This SCOTUS ruling means Obama is out in 2012.

[FrenchieCat]

Say hello to President Walmart.

My husband just called me and scared the shit out of me.
He's pretty apolitical, but he got this ruling down to a "T".

He said you haven't seen anything yet.
If you can imagine China 15 years ago and WWII Italy,
that will be us very soon.
It.will.be.fascism.

He said that Gore v. Bush produced intended consequences
that we will never recover from,

China will be buying into corporations that will in turn influence
our politics. We are about to be turned into a 3rd world country.

Anything not beneficial to the bottomline of corporations
will not happen. Not enviromental regulations; not safety standards,
not anything that would be termed good for the people unless
it's good for the Corporate boardroom.

Those were his words to me,
and my man isn't stupid at all,
and he likes Obama enough (he's not a "fan" like some call me though)


Also he said, far as he can tell Health Care is dead,
cause the Democrats are too timid to do anything else.

I hope he's wrong in everyway.....
That's all I can do now for sure....
cause it sounds like we are truly fucked.

Talk me down, please!

[BeyondGeography]

1. The news of the day isn't the old farts on the SC, it's a lovely old man named Paul Volcker

who has outlined the reforms that are making Goldman Sachs cry tonight. If Obama stands up for what he said today, and I have every reason to believe he will, we will win in 2012. By taking the casino out of the banking industry, he will put us on a saner and safer course. Ordinary people will be more secure, and the government will never have to pick up the tab for financial gambling again.

Really, it was great day for Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

I don't think so.....I don't think it was a great day for America, period.

When China is buying our elections,
you'll feel the exact same way.
This conversion won't take long.

Right now, I'm not so worried about 2012...
I can resign myself to President Walmart...
cause I still have French Citizenship,
and my kids are getting educated.
I just feel sorry for the rest of the folks.

[BeyondGeography]

6. The corporations will overplay their hand

They were handed a victory they didn't need as their political influence is already enormous. Moreover, corporations are fucking up their day job, which is employing people and making them feel secure. They will present a nice, fat target when they throw their newfound weight around.

[verges]

30. A fat target...

but we won't have any ammunition. They will be doing nothing illegal.

[BeyondGeography]

32. How is it that we go bankrupt because of this ruling?

Obama will still raise hundreds of millions of dollars, particularly when people see he is the last thing standing between themselves and the corporate abyss. And corporations will hedge their bets by giving to both sides anyway. They always do.

Look, I hate the ruling. It's a throwback to the fucking Gilded Age and Stephen C. Field. Unreal. But we have come a long way since then. People of color can actually vote, and FOIA means you know where candidates are getting their money from. It's a Dark Age ruling, but they haven't turned out all the lights.

[verges]

33. Respectfully disagree.

Corps will be able to outspend by a long shot. And it's a good bet (IMHO) that they won't have to continue playing both ends.

[timeforpeace]

56. Lots and lots of corporations like Obama and will support him and he will be reelected.

[verges]

68. Optimist. nt

[ProudDad]

72. There's also the chill factor

any politician who operates against corporate interests will soon find that unlimited attack ads will remove them from their seat -- no matter how "safe" their district, money almost ALWAYS wins elections, and Massive amounts of money ALWAYS wins...

So they will censor themselves to keep their jobs. They will vote the way the corpos want to save their asses.

[ProudDad]

74. I like my idea

Right now Congress could pass legislation requiring the same kind of disclaimers on any corporate political ad resembling the ones required for Big PhRMA...

At the end of the ad:

"This advertisement was paid for and placed to further the corporate interests of <name of the corporation> which corporation is in the business of <the business it's in such as coal, oil, chemicals, high fructose corn syrup and other poisons, etc.>

whose officers are: <name, phone number of president> <name, phone number of Vice Presidents> < Name, phone number of everyone who posted the ad>

Etc. etc. etc.

If the drug companies have to do it, all corporations must be required to do it too.

Then GET TO WORK ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT officially and for all stripping corporations of "personhood" under the law...'cause the above regulations could be rescinded once the corpos completely buy the Congress.

