tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913083698007077441.post3631923288359236896..comments2023-05-17T08:27:57.301-07:00Comments on USA's War against the Dollar: AIG: Americans' Income's Gone. Now THAT's Class Warfare.Robertlowrey.blogspot.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14929839643254994477noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5913083698007077441.post-25899509805914806652010-01-31T07:02:28.054-08:002010-01-31T07:02:28.054-08:00I am actually grateful that the Supreme court has ...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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?REKordinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01327478005437933365noreply@blogger.com