INDEPENDENT NATION: In Last Election Cycle Voters Changed Party, NOT Ideology
We could not agree more, and have been saying as much at every opportunity. Evidenced by the recent poll showing that 99% of Americans do NOT want Congress to increase the debt ceiling, a majority of voters in this country believe in limited government (including illegal, and honestly stupid, foreign wars), fiscal restraint and budget discipline.
The message from voters in Demochusetts was simple for those who chose to listen:
- Stop the stimulus; stop the bailouts; stop the trillions in deficit spending, and stop the wars.
It's a simple enough message; with time we will learn who is actually listening.
-----
Check out National Republicrat >>
MORE PHOTOS are at the bottom of the story.
-----
(Reprinted with permission from the WSJ)
By GERALD F. SEIB
The Democratic party's problems, crystallized in the last-ditch scramble to save Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat in a special election Tuesday, can be traced to a simple mistake: Many in the party misread voters' desire to switch parties in recent years as an ideological shift to the left.
In fact, there is little sign that Americans' ideological tendencies changed much at all, even as voters gave control of Congress to Democrats in 2006 and handed President Barack Obama and the rest of his party a massive victory in 2008. Ideologically, the country remained throughout this period what it was at the outset: a center to center-right nation.
![[CAPJOURN]](http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BD564_CAPJOU_NS_20100118180430.gif)
Throughout this period of Democratic rise, America was instead a centrist nation that simply had become fed up with Republican rule, largely because of concerns about the GOP's competence and its tone deafness. Voters' response was to shift parties more than ideologies.
In retrospect, the problem for Democrats was that some in the party—particularly in the liberal wing that is dominant in the House of Representatives—seemed to read this shift away from Republicans as a shift to the left. That became apparent first in the early-2009 construct of an economic stimulus package, written initially in the House. It went heavy on the kinds of public-spending programs liberals favor, and light on the tax cuts and small-business incentives that even more moderate Democrats like.
That mix subsequently was adjusted somewhat by the Senate and White House, but an impression was set. It then was cemented in the health-care debate, where the preference for larger over smaller, and an insistence on the so-called public option, or government-run insurance alternative, suggested a continued belief that the country had shifted toward these priorities of the left.
Yet the absence of an ideological shift can be seen by looking inside Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling throughout the last four years, the period when political winds were shifting so dramatically. The one constant has been voters' ideological balance, which is virtually unchanged.
In January of 2006, for example, 24% of those surveyed called themselves liberal, 38% called themselves moderate and 34% conservative. Two years later, at the outset of the year that brought Mr. Obama to power and expanded Democratic control of Congress, the numbers were virtually identical: 24% liberal, 37% moderate, 35% conservative. And a year later, amid the euphoria of President Obama's inauguration, and much talk of change, the ideological remained unchanged: 23% liberal, 37% moderate and 35% conservative. Now, one year into the era of Obama, the numbers still are nearly the same.
The only discernible movement, in fact, is the tiniest shift to the right over the last year. The share of Americans calling themselves liberal has gone down a bit, to 21% this month.
When Journal/NBC pollsters asked independent voters last month whether they have become more conservative in the last couple of years, 48% said they have.
What did happen in recent years was a shift of preference toward the Democratic party. In mid-2003, for example, 38% of those surveyed called themselves Democrats. By the time Mr. Obama was elected in November 2008, that had risen to 45%.
That shift in preference toward the Democrats can be attributed to, among other things, the declining popularity of President George W. Bush; a combination of ethical problems, drift and over-spending by Republicans in Congress; war fatigue; and the genuine and widespread popularity of Mr. Obama.
All those were considerable advantages for Democrats, but they weren't the same as an ideological mandate for a shift to the left.
The reality is that Democrats were renting a lot of centrist voters in 2006 and 2008, but didn't really own them. And now Democrats seem to be losing their grip on some of those centrist, independent-minded voters.
