Everyone should see this....

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

msnbc.com Video Player

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34985508#34985508

Beth

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

This one ruling has effectively rendered democracy-ineffective!

Democracy as we know it is about to change and not for the best interests of the citizens of this country.

I don't care what rhetorical arguments anyone wants to post in response, this is a severe blow to all of us. you may not see it or want to, you may not agree with me and that is fine, but I will be here to say I told you so as slavery has just been reinstated!

Think about it. If corporations have the power to influence government with their billions, what say do we have other than what shall become a mere formality of voting in the next puppet who will get rich from it as they succumb to the will of the $,$$$, or is it $$,$$$ or perhaps $$$,$$$, maybe even if necessary $,$$$,$$$ !

What's your price?

Ever see the movie - Rollerball?

not that far from fiction now.

Rod!~

Edited January 24, 2010 by Beth n Rod

[jgotterb 14]

Rome fell, Great Britain fell, America is now falling. Scary times.

[Celeste 341]

The most frightening reality for me is when he mentioned what we could do - another Civil War.......against those who make the guns and bullets????:lgbugeyes

[offduty 25]

This is one of the greatest rulings for business's. The gov't has no right whatsoever to tell a business how it can spend it's money. Heaven forbid I own a business and want to spend every last dime trying to get my candidate elected and someone tell me I can't do it. Shareholders will be the check and balance for corporations on how money is spent on campaigns. Be thankful for the Republic we live in that still makes a few good decisions occasionaly.

[big mike 14]

I see this as an opportunity to loosen the stranglehold the EPA has on hard working business owners like us.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

William, the LITTLE people like us are NOT the ones who will benefit. It is the multi million and billion and trillion dollar corporations that want laws to be a certain way with certain people in power....and THEN the jobs are sent OVERSEAS!!!!!! They get out of paying taxes that help us rebuild and start jobs here, and Americans get what exactly? SCREWED. I don't care who is in office, or how you vote, this is bad for Americans and small business!

Beth

[big mike 14]

I disagree. How long have special interest groups such as Sierra Club, and labor unions, others had unlimited power to lobby and financially support those they want in power? Its about time that everyone was afforded the right to support whomever they wish, without being excluded because they were a corp. or whatever. Just because the playing field is being leveled, it doesn't mean they are throwing out the right to cast a vote as you see fit. By the way, most jobs are sent overseas because greedy labor unions force these corporations to find affordable ways to produce their wares. Just look at the auto industry, and what union labor has done for them.... I am in agreement with William on this one.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

...and WHO is going to pay for all of it? WE are. With every purchase you make, part of that revenue will go to a cause you might not be in favor of at all or that might even hurt you. And you all realize this will mean more inflation - right?

Beth

[tonyshelton 112]

Beth, you and Keith Overblown are forgetting a couple of things.

First the corporations have always had the right to donate as much as they want to a candidate. It was only a few years ago that McCain/Feingold tried to illegally put a stop to it. Overblown is acting like this is something new and all the sudden the apocalypse is going to happen. This is nothing different. It's typical for a liberal like Keith to try to pretend like this is something new and deceive the poor listeners of his show.

Second, he's insinuating (also deceptive) that since corporations have the same rights as an individual (which they've had for years) that somehow that equals votes. Well, the only way that equals votes is if the dummys who don't even care enough to research a candidate will be led by the nose into voting for the candidate with the most advertising money. Corporations can't vote, they can only reach out to the stupidest of our population and influence them through the media.

Why so deceptive? Why not bring up the fact that corporations have always been able to spend as much as they want on candidates in the past? Why the insinuation that corporations can now vote? And why is he so mad about this? He's mad because he knows the stupid listen to the liberal commercials (which is what his show is) and follow like sheep and he's afraid that now he's going to have more competition. He doesn't want anyone to use the same techniques to lead the sheep that he does.

Well, thank God for Fox News. Fox at least tells both sides of the story and lets the individual decide. I'm all for this court ruling. The legislation was clearly unconstitutional and even one liberal justice recognized it.

[tonyshelton 112]

...and WHO is going to pay for all of it? WE are. With every purchase you make, part of that revenue will go to a cause you might not be in favor of at all or that might even hurt you. And you all realize this will mean more inflation - right?

Beth

That's called the free market Beth. That is what keeps corporations in check. If they go out supporting goofy candidates we can vote against that corp with our pocketbooks. Case in Point - I haven't been in a Target store for over 3 years because of their goofy anti-americanism.

[Chappy 138]

...and WHO is going to pay for all of it? WE are. With every purchase you make, part of that revenue will go to a cause you might not be in favor of at all or that might even hurt you. And you all realize this will mean more inflation - right?

