News & Politics

Rant

The End of Democracy in America

Posted 24 months ago|28 comments|518 views
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
Historians will tie January 21st 2010 with the end of Democracy in America. From this day onward there will be a gradual but inevitable shift of power away from the people of the country to major international corporate conglomerates.

America will no longer be a democracy, because the voice of the people will be overwhelmed by the million dollar Corporate voice. Corporations can now spend unlimited millions of dollars buying the votes of those without integrity, and can spend unlimited millions of dollars in vicious attack ads against those who are honest and principled enough to work for the good will of the people.

The Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, judged that campaign finance laws
can no longer place any limitations on the ability of corporations to influence government through their enormous finances. Corporations are judged to be persons and their lobbying and campaign spending is considered protected by the first amendment. All representatives will now have corporate lobbyists that will tell them that they have a choice. They can take millions of dollars in bribes if they do what the corporations want, or they can face millions of dollars in attack ads if they oppose the corporations. It no longer matters what the issue is, the public will is going to be subservient to the will of the corporations.

Corporations are by nature Amoral and often Immoral, because the bottom line, and the legal reason for their existence is to make money. Corporations will no longer be forced to shoulder their fair share of the tax burden so taxes on the people will go up. Corporations will no longer be forced to provide safety for its workers or provide safe products for its consumers. Corporations can make more money when they just dump their toxic waste in the waterways, than if they dispose of them in a responsible manner, and they can make more money when they use shoddy materials and cut corners like they did in Haiti. With corporations running the show, our government will no longer be willing to protect the people, they will protect the profits of the corporations.

During the last twenty years China has allowed it’s corporations to run rampant with little or no government oversight. As a result they have the most pollution in the world and their products are often toxic. Their workers do not have safe working conditions and are forced to work long hours at starvation wages. This is what we have to look forward to in this country, now that corporations have the unlimited and legal ability to bribe government representatives.

To be fair the power of the corporations has been increased and the power of the people has been decreased during each of the Republican administrations. The tax burden has been shifting away from the rich and powerful and on to the middle classes, because the rich and the corporations have been able to form political action committees and hire armies of lobbyists to influence our lawmakers, but now they can do so with little if any control or compunction.

Many people think that what is good for the corporations is good for America, because the corporations provide jobs. Now that we have globalization however, corporations fire all of their American workers, strip the plants and move to third world countries with workers willing to slave for a dollar a day. The major corporations with the most money, those who will influence the lawmakers the most, are international entities. What is best for America will become subservient to what is best for the international corporations.

Most of America’s manufacturing base has already moved overseas and those jobs will not come back. About the only industry America excels in, is the weapons industry. In the future we can look forward to endless wars to keep them in business.

The right wing works itself into a lather about loosing its perceived freedoms, because of Obama’s imaginary socialism, but they have lost much more freedom than they could ever have imagined under Obama, from a single decision by a single activist judge, Chief Justice John Roberts.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
24 months ago: Don't ya just love an activist judge!!!? ARRGGHHHHHH!
everthecynic
everthecynic
24 months ago: "Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."

Perhaps Orwell was correct.
24 months ago: Al:

You obviously "sleep rant/rave". Look what time you post your rants and raves.

You're obviously dreaming.

The United States of America was supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. You libs have screwed it up permanently.

And you libs are continuing to screw everything up.

LOWER TAXES dadjimit. That's the problem.

You're really living in a dream world.

Limiting who you can contribute to in a political campaign is not impinging on your freedom?

For crying out loud Al. The Supreme Court just restored some of our freedom with this decision.

Corporations can now bribe politicians? Give me a break. It is not possible for you to believe that. Have you ever heard of Chris Dodd and Countrywide?

You cannot be serious.
24 months ago: and to boot, you say Obama is not a socialist?

I guess you aren't a socialist either too. Huh?
24 months ago: and American people's voices will be just fine.

Did you notice what happened in Massachusetts?
24 months ago: If you don't approve of a corporation spends its political funds. Sell your stock in that corporation.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
24 months ago: I'm thinking Al may be losing faith in the almighty government. Maybe they really aren't going to make our lives all peaches and cream for ever and ever.
24 months ago: Yeah, it has been a very bad week for the progressives.
We are planning to bar-b-que some pork today to celebrate.

They are falling all over themselves pointing fingers.
24 months ago: Altruist, are you even somewhat fimiliar with the SCOTUS opinion. Do you have a remote idea of the case?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010

In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corpora-tion, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primaryelections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast
and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating §441b, it sought declaratory and injunctive re-lief, arguing that (1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary;and (2) BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements,BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to Hillaryand the ads. The District Court denied Citizens United a prelimi-nary injunction and granted appellee Federal Election Commission(FEC) summary judgment.
24 months ago: Why did the same rules not apply to Michael Moore and his political documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11: A Movement in Time,"?