To some extent, Mr. Obama is a victim of circumstances. He inherited problems that all but demanded big government action. Even the most rock-ribbed Republican business leaders saw a need for a big government stimulus package to rev up the economy at the beginning of the Obama term, for instance, and the financial-industry bailout money the Obama administration dispersed in early 2009 was requested and approved under President Bush.
Bailing out and then taking control of General Motors was a choice, but a tough one and not necessarily an ideological one. All those emergency moves inevitably widened a federal budget deficit, which has sunk into the public consciousness as a significant problem.
Still, the combination of those moves and a bruising health debate left an impression of an administration and a party moving to the left, while the country stayed in the center. If Democrats had managed to finish that health debate last summer, as the White House hoped, maybe the voters' impression would be different.
But that didn't happen, of course, and now the Massachusetts Senate race is seen as a referendum on health. It also may be the first test of whether Democrats can regain their hold on the political center, where much of their country has always been.
Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com
-----
Originally appeared at the WSJ >>
-----
Jan 21, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Reader Comments (32)
A meaningless poll, when one considers the fact that the "ideology" of an American voter is ultimately IRRELEVANT in deciding the outcome of a political election. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS is what gets these turds into office. And the U.S. Supreme Court made the STUPID decision quite some time ago wherein a mega-trillion dollar corporation is EQUAL to an INDIVIDUAL when it comes to making campaign contributions.
In fact just today I believe the Supreme Court has not only ratified their retardedness, they've even RAISED the allowable limits of corporate campaign contributions.
THANK YOU U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR ENSURING THAT THE PLAYING FIELD IS *SO* TILTED AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, OUR OPPONENTS DON'T EVEN NEED TO KICK THE BALL INTO OUR GOALPOSTS; IT JUST ROLLS IN BY ITSELF!
As I understood it the ruling struck down part of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold Act banning contributions to broadcasting or otherwise communicating speech about candidates and issues, and did not lift limits on contributions directly to candidates for office. The case was regarding Citizens United movie, Hillary, which was prevented from showing the movie or even advertising about it.
I agreed with the ruling, which actually protects free speech from government restraint.
The court found that the Federal Elections Commission overstepped its constitutional authority when it barred a conservative group called Citizens United from running ads for a movie attacking Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season. Corporations and labor unions are now free to advertise -- and tell people to vote for individual candidates -- as they please. Before today, corporations have been required to funnel money through Political Action Committees, with limits on what could be spent. The court upheld, however, disclosure requirements for corporations that spend $10,000 to produce election-season ads, and ads will still have to disclaim who paid for them. However considering how we do things in America nowadays, GOOD LUCK with enforcing that.
One newspaper headlined the decision as, " Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Finance Restrictions" and goes on to explain that, "By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back restrictions on corporate spending on federal campaigns. The decision could unleash a torrent of corporate-funded attack ads in upcoming elections."
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rolls-back_n_431227.html)
The way this ultimately VERY BAD piece of news has been spun under a favorite light is just one more example of how specific interest groups prefer to focus on interpreting these outrageous rulings according to their own personal vested interests vs looking at the BIG PICTURE. An understandable error considering our national habit of cramming & bundling 57 completely different political issues into ONE non-sensically comprehensive bill.
In OTHER words, some dipshit legal spat regarding a documentary about Hillary just wound-up putting ANOTHER nail into our U.S. National Coffin.
I’m not sure how this is an example of specific groups interpreting the ruling for their own interests, unless you’re referring to the protection of First Amendment as the ‘personal vested interest.’
Big Picture: The argument that political equality demands, or at least permits, government action that restricts the free speech of some through contribution and spending limits is unconstitutional. The First Amendment is supposed to keep government out of the business of deciding who can speak when, how, and how much on public issues.
What's the difference between declaring the movie illegal by the authority of the BS McCain-Feingold act, and outright censorship?
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/what-the-backlash-over-bonuses-and-aigs-bailout-says-about-america/
Whalen For Treasury Secretary!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr3HuRZFbfk
Big Picture: The argument that political equality demands, or at least permits, government action that restricts the free speech of some through contribution and spending limits is unconstitutional. The First Amendment is supposed to keep government out of the business of deciding who can speak when, how, and how much on public issues.