[Solomon]

52. Ya know Frenchie, I've never criticized a post of yours

but that last "I got mine" bit you got going there kinda rankles.

Are we supposed to respect people who constantly exhort people to fight but when they lose a battle brag, "I still have French Citizenship ... I feel sorry for the rest of the folks?"

[golfguru]

17. The BEST initiative from the president since inauguration

This will stop the banks from robbing the working class also
known as middle class.

[verges]

28. That may be good news...

But it's still trumped by the stupid SCOTUS ruling. We are fucked. And they ain't even buying dinner first.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Corporations will probably be competing with one another, their

money will end up on both sides of the line I would guess. It does already.

[FrenchieCat]

3. When there is no limit,

there is no limit.

That's scary to me.

[TheKentuckian]

40. Don't you understand that if they buy our's then they aren't ours?

Are you blind to the damage that that money on both sides does?

[villager]

4. It's really ever only boiled down to a "soft landing," or a "hard landing," post-empire

as the energy becomes harder to get, or runs out, and the distracting gee gaws become more expensive (and then the food does), and the various environmental systems collapse or wobble out of "control..."

So the planet on which we enjoyed our brief post-war American idyll changes, and no one can control that - though, in theory "progressive" political leadership could help make us readier for the changes, and the landing.

Conservatives can't or won't, of course -- these looming facts go against their ideology. But neither they, nor corporations, can ultimately change what's coming.

So the questions are -- how do we get there? And what really happens after the Reckoning?

[Grand Taurean]

5. Defense Secretary Lockheed Martin.

[FirstLight]

7. I agree Frenchie

been OVER it for this whole week, and today was the cherry on top of our collective crap sundae.

I am ready for moving off the grid and into the hills and hippie-commune life. Because at least there, someone will have to come LOOKING for me to take me away ...

fuck

I was so hopeful and excited for things to change a year ago, and now I just wanna curl up and cry for a long time :cry:

"Idiocracy" is coming closer every day, and that in itself should be reason to be afraid!

[Writer]

8. Actually I'm not sure about that.

Political culture extends well beyond the market system. There are forces at play that transcend an economist view of political power. Obama still will kill any GOP challenger in 2012, unless you still subscribe to the dominant paradigm of media effects.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I want Media reform, because yes, to a great extent, I believe in

the dominant paradigm of media effects.

That's how we got here.

That's how Clinton was impeached.

That's why we laid down through most of the Bush v. Gore recount.

That's how we got into Iraq.

That's how Bush won his 2nd term.

That's how Brown won the election on Tuesday.....

The exceptions are rare,
and we had to be beaten up,
and threatened with financial destruction
to do something different....

and folks are now complaining about that endlessly...
and the media is helping them.

[Writer]

25. I understand that you believe that, but I think that you are ignoring the larger scope...

of media as part of a larger sociological process. The determinism that you're expressing subscribes to an antiquated notion of a mass public taken from a branch of "received" - or "vulgar" - Marxism that assumes a mechanistic relationship between material practice and abstract belief systems. You believe that media practices automatically determine how we think, feel, and believe. What you fail to explain is why you are immune to this process, and why others (in your view) are at their mercy.

I truly recommend that you read David Gauntlett's piece: "10 Things Wrong with the Effects Model." It focuses on television violence, but as you can see, people who subscribe to the dominant paradigm - which is the bourgeois approach to understanding the relationship between the media and society - aren't asking themselves what other forces are at work that impact the exchange of symbols, whether that occurs within a structured environment or if the viewer possesses agency, etc. etc. etc. http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm

The problem with using economism as a way of understanding the media and society is that we then tend to look for solutions in the wrong places. For instance, what if we were to de-corporatize the media? If money were the determining factor, then wouldn't that, then, solve the problem? The narrow view of focusing only on media ownership avoids the fact that the media have always been in the private sphere in the United States. And whether the media are owned by individuals, families, small companies, or large corporations, they have always been at the behest of their owners' wishes. "Smaller" ownership doesn't mean noble ownership.

