We The People Act or Why Ron Paul is a Crazy Person

[Mr Khan]

Kasz216 said:

rocketpig said:

Kasz216 said:
I'm curious, have you looked at the abrieviated ruling?  While i'm not particularly sure of the outcome, there reasoning seemed 100% spot on.  In general the "Corproations are people" thing that's quoted from it is 100% NOT what they are saying.

What they do say is that

1) Political speech is the most important speech because all other speech is derived from it.  (This is certaintly true.)

2) There is no legal distinction between corporations and news media, and the way news networks work now it's essentially campaign contributions in fact, and really are so legally as well.  ( I mean, is there any doubt that 70% of anyting on Fox News or MSNBC is more or less a campaign add at this point?)

3) Corporations are groups of people, to restrict groups of people on speaking is against the first ammendment. (Which, it is, either free speech or assembly essentially.)

 

You can question the effects of the decision, but I don't beleive you can question the reasoning or logic behind it.  Which, the court is here to interpret and judge what's legal, not to judge based on what's "better".

I see their reasoning behind the ruling and unfortunately, it makes sense.

The problem is that even though it makes sense, it's a disastrous ruling for the average American. I don't really blame the court for making the decision they did because their analysis was reasonable, I just really hated the outcome. Now it's on the shoulders of Congress, who are the receivers of all that corporate money. They're not going to do a damned thing about it. Unfortunately, this is a classic situation where the people are getting screwed from all sides while everybody else profits from it.

Weird, my post got lost.

Either way, i'm not sure.  I mean, i'd think it'd be just as disasterous the other way.  I mean 24/7 news stations and news in general would be exempt.  So wouldn't it just be a matter of them leverging advertising buying on story reporting and story outlooks?

Maybe more networks like Obama's from the last elections pop up.  More news stories made about problems that hit one candidate harder then the other etc.

At least campaign adds are campaign adds.

 

Also, a lot of evidence tends to point to correlation going the other way.  That is, money follows popularity, not the other way around.  Seems more likely to me that more often then not money just flocks to the candidate that seems viable and best fits there views.

Reserch seems to suggest that there is just a money level you need to be at to qualify, and beyond that the money doesn't help.  (or if it does in other studies, only newcomers).

So really, I wonder if it's a lot of money spent over nothing.  I mean heck, even if it just helps challengers to incumbats... considering the 85% renewal rate or whatever... sounds good to me.

One wonders if it is not then economically wasteful and that this big huge businesses that seem to have no money to hire people could be spending that money on something productive, rather than empirically unproductive (except we factor in that campaign donations are legal and now completely deregulated forms of lobbying)