Is it possible many Corporations would shy away from donating money to trash a candidate

[Quixote1818]

since they will have to disclose they are doing it? I guess it would depend on what they sell but in many situations they could be shooting them-self in the foot if they piss off a whole political party out in the open. I am sure each political party will be sending out a list of who's products to boycott.

I wonder if a corporation decides to produce an ad if they can get 100 others to do it with them so knowing who to boycott gets watered down?

I wish I knew more about how the money would be allowed to flow. Hoping to find any tiny glimpse of hope in this ruling.

Thoughts?

On Edit: The only other possible positive thing I could think of is this might mean the end of the Religious right having influence as corporations will only be interested in $ and not the religious bull shit. They would tend to back a candidate who seems more mainstream but will help them out. I don't see this helping the Religious right and it could hurt Rush and Fox news if the Corps. are spending more of their money only on fiscal Republicans and not the religious tea bagger nutty ones leaving less to give to Fox. Maybe they wouldn't need to bring in bus loads of tea baggers as much? I could be completely off base on this.??? Don't really know what would happen for sure.

[barb162]

1. Corporations are capable of doing anything

Put nothing past them.

[leftstreet]

2. Imagine the shareholder disgust if they trashed a Senator George Clooney

LOL or someone perceived as popular or likable

I don't know, it could be interesting

[nini]

3. this reminds me of a local restaurant

they had a picture of the owner with McCain behind the register - it was before he was the nominee but that didn't matter.

The place was in a very heavy labor friendly democratic area. His business began to dwindle and he ended up closing. If I was a business owner I would keep my politics separate from my work. But, I doubt I would be that powerful either. I think they simply don't give a damn about anything anymore.

[notesdev]

4. It's not going to look much different than it does now

People here are really naive if they think the system isn't already flooded with more than enough corporate cash to buy every elected official a hundred times over. Go to opensecrets.org and look up any prominent politician, they're all saturated with industry money. And that's just what is disclosed; then you have PACs, party money, lobbying favors, employment of politicians' relatives, revolving door kickbacks, junkets, and on and on. And who knows how much physical cash changes hands? Was William Jefferson out of the ordinary in any way other than getting caught?

My very first day ever in Washington DC I was treated to the sight of Denny Hastert getting out of his limo and being treated at the most expensive steak restaurant in the city. This all happens in the open, all you have to do is open your eyes and understand that politicians - even the ones you like(d) - are among the lowest form of scum in existence.

[Quixote1818]

7. Hope you are right.

I guess it could help the economy a little because billions more will be going to ad agency's, printers, paper companies, TV stations, actors etc. We may not need a second stimulus after this and then Obama would get his second term with the economy zooming along. Nice to dream anyway. :)

[Foo Fighter]

16. That's pretty much my take on it too.

After all, it's not like corporations weren't buying politicians before the SC ruling. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to name a politician that ISN'T bought-and-paid-for. Kucinich is about the only one that comes to mind. And, in the past, Wellstone (R.I.P). Other than those (and there may be a few others), it seems that even the "good" politicians (if there is such a thing) will sell us out in a heartbeat.

"...politicians - even the ones you like(d) - are among the lowest form of scum in existence."

I couldn't agree more. One of my co-workers has long said that our "representatives" in Congress shouldn't be elected but rather chosen at random, like in a lottery of some sort. IOW, anybody that actually WANTS to be a politician is the LAST person that should be in DC. I think he has a good point.

[depakid]

5. highly unlikely

as their involvement in buying state and local elections (including both candidates and initiatives) from out of state will further their failed ideologies at comparatively little cost to their overall bottom line or good will.

[salguine]

6. They only have to disclose it a long as the law says they do. All they have to do is buy enough

legislators to make that pesky law go away. Then they can spend $500 million a candidate if they want, and you'll never know where all that money came from or to whom it went.

[onestepforward]

8. Their bottom line is profit.

If trashing an opposing candidate would increase their profit, they will do it. Moral or ethical values take a backseat to profit.

This might change the value of the religious right. That's a good point.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Exxon, General Motors or Wal-Mart will never run ads trashing..

candidates. Or endorsing them, for that matter.

Very bad for business, and would undoubtedly piss off a goodly share of customers stockholders, and others they would prefer not to piss off.

What they very well could do, though, is pay for issue ads cleverly designed to convince you of something. They're doing that now through various back doors but the floodgates are open. And they may now donate to particular campaigns they have an interest in.

Friday's NY Times talked to the guy who came up with the Swiftboat ads, and he was just about creaming himself over the possibilities.

As an NPR host based in Boston said yesterday, "You mean we could have even MORE political commercials?"

[LoZoccolo]

10. We'd have to hit the first one really really hard.

Things like a continuous picket out front, boycott, basically what it takes to make the company look really really bad...it can be done but it would probably have to be an idea that people commit to before it starts happening so we can be ready on day one to just trash its reputation thoroughly

[Quixote1818]

12. Thats a good point. Hit back hard right at first to see if we can scare them off. nt

[TheKentuckian]

11. I think the bigger concern is issue distortion

Think climate denial times a thousand.

I also suspect they'll start smaller with localities and states to push their agendas while playing the national scene much more carefully as they will draw attention and be exposed early in the game. They'll let us get lax and fall into the "see, it's not that big a deal" before hitting hard nationally.

The national stuff will start out as intimidation by threat and further securing small state Senators like Conrad, Baucus, and most of the Confederates.

Corporations are the only real long range planners in our society, they will probably be patient but steady and sure.

[mdmc]

13. yes

I predict we will also see some dem endorsements from corporations. I could see, for instance, Wall Street lobbyist paying for campaigns that supports a specific issue or regulation championed by NYS Senator Chuck Schuemer.

They will play both sides, carefully exerting their power..

[stellad]

14. Roberts will soon rule "sanctity of ballot" requires anonymity for corporate spending

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. They will have shell holding companies. Everyone has figured this out and it's

something they already do.

Shell partnerships and holding companies were pioneered by Enron to hide unperforming assets. In the future they will be used as shell companies for campaign media purposes.

***********************************

(Edit to reflect I used a pretend name and then discovered it's a real organization.)