JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
So you would be fine with making sure corporations have to pay whatever the appropriate corporate tax level is (currently 35% as I recall)? And you would be even happier with a reversal of the SCOTUS decision that equates a corporation and an individual?

I think corporations should pay tax (don't know about the top %) on their NET PROFITS, and they should be able to contribute as much money to whoever they want, just like anybody else should be able to. I was agreeing with your (apparent) frustration with the system as it is set up today regardless of ideology... the Democrats are NOT for "the people", any more that the Republicans are for "the corporations"... both parties are about THE MONEY, and not only maintaining their power but INCREASING their power because whoremongers (of any label) are never satisfied... "too much is never enough".

Between Oregon state and Federal (not counting workers-comp, SS, union dues, etc.) I have the better part of $1,000.00 a month CONFISCATED from my paycheck (not counting the wife's paycheck) before I even get it.... and for what, cowboy poetry festivals in NV? Air Force-1 vacations every other month? Foodstamps, prison expenses, and public education for illegals? Sweetheart pensions and benefits packages for public sector unions?
 
In a capitalist society, we not only vote at the ballot, we also vote with our dollars. Be offended if you want that someone with far, far greater resources than you or I gets to have more of a say than we do, but keep in mind that you and I put that person in a position to have that say. We decided to buy their product, which gave them more money to have more say. In essence, we have "elected" them to speak for us, like the democratic republic we are, except we elected that representative with our patronage.

Don't like it? Tough. You should have known this by now. Your parents should have taught you this, and you most certainly should be teaching your kids that this is how it works. Think about it next time you go into Big Box Store to make a purchase. What exactly is your dollar buying you?

Really????? And how in God's green Earth do I keep from spending money at businesses (bix box or mom & pop) where corporations that are essentially multinationals that have spin off's, divisions, etc? Even a mom and pop store sells stuff that is from a corporation. There is NO getting around it. Anyways, getting back to the point: the consumer didn't give big business the leg up in terms of "equality" on election finances the SCOTUS did.
 
I think corporations should pay tax (don't know about the top %) on their NET PROFITS, and they should be able to contribute as much money to whoever they want, just like anybody else should be able to. I was agreeing with your (apparent) frustration with the system as it is set up today regardless of ideology... the Democrats are NOT for "the people", any more that the Republicans are for "the corporations"... both parties are about THE MONEY, and not only maintaining their power but INCREASING their power because whoremongers (of any label) are never satisfied... "too much is never enough".

Between Oregon state and Federal (not counting workers-comp, SS, union dues, etc.) I have the better part of $1,000.00 a month CONFISCATED from my paycheck (not counting the wife's paycheck) before I even get it.... and for what, cowboy poetry festivals in NV? Air Force-1 vacations every other month? Foodstamps, prison expenses, and public education for illegals? Sweetheart pensions and benefits packages for public sector unions?

1. Your first sentence: Could you please tell me why a business entity should be seen in the same light as John Q Taxpayer? Do you not see that the SCOTUS decision allows for a business entity to have a huge and unmitigated influence on campaign finance? BTW, I am not for Dems or Repubs on this but I am firmly in the opinion that the SCOTUS decision was absolutely catastrophic for the average Joe. Rather than empowering the average Joe the SCOTUS decision empowered big business at the expense of the average Joe.

2. As to the sweetheart public employee benefits for public employees .... Is this something you heard, can back up with hard data and not just some blog opinion? You would think that public employees have been living high on the hog despite the economy according to some. I can tell you for certain that is absolutely not the case at all from a personal perspective as public employee.
 
Welfare for politicians? no thanks! and thank you conservative Supreme court justices, you've done well!

Good point, but in the real world there are only so many practical options for campaign finace reform. You could mandate via law that politcal advertising is illegal, thus makiing electrion coverage only a matter of news reporting, or you could demand that a fixed amount of advertising be provided free to each candidate, of these I favor the former. The SC could have let matters be as they were before people's united, but they chose to dismantle the rules that had made our elections slightly less than selling votes on ebay. As it stands now Im sure they won't actually sell votes on ebay because why take on any transparency at all when you don't have to.

