US citizens could influence elections.

Seriously though, this is my last one.

And of course you're forgetting the third difference which is the fucking most important. They can do it with their general funds instead of having to use private donations. That is very, very significant. The general funds of a large company are way, way more than the private funds the boardmembers have.

And that's why foreign parties are now suddenly a big problem. You see, sometimes companies aren't owned by private citizens but governments of countries. Like CITGO Petroleum Company, owned by the Venezulean government. Chavez isn't extremely rich, but if he suddenly can use the corporation the government owns to run ads against certain candidates he doesn't like there is nothing stopping him now. In fact, because its a government owning it he can direct all funds to campaigning against candidates since he doesn't really have to worry about profit and such.

Both these things combined make for a very fucked up theoretical situation.

Surely you can understand why this worries people?


(As an aside, companies are still going to form fake groups because it just sounds so much better to say: "This ad provided by Concerned Mothers for America" than "This ad provided by big tobacco")

[jbrettlip]

Ugh, you people make me sick. You realize UNIONS, which FORCE people to join, donate huge amounts of money to campaigns regardless of the people's actual political views. And Obama took humongous amounts of foreign donations of foreign money. I personally think no GROUP should be able to buy ads. If a public corp, you need a shareholder vote. If a union, union member vote, if a privately held corp, then you can buy an ad. I odubt a private business would risk that.

And I will help you: Euro trash and liberals. here's your counter argument:

GEORGE W BUSH!!!!

f*ck you all. You are stupid and pay no US income taxes. Like 45% of our "citizens" (wait isn't paying taxes patriotic???).

[thegreekdog]

Seriously, can you explain to me why I'm wrong in pointing out that the situation WASN'T the same before the ruling? Because I'm seriously mystified as to what you're talking about.

Okay... with respect to the "international" part, here are some examples:

Before the ruling - You have a corporation that is run by multinationals (let's say the major shareholders are citizens of China). That corporation has a United States subsidiary corporation (let's call it Company X... my favorite company). Company X wants to run an advertisement for Joe Smith, a Democrat candidate for the senate. So, Company X forms a Political Action Committee which accepts donations from other people, and runs an advertisement. They can only run it up until 30 days before a primary and up until 90 days before a general election (or whatever the days are).

After the ruling - You have a corporation that is run by multinationals (let's say the major shareholders are citizens of China). That corporation has a United States subsidiary corporation (let's call it Company X again). Company X wants to run an advertisemetn for Jim Smith, a Republican candidate for the senate. So Company X runs an advertisement and can now run it whenever the f*ck they want.

In both examples, internationals can run an advertisement. They just have to do it differently than before. Before the ruling, internationals could run ads. After the ruling, internationals could run ads. No difference.

There are only two differences, which apply to ALL CORPORATIONS - (1) they can now run ads whenever they want (instead of being restricted) and (2) they can do it without forming a Political Action Committee. This ruling did not make it so that non-US citizens could influence elections.

Seriously though, this is my last one.

And of course you're forgetting the third difference which is the fucking most important. They can do it with their general funds instead of having to use private donations. That is very, very significant. The general funds of a large company are way, way more than the private funds the boardmembers have.

And that's why foreign parties are now suddenly a big problem. You see, sometimes companies aren't owned by private citizens but governments of countries. Like CITGO Petroleum Company, owned by the Venezulean government. Chavez isn't extremely rich, but if he suddenly can use the corporation the government owns to run ads against certain candidates he doesn't like there is nothing stopping him now. In fact, because its a government owning it he can direct all funds to campaigning against candidates since he doesn't really have to worry about profit and such.

Both these things combined make for a very fucked up theoretical situation.

Surely you can understand why this worries people?


(As an aside, companies are still going to form fake groups because it just sounds so much better to say: "This ad provided by Concerned Mothers for America" than "This ad provided by big tobacco")

Remind me to answer this when I'm soberer.

[Snorri1234]

Are you sober now?

