Protest footage in NY, SHOCKING!

[Mr Khan]

Kasz216 said:

I'd say the greatest flaw though, just lies in the inconsistent message.

It seems like they're demanding government action to try and limit the effect corporations have to sway rules there way and to create jobs....

When government is exactly WHY corporations have such abilities.

To propose more government action is how you get Stimulus bills that get spent on nothing to help and just run up the costs for the average consumer, and how you get laws like Dodd Frank, which are essentially designed to kill small businesses to the advantage of bigger ones. (In this case, banks.)   Chris Dodd being like, the biggest bank schill in either party.  (Lost in the whole anti-bank movement is that historically democrats get more donations from banks then republicans.)

Oh, and also greatly hinder job creation since now, it's going to be hard as hell to get loans.

The only long term jobs government can create are government jobs... and as Greece has shown, you don't want to have an economy that relies on government jobs, because it's just a case of diminishing returns.

It's all a very silly approach.

You need a concentrated approach that if anything forces polticians to take powers away from themselves.

Otherwise they'll just right loophole after loophole into their own bills so everything looks better but isn't.

I mean shit, anyone who's been paying attention would of noticed this already what with the constant campaign finance laws that were added with giant loopholes.  Like the good old "Toothpick rule."

The only real options are

A)Getting private money out elections all together

B) Get rid of governments ability to play favorites in the market place.

 

And Option A actually isn't an option since it's a violation of the first ammendment.

The reason that was considered a first amendment violation (if we're referring to that one supreme court case that struck down McCain-Feingold) was because of the idiotic notion of corporate personhood, but importantly because McCain-Feingold was discriminating against such personhood. If all private money were banned altogether, would that not be a different issue judicially?