What's the difference between declaring the movie illegal by the authority of the BS McCain-Feingold act, and outright censorship?
@ allie
The BIGGER picture is that CORPORATE ENTITIES should NEVER even have been granted equal standing alongside PHYSICAL INDIVIDUALS, given the OBVIOUS financial advantage they enjoy over the latter. Adding insult to injury, now that they've managed to SNEAK IN under the umbrella of protection offered to the physical individual they want to further abuse their ill-obtained First Amendment rights now in order to keep government OUT of their business.
All this AFTER having asked the same government to get INTO their business thru MASSIVE BAIL-OUTS. Bail-outs by the way NOT afforded to physical individuals. The ultimate win-win. When convenient I'm an individual, when not I'm a huge corporation that's too big to fail.
Meanwhile debating the McCain-Feingold Act or the rights of Citizens United to run ads ads for a movie attacking Hillary Clinton is to lose oneself in idle hair-splitting while these wolves (corporations) slowly slip in among the herd dressed as sheep (individuals). And I'm sure you know what happens to sheep when they're surrounded by wolves,right?
:-)
Elections will now begin to look more like the Jerry Springer show than ever before. The problem in America is the campaign contribution system, which constitutes legalized bribery.
He who has the most money wins, what he/ she says does not have to be true. most will not figure that out till after the elections, if at all.
I do not feel this will make things better, only worse.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34983042/ns/business-answer_desk
Btw two decades before Mc-Fe, corporations and labor unions could spend freely on advertising about candidates, and the spending was a fraction of overall election-related speech. But I guess we'll see what happens...
Well what a difference two decades can make, huh?
Back in 1911, Adolf Hitler was a cute little Bavarian boy who loved dogs and waterpainting. Twenty years later he had the world on its knees and was directly responsible for MILLIONS of needless deaths.
Perhpas the time has come to finally consider what things ARE ..vs what they WERE?.
Geez, forget a preposition and you bring out the Hitler analogy.
It should have read FOR two decades before McCain-Feingold, as in up until BCRA was enacted.
As things ARE, campaign finance regulation has done little to promote political equality or prevent political corruption. Maybe the growth of campaign expenditures will be beneficial for public knowledge of candidates and issues, without eroding what little public faith in government is left.
Lol. Forgive me my little (literally) Hitler analogy. I LOVE to bring out the ol' Fuhrer whenever I can because I believe THERE ARE SO MANY UNLEARNED, VALID LESSONS still pending from his time, particularly regarding the abuse of propaganda and how political corruption evolves.
Back again to the topic of campaign finance regulation; I think it's a sad state of affairs when political candidates are forced to dump obscenely massive amounts of money in order to have a shot at office, when just a few well-televised public DEBATES (think TV & Youtube) would probably be MORE than enough for candidates to state their core positions on the more important and pressing issues. I myself would MUCH rather prefer to have my tax dollars used to fund equal blocks of time for each candidate to make their opinions known publicly INSTEAD OF GIVING IT TO THE LOW-DOWN MOTHERFUCKERS AT GOLDMAN SACHS, ...if you'll pardon my French.
At some point in time we as Americans seemingly came to believe (quite erroneously btw) that the solution to *everything* and *anything* lies in simply THROWING GREEN FAIRY DUST (MONEY) AT IT.
Lol, thanks. Then again you ARE an easy audience :-)
I have always felt this way also, at least then the politicians would remember who their real employers are. Politics would be more respectable if they did not have to act like prostitutes to keep their jobs.
“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.”
Plato
____________________
ditto. Even though the program as in stands now is similar to corporate welfare or other special interest provisions in the tax code, and allows a small number of taxpayers to force the others to fund their policy preferences. I would prefer my tax dollars fund neither, then again I think campaign contributions are central to free speech in modern America. :)
Money should never be about "free speech", otherwise it is not really "free", just propaganda. Campaign ads usually only have a grain of truth, if any at all...
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”.
