Posts
The true captured nature of the Democratic Party, in not crying this blatant contradiction from the rooftops, is thus made manifest.
Meanwhile, even as the Supremes call money speech, and the near collapse of a number of financial institutions, brought about by the Superclass's reckless asset-striping, and insane leveraging and transformation of the Fed into a shill for their mantra of "housing prices never go down", resulting in the near-collapse of the entire global financial system and unrepairable damage to the reputation of the US banking system, and leaving the working class without jobs, the secrecy behind the decision to bail out AIG is allowed to fester.
Free speech is now sacrosanct for the Corporations, but the rest us have to pay for it . Just as the "Free"market, means one in which the Superclass gets to arrange the economic system so as all its profits flow to them, they decide what is free speech and what is not. And, as the revelations about the legerdemain and financial shenanigans that went into the federal government commitment of billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars into making good AIG's speculative bets on debauched financial instruments they still cynically refer to as "securities", is most decidedly what is not. To get that information is going to cost plenty.
David Reilly at BusinessWeek in an article entitled: Secret Banking Cabal Emerges From AIG Shadows, and referenced on http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/, details the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's role in what many in Congress believe was the New York Fed’s involvement in the attempt to cover up AIG buyout details and obfuscate the identities of the parties who benefited.
But we are at War. Pursuant to the Patriot Act, any citizen, or newspaper, that gives solace to the enemy, (and investigating the financial system that supports the Corporations that provide the wherewithal to support the troops and provide the armament for them to kill our "enemies", is doing exactly that), is suspect at best; treasonous, if they persist. So Corporate bribes, now considered free speech, since they grease the wheels of commerce and helped bring the system from the brink of global financial collapse, are most definitely under the rubric of "National Security", no matter how you cut it.
Get used to it. Americans' Income's Gone. And if you try to expose exactly why, you may just find out how, although physically incapable of actually being a patriot, a Corporation is much better situated to put on a Patriot act than an individual trying to do his patriotic duty and expose the malfeasance of those who can afford legions of lawyers to line up against him.
So in a sense the Repugnicans are correct. When one side has been so thoroughly routed, the War is over. And because the War's over there is no longer a Class War, so President Obama is inciting Class Warfare by rubbing salt in the wounds of the completely prostrate losers, since the Superclass has already won, and there's nothing the other side can do but utter a feeble denouncement of "no fair".
1 comment:
I am actually grateful that the Supreme court has made it plain that we must limit the personhood of corporations through a Constitutional amendment. Money is speech. Money talks. It is as simple as that. That some have more money than others is immaterial. Some speak better than others too. Some are more persuasive than others. Free speech does not mean that everyone's voice is equal.
When I spend my money to support a cause or an organization, I am expressing an opinion, and that is what is protected by the 1st Amendment, our virtual voice. Whether that organization (corporation) is a union, the NRA, the ACLU or NPR is immaterial; they are speacking for me and my speech is protected.
I agree that large corporations can use their obvious financial advantages to influence politics. I agree that we need to limit the constitutional standing of large corporations, but I am concerned about how.
The history of the effects of campaign finance and ethics laws provides some insight. We made it illegal for corporations to contribute directly to candidates (Tillman Act 1907??) We made it illegal to contribute directly to campaigns in 1972. The Court upheld both of those, too, in their decision. The Tillman Act was weak. Teddy Roosvelt wanted an act totally banning corporate participation. That would have pushed it right into the Court as a clear constitutional challenge. Because it was weak, the Court was able to avoid the issue and decide cases on technical grounds until 1963, when it ruled in favor of the NAACP that some legal financial requirements were prior restraint, a facial challenge to the Constitution. The 1972 law was another weak law that simply resulted in a tangled web of PACs that make it harder to discern who is funding whom.
McCain-Feingold did something that no previous law had done. It restrained the speech of corporations for 30 days prior to an election, excepting only "media" corporations. this means that the ACLU cannot speak. this means that the NRA cannot speak. This means that the AARP cannot speak. Unless the "media" corporations or the candidates voice those opinions, they will not be heard. This is prior restraint. I am restrained from expressing my opinion through the megaphone of advertising, of promotion, unless I can fund it myself as an individual, without the help of others. Doesn't this make rich people's speech more powerful?
The political power of corporations needs to be constrained, but not to the point where they cannot advocate for their industry, for their employees or for their stockholders.
The mess at the Fed and Treasury and Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac is completely the result of deregulation and feel-good, wishful thinking, everybody-deserves-a-house-even-those-who-cannot-pay-for-it legislation (which should be better known as the, "Let's-give-money-to-crooks-to-lend-to-whomever-they-can-dress-up-and-then-guarantee-saleability-of-these-hig-risk-loans" Congressional Moron Act.)
How did you like Geithner's puzzled looks at the Congressional venting session, when the reps were yelling at him? it looks like he's saying to himself "shit, you guys approved all this stuff, why are you picking on me?" Doesn't he know that he must put up with this so they have the political cover to let him do whatever the Gnomes dictate?
Post a Comment