[FrenchieCat]

31. True.....but if the media wasn't so consolidated,

that might help controlling the colussion that currently occurs.

[Writer]

35. But then you're assuming collusion in ideology in complicated institutions...

okay. Let me back up here, because you have a passion for this, and I'd like to be constructive here. I actually appreciate Althusserian structuralism, and I appreciate his interpellation theory, which explains that the individual subject's ideological structure, when entering an ISA (ideological state apparatus) like a news organization, undergoes a process where he negotiates his own ideological structure with the ideological structure of the ISA. Ultimately a person interpellates his beliefs and becomes part of the ISA. So, yes, there is a kind of "groupthink" in individual news rooms that potentially can construct meaning in similar ways.

However, not all ISA's are the same ideologically. For instance, the editorial board of the WSJ is different than the news room of the WSJ. The same goes for Fox broadcast television and the cable Fox News Network. Or NBC network television versus its cable news properties. Because all of these are capitalist entities, however, one could argue that if they were to "collude" at all, it would be in order to make money. And that has serious implications for the focus and purpose of newsgathering. However, the mistake many ideological politicos make is assuming that their collective goal is toward a singular political ideology, which is a gross oversimplication of the tens of thousands of individuals who work in thousands of news agencies. The possibility of all working for the same political goals is flat-out impossible, even in cable news. However, as has been constructed over the 20th Century by political think tanks and politicians, the media have become easy targets to stereotype. These think tanks have developed rhetoric in order to characterize the media as "liberal" or "conservative," and the collective "media" always seem to be fighting for the other side. It's a way of "othering" the media in order to marginalize opinions that would confront those constructed by the political elite, so that politically-active Americans will trust primarily the information gathered from political elites, not alternatives as presented in the media.

[FrenchieCat]

36. I'll read this again tomorrow......

I'm a bit drained....
but I do appreciate your response a lot.

[donheld]

70. Sorry Frenchie, but I think you are exactly right.

[Odin2005]

65. Good post!

[Jennicut]

10. Obama will have a fight on his hands in 2012 unless he turns totally populist

and goes after the banks and other idiots who got us into this mess. Money will flowing like wild in the 2012 election but the public still may not buy what the Rethugs are selling.

[burning rain]

38. Obama could also survive in 2012 by proving harmless or minimally harmful from a corporate POV.

Whether of his own volition, or because Congress clips his wings. It may even look better from their POV to have a Democratic president in office while they consolidate their control than be so brazen as to go hell for leather and install a Republican. That would set people's radar off, and they have good reason to try and operate below the radar to the extent possible.

[Raine1967]

11. I can't talk you down tonight. BUT --

Give me some time. I am trying to piece together a few things.

This ruling is AWFUL, but I have been thinking that this ruling is going to force the f*ckers out of the woodwork

I still have to construct all of this,but let me put it this way: Just because entities CAN contribute unlimited dollars, doesn't mean it's smart for candidates and elected officials to accept it if the people know about it.

on P. 55. (of the ruling) SCOTUS basically codifies transparency and disclosures role in allowing people to make informed decision. With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. P. 55 Citizens United V. FEC

Read this: http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/01/21/citizens-united-positive-for-online-disclosure/

That means that we are going to know right away when a donation is made and from whom.

I am still trying to see what this means for PACS. What is the need for them anymore, if everyone has to disclose right away?

I share your heavy heart Frenchie. I see what is going down. I am just not ready to throw in the towel.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Thanks. I'll look into what you have provided....

cause when FrenchieCat loses hope,
then that's getting close to 100% hopeless.

[Raine1967]

16. This is bad, I know, but it's not time to pull the plug. eom

[greenbird]

46. Husband same the same thing yesterday:

"but I have been thinking that this ruling is going to force the f*ckers out of the woodwork"

Won't it be easier to see who's behind the candidate than it is now?

I'm looking for some crumb here, 'cause I'm just as devastated by this ruling as I can possibly be!

[AlinPA]

60. Yes, but enough republicans will be elected in November to cancel all the disclosure rules.

Then in 2012, they can go after minimum wage, social security.