So Trismn, you find it conservative that there should be no limits to the influence of money in politics? You thanking them justices because your really think this is going to lead us in a good direction?

I believe that 'welfare to politicans' is the cheapest way to run our gov, and in reality if corporations are giving, you and I are paying for it anyway, so we might as well cut out the middle man!
 
1. Your first sentence: Could you please tell me why a business entity should be seen in the same light as John Q Taxpayer? Do you not see that the SCOTUS decision allows for a business entity to have a huge and unmitigated influence on campaign finance? BTW, I am not for Dems or Repubs on this but I am firmly in the opinion that the SCOTUS decision was absolutely catastrophic for the average Joe. Rather than empowering the average Joe the SCOTUS decision empowered big business at the expense of the average Joe.

2. As to the sweetheart public employee benefits for public employees .... Is this something you heard, can back up with hard data and not just some blog opinion? You would think that public employees have been living high on the hog despite the economy according to some. I can tell you for certain that is absolutely not the case at all from a personal perspective as public employee.



Sure thing... given from the perspective of a private sector union member:



1.
Fore the same reason the AFL-CIO and other "entities" tied to all the obfuscated "union affiliations" (i.e. ACORN, etc.) should be (and are) allowed donate to who they want, as much as they want. Corporations are made up of people, all people have their own interests and have every right to look out for their interests.

2.
I'm a private sector trade union member, and I see all the hypocrisy going on in the "elite" ranks making serious coinage off the rank and file members, the half truths they use to rile the general membership against a "particular political party". By no means am I referring to the "average Joe" who is in the public sector, I'm referring to the "system" set in place by what is essentially a monopoly at the public trough. There is no serious accountability of unelected bureaucrats in Salem (and PDX). Blog opinions? Seriously? Inflation is 2-4% annually, the State of Oregon has increased spending AT LEAST 10% PER YEAR and when they only get spending increases to match inflation they call it a "cut"... that's a fact, not opinion.

Case in point, the Portland Development Commission is one of my clients, and they just got done laying off a bunch of good (hard working) folks so they could make room in their budget for some hag/crony out of Sam Adams' office to be "Deputy Director of Whatthehellever" at a nice healthy SIX-FIGURE income at the expense of several workers trying to make a living. Then there's budgeting various depts. based on "positions" that dept. has allotted, rather than actual number of people on the payroll... those are the "sweetheart deals" I'm referring to, not the rank and file public employees.

Another difference is being in a private sector union I work for a company that has to be PROFITABLE, and has to COMPETE against low-bidders to survive let alone make the "big bucks". We don't have the power to simply legislate increased taxes to fund what we do or operate at a 40% rate of deficit spending. I have to make a profit for my employer or I'm out the door, union or no union. I know that the average public sector employee has to constantly deal with ever shrinking "budgets" and "resources", but where they heck is all that tax revenue going? We spend more per child for public education, and are always pressed for more, yet with ever lowering performance and results overall.

My brother in-law's dad is a tier one PERS recipient who was ALL FOR "this tax" and "that tax", "we have to pay our fair share" (blah, blah, blah) a big lefty. I remember raising a few points as a taxpayer, and his reply was, "that's your problem". Then when he retired, guess what "Mr. Lefty" did... he moved to Washington State to avoid paying Oregon income tax on his pension income (BTW, more than he made while working)... thanks Jack-hole.

So I guess you could say that is the sort of "sweet-heart" deals I'm referring to...


All said and done, you can spend the MOON on a candidate... that won't compel me to vote for them, and never has.


BTW, +1 on what MountainBear said... no public funding for campaigns, that's like forcing me to fund someone's abortion.
 
I did this on a recent thread in here where I brought up People's United, if I remember correctly the total amount of money that every union in the country has to potentially influence politics is about .01% of the declared value of US Corporate profit. Goliath vs. a microbe.

