HikeArizona.COM

I don't have time to talk, have too much schoolwork to do but wanted to start this thread to bring up this issue: The Supreme Court's decision last week to allow corporations, unions, etc. to contribute to political candidates.

I believe this will impact all our lives down the road. You may see a string of candidates who are no more than shills for Big Oil and Big Business. If you think we can get a President who is supported by Big Oil to support environmental laws, take care of our national parks, nationalize a medical marijuana law and fund research for it, support federal dollars for bike paths and hiking trails, support alternative energy R&D, or any other of a slew of things we might like to see happen in our lifetimes, then you are dreaming.

The American electorate will vote for these clowns because there will be so much money spent on advertising for the big oil candidates that people will be swayed and will vote for him or her. Even if you are one of those bible-beater types, this is not going to help any of your causes either, because, guess what, now big oil/business won't NEED the Christian Right to get their candidate elected.

Your analysis is probably not that far off-base. It's already too easy for certain blow-hard talking heads to repeat simple, quip phrases that become mantra for the great masses of unfortunates in this country who suffer from a massive lack of critical thinking skills. Exhibit 1: "Obama lies - granny dies." Any rational, educated individual could take five minutes to research the etiology of both that ridiculous statement and the so-called facts upon which it was coined and discover that it is just so much nonsense.

It may be the single most devastating thing to happen in American politics in years. I hope I'm wrong. Let's get some debate going here!

Sorry - no debate here. Except perhaps to say that I would up grade "It may be the single most devastating thing" to "it is the single most devastating thing to happen in American politics in years if not ever..."

Regardless of how much money a campaign has or is given, you still can vote for whoever you want...

Unfortunately it generally limits you to dirty rotten scoundrels

joe bartels wrote:Unfortunately it generally limits you to dirty rotten scoundrels

Especially when they can count on free advertising, which amounts to campaign donations.. no matter how you look at it, or attempt to justify it. Yay for further corruption. I can't wait till we have the 'boss' system of the good old days.. you know, the early 1900's when our politicians were openly corrupt rather than at least pretending not to be.

joe bartels wrote:Unfortunately it generally limits you to dirty rotten scoundrels

Which has been true up until this point as well...

Where is Not Sure when you need him?

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." H. L. Mencken

What is going to happen now, but on a much grander scale than before, is that in order to get elected, a politician will have to bow to the corporate powers or risk getting "Swift Boated". We can also expect that outside foreign interests, such as China and Saudi Princes will be able to influence who gets elected in this country. Thanks Justice' Roberts, Scalia, and Alito! Who appointed those guys anyway?

It may be the single most devastating thing to happen in American politics in years.

I believe this is true, and frightening.

One of my favorite Presidents of recent history was Reagan because of all the great things he did for America & the World while our President. He wasn't exactly the greatest as campaigning for money and didn't much enjoy it, but some his friends got together and got other rich cats to donate for his campaign so that whole part of being a politician was taken care of. But thanks to current campaign finance laws before this Supreme Court decision that was as easily done and politicians were forced to spend much of there time campaigning/begging for money and promising favors in return. And look what 'great' Presidential candidates we have to thank for it...

So the solution is to turn over control to businesses ? That serves no one, of any political ideology. If you think it does, it's only because you happen to agree with their policies now. All one has to do is look to the political environment pre-1907 in the US, it wasn't pretty and benefited only the privileged.. and that's where we're returning. I'd say Oligarchy, as Ben Stein did.. but Plutocracy is probably more accurate.

The solution is to vote with your pocketbooks, and be an intelligent & informed voter on Election Day.
On a related note, I just saw a pig fly by....

I'm not sure I understand the doom and gloom here. Don't people of differing ideologies all have money? As if an evil business who supports candidate A won't have an equally wealthy and evil organization that supports candidate B fighting from the other side? Why? Because they both can. And they both will!

chumley wrote:As if an evil business who supports candidate A won't have an equally wealthy and evil organization that supports candidate B fighting from the other side? Why? Because they both can. And they both will!

Such as evil union bosses against evil oil tycoons? Oh,boy, I can't wait!

azbackpackr wrote:Oh,boy, I can't wait!

Me neither!

I guess I just look at it this way ... they're already being bought. On both sides. Throwing more money into the mix doesn't change anything.

A aerobic-instructor is still a aerobic-instructor if she charges $10 or $10,000...

chumley wrote:I'm not sure I understand the doom and gloom here. Don't people of differing ideologies all have money? As if an evil business who supports candidate A won't have an equally wealthy and evil organization that supports candidate B fighting from the other side? Why? Because they both can. And they both will!

Getting equally powerful opposition may be hard if there isn't equal money to be made on the other side. Consider the following hypothetical example. Company A could make a bundle of money if they were able to open a gigantic copper mine. The bigger the mine, the more money they could make and the more they could afford to sink into contributions. They could make (and spend) even more if environmental regulations were also relaxed. Who is the Company B with the resources to counterbalance the donations that profits from such a venture could support?

That's exactly what worries me. That companies with the most to contribute will be on the "wrong" side, as far as I am concerned, when it comes to environmental regulations, parks, etc.