The Glade 4.0

This country was founded on representation within the government. Today, that representation on a basic level is equal to money. (not saying that's the right thing, just reality) One other founding concept of this country was equality. So I have problems with organizations having such a greater influence on how I'm represented than I do.

That agenda is set by whom?

I'm sure I seem disparaging here, but I don't mean to be. I want to follow your logic to its extension because it is wholly not making sense to me.

Organizations still can't vote. They have to spend that money to convince you to vote, and they have to compete against other organizations. I don't see any real reason to buy what you're saying.

You could go with Khross's opinion that voting is meaningless anyhow, but then the decision still changes nothing.

The country was founded on representation within the government for a certain caste of citizens, and the electoral college was created to alleviate the ability of the uneducated to influence policy/elections.

Because of that, one could argue that the system was intentionally created to marginalize the majority of citizens, and this ruling by the USSC actually increases the opportunities for individuals to make an impact on the direction of government.

I don't get it. Essentially, the argument boils down to when an individual does something stupid, it's his fault. But when a bunch of individuals make the same mistake, or a group of individuals collectively do stupid things, suddenly there is this mystery as to the source of error?

I bolded where I detail that in my post.

Those agendas can be scrutinized by the employees and investors of the organizations. Not withdrawing your faith shows confidence in these agendas.

You act as though they are being bound and coerced to go along with the plan. The cold, hard truth is, they value their investment or job more than their morals and values. Or they agree.

Yes, I saw that. But the point is that you're claiming that these organizations have some sort of shady nebulous agenda and we have to hold the organization accountable.

I'm saying that's a false premise. Organizations are led by individuals, and holding the individuals accountable is the key, otherwise more people could be harmed by hurting the organization as a whole.

Arther Anderson and Co. is a great example.

Conservatives make this argument all the time. I hear over and over about the recession how when a prospective homeowner signs a misleading and/or difficult mortgage contract without fully understanding it, that's his fault. He should have made sure he understood everything before signing. He should have known that there was a bubble. All the information was there.

But at the same time, when the bank itself picks up toxic debt by issuing mortgage contracts based on inflated housing prices, no, that's not the bank's fault for not doing the research, that's the government's fault. Why is it when the government misleads industry (for example, with inflated house prices) it's the government's fault if banks allow themselves to be misled, but when the banks themselves mislead individuals with their mortgage contracts, it's the individual's fault if they allow themselves to be mislead?

I don't think those agendas are shady or nebulous. Most are actually very clear cut. They want legislation that favors them to be able to make more money. Typically regardless of any harm that it may cause anyone else, including themselves, in the long run.

And I don't want to hold these companies accountable for anything, I want them to not be able to influence our government. There is a difference.

Conservatives make this argument all the time. I hear over and over about the recession how when a prospective homeowner signs a misleading and/or difficult mortgage contract without fully understanding it, that's his fault. He should have made sure he understood everything before signing. He should have known that there was a bubble. All the information was there.

But at the same time, when the bank itself picks up toxic debt by issuing mortgage contracts based on inflated housing prices, no, that's not the bank's fault for not doing the research, that's the government's fault. Why is it when the government misleads industry (for example, with inflated house prices) it's the government's fault if banks allow themselves to be misled, but when the banks themselves mislead individuals with their mortgage contracts, it's the individual's fault if they allow themselves to be mislead?

There is some truth to that, however it's vastly over simplified.

Most companies don't advertise their contributions, so it can be difficult to find out what if any contributions have been made.
You also make it sound like it's amazingly easy to pick up and get a new job, with equal pay/benefits/perks so as to find one that perfectly matches your political views. That is niave at best.

This bullshit again? We have already gone over that. The banks underwriting subprime mortgages did so because they could be brokered, packaged and (while they were eventually traunched and sold as bond type instruments on Wallstreet) sold in the secondary market ultimately with the counter-party risk co-signed by the United States Government through "risk free" paper under Fannie and Freddie.