Adolf Hitler
I've got to whole-heartedly agree with Gompers when he says that *money* should NEVER be about *free speech*. The one really has NOTHING to do with the other.
Free Speech is basically about tolerance, and ensuring that everyone gets to speak out loud about their doubts and fears
and what's more..;
"..no-one ever disappears
you never hear their standard issue kicking in your door
you can relax on both sides of the tracks
and maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control
and everyone has recourse to the law..."
(Pink Floyd - The Gunners Dream)
Money should never be about "free speech", otherwise it is not really "free"
_______________
I disagree. Quoting Bradley A. Smith, former FEC Commissioner, since he's right and articulate: "If spending money were not a form of speech, the First Amendment would become hollow for all but newspapers and other press outlets, since any effort to spread one's message, through advertising or pamphleteering, could be stripped of First Amendment protections simply by attacking the expenditure of money." In case law, its argued that money is action not speech, but symbolic action is protected by the First Amendment (flag burning, gay parades, pledge of allegiance). And the giving of money is symbolic action conveying support to a candidate. To quote Smith again: "Some argue money is not itself speech, but a form of wealth or property. However, this becomes a distinction without a difference, for the ability to spend money can be, and is, instrumental to protecting the right to free speech. If monetary expenditures or contributions are not protected, the right to speech could be easily overridden by aggressive governments."
Free Speech is basically about tolerance, and ensuring that everyone gets to speak out loud about their doubts and fears
_______________
Well I'm glad the Founders and the courts don't define free speech as narrowly as you do.
One more excerpt regarding money and political equality: "True, money might be used to bribe county officials around the country who are responsible for administering elections and tabulating votes, but such vote fraud is addressed by other laws, and that is not what regulatory advocates mean when they claim "money buys elections." What these advocates mean is that money creates inequality in political participation. But there are many sources of political inequality: celebrity, media access and attention, writing ability, time, friendship, lawyering skills, institutional presence at the seat of government, organizational ability. Money is simply one more."
"We must realize that monetary contributions are one of the most popular ways in which Americans participate in political campaigns. When other sources of political power are unequally distributed, as they usually are, money is as likely to be an equalizer as it is to be a source of inequality. When fewer people are able to exert any sort of political influence, the chance that some small group will divert government power to serve its parochial interest increases. Money, on the other hand, is more broadly distributed, and monetary participation is one of the few avenues of political participation that is realistically open to most Americans."
The claim that this ruling protects 'free speech' is a front. What is 'free speech' if it is available only to certain groups? For example, check out the Commission on Presidential Debates:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Commission_on_Presidential_Debates
They effectively lock out third party candidates. Some freedom. There is even supposedly a law that limits nationally televised presidential debates to the 2 major parties, although I have not been able to locate a link. Anyway--that's why Ron Paul had to go with the republican party. So, if you are talking about freedom, all this recent ruling does is allow some 'freedoms' within a greater unfree system.
They're letting you guys revel in the freedom of your sandbox while they orchestrate a takeover of the playground, LOL.
As RR pointed out, the more important aspect of this ruling was its granting of corporate entities 'personhood'. IMHO, it's a travesty of the Constitution. Some Libertarians--like at the Cato Institute--argue this ruling is OK for this case of 'free speech'. After all, any number of individuals can group together and keep a claim to free speech, so why should a corporation be considered any different?
Well it IS different. If you think about it, how can a concentration of capital (which is really what a corporation is) lay any claim to free speech? It cannot. Only individuals or groups of individuals can have the right to free speech. (That Cato seems to me to be getting very sketchy lately.)
This doctrine of corporate personhood is going to travel WAY beyond this issue of 'free speech'. Lobbyists are already planning ways to block the proposed tax on big banks based on this ruling.
Regarding other issues such as health, safety, pollution, and wages, individuals will have many, many troubles as this 'corporate personhood' issue grows. With a corporate 'person' there is no one real person accountable, no one real person to pursue. Corporate 'persons' will be able to outspend and outlive individuals who try to file claims against them.
This was a big blow to 'the individual', IMHO.
