Oligarchies.
Corporations are people and money is speech now, apparently.
Those who can influence elections and candidates with the wealth of ten thousand citizens.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are we moving from democracy to aristocracy?
- Thread starter sandandfoam
- Start date
Corporations are people and money is speech now, apparently.
Corporations have been people (for several legal purposes) for centuries.
It's necessary to sign contracts & sue in court.
But speech is definitely not money.....although it's often said that the latter talks, & bull**** walks.
I want names!
(I'm making a list.)
US Supreme Court holds, since 2010, that government cannot block corporations and organizations from making unlimited political campaign donations, due to the First Amendment.
Much of it is publicly available with googling. The Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson are some of the larger Republican donors, and Fred Eychaner and George Soros are some of the larger Democratic donors, as some examples. They've given seven, eight, and nine figures to politics. Some of it is harder to track because super pacs allow for a degree of anonymity.
Looking at it from the other direction, you can pick a candidate, like say Mitch McConnell, and look who donates to him. Mostly energy corporations, health insurance corporations, and financial corporations. Candidates tend to vote in favor of the industries that hold their puppet strings.
I assume most of us are familiar with the Princeton study: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Yes. But this didn't confer personhood upon corporations....it recognized a status already there since before the country's founding.
It's a limited 'person'....can't marry, can't vote, etc.
But it can sue, speak, & donate money to advance the latter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
The USSC didn't invent new people as one might think from reading over-reacting media.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Citizens United reversed three previous SCOTUS decisions when it equated corporate donations under the guise of "free speech". Roberts, the year before that decision, said that it would be reckless to call these lobbying funds "free speech", but something happened with his change of mind over the following year.
IMO, not only is it a bizarre decision, but it is a highly destructive one. And Alito, the one who mouthed "Not true!" when Obama in the State of the Union claimed that much of the monies funneled from lobbyists to the coffers of candidates would not be traceable, rather obviously was clueless as to the ramifications of such a terrible decision.
Yes, lobbying money is as much free speech as I am George Clooney.
IMO, not only is it a bizarre decision, but it is a highly destructive one. And Alito, the one who mouthed "Not true!" when Obama in the State of the Union claimed that much of the monies funneled from lobbyists to the coffers of candidates would not be traceable, rather obviously was clueless as to the ramifications of such a terrible decision.
Yes, lobbying money is as much free speech as I am George Clooney.
To donate money for the purpose of advancing an agenda (by printed or spoken speech)
can certainly be seen as a right inextricably linked with the right to free speech.
Citizens buy time on air, buy print in newspapers, & donate money to campaigns.
Corporations are simply people who aggregate & organize for a purpose, & may
act in concert by having the corporation act on their behalf.
It can have a positive or destructive effect, depending upon one's perspective.
Do you think it's a terrible decision because of the effect or because it's not constitutional?
Is the effect terrible because of who donates, or because of a systemic effect?
The reason I asked is that there are multiple perspectives on who would be in this controlling oligarchy.
Some would say big money donors, others would say political dynasties.
It would not be proper for me to presume your perspective, & then google those you'd select.
Your answer suggests that you see the donors as pulling the strings.
I see the politicians more in control, & using donors to maintain it.
So I see the Clintons as being the closest thing to our oligarchic nobility.
He won & re-won the presidency, while she appears to be inheriting it
without competition. In contrast, the 2nd Bush had more of a fight to win.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Both. Money is not free speech (or the written word), and there has not been a previous SCOTUS decision that I'm aware of the equated the two. One may try to justify these efforts under a different analogy, but speech it clearly is not as previous SCOTUS decisions stated.
It is highly dangerous to a democracy for a couple of reasons at the least. One is that it give those whom are wealthy a much greater "say" in terms of power and influence. For all practical purposes, it's bribery-- nothing less. A person or corporation that makes large donations expects something back in return, and because so much money is tied up in our election cycles, the candidates and parties cow-tow to the large-scale donors.
Secondly, with that much money at stake, especially since it is so hard to trace it to where it originated from, it makes it so much easier for that money to be used in an illegal manner. We had enough of a problem trying to keep our politicians honest even before Citizens United, but now we have opened Pandora's box.
Thirdly, most large corporations are international, not just national. Therefore, these large donations can easily be influenced by foreign governments and foreign-owned corporations that may not have our best interest in mind.
