The Democrat Thread

[lostfan]

Actually, Justice Thomas argued that having it in the open was unconstitutional today, and that it should be done in backroom deals. Quite literally.

I seriously sometimes wonder how Thomas got accepted into law school, let alone making it through.

[Balta1701]

exactly, companies don't have to disclose where their money went, they can merely funnel it through places like the chamber of commerce.

I beleive some of the disclosure requirements on places like the Chamber still survived, but Thomas argued against it. Could be wrong; only just now reading up on the decision, was working all day for once.

[bmags]

I beleive some of the disclosure requirements on places like the Chamber still survived, but Thomas argued against it. Could be wrong; only just now reading up on the decision, was working all day for once.

 

from what I understand, you just need to donate millions to the chamber, and the chamber can then put it wherever, without disclosing who the money came from.

[kapkomet]

from what I understand, you just need to donate millions to the chamber, and the chamber can then put it wherever, without disclosing who the money came from.

 

 

I think you're right.

[KipWellsFan]

So when the Court strikes down reasonable, bi-partisan, and popular legislation just whom are the activist judges?

[bmags]

I wonder a constitutional amendment could pass for this? I can't imagine that many who'd oppose?

[southsider2k5]

It's official. Corporations will now run this country...even though they pretty much already have been.

 

The amazing part of this is that I had no idea unions were getting free reign now too. I guess I need to go back to reading some right wing news, because you are are awful sources .

[lostfan]

I don't want corporations OR unions running the government. This ruling is just an all-around epic failure.

[southsider2k5]

I don't want corporations OR unions running the government. This ruling is just an all-around epic failure.

 

Pretty much. But until something changes with unions and corporations being recognized with the same rights as people, this was the only way the ruling could go. There has to be some work done at the Congressional level.

[kapkomet]

This is the way the ruling had to go, but it's piss poor.

 

Has a corporation OR a union EVER cast a vote in this country, or do the people of said corporations and unions cast the vote? That's the bottom line to me.

 

I understand why the ruling was what it was, but again, I tend to agree with the point that bmags, Balta, et. al are trying to make here.

[lostfan]

I understand corporate personhood, but when it comes to politics, a corporation is automatically like 1000x more powerful and influential than me unless I become a billionaire. Ironically, right now, a corporate entity has MORE freedom to contribute to campaigns than we do because the law hasn't caught up yet. We still have the $2300 limit. Me specifically, I can't even donate at all because I'm a federal contractor. But now my employer can. How f***ed up is that.

 

Because a corporation is an artificial entity to begin with there need to be some limitations on this... I'd feel a lot better if Congress passed some kind of legislation (they won't).

Edited January 22, 2010 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

I understand corporate personhood, but when it comes to politics, a corporation is automatically like 1000x more powerful and influential than me unless I become a billionaire. Ironically, right now, a corporate entity has MORE freedom to contribute to campaigns than we do because the law hasn't caught up yet. We still have the $2300 limit. Me specifically, I can't even donate at all because I'm a federal contractor. But now my employer can. How f***ed up is that.

 

Because a corporation is an artificial entity to begin with there need to be some limitations on this... I'd feel a lot better if Congress passed some kind of legislation (they won't).

 

 

I agree with the sentiment, but I can also see the "other side" as being a "speech" issue. This sets a really, really bad presedence (damn, you know what I'm trying to say).

[southsider2k5]

I understand corporate personhood, but when it comes to politics, a corporation is automatically like 1000x more powerful and influential than me unless I become a billionaire. Ironically, right now, a corporate entity has MORE freedom to contribute to campaigns than we do because the law hasn't caught up yet. We still have the $2300 limit. Me specifically, I can't even donate at all because I'm a federal contractor. But now my employer can. How f***ed up is that.

 

Because a corporation is an artificial entity to begin with there need to be some limitations on this... I'd feel a lot better if Congress passed some kind of legislation (they won't).

 

Technically they can't give anything directly to a candidate.

[bmags]

Because a corporation is an artificial entity to begin with there need to be some limitations on this... I'd feel a lot better if Congress passed some kind of legislation (they won't).

 

But, technically doesnt this say they can't pass legislation? DO we need a constitutional amendment?

[bmags]

i woke up late today, and I haev to imagine its due to the heaviness of the stupid health care debate and this stupid ruling. If only the government could take away money from rich people and put it into coin form and throw them at me to wake me up

[Balta1701]

Technically they can't give anything directly to a candidate.

In what sense is this meant?

[Balta1701]

But, technically doesnt this say they can't pass legislation? DO we need a constitutional amendment?

I think that a corrollary of this ruling is that you can not restrict campaign contributions of any size, and eventually of any type (personal or corporate, the Roberts court just hasn't yet dismantled the personal restrictions), probably for any reason, without a constitutional amendment, because anything like that would be a restriction on free speech.