And the Winner of the category 'Most Effective Analogy' goes toooo ....
(suspense ...)
SONIC NINJA KITTY !!!!
(thundrous applause as camera 2 seeks Kitty among the audience)
"So, if you are talking about freedom, all this recent ruling does is allow some 'freedoms' within a greater unfree system."
_______________
Agreed. The ruling wasn't a grand accomplishment. But in the realm of campaign finance law-- the clusterfuck that it is, I think the decision will do more good than harm. As for the slippery slope argument on corporate personhood (also mentioned in the dissent; good read btw, Stevens is not happy) or corporate personhood arguments in general-- followed to its logical conclusion, it doesn't make sense. I'd hate to refer you to a Cato article on this one, but... I'm going to: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/ (Sanchez, "If You Prick a Corporation, Does It Not Bleed?")
Rest in peace Major General Smedley Butler. A true legend among real men that you will never be taught of.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Controlling_Corporations/Challenge_Corp_Personhood.html
There has been a long and perverse slide from how we were created to where we are now.
And both parties are responsible for this slide because corporate free speech rewards better than yours or mine. This is the only issue in life that I would be forced to side with Al Gore, hisssss. I do not believe the rights of the artificial person shall be leveraged over the rights of the natural person. This is ultimately about protecting the corporations right to lie, you do not really believe everything in campaign ads do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate
“Quoting Bradley A. Smith, former FEC Commissioner”
Don’t put to much trust in former captured “Goobermint boo-row-crats” (misspelling intentional).
“Well I'm glad the Founders and the courts don't define free speech as narrowly as you do.”
The courts have been usurped since the national bankruptcy years ago, all law prior to that is void, and we currently operate solely under Admiralty law, and contract law. Look at the flag when you walk into a courtroom, you will see gold fringe around it, that means it is a military flag.
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without
pay, and
his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more.
The revolution was not brief and painless with a quick celebration at the favorite fast food restaurant, as a few here that would push violence first would like us to believe.
Let us now examine what our Founders say about corporate interests, and may God bless them for the sacrifices they made in the attempt to free us from what they saw first hand ravaging Europe (corporate banks and business). It is a shame the American people did not believe these learned men who sacrificed so much for them.
I honor their sacrifice and thank them for not being under the bed supporters of their beliefs.
Quotes from Jefferson;
"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."
"If the people ever allow the banks to issue their currency, the banks and corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
"Paper is poverty... It is not money, but the ghost of money."
"There is an artificial aristocracy, founded on birth and privelege, without virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendency."
"The bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in a time of war? It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or it might withdraw its aid. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?"
James Madison speaking on the first attempt to establish a central bank in America:
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible, to maintain their control over governments, by controlling money and its issuance."
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late revolution. The free men of America did not wait until usurped power has strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle."
In entering upon the argument, it ought to be premised that the objections of the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General are founded on a general denial of the authority of the United States to erect corporations. The latter, indeed, expressly admits, that if there be anything in the bill which is not warranted by the Constitution, it is the clause of incorporation.
Now it appears to the Secretary of the Treasury that this general principle is inherent in the very definition of government, and essential to every step of the progress to be made by that of the United States, namely: That every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society.
This principle, in its application to government in general, would be admitted as an axiom; and it will be incumbent upon those who may incline to deny it, to prove a distinction, and to show that a rule which, in the general system of things, is essential to the preservation of the social order, is inapplicable to the United States.
–Alexander Hamilton
These quotes could go on and on from our founders upward through our history till now, but I think you will get the idea. However I will throw one Lincoln quote in for good measure;
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
I humbly yield to the wisdom of our founders… There should have been a separation of business clause in the Constitution as there was for separation of church and state, whoops that one gets a little cloudy also.
The more things change, the more they go back to the way they were before the revolution, coincidence?