So, what is to be gained through Citizens United? Does it help democracy here? Does it reduce greed and corruption? Does it reinforce "one person/one vote"?
I see no advantages, but I surely see a lot of disadvantages to it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's sorta funny you mentioned the Clintons but not the Bushes. And exactly how is either supposedly an oligarchy?
Do you mean to say that the USSC didn't rule that money is essential to the exercise of free speech....
rather that money is free speech?
I don't justify their decision.
I only observe that it comports with the Constitution.
That people spend money in the course of speaking freely is just obvious.
Whether this is good or bad is a separate issue.
I've no opinion on whether all this money being spent improves or worsens things.
What I do believe is that governmental control over speaking is the most dangerous thing,
ie, it's more about the what & how of our being allowed, than the what is being said.
There is that danger....from both the left & right.
But I see a greater danger from governmental efforts to silence anyone.
Do you believe that G Soros "bribes" those who receive his largess?
Anyway, tis for us voters to watch the behavior of our elected officials, & give the boot to those who fail us.
I find this an acceptable check of power....not wisely used, but minimally acceptable.
My idea of campaign finance reform is transparency, rather than restriction.
That is indeed a risk.
It helps our democracy to observe the Constitution.
What we don't like, we can amend.
To rule on law in a fashion which violates it is a far greater danger.
Other than the constitutional legality of it, I'm neutral.
A related issue.....
The news & entertainment media have been free to editorialize & spin as they see fit.
If free speech is not to be purchased with money, then we're limited to small venues, eg, street corner preaching, letters, blogs.
The greatest power would then lie with the media.
With no right to purchase wide exposure, their power would be disproportionately great.
I did specifically address the Bushes.
It was right there in the post you quoted.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But not in the same manner (i.e. "oligarchy nobility") if you reread what you wrote. But whatever.
Your quoted "oligarchy nobility" changes my meaning slightly from my "oligarchic nobility".
I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but I distinguish between an actual oligarchy & something which is less but similar.
In this sense, Hillary functions somewhat as a noble in her being handed the candidacy more than earning it against competition.
The Bushes are somewhat different.
Sure, they're a family of politically ambitious climbers, but they don't have the same shoe-in path.
Just look at Jeb....he's being trounced by less than presidential opposition.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But Hillary does have competition but just has compiled a lead, and I don't see much difference in this context between the Clinton's and Bush's, and even Barbara has pretty much stated as such. Many thought at the beginning of this campaign that Bush was the most likely to get the nomination, especially since he was by far the biggest fund-raiser at the beginning, but Trump & Co. ended up raining on his parade to the White House. And Hillary could run into a different rain storm depending on what the FBI probe may find. If her parade gets wiped out in a flood, I think it's likely that Biden may decide to jump in even if it's at the last minute.
If Bernie gets the nomination, I'll grant you there's competition.
But when her sole competitor is a peripheral self-described socialist,
I don't see real competition, his fine showing notwithstanding.
Notice how Biden stepped aside?
It could be coincidence....but it could be part of the anointing process.
It's hard to believe that no other Dems want the top job.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Biden just wasn't gaining any traction, and Hillary also has some, but very limited, competition from O'Malley. Just because someone has a commanding lead doesn't have it that there is no competition. At first, back in 2008, she had an impressive lead over the other candidates, and we saw how that turned out.
And this leaves us with 2 different & equally possible perspectives.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
It is absolutely true of North Korea.
The USA certainly wish that there were not so many competing dynasties to choose from.
The UK shelves the problem by separating politics from that of the head of state. Sort of best of both worlds.
The USA certainly wish that there were not so many competing dynasties to choose from.
The UK shelves the problem by separating politics from that of the head of state. Sort of best of both worlds.
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
When I was a boy, my history master was an anarchist, and he once said that if he could only abolish one house of Parliament, it would be the Commons rather than the Lords: "If I have to be ruled by someone, rather people chosen by accident of birth that those who've pushed themselves forwards claiming to know what's best for me." I rather liked that!
Personally, I believe that Confucius and Plato had the answer: a true aristocracy of people educated and trained in government. If the Chinese can get rid of the imported idea of communism without falling for the equally foolish idea of democracy, they might just get there.
Personally, I believe that Confucius and Plato had the answer: a true aristocracy of people educated and trained in government. If the Chinese can get rid of the imported idea of communism without falling for the equally foolish idea of democracy, they might just get there.