![74325: Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit"s Power](http://ag.christianbook.com/g/tiny/7/74325.gif "74325: Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit"s Power")
Good Week for Conservatives
First it was Scott Brown’s Massachusetts Miracle. Then it was the Supreme Court striking down campaign finance laws that restricted freedom. Now word comes out that Air America has filed for bankruptcy. I tried to listen to them when we first moved to Colorado but never could escape the feeling they were doing what they thought Rush did: yelling and screaming and telling people what to think but never any persuasive arguments. How are we going to top this next week, fellow conservatives?
Again, it’s fascinating the way liberal minds and conservative minds interpret things. The conservative mind sees this last Supreme Court ruling as “striking down campaign finance laws that ‘restricted freedom’” (RevNev). The liberal mind sees this as “a mockery of the supreme courts’ claim of judicial restraint” (Baxter)
You see, the MA special election results didn’t bother me in the least… but this is bad. This is REALLY bad.
Conservatives have officially taken away the voice of the people by unleashing corporations to drench our political campaigns in special interest money. This in turn will drown out the voice of regular citizens. I would like to see the balance of these five judges bank accounts BEFORE this decision was made, and then AFTER.
Teddy Roosevelt saw the potential for a disaster like this in 1907. To prevent this from happening, he signed the Tillman Act which prevented corporate political spending. This has been an ABSOLUTE CONSTANT for over 100 years. Until now. Special interests already hold our democracy by the throat. This decision has helped them tighten their grip.
God help us all…
Rev Nev Reply:
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:30 PM
Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s good. Neither does the restriction prevent corporations and unions from influencing people in government. Look what the unions obtained from the Obama administration last week. How can the removal of restrictions remove a voice? If anything it’s adding voices to the chorus.
I should also note that correct application of the Bill of Rights always irritates liberals. They think if judges actually restrict the Federal government from doing something they have committed a heinous crime. But make a judgment allowing the destruction of millions of innocents in the unborn which is not in the Constitution and they think the Court has done its job.
Baxter Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 12:02 AM
You think President Obama granting better health care to unions members compares to what’s coming???
Get ready for blatant buy-outs! Yeah, this is gonna add voices to the chorus alright… And those voices are going sing MUCH louder than anyone who wont benefit from what ____________ (fill in the blank with any corporation) wants to see happen!
Baxter Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:26 AM
And another thing. How is the decision a “correct application to the Bill of Rights?” Corporations aren’t individuals. The Bill of rights doesn’t apply to them at all. Well, at least it didn’t until Wednesday.
Rev Nev Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 8:26 AM
The administration has already agreed to blatant buy outs with the very companies they claim to despise so much.
So tell me, Bax, of what are corporations made?
Baxter Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:11 AM
What blatant buy outs are you referring to? It’s clear that your definition of “blatant buy out” isn’t the same as mine.
And I see where you are trying to go with this, and it’s not gonna work. Don’t insult my intelligence. Yes, corporations are made of individual people. But those individuals could ALREADY make their own political contributions before this weeks ruling. This ruling has given the actual CORPORATION the same privileges that the INDIVIDUALS that work for said corporation always had.
Corporations have and always will have more money to spend than individuals. Meaning they can sit back and watch how much money citizens (the individuals that the Bill of Rights is referring to) raise for their candidate of choice, and then simply write a check for the candidate of THEIR choice that matches, or more likely, far exceeds what the opposition raised.
Here’s an example. Completely hypothetical for now, but something like this is going to happen sooner than later: A candidate promises to increase the minimum wage. So all the individual employees of say, McDonalds, Taco Bell, Burger King, etc. rally around and make contributions to that candidates’ campaign. These corporations call the opposing candidate and say “We will each write you $300,000.00 (pennies to them) checks for your campaign, all we ask is when you get in office you chop $1.50 off the minimum wage. Do we have a deal?”
THAT, is my definition of a “blatant buy out”. And I GAURENTEE this is the kind of thing we are going to start seeing.
Rev Nev Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:33 AM
So you think people’s right to free speech should be limited based on the amount of money they control?