I got to say this is a legacy of the 5 repub nominees on the SC! I honestly think they were selected based on belief that justice is only the interest of the stronger party.
 
Buggy, your ASSUMPTIONS regarding corporations are astounding. There are so many corporations on the public dole, that to say that they "only give to republicans and/or conservatives" is ludicrous.
So GE only gives to the 'pubs?
Corporations that are invested heavily in "green energy" only give to 'pubs?
Corporations that repeatedly bid for public project dollars only give to 'pubs?
The thousand of "corporations" that exist only to support/drive enviro-causes only give to 'pubs?

And you keep throwing around those made-up union money figures as if they are facts, despite the obvious flaw in your equation that denies the existence of left leaning corps.

The Citizen's United case, (and possibly this one as well) was decided based on settled law from the '70s case that declared campaign contributions equivalent to free speech. Activist judges rule counter to settled law, effectively re-writing them. Yet you continue to label the current crop of conservative justices "activist." You obviously don't get it.

But then again, anyone that uses a liberal rag like the New Yorker, and their editorial staff as a reference proves their bias by doing so.
Why am I not surprised!
 
So....Callin' me a liar huh....swell..... Are you gonna eat those words when I review the last 150 pages of text that I've read this weekend and trot out the link ...Or do you know for a fact how much he intends to raise this election cycle??

I fully expect the clowns on the other side of the aisle to attempt to raise just as much...

The finest President that money can buy ...indeed.....

w44

ps...elsullo...I don't ride a party....they both suck....but callin' me a liar is BS... You'd better be fact checkin' on your posts from now on.

You only missed by three orders of magnitude. But what is a 1000 times between friends and acquaintances? Buddy, can you spare a dime?

barack-obama-to-run-money

<broken link removed>

president-obama-to-file-papers-for-2012-re-election-campaign-monday
 
Buggy, your ASSUMPTIONS regarding corporations are astounding. There are so many corporations on the public dole, that to say that they "only give to republicans and/or conservatives" is ludicrous.
So GE only gives to the 'pubs?
Corporations that are invested heavily in "green energy" only give to 'pubs?
Corporations that repeatedly bid for public project dollars only give to 'pubs?
The thousand of "corporations" that exist only to support/drive enviro-causes only give to 'pubs?

And you keep throwing around those made-up union money figures as if they are facts, despite the obvious flaw in your equation that denies the existence of left leaning corps.

The Citizen's United case, (and possibly this one as well) was decided based on settled law from the '70s case that declared campaign contributions equivalent to free speech. Activist judges rule counter to settled law, effectively re-writing them. Yet you continue to label the current crop of conservative justices "activist." You obviously don't get it.

But then again, anyone that uses a liberal rag like the New Yorker, and their editorial staff as a reference proves their bias by doing so.
Why am I not surprised!

Starting with the end, the New Yorker was the source of the first article I read on this issue, they seem to be in the lead on the coverage.

What law from the 70's are you talking about? The People's United decision removed limits on Corporate and Union contributions that were existing law prior to this decision, it is activism!

I made an economic argument on the relative potential power of unions vs. corporations only to show that removing limits from unions will have little impact compared to removing limits from corporations, this is an obvious and true point. If you want to go get some better figures be my guest, but not even the heritage foundation is going to cook the books bad enough for you to win this point.

As to corporations being left or right leaning, I don't care, because if they are allowed to dominate our political process, buy the votes of the weak minded, and enable politcal proxies to inhabit offices that should be filled by representative of the people that voted for them, then 'we the people' are the big losers. Yeah, I know we sort of had this nightmare situation before Peoples United, but anyone with a hope for an America actually capable of solving its problems (necessary for survival) felt that the influence of money in the process was allready way over the top. I think most of us regardless of our polemic felt that removing money from the process was the way to go, not increasing it!

