Sometimes I think we should just let our Galtian overlords enact laws, rather than having to bribe legislators to do it (via). Wouldn’t that eliminate inefficiencies?
In the Citizens United case, the majority decreed, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, that corporations and other organizations could bypass the old limits by giving unlimited amounts not to candidates but to nominally independent groups that support them. (Corporations, of course, traditionally give more to Republicans.) But the logic of the decision—and the views expressed by the majority at the argument last week—suggests that in the future the Court will allow corporations to skip the third parties and give money directly to the candidates. It also implies that any limit on the size of contributions, by individuals or corporations, may now be held to be unconstitutional. The Court did suggest that requirements calling for the public disclosure of contributions might pass constitutional muster, but Congress shows no inclination to enact any such rules. President Obama’s DISCLOSE Act, which would have bolstered disclosure requirements, died in Congress last year. (Clarence Thomas, the silent Justice during oral arguments, believes that even disclosure violates First Amendment rights.)
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik
So this is how our Republic dies. Not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with the Stock Market Bell ringing, and the joyous applause of our economic Galtian betters.
Fuck this whole fucking country, seriously. I give up.
Just Some Fuckhead
The single biggest way to eliminate inefficiency in the political system is to simply let corporations run for office. Why send money to Rand Paul when Rand Corp can self-fund? Lobbyists and staffers also become redundant.
cleek
why not just put the office on eBay, then let candidates bid for it. highest bidder wins. all proceeds go to the DoD.
Stillwater
Lawd knows I’m no constitutional lawyer, but isn’t the relevant first amendment principle limited to the right to speech, and not a right to privacy in expressing it?
Just Some Fuckhead
Slightly related, selling naming rights to our Federal buildings could keep them funded without stealing tax money from the people.
Exxon Supreme Court
USAA Capitol Building
Smithandwesson Institution
And maybe we could have prevented a few bank failures if we’d have had a little foresight:
Washington Mutual Monument
Lincoln Savings & Loan Memorial
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Stillwater:
Their right to privacy trumps your right to free speech.
Their right to free speech trumps your right to privacy.
If you don’t like it, then you’re obviously a Dirty Fucking Hippie that needs to get the fuck out of our Glorious Free Market Republic before they’re forced to purge you, for the good of the country.
RosiesDad
This country is fucked. Time to start looking for somewhere else to go. Costa Rica is looking really good right now. Won’t be able to earn much but the cost of living is low and they have really good western medical care there.
RosiesDad
@Just Some Fuckhead: They already got that without having to overtly pay for the naming rights.
But how about the Goldman Sachs White House?
Just Some Fuckhead
@RosiesDad:
They’d prolly rather have the Treasury Building.
Elia Isquire
Somewhat similarly, I’ve always felt we’d be best off if we could get a real liberal who is also enormously independently wealthy. Imagine if Obama didn’t have to worry about getting cash from the Big Money Boyz. After all, the Roosevelts were flush with cash…
Just Some Fuckhead
@Elia Isquire:
Didn’t we try that with Jon Corzine and fail?
Face
Yikes. Corporations piling millions on politicians…what could possibly go wrong?
Really, that would pretty much end this democracy as it’s currently understood. Can I handle the cold weather in Canada?
Elia Isquire
@Just Some Fuckhead: *who isn’t a terrible politician and doesn’t advocate neoliberalism.
Bullsmith
You’d think if these CEO’s were the elite talent managers they’re cracked up to be they’d hire better politicians. Then again I guess the management they’ve put in place are indeed doing a bang-up job of destroying the institution of government. I take it back, they’re worth every penny.
Comrade Dread
Or we could just declare the CEOs of the Dow to be Senators and the CEOs of the Fortune 500 to be Representatives and elect their own CEO to the oval office.
Seriously, though, I think I’m going to take a few social classes, a course on how to be a butler, and learn to speak with an English accent, so I’ll have a job when the aristocracy finally takes over.