Baxter Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:59 AM
What? No! This isn’t about free speech. Corporations are not individuals. The CEO of whatever can make whatever contribution he/she wants. I’ll stick with the previous example: The president McDonalds can write a check out of his/her OWN bank account to go to whatever candidate he/she wants to. But he/she should not be allowed to write a check out of McDonalds’ account. That is not his/her money. And by doing that, he/she is giving McDonalds a voice. And McDonalds doesn’t deserve a voice because it is not a person.
How furious would you be if you learned that the reason Christmas bonuses were cut this year was because Chuck made a rather large contribution to President Obama’s reelection campaign?
Rev Nev Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 12:08 PM
So you think the larger a company the more we should restrict its ability to act in the interest of the company?
Baxter Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Yes. Because what is good for the company, more times than not, is not good for anyone besides the company. While it may be good for Aetna to not insure someone with a pre-existing medical condition, it stinks for the millions who need coverage.
Rev Nev Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:30 PM
But why should you judge what is good for another company? If you don’t like it then start your own insurance company that covers those people.
Baxter Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 2:07 PM
That was just one example. Another example (purely hypothetical): Company “X” disposes nuclear waste. They have unsuccessfully been petitioning for years now to be allowed to dump waste in the Cherry Creek Reservoir. With this past ruling, company “X’s” CEO can tap company “X’s” bank account to write politician “Y” a $500,000.00 check (only $200,000.00 of which is required to use on the actual campaign) so that if he gets elected he must allow company “X” to dump into the reservoir. Good for company “X”, bad for everyone else. Politician “Y” is now in company “X’s” back pocket. For the right amount of money, politician “Y” will do whatever company “X” wants him/her to do. And company “X” is now able to just write it off as a political contribution.
Rev Nev Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 4:24 PM
Actually, companies are still not allowed to bribe candidates like that. They can, however, run ads supporting or criticizing a candidate. So your example is moot.
Baxter Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 4:51 PM
It’s not moot because what I described was not a bribery.
Rev Nev Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:58 PM
Call it what you want. The fact is the law still will not allow a scenario like you described.
Baxter Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:14 PM
Who will stop it? The ruling didn’t specify that corporations are limited to JUST making political commercials for candidates. It allows them to make whatever political contributions they want to. That Hillary bashing commercial being banned was just what got the conservative judges’ attention.
I really enjoy this website – thanks to Rev Nev, Baxter, and Ben, there is always something to read and think about.
That being said….Why should corporations be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money towards a campaign? Because individual people work for them? So what you are saying is that everyone that works at a specific corporation has the same values and beliefs as that corporation? And that the corporation should have the right to use as much of their MONEY towards whatever campaign they feel benefits them? How does this help the individual voice?
The electoral process is already under question in my book – individual voices are not heard – and this will only corrupt it further.
The President of the United Sates should stand for the people of the United States – not corporations (which will now include US subsidiaries of FOREIGN corporations)!
Rev Nev Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 4:28 PM
Hi Chris! Glad you like the site.
I reject the dichotomy between corporations and individuals. The idea that companies should be restricted in their ability to support candidates is wrongheaded. If you think the restrictions that were just overturned prevented powerful groups from influencing government think again. All it does is allow companies to criticize or support candidates whose policies they like or dislike. Plus it does remove restrictions on when they are allowed to run those ads. Most Americans agree with the court.
Baxter Reply:
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:18 PM
Yeah. You republicans are gonna be real freaking angry when this backfires in your faces. It’s not one way. I’m not worried about just republican politicians being bought out.
Ben Reply:
January 25th, 2010 at 5:03 PM
I’m not worried. The Leftists have already demonstrated that they are no strangers to the practice of rewarding contributors to their campaigns… even when the unconstitutional campaign finance reform laws were in place.
Obviously, the real reason that the Left is upset about this is now, again, conservatives can give money as they see fit.
Of course, it is easy for Leftists to be opposed to the idea of letting any person or group of people give as much as they want when they themselves get free publicity and support from virtually every facet of the media and academia.