IMHO practical campaign finance reform boils down to setting low limits on how much any single contributor can give and how much any campaign can raise for a particular office. These limit should be set low so that non mainstream candidates would have a chance. All loophole organizations like pacs should be eliminated, and who gives what must be public information. This would remove most of the bs ads that we are subject to. Let the news media, the debates, and our notions guide the voter. Isn't this far more in the sprit of the constitution than 'them with the gold makes the rules'? Not according to these 5 activist judges you feel the need to support.
 
You only missed by three orders of magnitude. But what is a 1000 times between friends and acquaintances? Buddy, can you spare a dime?

barack-obama-to-run-money

<broken link removed>

president-obama-to-file-papers-for-2012-re-election-campaign-monday

Of course you win the factual argument, but don't you suppose he would like to raise a trillion, heck if he did we all just might give him the election without voting and have him use that trillion to lower the national debt by 1/14th.

A Billion is still a major chunk of change and a lot of it will come with strings attached. I used to joke that we are only allowed to solve our problem with the chance cards in the box labeled, makes the rich richer. You gotta dance with them that brought ya, and the SCOTUS has decided it constitutional that the people don't measure up to the dress code!
 
I did not call YOU a liar. I said that you read a lie and repeated it without questioning the source. You do realize that a TRILLION for a political campaign is completely ridiculous, right? IT'S A JOKE.........................elsullo


So....Callin' me a liar huh....swell..... Are you gonna eat those words when I review the last 150 pages of text that I've read this weekend and trot out the link ...Or do you know for a fact how much he intends to raise this election cycle??

I fully expect the clowns on the other side of the aisle to attempt to raise just as much...

The finest President that money can buy ...indeed.....

w44

ps...elsullo...I don't ride a party....they both suck....but callin' me a liar is BS... You'd better be fact checkin' on your posts from now on.
 
I say if any politician accepts large amounts of money from any company/lobbyist they should have to forced to wear a patch with the company logo like in NASCAR.
 
One more time just for you: History buggy history! No wonder you seem doomed to repeat the mistakes the left has made in the past.
You just don't know your history!
Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law. The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

So they mistakenly tried to continue limits on free speech, after admitting that contributions were/are indeed a form of free speech. The Roberts court just allowed free speech without the arbitrary limits imposed in '76.

One thing you are correct about is the corporations that spent money to sway the electorate,... They OBVIOUSLY swayed you!
 
One more time just for you: History buggy history! No wonder you seem doomed to repeat the mistakes the left has made in the past.
You just don't know your history!
Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So they mistakenly tried to continue limits on free speech, after admitting that contributions were/are indeed a form of free speech. The Roberts court just allowed free speech without the arbitrary limits imposed in '76.

One thing you are correct about is the corporations that spent money to sway the electorate,... They OBVIOUSLY swayed you!

Well at least I got you to state a specific!

OK, I'll play.

Campaign finance reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the McCain-Feingold bill passed 2002:

"The law was challenged as unconstitutional by groups and individuals including the California State Democratic Party, the National Rifle Association, and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), the Senate Majority Whip. After moving through lower courts, in September 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, McConnell v. FEC. On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold; the vote on the court was 5 to 4. Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion; they were joined by David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, and opposed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia."

and in 2010:

"In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, on Jan, 2010, the US Supreme court ruled that the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, the US federal law that regulates the financing of political campaigns, was in violation of corporations' and unions' First Amendment rights. Under the January 2010 ruling, corporations and unions are no longer barred from promoting the election of one candidate over another candidate.[7]"

This is a reversal.

I don't need a supreme court decision, to know what policies lead us in the direction of taking power away from the people, and giving it to vested interests that have only an agenda of self promotion with very little respect for the common good.
 
It's a reversal of the policies dictated in the last 30-60 days prior to an election. It does not alter any campaign contributions, just electronic publications funded by corporations, and allows them to be presented within the last 60 days of the campaign(s).

This ruling has virtually no effect on whether or not a candidate can collect funds far in advance of an election. Or from whom, or how much. The case had nothing to do with that.
Which is no doubt why you're making so much "political hay" over it.

Which is no doubt why our "Billion Dollar President", (you know, the one YOU voted for buggy) announced his candidacy and fund raising activities recently. 18 months ahead of the 2012 elections.