Beth

You mean to tell me that we dont already pay for the billions that corporations put into the election coffers now? Or the higher prices we pay because of union dues that go directly to advocacy of politicians, most of which are liberal and the vast majority of whom I vehemently dissagree with.

Corporations already give billions but now they can say things directly. Olberman is very good at what he does and that liberal rhetoric. the comparison with Dredd Scott is sheer nonsense that only the extreme left believes.

McCain feingold was a disasterously unconstitional law that is only now being rectified. Thank you John Roberts and the common sense conservative constitutionalists on the court.

[offduty 25]

If corporations go overboard, shareholders will put an end to it. You may not like where they are spending their money, but it is their money to do with what they choose. The gov't has no business putting stipulations on it. Inflation is not caused by paying more for a product. My hope would be that the corporations spend their money on keeping out politicians that want Obama's health care. That will help the country and keep my pockets from being robbed by the gov't for not providing health insurance to my employees.Believe me, business will only spend money on things that will help business, as a business owner I am for that. Beth, I by no means meant for this to be personal. Love ya.

Edited January 24, 2010 by offduty

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Light reading....

Beth

[PressurePros 248]

It hasn't been a good week for the Dems.

[cande 14]

I disagree. How long have special interest groups such as Sierra Club, and labor unions, others had unlimited power to lobby and financially support those they want in power? Its about time that everyone was afforded the right to support whomever they wish, without being excluded because they were a corp. or whatever. Just because the playing field is being leveled, it doesn't mean they are throwing out the right to cast a vote as you see fit. By the way, most jobs are sent overseas because greedy labor unions force these corporations to find affordable ways to produce their wares. Just look at the auto industry, and what union labor has done for them.... I am in agreement with William on this one.

+1 !!!!! the sierra club and other so called non profits can lobby all they want but when a corp tries to get their say in all of the sudden it becomes "evil". The supreme court got it right this time. I just cant believe it was a 5/4 split - it is so obvious that we all have the right of free speech and association whether we are a corp or not...

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Amazing, simply amazing.

I guess then you all are ok with the fact that this ruling is not limited to 'American' corporations but is also inclusive of foreign corporations? That these corporations can now sway elected officials beyond lobbyist efforts? Do you even comprehend the impact?

I disagree with all who are in favor of this ruling cause it has effectively reinstated slavery. This ruling does not give corporations a vote, this is correct, but it does give them the ability to pour funding into the endorsement or defeat of any candidate that does not play ball with them.

I can't believe anyone is so naive to think this is good for America. This reverses the Dred Scott decision of the early 1900's and many other rulings that have kept corporations from being able to interfere with democracy.

We don't have unions in the pw'ing world and be glad it is that way cause most would go out of business as a result. Unions are the reason besides tax shelters that major corporations are moving overseas. The union argument is arbitrary here cause unions have nothing to do with this ruling.

Lobbying is not the same as what this ruling is about. It is about corporations ability to publicly fund advertisements for or against a candidate and campaign funding. What this means is the corporations can practically BUY a seat in congress with their advertising and funding. Otherwise, they can launch destructive campaigns against those who do not legislate to their liking.

----Several years ago, Beth and I started asking the question "hows the economy for you".

Most answered that business was the best it had ever been, phones ringing off the hook and booked out for several weeks.

Then what happened? People started posting here that they had little or no more work, their advertising wasn't working, they started looking to areas farther away to get work. Remember?

Then, the bubble burst! We saw something coming but not knowing exactly what, only that our economy was heading for something bad.

In my opinion, this is not the good thing it is purported to be. Sorry folks, to me, it is like in the movies "do I cut the blue wire or the red wire?" They cut the wrong wire, the bomb is now ticking.

Even some republicans are caught by surprise at the implications of this ruling. Heck, matter of fact; your ole buddy McCain was against it too.

Not a happy feel good ruling from my perspective. My warning sirens went off big time!

[big mike 14]

Re instituting slavery?? That's a bit of a stretch if you ask me. Don't try to play us off as naive on this subject Rod. I was once part of a large union org, and we did everything in our power to get our candidates elected. Big money on TV advertising, radio, billboards, etc. How do you think an inexperienced, junior Senator got elected as president? Acorn, SEIU, etc. Why should these groups have an advantage over corporations? They spend money freely, and smear those that they oppose, but no one deems them as "evil". The problem I see here is that the groups who overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates, now have some competition. Republicans support business, and we should welcome the support. Who do you think supplies America with jobs? It's the businesses, not the workers.