Zam
@Stillwater: The conservative view of the First amendment is that you are guaranteed the right to not face criticism or consequences of using your First Amendment rights. If a corporation faces free market ramifications for donating to a cause or candidate, in conservative minds that is suppression of free speech.
Punchy
If by “nominally independent”, you mean “extraordinarily partisan”.
Paul in KY
@Just Some Fuckhead: Instead of ‘the Senator from Standard Oil’ you can have ‘Senator Standard Oil’. I guess it’s just more efficient that way.
Mjaum
Poll currently going around among the Elder Gods: “Big things that die in 2012”.
US tops the list, with the Catholic Church trailing slightly.
Chris
@Comrade Dread:
This is America. When the aristocracy takes over again, they’ll expect a certain skin tone in their servants, and “English” will not be it.
Zam
@Comrade Dread: I say we replace the states with corporations, then they can each elect their own senators and reps.
Stillwater
@Zam: Thanks. I knew it was shennaniganny, but I would’ve guessed it to be ‘the constitution doesn’t explicitly require making your identity known as a condition of expressing your right to free speech, so therefore blah blah’.
Jeffro
Can’t we pull a Grover Norquist (ech – metaphorically speaking, that is) and shove a pledge at each and every corporation/CEO not to contribute to political campaigns (or face a boycott)?
Until the composition of the SC changes, we are going to have to fight fire with fire and find a way to defund large corporations that give to right-wing candidates. If they won’t respect our votes, perhaps they will respect our $$$.
Calouste
@Face:
Harper is busy turning Canada into the US by cutting out party subsidies and having parties rely solely on fundraising. And you know where the Conservatives are going to get there funds from. Heck, the current subsidy is C$2 per vote, so that means the complete subsidies for all parties is around C$30 million, or the cost of a medium sized US Senate race. Pocket change for the Kochs.
Judas Escargot
@Stillwater:
Lawd knows I’m no constitutional lawyer, but isn’t the relevant first amendment principle limited to the right to speech, and not a right to privacy in expressing it?
IANAL, either. But I do know that if you know my real name, you can Google to find out my political contributions.
Yet a corporation can give millions, billions, and not have to disclose?
Very 18th century French, if you ask me.
Chris
@RosiesDad:
You know what’s really depressing?
We know exactly how to put the country back on track. Tax the shit out of the rich to guarantee a decent welfare state, back the unions and provide enough regulation to make sure the system doesn’t fly off the rails – IOW, the 1950s + a public health insurance option. This isn’t rocket science. We’ve done it before and we got the best economic time in the nation’s history out of it. There are plenty of problems that we haven’t solved yet, but the argument for New Deal democracy is pretty straightforward.
Watching politics today feels like watching an ultra-religious family, of the Medecine-Is-Satanic persuasion, letting one of their children die of a disease for which we discovered the cure eighty years ago. Not that it wasn’t plenty depressing before, but even more so in that light.
Zifnab
Listen, politicians need to take their cut. It’s like “Trickle Down Economics”, except with campaign dollars. You get a value add by purchasing through a legislator rather than making a direct buy. Kinda like how you need insurance companies to take a cut before you can receive medical care. And you need contractors to take a cut before you can fund a military expense. And you need banks to take a cut before you can own a house. Credit cards need a cut before you can own an anything-else.
That’s jobs, baby. That’s the service economy at work. Everyone needs to take a cut for our modern capitalist utopia to function.
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Chris:
We know what can be done, sure, but what the fuck can you do when this is a country that will tell you it loves your ideas, but then bends over backwards to condemn them vigorously as soon as it finds out you’re a Lib/Democrat?
This country totally and utterly subsists on Hippie Punching these days, and it completely overrides any actual motivation to fix things. Sure, Trickle Down is totally proven wrong, but it’s the only SERIOUS economic policy in America because all the hippies hate it, thus it must be doubleplussupergood.
The Raven
RosiesDad
@Just Some Fuckhead: I think Treasury is Goldman’s executive washroom .
Bob Loblaw
@Elia Isquire:
How exactly does this really rich person come to be without believing in neoliberal economics?