[Raine1967]

12. Also -- Health care is NOT dead.

expect another wild day tomorrow,

[FrenchieCat]

15. I hope so.

Hubby isn't always right.....
but a lot of times he is.

Because he isn't so vested,
I tend to listen to what he has to say.
He's kind of like a real Independent,
although he does vote Democrat,
cause I'm the one of fills out his Absentee ballot
each election.

[robo50]

14. Oh how I love President Walmar t!!!!!

Yes, THANKS to the most educated and wonderful lawyers in America, President Walmart will win the election!

Thank you U.S. Supreme Court!

You are the most stupid people ever to be in America, let's make sure President Walmart sends you all to GTMO for disagreeing with him!

[FrenchieCat]

18. You don't even make any fucking sense and you will be ignored as of now.

Doh!

[Bullet1987]

19. This move could be seen in another way

Maybe they know they need to get Obama out of there and don't trust him for a 2nd term. Let's face it folks, corporations decide who becomes President noawadays. If they don't want him in office, they're going to prop a more suitable pet up. This CHANGE talk has got people pissed off and they want real action now. So they need to put a pet in office who doesn't have a change mandate. I think this can only be seen as a move against Obama. I agree with you FRENCHIE!

[Tailormyst]

20. I wish I could talk you down

I wish I could even give a few words of encouragement, but the fact is that I have a REALLY bad feeling about what's coming that I just can't shake.

[Clio the Leo]

21. There's time to fix it....

... as much as we CAN fix it .... and not only are all of the Dems in agreement on this but so are a chunk of the Republicans.

And it's theoretically possible that at least ONE corporation would want to give money to the Obama campaign. ......... some company that produces those special car batteries he's always talking about. :)

[TheKentuckian]

41. Bought is bought Clio

Hoping to get a piece of the pie is not going to help US because then the politicians are owned and owe.

The wealth differential is too great, we will not win playing their game, by their rules, on their terms. Hoping for some well intentioned corporation to bail us out is neigh on to insane.

This is a straight up by any means necessary situation.

[Unvanguard]

22. He may be, but not because of this. Not all that much will change.

It's a bad decision--don't get me wrong--but the statute it invalidated was rather narrow in the kind of corporate speech it restrained (e.g. issue-oriented ads were and remain permitted at any time) and the truly big corporate players, thanks to the disclosure requirement, are going to be hesitant about entering clearly into political controversies.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Corporations can have front corporations......

we've seen it happen with the teabaggers.
By the time it's figured out who owns what,
the election has happened.

[Unvanguard]

27. Right; hence the disclosure requirements. Funding sources are included, I believe.

And the risk for the corporation is going to be a negative reaction from consumers and/or shareholders, and that has no time limit.

[KingFlorez]

23. If we the people try hard enough, we can beat back the corporations on this

This isn't going to be easy, but it's worth the fight. It will only take one election to show them they can't control the system, we can make it happen.

[depakid]

26. To play the Devil's advocate

It's extremely likely thar Obama's team knew this was coming from the day- and the way the court took and handled the case (which was anything but orthodox). Most of us who pay attention to such things did. Thus, administration dealings and policies since have borne this result in mind.

Most corporations have been (or damn well ought to have been) pleased thus far- and the alternative of some inept fundamentalist or ideologue run the economy back into the ground won't sit well.

On the other hand, an ostensibly competent- and ostensibly moderate candidate would pose a problem. particualrly with an alienated and discouraged base not turning out- or turning to a third paty.

Where this cases will really do its damage is at the state and local levels- bother for candidates and initiatives. Since there's no onger any appreciable media regulation- not accountablity, these races will exerience a HUGE influx of out of state money that drowns out the progressive opposition (which is almost always on the side of responsible policy and reform).

Corporate monet will virtually control the airwaves- and set the terms of debate (such as it is) to the exclusion of most any other arguments.

[FrenchieCat]

29. We need media reform......

like yesterday!

We need to start a movement on that....cause I fear, it is our only hope,
at this point.

If they have money, but no where to spend it it could help.