This reverses the Dred Scott decision of the early 1900's and many other rulings that have kept corporations from being able to interfere with democracy.

First, this was a ruling dealing with slaves, and their right to be deemed US citizens, and have constitutional rights (I don't think anything has been reversed). It has nothing to do with political campaign funding. It was also ruled in 1857. I would suggest to you, that you watch something other than MSN and Kieth Olberman. These people are just freaking out because they see the political "writing on the wall"

[tonyshelton 112]

Rod, John McCain is not "my ole buddy", in fact it pained me to know that the republican party was so pathetic that Mccain was all they had to offer. BUT, because of the unfathomable alternative of Obama I was forced to put this up in my yard.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

I can't believe anyone is so naive to think this is good for America. This reverses the Dred Scott decision of the early 1900's

I will correct myself on this one clarifying that the effects of this new ruling stem back to it in the context of citizenship.

We don't have unions in the pw'ing world and be glad it is that way cause most would go out of business as a result. Unions are the reason besides tax shelters that major corporations are moving overseas. The union argument is arbitrary here cause unions have nothing to do with this ruling.

I was mistaken here, Unions are affected as well and THAT I have a big problem with as they have forced many manufacturing jobs overseas after bleeding companies that used to be U.S. based in the so called name of the 'employee(s)'.

Now, they can use even more of the money they get from hard working people to influence government when instead, they should be giving it back to those employees who really could use it right now and in the future.

Pardon me for overstepping my bounds and blanketly stating McCain was 'your' ole buddy. I was referring to anyone who voted for him in which in the GOP circles, he's a good ole boy and therefor a buddy. I thought it was appropriate. No offense.

As far as what I watch is of no consequence, I, like you am able to discern the facts and make up my own mind. You and others would rather believe that it (msnbc and Keith Olberman) is the only source of my news, when in fact I read more on Reuters and Associated press than what I watch on tv. I get it from the source not the spin doctors.

Keith is very entertaining to watch but he is not infallible. Fox is irritating as they spin and edit out of context so much I am surprised they haven't been brought to charges yet. But I guess that little disclaimer gets them out of it as being opinion.

Now, all that aside, lets get to the real issue here. Money. If corporations have that much to spend why is it not going to those who help to generate it? Why aren't they doing more for the benefit of their employee's instead of raking it all to the top and keeping the corporation top heavy with the money?

This ruling allows them to spend without regulation. We have seen firsthand what lack of regulation creates (Current economy included) in corporate environment and this bill just allowed corporation to fully influence our government with money that the voters do not have. Voters now have become a formality. How long till that is destroyed?

If I am not mistaken, the bill of rights states "of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE". This does not include Corporations or business in any manner. How is it unconstitutional? Corporations are a pseudo entity comprised of individuals who already have the right to vote.

Those individuals at the top do not have the best interests of those beneath them or outside of them at heart. It is called competition and that breeds warlike mentalities cause it becomes an "us against them" mindset which ultimately looks out for number one.

Where do "we" fall in that? The outside! Many think the EPA is bad for their business, wait till corporations influence many of the regulations that keep them from dumping untreated waste into our waterways.

I could go on, but that is the way I think...down the road, broadcasting the potentials into the future.

If it weren't for the checks and balances put into place already, this country would be in one hell of a mess. (current economic disaster standing as a testament). So sorry, you can't blame our current President for that. That was the last guy.

[big mike 14]

A compelling argument, true, but flawed in several ways:

Now, all that aside, lets get to the real issue here. Money. If corporations have that much to spend why is it not going to those who help to generate it? Why aren't they doing more for the benefit of their employee's instead of raking it all to the top and keeping the corporation top heavy with the money?

This statement sounds very much like a socialist thought pattern. Spread the wealth equally. Fortunately, ours is a capitalist society. Our nation was built, and remains the greatest on the planet because of it. True, to those on the bottom it appears unfair, but ask any citizen from another country if they would rather be at the bottom in the USA, or where they are currently at? Most would chose this evil capitalist society over their own in a heartbeat.

Also, understand that business is run by those on the top,. If they deem it necessary to spend that money a certain way, who are we to tell them no? They are free to run their business however they want, and that's the difference. That's what makes American companies cutting edge, competitive, and successful.

Those individuals at the top do not have the best interests of those beneath them or outside of them at heart.

Not true at all. You must understand that a company is only as good as its weakest link. There's a delicate balance as to how much compensation a base employee should earn before it becomes detrimental to the business as a whole. Look at the auto industry and how the high wages have crippled the entire industry. Its a shame, and there's millions of unemployed folks who would jump on an auto industry job at half the current rate. A prime example of "spreading the wealth" around. The people at the top always have the best interests of the people at the bottom. Their own success depends on it. Of course those on the bottom are always going to feel slighted, but this enables the quality workers to rise up and become those at the top. Those folks didn't start out as CEO's.