The Court struck down a provision of the McCain&#8211;Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting "electioneering communications." [2] An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain&#8211;Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] McCain&#8211;Feingold had previously been weakened, without overruling McConnell, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007). The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.[5]

In that regard, McCain-Feingold was overreaching and held little ability to affect/protect the fundraising and/or contributions to candidates or parties.
 
I don't need a supreme court decision, to know what policies lead us in the direction of taking power away from the people, and giving it to vested interests that have only an agenda of self promotion with very little respect for the common good.


You will when they hear the case against "Obamacare"... that whole thing was nothing but putting more money in the likes of G.E.'s pockets (Obama's buddies BTW), and more power over "the people", by politicians and the "manchurians" that pull their strings behind the scenes. Crazy how insurance premiums have gone up since that legislation was passed, DESPITE what President "Hope & Change" said it would do... but then this thread isn't about health care specifically, its about the SCOTUS.
 
It's a reversal of the policies dictated in the last 30-60 days prior to an election. It does not alter any campaign contributions, just electronic publications funded by corporations, and allows them to be presented within the last 60 days of the campaign(s).

This ruling has virtually no effect on whether or not a candidate can collect funds far in advance of an election. Or from whom, or how much. The case had nothing to do with that.
Which is no doubt why you're making so much "political hay" over it.

Which is no doubt why our "Billion Dollar President", (you know, the one YOU voted for buggy) announced his candidacy and fund raising activities recently. 18 months ahead of the 2012 elections.



In that regard, McCain-Feingold was overreaching and held little ability to affect/protect the fundraising and/or contributions to candidates or parties.

With your definition of publications including media presentations, promotional videos, fake movies, and advertising. But this new decision will extend a corporations rights even further, do you really think that is wise? Also, I would imagine a fair amount of the total spending on media during an election happens in the last 60 days, yet you act like this is a major reduction of influence!

McCain Feingold was at least something, McCain himself said that campaign finance reform was dead after the Citizen's United case, and he was not pleased with that decision.

I don't get it, why don't you go on record and say it Jamie, you think America will be a better place for letting parties with lots of money spend whatever they can to promote candidates and influence the voters! You feel that money has been represed and left powerless to influence this process without these court decisions! Come on now say it!
 
You will when they hear the case against "Obamacare"... that whole thing was nothing but putting more money in the likes of G.E.'s pockets (Obama's buddies BTW), and more power over "the people", by politicians and the "manchurians" that pull their strings behind the scenes. Crazy how insurance premiums have gone up since that legislation was passed, DESPITE what President "Hope & Change" said it would do... but then this thread isn't about health care specifically, its about the SCOTUS.

What is the connection to GE and why are they the specifc corporation in your statement?

The court may hear the Obamacare case and who knows how they will decide. The constitution does not limit the rights of our elected branch of government to cause people to buy something from a private marketplace nor does it grant then that specific authority. The laws that say you must have car insurance to drive legally have stood up. The laws requires all sorts of outfits to be bonded and insured to do all sorts of stuff, like run a tug boat, become a bank, sell stock, develop new drugs, run a hospital, or drill for oil. The gov has required participation in social security for most workers for a very long time. I don't see anything wrong with it because the private company involved is not a specific one it is only one of dozens of outfits that will be bidding for this business. The states legal actions are pretty much show boating and the basis of some of them is strange beyond belief. But the constitution does not say that corporations have the same rights of free speech as people either, and that is what the court decided in Citizen's United.

I find Obamacare (taking the rightie name for it) to be in the public good, as I've said before it isn't perfect but it is the best that we were going to get from the insurance - provider - goverment consortium that put the thing together.

I've argued that before in here, it does a lot of good things, and if you want to have insurance not toss people for pre existing conditions you simply have to make sure that everyone is covered at all times. If you don't then people will wait to get insurance until after they are diagnosed with something. This issue was raised by the insurance companies from the start of planning the new law.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top