[depakid]

43. I was going to say- like yesreday before I clicked on the link

A beefed up fairness doctrine with equal time provisions would do the trick. Unfortunately, this is a very activist court- and one that lacks any integrity (or respect for logic or precedent).

Far right results are all that 4 (and as often as not 5 members care about- and they'll do whatever twisting it take to rule that way- often not even bothering to do so incrementally).

It's entirely possible that media reforms would be struck down, despite their long and successful history in the United States.

[Frank Booth]

34. You don't have to worry about China. There are enough powerful corporate leaders in this

country right here who now have the power to permanently destroy it.

I don't think it's hyperbole to state that today the final nail in the coffin of America was laid.

[Orangepeel]

37. I don't think this decision will make much difference

Corporations already have way too much political power, but I don't see how this will give them significantly more.

They could already donate unlimited amounts to PACs supporting "issues" and it wasn't ever hard to tell which side those PACs were on. In fact, sometimes they said things like, "Call Congressman X and thank him for his support of _______." Now they will say "Vote for __________."

I don't agree with the ruling because I don't think corporations are people and this removes a restriction that I think should be in place. I just don't think this is going to change anything because corporations have been adept at skirting that restriction.

[FrenchieCat]

42. I do.

[mister1979]

39. 2012 can be like 1936.....

.....or it can be like 1980. Take your pick. If Democrats do the right thing in a progressive manner, I think it will be like 1936. After all. Big Business hated Fdr in his first term and spent big bucks to ensure his defeat. However Fdr had the people on his side and crushed their Republican in all of the 48 states except Maine And Vermont. Alf Landon was the Republican they backed and even lost his home stateof Kansas.

[struggle4progress]

44. La complainte du partisan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTMe6-6VSuQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms2oSvejYMQ&feature=related

[ShortnFiery]

45. Everything about anything centers around President Obama's best interests?

Personally, I hope Finegold runs in 2012.

[JI7]

47. didn't "Finegold" vote for one or more of the justices who voted to remove any limits

on campaign finance ?

[ShortnFiery]

48. Damn! Yes. However, IMO, he's more forceful/supportive of civil rights.

:(

[quaker bill]

49. Not necessarily so

but it is likely his opponent will be much better funded.

The real action will be in the House and Senate, where the seats are much cheaper. You can be the biggest contributor and substantively buy victory for dozens of congressmen for less money than it takes to even impress a Presidential Campaign.

At some point, it will simply not matter who the proles elect as President.

[liberal N proud]

50. Unless he can get corporate sponsorship

He just needs to sell his soul to a few corporations, put on the NASCAR type jump suit with the logos all over it and he should reelected easily.


Ladies and Gentlemen, Please rise for the President of the United States or America, brought to you by Wal-Mart and Trojan.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

51. if Dems hadn't won in 2006 and 2008.............

we would have been in a never ending world war and enduring far more restrictions.

Would be nice to get a couple more left leaning Supreme court judges

[old mark]

53. If Obama loses in '12, he has no one to blame but himself.

I NEVER thought he could lose...Now I am pretty convinced he will.

mark

[AlinPA]

61. The SCOTUS decision sinks him. He can't raise the billions that corporations will provide to his

opponent.

[Milo_Bloom]

78. The corporations already gave without limits in the last election.

Nothing has changed.

[PVnRT]

54. Go populist, and get more assertive

That's what I would tell him. And, remember, unions get to start running ads as well, so it behooves him to start sucking up even more, starting with pushing Senators to approve his nominee for the NLRB.

[workinclasszero]

55. You meant President Palin right?

You cant believe how bad I feel right now. Just damn. This country is so screwed...

[Hippo_Tron]

57. I think your husband is buying into China-phobia

If your view of China's government is pollution, sweatshops, and Tienanmen Square then yes they seem horrible. But the fact is that the immense poverty that the bottom half of their country lives in right now was the way that the entire country was living in 1979. The fact that they have managed to lift half of their country out of poverty in 30 years is remarkable. No I don't like a lot of what the Chinese government and yes they do a lot of horrendous things (as does our own government) but they're not some monster trying to take over the world.