______________
Aw, thanks Gompers. I've missed you too, and the historical narratives. Haha, I didn't take it as picking on me. Don't think I don't enjoy this. :)
The Mises blog has some in-depth discussions of this topic (links below), and this argument, outside the range of free speech, eventually gets to the limited liability, corporate entity, screw-individual-rights point that I believe SNK was making. Perhaps I'm thinking too narrow and too naive, thinking this ruling did not give corporations equal standing along side individuals, and instead protects individuals' right to the corporate mechanism to exercise the First Amendment. I hope I won't have to eat my words.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007577.asp
http://blog.mises.org/archives/010631.asp
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Thanks for the interesting links. Unfortunately however they all seem to purposely MISSTATE the issue at hand (i.e. the error of granting Corporate 'Personhood') and -after parting from a false premise- they all promptly become side-tracked & off-topic. For example the first link tells us that;
"A common complaint of anticorporate libertarians and self-described anarchists is that corporations are creatures of the state. The limited-liability feature of the corporate form, they claim, and the ability of corporations to raise large amounts of capital are state-granted privileges."
This is NOT true. What we're saying is NOT that "the ability of corporations to raise large amounts of capital are state-granted privileges" but rather that "granting CORPORATIONS the ability to ACT AS INDIVIDUALS" is a state-granted right ..and a MISTAKENLYgranted right at that. What's more, we believe this ill-gotten 'right' towards corporation personhood should be "UN-granted" as quickly as possible.
Your second link leads to an article entitled, "Defending Corporations" which at least to ME is an absolute TURN OFF right from the start because -after all- who the fuck in their right mind would even willingly ATTEMPT such an effort at defending douchebags? It would be like someone undertaking the effort to justify concentration camps & Nazism. I mean I'm SURE someone could argue the virtues of violent death & the benefits of forced starvation, but FEW would willingly listen ...and RIGHTLY so.
Link #3 takes us to a paper written by WALTER BLOCK & J.H. HUEBERT wherein both quickly MAKE FOOLS of themselves by stating in DEFENSE of corporate personhood that, "
"Epstein’s . . . argument is contained in the sentence: “X corporation
hurt me because its servant did so in the course of his
employment.” Here Epstein commits the error of conceptual
realism, since he supposes that a “corporation” actually exists,
and that it committed an act of aggression. In reality, a “corporation”
does not act; only individuals act, and each must be responsible
for his own actions and those alone."
Our point EXACTLY. A corporation DOESN'T "exist" and YES ..only "individuals" act SO WHY THE *FUCK* WERE CORPORATIONS EVEN GRANTED "PERSONHOOD" STATUS TO BEGIN WITH? Again it seems that corporations like to argue the issue BOTH WAYS according to their momentary convenience; "when it suits me I'm an individual, but when it DOESN'T I'm a non-personal entity!."
Your fourth and final link takes us to the Supreme Court decision in CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION, which is kind of the equivalent of posting a copy of the Nurnberg Laws that detail exactly WHY Jews were judicially considered inferior beings as a way of justifying the theory of racial superiority. In other words, a clear attempt at circular reasoning.
By the way allie, PLEASE don't take my preceding comments as constituting a personal attack against YOU or anything like that. I LOVE considering your arguments and views because I want to make sure I'm at least TRYING to balance my reasoning. I'm simply suggesting that perhaps you need to consider the ramifications of this recent Supreme Court ruling more carefully and in greater detail.
As should we all.
God Bless!
IMO, this tempest from (mostly) the Left about the ruling is blatantly hypocritical....these tools are blinded by their histerical hatred for business, just like the rest of the Bolsheviks!
Shhhhh. Be WERY quiet, I'm hunting a WASCALLY WestWite. Hah, hah, hah. He wites alot of stuff but doesn't BACK IT UP wit arguments. Hah, hah, hah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiEUDzIrEQE
I do not believe they should be allowed either, when you allow things to work the way they have in the past, and clearly now will increase in the future, there is less listening to the majority, and more listening to those passing out checks. Though some only want cash, what is up with that?
I did my share of lobbying years ago, so believe me I know how it works, more than you will ever know...
Do you believe everything you see in campaign ads?
Are you related to Goby, he likes using the L word while studying under Saul Alinsky for the right.