No one gaurunteed the deed of the house to the buyer when he signed the mortgage. If someone did, you might have an argument, but they didn't so you don't. He still had to meet his mortgage contract's terms, all of which are spelled out in plain English. The thing most people didn't count on is housing prices crashing, causing their mortgage to go underwater, making default and forclosure more appealing than staying in the house. But none of that **** was guarunteed in the **** contracts. You couldn't guaruntee it, that's retarded. So making those purchases were speculative in the first place. Of course, you could ultimately blame that on the existence of a secondary market to buy sub-prime debt in the first place ... without that incenvization, no one would write mortgages for these types of borrowers.

But utimately, they did sign the mortgage, and they did so under speculative conditions. Investment banks that bought sub-prime paper already had forward and future contracts buying mortgages that they hadn't even written yet. That's another key difference. No one had signed a contract with the homeowners when they went to purchase the house for the expected inflated price 3 years later - they just assumed a buyer such as that would exist, that a contract basically existed because housing prices could only increase.

Mr. Populist

* "Sen. Barack Obama reversed his pledge to seek public financing in the general election yesterday, a move that drew criticism from adversaries and allies alike but could provide him with a significant spending advantage over Republican rival John McCain. Obama will become the first major-party presidential nominee to reject the public funds."--Washington Post, June 20, 2008
* "President Barack Obama is condemning a decision by the Supreme Court to roll back restrictions on campaign donations by corporations and unions. In a written statement, Obama says the campaign finance ruling will lead to a 'stampede of special interest money in our politics.' Obama declared that his administration will work with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to come up with a 'forceful response' to the high court's action. . . . Obama called it a big victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests."--Associated Press, Jan. 21, 2010

First, no modern organization with reasonably competent and ethical management doesn't consider the long run.

Second, the long run to an individual and the long run to an organization are vastly different spans of time.

Third, why should they not be able to be influencers of government if they are to be regulated by government?

Yes, they have to spend money to convince people to vote. I also believe that there is a LOT of research and evidence out there to show that money is the main key ingredient to being able to mount a successful campaign.

I guess that depends on how you define competent and ethical management. But the vast vast majority of publically held companies don't plan for more than 3-5 years out max. Interestingly the average tenure of a CEO is about 3 years. (pinky to cheek) Hmmmm.




Agreed.

We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people, not of the corporation, by the PAC and for the union.

The Court's opinion is especially effective in dismantling McCain-Feingold's arbitrary exemption for media corporations. Thus a corporation that owns a newspaper—News Corp. or the New York Times—retains its First Amendment right to speak freely. "At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue," wrote Justice Kennedy. "This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment."

For instruction and sheer entertainment, we also recommend Justice Antonin Scalia's concurring opinion that demolishes Justice John Paul Stevens's argument in dissent that corporations lack free speech rights because the Founding Fathers disliked them. "If so, how came there to be so many of them?" Mr. Scalia writes, in one of his gentler lines.

The landmark decision—which overturned two Supreme Court precedents—has already sent the censoring political class into orbit. President Obama was especially un-Presidential yesterday, putting on his new populist facade to call it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies" and other "special interests." Mr. Obama didn't mention his union friends as one of those interests, but their political spending will also be protected by the logic of this ruling. The reality is that free speech is no one's special interest.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer vowed to hold hearings, and the Naderite Public Citizen lobby is already calling for a constitutional amendment that bans free speech for "for-profit corporations." Liberalism's bullying tendencies are never more on display than when its denizens are at war with the speech rights of its opponents.

Air America Radio, a progressive radio network that once aired commentary from Al Franken and Rachel Maddow, said Thursday it is shutting down immediately.

The company founded in April 2004 said it ceased airing new programs Thursday afternoon and will soon file to be liquidated under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. It began broadcasting reruns of programs and would end those as well Monday night.

Air America said 10 consecutive quarters of declining ad revenue and the difficulty of making money on the Internet contributed to its financial woes.

"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," the company said in a statement on its Web site.

The network had some 100 radio outlets nationwide.

Franken, a Democrat, hosted his own show from 2004 to 2007 before going on to become a U.S. senator from Minnesota last year after a close election. Maddow went on to host her own TV show on MSNBC.

This bullshit again? We have already gone over that. The banks underwriting subprime mortgages did so because they could be brokered, packaged and (while they were eventually traunched and sold as bond type instruments on Wallstreet) sold in the secondary market ultimately with the counter-party risk co-signed by the United States Government through "risk free" paper under Fannie and Freddie.