"The two-hour film was planned to be shown as part of the three-hour "The Michael Moore Pre-Election Special" on iN DEMAND, but iN DEMAND backed out in mid-October. Moore later arranged for simultaneous broadcasts on November 1, 2004 at 8:00 p.m. (EST) on Dish Network, TVN and the Cinema Now website and material prepared for "The Michael Moore Pre-Election Special" was incorporated into "Fahrenheit 9/11: A Movement in Time," which aired that same week on The Independent Film Channel."

I'm sure you were right up in front of the pack protesting this FEC violation.
24 months ago: Are you upset that George Soros now has competition?

Take a look at this list Altruist. You unions seems to give the most money, of the top 20 donors on this list 14 of them gave 90% of their money to democrats.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
24 months ago: A person is a living entity. A corporation is a political entity concocted to protect a voting shareholders private assets from that businesses related demands. Theoretically corporations should work like democracy’s because shareholders have voting rights but most shareholders wave these rights as a result corporate entities place tremendous power of choice in the hands of a few people. The more products and services that a corporation produces the greater affect those choices have on a greater number of people. A nations GDP can realistically be determined by the actions of a hand full of people simply by the volume of businesses they are involved in and the choices those handful of people make.

Thus people who own a substantial stake in that entity tend to reap the highest rewards no mater where they live in the world. It in effect makes it more important to own stocks in ADP, lets say then to be a citizen of a prosperous nation. It places a persons allegiances and priorities square in the center of their business interest rather than their national interest. A person who has a solid financial portfolio is in essence part of a Corporatocracy without boarders. The problem with this is that corporations unlike democracies place the value of their stock at a higher level of importance than the stockholders. While a democracy places the value of its citizens at a higher level than its coinage.

Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
24 months ago: Corporation thus as political entities of commerce only, are not designed to factor in the value of public goods, externalities especially costs are kept to a very bare minimum if any at all. Opportunity costs is something only governments have to worry about and since a corporation is not a government people will be excluded from the equation when ever possible. The best possible lesson to learn on the evils of allowing a corporate system to replace or work in conjunction with a democratically elected government is the amount of money people lost when companies went under just recently. In many instances this was a persons life savings!

Definitely a big problem. Good Rant Altruist! I wish more people would see the sleeping dragon that sleeps in their midst.

This would not happen if instead of tea party protest we had fair commerce protest in this country like there are in developing nations. I think part of the problem rests in how ill informed the general public is about how our nations economy functions and how a persons finances contributes to the nations economy. Would it be so wrong to ensure that Macro and Micro economics be part of a national high school curriculum instead of a college level elective?
24 months ago: Siempre, you don't have a problem with the FEC picking and choosing who they allow to run political related broadcasts 30 days prior to an election. That is called Censorship.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
24 months ago: Equating Michael Moore's independent film to a movie that was specifically designed to denigrate and demonize a candidate running for President, paid for by corporate enemies of that candidate, is comparing apples and oranges.
The purpose of the law forbidding such political propagandizing by corporations within 90 days of an election is the ability to fact check and counter lies and inaccuracies that can be propagated close to an election.

Now corporations will be able to spend billions fabricating information that candidate A eats babies. Those corporations own the media that spreads these lies, and people hearing the lies repeated multiple times every hour of every day figures that there must be something to it, after all it was in the papers, the TV, the radio, and everyone is talking about it. A "balanced" view would be one person paid millions to say that he saw the candidate eating babies, and the balance would be the cops saying that they had no evidence that the candidate had eaten any babies and they can't bring any charges until the bodies are found.
Stockholders have little say in how money is spent. They only care if their stock is making money, and if they make money by bribing politicians they are OK with it. The opposition, the unions and the PAC's like Move on, have to go to their members, describe the problem, explain what they want to do about it, and beg millions of their members to cough up their nickles and dimes to oppose the mega millions that are instantly available from a corrupt CEO who can double his bonus by buying politicians.
The other thing the right is ignoring, is that foreign corporations and organizations with lots of money like the Columbian drug cartels can now use that money to determine American foreign and domestic policy.
Americans have sold their freedom to the highest bidder.
24 months ago: ...Equating Michael Moore's independent film...HUH?

Financed by Miramax which was owned by Disney. I don't call that independent. I call that corporate investment.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
24 months ago: Altruist

Harshaw brought an interesting tidbit to the table. Are all corporate donations evil, or just the ones going to to the corporate owned Republicans? Are the corporate owned Democrats just as much to blame? Since a union seems to be about making money, and union bosses live very lavishly of of their members, they would be in the same pot as a commercial enterprise, wouldn't they?
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
24 months ago: A corporation has the value of it’s stocks as its primary interest! That is very important information I just wrote. It indicates what choices a CEO and a board of directors will make. Is it possible that they will use their influence as political leverage? Yes, of course, but what is more important to remember is that they will do so to the benefit of their stock value. They will not do it to its stock’s determent. Why is this important? It is important because you can read politicians loyalties based upon their corporate sponsors.