Secondly as far as the SCOTUS ruling goes, unlimited corporate money was more or less allowed already via 527 groups. The only restriction was that it had to be "issue ads" meaning you can't say "vote against John Kerry" but you can say "John Kerry's purple heart wound was treated with a band-aid". No it's not a positive step, but I don't see this ruling making a huge difference.

[Arkana]

58. Who are you, Rachel Maddow?

What makes you think corporations haven't been bankrolling candidates since Nixon?

[AlinPA]

59. He's right. No way the Democrats will be elected. Maybe a few, like Baucus or Lincoln,

Landreiu but that's about all. We are looking at billions of campaign cash availbale to republicans as early as this week.

[Fire1]

62. By George, I think he's got it! n/t

[CreekDog]

63. I think it's horrendous, but I wouldn't be so hasty

negative advertising is less and less effective --as is advertising in general.

it's not like they can put more ads on tv during the fall anyway --the slots are all full anyway.

traditional (read: expensive) methods of persuasion are going the way of the dinosaur. You don't convince anyone with a slick ad campaign anymore AND our Obama didn't break through with one either.

before you feel all is lost, remember 2007, there was an establishment choice in Hillary Clinton with money, support and admiration and a relatively little known Senator came along and with little to work with beat her and then he beat McCain (although McCain helped a lot with that).

So while it sucks and perhaps is the end of the world...I'm not so sure it is. If this decision came in 1985, before the internet and Web 2.0 we'd probably had been done for. But probably not the case now.

:hi:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

64. A little different perspective, from Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united

If a solid liberal like Greenwald isn't panicking, then I guess I won't, either.

[Robeson]

66. We've been facist and imperialist for quite a while...

...it didn't start with the Supreme Court ruling.

[earth mom]

67. What in the hell do you think many of us have been trying to tell you & the rest of GD-P

for a couple of years now?!

Talk about denial!

FYI- many good, well intentioned and patriotic DUers have been kicked off this site for sounding the alarm, for trying to talk sense into die hards like you who wouldn't listen for one second what they had to say.

You only cared about what made YOU happy on a personal level-not the dire situation this country is in!

I really think you and many others owe an apology for ganging up on those of us who did nothing more than try to open your eyes to THE UGLY TRUTH!!!

[FrenchieCat]

71. I owe you nothing.

And who are you to tell me what I care about?
Who do you think you are?

[earth mom]

76. Of course you take that stance. I'm not surprised one damn bit.

You are the one who posted this thread begging people to "talk you down" yet you take zero responsibility for sticking your own head in the sand and for trashing people who tried to enlighten you!

What fucking ever dude. :eyes:

[hileeopnyn8d]

80. And what does any of that have to do

with the SCOTUS ruling? Or are you blaming that on Obama (and FrenchieCat) too?

[Blasphemer]

69. He'll win

Clinton survived their all out assault on him and so will Obama. People will likely be disgruntled enough to give the GOP Congress but they won't give them Congress and the Executive Branch.

As for the Corporate takeover, that started on December 12, 2000.

[ProudDad]

73. You're wrong...

The corporate take over started with Southern Pacific v Santa Clara County and the phony head note penned by an ex-railroad board member/clerk of SCOTUS...in 1887...

This SCOTUS decision just completes the takeover...

Welcome to the self-declared Corporate States of USAmerika...

[Blasphemer]

77. This is true... nt

[rapturedbyrobots]

75. or he's very much IN

biggest contributors to obama's campaign in 2008?

universtiy of california followed by...

...wait for it...

....
...
..
.

goldman sachs!

[Milo_Bloom]

79. The Ruling Changes Nothing.. If Obama Loses, it is B/C of Obama.

The same money, from the same people, will be going to the same sources.

This ruling doesn't come with a flood of NEW money, it just changes the path the money takes.

Previously, corporate money was put into PAC's and 527's and distributed through strawmen. Now they can give directly.

Same money.

Same people receiving the same money.

If the PEOPLE, who gave Obama the bulk of his money last time, don't donate, it is Obama's own damn fault.