Rod, forgive me but I'm 90% German. Debating is in my blood. (my wife calls it arguing).

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Ok, debate on. I'll respond in blue:

A compelling argument, true, but flawed in several ways:

This statement sounds very much like a socialist thought pattern. Spread the wealth equally. Fortunately, ours is a capitalist society. When we start putting labels on anything, it detracts from the message. Those who subscribe to a certain train of thought of ideology will not listen to the message as it does not mesh. They become closed minded and unable to find any common ground or compromise. Our nation was built, and remains the greatest on the planet because of it. True, to those on the bottom it appears unfair, but ask any citizen from another country if they would rather be at the bottom in the USA, or where they are currently at? Most would chose this evil capitalist society over their own in a heartbeat. Nice fanfare but it negates the message in order to seek submission to the status quo. I am for changing the status quo in order to better this country as a whole and not just those who sit at the top. If a country has a weak base, there is no stability. We don't have that stability, and we need it in order to be able to compete on a global scale.

Also, understand that business is run by those on the top,. If they deem it necessary to spend that money a certain way, who are we to tell them no? They are free to run their business however they want, and that's the difference.

You must understand that I am the president of my company, studied business management, accounting, and a varied business related acumen. I however see the possibilities for a different way of conducting business without the greed of current corporate examples.

That's what makes American companies cutting edge, competitive, and successful.

Disagreed, innovation and leadership is. Those attributes you mention do not come from starving those who at the lower part of the echelon do the grunt work which in turn provides the means for the revenue to be produced. These are the people who in current corporate models are in either the 'churn and burn' or otherwise 'expendable' positions.

I realize that not everyone is fit for the positions they are hired for and are weeded out vs those who rise to their incompetency and poison the corporation with selfish motives that are not in the best interest of the whole. We are getting into the gray area here with a myriad of possibilities to discuss but largely arbitrary to the point.

Overall, current corporate models are monetarily top heavy and do not provide for a financially stable base. This is the flaw.

Not true at all. You must understand that a company is only as good as its weakest link. (addressed in section above) There's a delicate balance as to how much compensation a base employee should earn before it becomes detrimental to the business as a whole. Now let's examine that statement. If this is true, where does the company get its surplus to spend on all this special interest and lobbying? This is a matter of corporate policy and budget as to where the money is allocated.

Yes, it is their choice, but let's look at the advantages of using that money to provide better wages to those at the bottom who may be inclined to utilize it for their own benefits privately and possibly towards education which in turn provides the corporation with an incentive for their employees to become a more valuable 'asset' instead of feeding them crumbs by comparison to the executive pay structure. Look at the auto industry and how the high wages have crippled the entire industry. I love this one. One word...Unions! While good primarily in their initial intent, it it because of those who have wormed their way into the upper management and have started to abuse their power to get more money for themselves all the while, spending millions of dollars in worker dues to influence government.

This money is a large cut off the top that could otherwise be spent to benefit the members of the union. Instead, it is going into the pockets of elected officials (who are rich enough in my opinion) to get concessions and legislation that is not always in the best interest of the union member but the union itself.

Its a shame, and there's millions of unemployed folks who would jump on an auto industry job at half the current rate. A prime example of "spreading the wealth" around. The people at the top always have the best interests of the people at the bottom. I don't see it that way, not by the current models and examples provided. If that were the case, Unions would not have had such success in an industry that is highly susceptible to the ups and downturns of the economy. This is an example of taking advantage of those less fortunate in the guise of a support group. Their own success depends on it. Of course those on the bottom are always going to feel slighted, but this enables the quality workers to rise up and become those at the top. I have seen this one firsthand to be a pipe dream at best. It happens in some companies but not all. Yeah, I have heard the cream rises to the top, but realistically speaking; there is only so much room for cream and then there is the other metaphor about too many chiefs and not enough indians! Those folks didn't start out as CEO's. (in the words of professor Snape) Obviously!

If that were the case, those at the top would be of a better caliber. But then there is the argument that provided by entrepreneurs in which they start out as the leaders, CEO's and presidents, so I render your last statement arbitrary.

Rod, forgive me but I'm 90% German. Debating is in my blood. (my wife calls it arguing).

Nothing to forgive, I have a bit of German blood as well but combined with Indian and Spaniard all of which are very strong willed and combined form a very determined personality when necessary. Pragmatic and practical.