Are you really waiting for the Google guys to come rescue you? This isn’t Annie. There is no benevolent rich guy who’ll rescue you from your troubles.
RosiesDad
@Chris:
Worse, you wouldn’t even have to tax the shit out of the rich. Just tax them more. Take away the loopholes and increase marginal rates on higher levels of income. The fact that the marginal rate schedule tops out at $250K is just stupid. Why not add a couple of points to income over $500K. And a couple more points to income over $1M. And so on. Top it out at 55% on income over $10M and the country would be rolling in surplus.
Just don’t hold your breath waiting to see it.
Ash Can
Hell, this pretty much nullifies any laws against bribes, kickbacks, graft, pay-to-play, or any other payoffs to politicians. After all, what’s the legal difference between buying a politician and buying a vote? The right-wingers all went full-metal batshit over Obama’s supposed Chicago gangster politics, but lo and behold, they’ve succeeded in making the entire nation look like Big Bill Thompson’s back room.
Elia Isquire
@Bob Loblaw: The same way the Roosevelts did (i.e. inheritance)? I’d be more gutted by your zingers if not for the fact that this happened in our history, twice.
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Ash Can:
United States of America 2010-12: Because Tammany Hall was small time.
Bob Loblaw
@Elia Isquire:
I for one welcome our new trustafarian overlords. May their noblesse oblige never end.
Elia Isquire
@Bob Loblaw: Hey, this is the country we live in; I didn’t design it this way.
4jkb4ia
OT: Nate is up with the Democratic side of early primary polls. As Nate tweeted, the 1976 Democratic field reminded him the most of the 2012 Republican field. By coincidence, the 1976 Democratic field was the most like what DougJ was asking for. In three polls between January and June 1975, Wallace and Humphrey were within five points of each other in polling average at the top. Humphrey had run before. Like 1974, 1976 was about restoring honor to government–you wouldn’t have a fake candidate to get money or publicity.
sublime33
In reference to Clarence Thomas as the “silent Justice”, are we sure that he hasn’t been deceased for a number of years and that the Supreme Court deliberations haven’t been an upscale version of “Weekend At Bernie’s?”
Duane
@Zam:
Of course if you are an individual or say The Dixie Chicks…..well shit of course there are consequences to free speech.*
*unless you are a teatard…..then no consequences….
patrick II
If we were ever going to get public disclosure laws passed it would have had to be before the Citizens United Case. Now that corporations can bribe as much as they want they will especially bribe to keep their anonymity. The only way this is going to change now is if Obama’s administration outlives at least one of the 18th century wannabees on the supreme court.
singfoom
There are solutions to our problems. None of them can be achieved because of political realities. (Or unrealities if you prefer).
Tax rates on the superrich will not be increased, the Republicans got their back.
Corporations will not be reined in, the current SCOTUS will keep expanding their rights at the expense of citizens and say it’s for “freedom”.
Criminals in the previous government and within the financial sector will not be tried for their crimes. Hands will be thrown up, “mistakes were made” will be offered, and no justice will be forthcoming.
I wish I could think of a way to change it, but beyond violent revolution (which I’m not down with, thanks), I don’t see a way past it.
Sure, we can vote for democrats and try to push them towards rational policies, but that’s a rearguard action….not an offensive.
Sigh.
Nellcote
@sublime33:
That sick fucker poudly announced out loud in court the decission to override the jury award to an innocent black man wrongly incarcerated for 14 years.
Ronzoni
Barbara Tuchman’s “The March of Folly” quotes John Adams in 1770:Shocked at the corrupt politics [of the British], the vice, the gap between the “Wealth, magnificence and splendour” of the rich and the “extreme Misery and distresses of the poor…amazing on the one hand and disgusting on the other.” Adams and other Americans viewed the patronage system as hostile and dangerous to liberty, FOR WHEN GOVERNMENT RESTED ON PURCHASED SUPPORT, TRUE LIBERTY WAS…DEAD….
Funny, Americans understood this in 1770. What happened?