[Snorri1234]

Ugh, you people make me sick. You realize UNIONS, which FORCE people to join, donate huge amounts of money to campaigns regardless of the people's actual political views. And Obama took humongous amounts of foreign donations of foreign money. I personally think no GROUP should be able to buy ads. If a public corp, you need a shareholder vote. If a union, union member vote, if a privately held corp, then you can buy an ad. I odubt a private business would risk that.

And I will help you: Euro trash and liberals. here's your counter argument:

GEORGE W BUSH!!!!

f*ck you all. You are stupid and pay no US income taxes. Like 45% of our "citizens" (wait isn't paying taxes patriotic???).

Dumb insults aside, you seem to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

UNIONS!!!! are not allowed to donate money to campaigns. They can set up PACs, like corporations, and cover the administrative and fundraising costs but they can't donate money from their general treasury funds. Furthermore, the money raised by the PAC must be sollicited from union-members and noone is obligated to pay. So no, the Unions don't donate at all.

Anyway, this law that was ruled upon also pertained to unions.

As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an "electioneering communication" or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.

linkage

So basically you're getting angry at "us people" for ignoring something that isn't actually true.

PS: Please enlighten me about these humungous amounts of foreign money Obama received.

[thegreekdog]

Are you sober now?

Yes (unfortunately).

Let me preface all this by saying I'm not extremely familiar with how companies donate money to campaigns. My "expertise" (such as it is) lies more with the caselaw side of this. Anyway...

I don't think the "limitless funds" factor changes anything. Again, these companies had limitless funds to work with prior to the case. The only difference is that they can buy advertisements themselves without relying on a Political Action Committee (or 10). Again, the issue here is not what I think of the Supreme Court decision. The issue is whether the president lied to (or misled) the general public by calling out the US Supreme Court in the State of the Union.

[Snorri1234]

Are you sober now?

Yes (unfortunately).

Let me preface all this by saying I'm not extremely familiar with how companies donate money to campaigns.

No shit?

I don't think the "limitless funds" factor changes anything. Again, these companies had limitless funds to work with prior to the case. The only difference is that they can buy advertisements themselves without relying on a Political Action Committee (or 10).

So after I tell you you're wrong and explain why, you keep on stating your wrong view?

PAC's rely on private donations. Private money. Before this ruling companies couldn't use their money to buy ads.

[thegreekdog]

PAC's rely on private donations. Private money. Before this ruling companies couldn't use their money to buy ads.

How does the word "private" exclude corporations?

Also, I'm probably just a smidge more familiar with how companies donate money to campaigns than you are.

[HapSmo19]

Chavez isn't extremely rich, but if he suddenly can use the corporation the government owns to run ads against certain candidates he doesn't like there is nothing stopping him now. In fact, because its a government owning it he can direct all funds to campaigning against candidates since he doesn't really have to worry about profit and such.

Both these things combined make for a very fucked up theoretical situation.

Now I'm confused. Do you want a state-controlled utopia or not?

[Snorri1234]

PAC's rely on private donations. Private money. Before this ruling companies couldn't use their money to buy ads.

How does the word "private" exclude corporations?

General treasury funds of corporations or unions are not private funds. Therefore they can not be used to do political things. (During the most important time in an election that is. )

Wait, maybe "invidual donations" is better.

[thegreekdog]

PAC's rely on private donations. Private money. Before this ruling companies couldn't use their money to buy ads.

How does the word "private" exclude corporations?

General treasury funds of corporations or unions are not private funds. Therefore they can not be used to do political things. (During the most important time in an election that is. )

Wait, maybe "invidual donations" is better.

I see no discernable difference.

Let's make a wager on how much money is spent on campaigns in 2010 as compared to 2006. I'd have to look into this some more (in terms of how much was spent in 2006, how many politicians were up for reelection in 2006 compared to 2010, and I think we might need to take into account the importance of the 2010 election compared to the 2006 election). In any event, I think, all other things being equal, the amount of money spent on the elections in 2010 will be no more than 5% greater than the amount of moeny spent in 2006.

[Snorri1234]

I see no discernable difference.

You don't? You don't think general treasury funds of corporations are heaps bigger than the private means of it's boardmembers?

That's strange....