 

I wonder if this ruling could be interpreted so far as to make the classic quid pro quo perfectly legal.

[southsider2k5]

In what sense is this meant?

 

They can't donate directly to a specific person's campaign.

[Balta1701]

They can't donate directly to a specific person's campaign.

Is that still true after yesterday?

[NorthSideSox72]

Is that still true after yesterday?

Yes, I believe it is. The ruling was not a complete washout of all corporate restrictions for donations - only a partial one.

 

[southsider2k5]

Is that still true after yesterday?

 

Yes, they didn't even challenge that part of the law in the lawsuit. Unions and corporations still cannot give directly to specific candidate.

[GoSox05]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_cona...stea/index.html

 

 

But to understand its actual impact, listen to Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, who drew this pithy comparison: Under the old dispensation, which prohibited direct corporate expenditures on elections for nearly a century, Exxon Mobil could spend only what its political action committee raised from executives and employees. In 2008, said Waldman, that was roughly $1 million. Under the new order, the world's biggest oil company can spend as much as its management cares to siphon from its earnings -- which in 2008 amounted to $45 billion.

[Balta1701]

Yes, they didn't even challenge that part of the law in the lawsuit. Unions and corporations still cannot give directly to specific candidate.

But, if I read things correctly, is it to the point of a distinction without a difference? i.e. I can't give my funds directly to a candidate, but I can run ads directly for a candidate with unlimited amounts of money, actually mentioning the candidate, and coordinated with the candidate as well?

[southsider2k5]

But, if I read things correctly, is it to the point of a distinction without a difference? i.e. I can't give my funds directly to a candidate, but I can run ads directly for a candidate with unlimited amounts of money, actually mentioning the candidate, and coordinated with the candidate as well?

 

That isn't true either.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=122806233

 

The court overturned two earlier decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads urging the election or defeat of particular candidates by name. The decision, which applies to independent spending that is not coordinated with candidates, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

 

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

 

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions and didn't touch the McCain-Feingold ban on unlimited corporate and union donations to political parties. Nor did it disturb companies' right to solicit voluntary contributions to political action committees that can donate directly to candidates.

 

Corporations and unions would still have to identify the sources of money for their political activity — a provision of current law that the court upheld in an 8-1 vote..

[HuskyCaucasian]

Air America Bankruptcy: Live Programming OVER As Company Files Chapter 7

Air America Media is ending its live programming operations and the company will file Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company announced Thursday:

 

It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business.

 

The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America's business. This past year has seen a 'perfect storm' in the media industry generally. National and local advertising revenues have fallen drastically, causing many media companies nationwide to fold or seek bankruptcy protection. From large to small, recent bankruptcies like Citadel Broadcasting and closures like that of the industry's long-time trade publication Radio and Records have signaled that these are very difficult and rapidly changing times.

 

Those companies that remain are facing audience fragmentation as a result of new media technologies, are often saddled with crushing debt, and have generally found it difficult to obtain operating or investment capital from traditional sources of funding. In this climate, our painstaking search for new investors has come close several times right up into this week, but ultimately fell short of success.

 

With radio industry ad revenues down for 10 consecutive quarters, and reportedly off 21% in 2009, signs of improvement have consisted of hoping things will be less bad. And though Internet/new media revenues are projected to grow, our expanding online efforts face the same monetization and profitability challenges in the short term confronting the Web operations of most media companies

 

When Air America Radio launched in April, 2004 with already-known personalities like Al and then-unknown future stars like Rachel Maddow, it was the only full-time progressive voice in the mainstream broadcast media world. At a critical time in our nation's history -- when dissent on issues such as the Iraq war were often denounced as "un-American" -- Air America and its talented team helped millions of Americans remember the importance of compelling discussion about the most pivotal events and decisions of our generation.

 

Through some 100 radio outlets nationwide, Air America helped build a new sense of purpose and determination among American progressives. With this revival, the progressive movement made major gains in the 2006 mid-term elections and, more recently, in the election of President Barack Obama and a strongly Democratic Congress.

 

Laws have changed for the better thanks to this revival.....but all the same our company cannot escape the laws of economics. So we intend a rapid, orderly closure over the next few days. All current employees will be paid through today, January 21. A severance package will be offered tomorrow to full-time current employees with more than six months of tenure.

 

We will strive to assist affiliates and partners in achieving a smooth transition. Starting at 6 pm EST today, we will provide our affiliates, listeners and users a selection of encore programming until 9 pm EST on Monday, January 25, at which time Air America programming will end.

 

We are proud that Air America's mission lives on through the words and actions of so many former radio hosts who are active today in progressive causes and media nationwide. In the years ahead, as we look back, we should all be proud of our passionate determination to assure that our nation's progressive voice would be heard loud and clear. Through the hard work and dedication of current staff, and those who preceded you, a lasting legacy was forged which will now continue through other voices and venues.

 

Thank you.