Consider for example if politician A has received campaign funds from the gizmo makers and then later helps to get policy passed that benefit’s the gizmo makers. Is that not why these Corporations invested in the campaign of politician A? If on the other hand this politician votes against said policy and the Gizmo makers stock value goes down as a result. Does it not stand logical to conclude that the Gizmo makers will then sponsor lobbies against what ever group that those policies did benefit and doesn’t it also stand logical to conclude that the gizmo makers will sponsor an opposing candidate to politician A?

Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
24 months ago: For the corporation it is basic economics. There is no morality in economics. It is about the value of their stock. A political figure on the other hand has to be moral and consider ethical values because he owes his job to the people because it is they that he represents if then this politician can represent the rights of “virtual people” in the form of corporate entities who don’t factor morality or ethics it is logical to conclude that the wealthy will benefit and the poor will suffer. This is the root of the problem.

You can attach names like Michael Moor or Disney or Republican wherever you like but it does not change the facts. All interested parties should divest themselves of the labels they’ve adopted and consider if they think it they are okay being swindled out of their money for the sake of a corporations stock value or if they would rather function in a country of laws that put all on equal footing and that hold all accountable?
24 months ago: Was that happening 1 week ago? You think the unions and their PACs were subject to follow the same guidelines. You are aware that the law which was struck down only applied to the 30 days prior to an election. What would happen if the spent their untold billions up to 31 days out? Somehow all of this logic regarding the demise of our political system does not wash.
24 months ago: Altruist you are taking an extreme and unrealistic viewpoint. First of all there are so many corporations out there that no one corporation or groups of corporations is ever going to have that much, if any, advantage over another.

Secondly...look at the list I linked to earlier one and you will see a pattern. The corporations that donate heavily also donate equally....as in 50/50 split between the two parties. Any other approach is bad business because if you put all of your eggs in one basket, you could come up empty if your side loses. The unions on the other hand donate to almost one side exclusively.

And finally you are ranting about corporations that own the news stations...well...I don't think I am surprising anyone here when I say that biased as they may be...it is pretty even though it takes 3 left leaning networks to match the viewership of Fox News...who at leasts trys to sell itself as balanced, unlike MSNBC that doesn't even try and hide that fact that they are a bunch of left wing nutcases.

Americans have not sold anything, because at the end of the day it is up to each individual to dig through the propaganda and find the truth. If we are to lazy or uneducated to do so...well then frankly we get what we deserve.
AlicefromDallas
AlicefromDallas
Lake Placid, FL
24 months ago: I glad you are from the opposite side of the country from good old Massachusetts, Al. I think the American people can keep their freedom. Did you say bribes? After what we saw in Congress these past few weeks!! AlicefromDallas
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
24 months ago: Harshaw has a good point that corporations often give to both parties, but you can make some general assumptions about the giving. 1. They give more to the party in power to influence their own bottom line. 2. Unions, lawyers, environmental organizations generally give more to the Dems. Energy corporations, Arms dealers and the NRA give more to the Repubs.
Thanks for the website Harshaw this site gives some good info. Look at the recent stats for who is giving the most, and what side the most money is trying to influence.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/new-lobbying-reports-show-big.html
Alice I agree that the recent deal making health care debacle was terrible. Still this wasn't as bad as what the Repubs did on K street bribery under Bush. We need to change this system, but the supreme court decision will make it 100 times worse.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
24 months ago: "We need to change this system"

I think the system works, and it worked reasonably well for over two hundred years. Don't get set up for change just for the sake of change. Frying pan/fire scenario all over again.

We need to change the players in the system on a regular basis, get rid of the lifetime congressmen, and strengthen penalties for those found guilty of betraying the public trust. Remember that not only money corrupts, but power corrupts also.
24 months ago: BTW I am not saying that the system is not corrupt. My case is that it is so corrupt that the SCOTUS will have little overall impact on the system. There were plenty of loopholes already in place.

The easiest solution is term limits for members of congress. 2 and done...but that will never happen.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
24 months ago: Term limits are not the solution to corruption and crony capitalism, getting money out of the system and having publicly funded elections, so the Congressmen don't have to spend 85% of their time begging for money is the solution. They should be spending all of that time working for the people and actually reading and researching the bills they are expected to sign. I don't see how anyone can say that the system is working when the entire system is in partisan gridlock with one side refusing to vote for anything the other side proposes.
If there were preferential voting (instant runoff) and there were at least three bills/proposals,nominees to vote for both the radical right and the liberals would have to court the center to get their support. They would be forced to cooperate and compromise and things would actually get done.
24 months ago: Al.

Explain to me how the government saying I cannot contribute to one particular candidate is not depriving me of some liberty and freedom.

I'm not getting it.

And who do you reckon is causing the partisan gridlock? You need to get electricity up there in the northwest so you can turn on a TV to see that you socialists have own both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

Calling it "Partisan Gridlock" is like saying a baboon does not have shiny, orange, hairy buttocks.

What we need to do is only let those who pay taxes vote, and let the State legislatures pick the President. Period. (I say that honestly.)

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with gridlock in Washington D.C.
24 months ago: Impossible to do Altruist without massive infringements on freedom of speech.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.