Now, back on topic. We can toss this around all day in the light of what our parties ideology feels is best but we have to look at the track record and make decisions that way instead of bulling straight ahead and only looking up when someone screams.

This is haphazard and ignorant of anyone to continue. We have seen where the past has gotten us and unless I am mistaken, no one at our level likes it. We aren't necessarily influenced by it but we are being forced to contend with it. That makes it a fight.

It doesn't have to be a fight, it should be a cooperation. We are all in the same nation and should all be looking out for not just ourselves but for everyone. When our actions are for the benefit of everyone, no one is left out.

This court ruling is not for the benefit of everyone, it is for the benefit of the major corporations and they will walk all over us until it is time to make a decision and then we will get flooded with ads trying to tell us who is the best candidate.

Right now, we still have the vote...for now.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

How about those Saints! Hope they win the Superbowl!

Beth

[Chappy 138]

As far as what I watch is of no consequence, I, like you am able to discern the facts and make up my own mind. You and others would rather believe that it (msnbc and Keith Olberman) is the only source of my news, when in fact I read more on Reuters and Associated press than what I watch on tv. I get it from the source not the spin doctors.

The source being Obama of course, not the liberal anchors.

And when the source is wrong?

PolitiFact | Why Alito shook his head: Obama exaggerates impact of Supreme Court ruling on foreign companies

Quite frankly this does have to do with unions. For too long Unions could get away with almost all political advocacy the felt like, which was a lot, regardless of the feelings of the members that paid dues. Now business can fight back.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

The source being Obama of course, not the liberal anchors.

And when the source is wrong?

PolitiFact | Why Alito shook his head: Obama exaggerates impact of Supreme Court ruling on foreign companies

If you read the entire article, you would have posted differently. They say his statement was 'barely true'. The court has yet to rule on foreign owned corporations based in this country according to current law which addresses foreign nationals, leaving a loophole for corporations which under this ruling is what is being challenged by Obama.

Quite frankly this does have to do with unions. For too long Unions could get away with almost all political advocacy the felt like, which was a lot, regardless of the feelings of the members that paid dues. Now business can fight back.

I corrected myself on that one regarding unions as well. They were not considered a corporation but an advocacy group which fell outside the scope of the previous campaign laws.

Businesses have always had a voice through political action committees. Political Advocacy Groups: A Directory of United States Lobbyists Otherwise known as lobbyists.

The ruling specifies that they no longer need to do that and can use their funds directly. This makes it easier by reducing the necessity of the middle man and having direct control over their endeavors which I see is a benefit to the corporations because the whole process just got more efficient.

My point of contention is what impact that will have over the American people as corporations advertise to manipulate and influence our vote.

Corporations are not citizens. They are formed entities conforming to the charter of their state. They are not covered in the bill of rights first amendment which guarantees for it's citizens according to the constitution and specifically stated in...the preamble: We The People. (not We the corporations etc.)

Further reading;

Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This one specifically deals with the question Obama raised.

Rod!~

Edited January 30, 2010 by Beth n Rod

[tonyshelton 112]

You guys want to throw out the word "Corporation" as if it's some kind of code word for "one big fat rich guy pulling all the strings". A corporation is a "group" of people who have invested their time,talent,and or money into a business venture with the goal of making it profitable. A corporation may be one person or it may be millions. That's PEOPLE. If those people want to set aside some of THEIR money to help them play ball with the money grubbing senators and congressmen they should have all the right in the world to do that.

Here's the real reason geniuses like KO see this as a death blow to their party.

Here's what UNIONS did from 1989-2008:

During that time UNIONS made up 12 of the top twenty political donors.

Of those donations the following percentages went to REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES:

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 1%

IBEW 2%

NEA 6%

Laborers Union 7%

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 3%

Carpenters and Joiners Union 9%

Teamsters Union 6%

Communications Workers Of America 0%

American Federation of Teachers 0%

United Auto Workers 0%

Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union 0%

United Food & Commercial Workers Union 1%

And here's a quote from SEIU President Andy Stern "We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama - 60.7 million to be exact- and we're proud of it."

I'll turn an earlier question back on you Rod. You asked something to the effect of: "If corporations are making enough money to spend it on politics why aren't they spending it on their employees instead" (something like that) Rod, if Unions, who's supposed purpose is to PROTECT the worker, have so much money why aren't they helping these workers who have LOST THEIR JOBS with it instead of spending it on politics?

The 60.7 million spent on Obama by the SEIU alone could have paid the mortgage of more than 4000 laid off workers for a year while they retrained for new jobs. What a waste of UNION DUES.

The double standard is coming to an end and KO and others like him can't stand it.