Intro: "Several cities and states are passing resolutions against corporate personhood. The resolutions are the result of Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which gave corporations the same first amendment rights as individuals and thereby opening the floodgates for money in politics in the US. Cities and states with rules governing political contributions on the books and even some without are hoping that these resolutions will curb the impact of that decision or provide momentum to overturn it completely."
US cities and states are passing resolutions against Citizens United which gives corporations first amendment rights. (photo: Ad Busters)
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Money does not equal speech. Speech is free. Everyone knows that. You can speak all day and night and not pay a penny to do so.
No, my friends; what money equals is *being heard". There is a huge difference. Those who spend money on campaigns don't pay to speak. They pay to be heard, and it works.
With the idea that money equals speech, we are basically back to a de facto poll tax which was found unconstitutiona l, so the rich have done an end run around that. One dollar, one vote; pay to play; pay to be heard.
What makes me feel uncomfortable is all the liberal outfits sending me e-mails asking for money to fight this, or to champion their candidate. This is begging for a metaphor but I can't think of one right now.
Now someone help me with this. We are in a Great Recession. No one seems to have any cash. Banks are not giving loans and businesses are hurting and people (flesh-and-bloo d people, not Supreme Court created entities) are being fired/laid-off/ down-sized or whatever modern colloquialism for losing their job. Yet, at the same time these particular corporations are sitting on chests of cash just waiting to invest in candidates. Are these extreme campaign contributions a way to easily identify the 1% and those owned by them?
Since January, 2004, businesses and trade unions in Canada are permitted to donate a maximum of $1,000 to political campaigns. Individual citizens are also limited to donating a maximum of $5,000 (all donations are income tax deductable). Any person, union or corporation that gives over $200 to a political party or candidate will have their name and address published. Parties and candidates must disclose not only the sources of their funds, but also how they were spent. Political contributions, incidentally, include not only money, but also goods and services donated "in kind."
Understanding that these restrictions would hamper candidates and parties seeking to win voter support, alternatives were put in place. So, any political party that got more than 2% of the vote nationally, or 5% in any specific voting district, is given $1.75 for every vote they get. Thus, not only the governing Conservatives ("Republican"), 2nd-place New Democrats (members of the Socialist International and leader of the Official Opposition), 3rd-place Liberals ("Democratic"), and (4th-place Quebec separatist) Bloc Quebecois parties, but also the Green Party and any number of others such as the Marijuana, Libertarian and various communist parties and also eligible to be subsidized from general tax revenue.
Before my American friends faint in astonishment I must add that Prime Minister Stephen Harper (a ridiculously right-wing politician who's almost as "conservative" as President Obama) is working to public funding. Despite having 60% of the electorate voted against him and his party because of our silly electoral system, he won a majority of seats in the House of Commons, and is now governing as if the people of Canada approve of him. Why President Obama, who actually won a majority of votes and whose party had majorities in the US Senate and House in 2008 did not govern with as much authority during the first two years of his presidency remains a mystery to your northern neighbours.
Anyway, good luck in 2012. We're at least happy that Sarah bin-Palin will not get within a designer dress of the Oval Office. We are thankful for small mercies.
RSS feed for comments to this post