What the SCOTUS decision means to the IMMEDIATE future

[WeDidIt]

I'm talking in the short term here.

Bank regulations?

The banks can now spend billions of dollars, THAT THE TAXPAYERS GAVE THEM, to insure that there is nothing approaching bank reform.

Furthermore, the banks can hold every Congressman hostage now using those same billions we gave them to force the Congress to actually LOOSEN regulations.

Think it can't happen?

Watch.

[AndyA]

1. Yes, I would say the shit is about to hit the fan.

Corruption will run rampant like never before in our history. And I'm not sure there are many elected people we can trust to do the right thing.

Congress will need to take action, quickly.

[zazen]

4. and congresspeople in formerly safe seats who've fought for regs will now be attacked

In the past, they just worried about losing contributions, but not that Bank of America could swoop in and fund someone to take them out.

I think that's about to change.

[Political Heretic]

2. WeDidIt, how exactly does defending corporate-owned DLC centrists, as you so fervently do, help?

Perhaps you want to think about that the next time you baselessly attempt to ridicule the Left when it points out the corporate capitulating policies of this administration or the capitulating legislative activities of corporate Democrats in Congress.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Show me one OP or reply that explicitly supports the DLC or corporate-capitulation.

I'll bet there aren't any.

What you seem to be doing is tying such support to DU members who generally support Democrats and the President.

One can, and many do, support the President while being outraged at corporatism and corporate ownership of so many in congress.

[WeDidIt]

8. I don't think corporations are evil, and that's "Ignored"'s problem with me.

I have no clue what was posted, but based upon your response I can guess.

To be explicit, there is nothing wrong with corporations when properly regulated.

This decision has made it a free for all.

Every large Chinese corporation will now incorporate a subsidiary in the U.S. and pump it full of money. These entities, incorporated in the U.S., will serve as fronts to influence politicians with massive amounts of money in order to do the bidding of China.

[Political Heretic]

I don't think free enterprise is evil. I do think corporations when not operated as originally

intended stand in direct opposition to the needs of rights of ordinary people. You can pretty much open any newspaper any day of the last thirty years and see I'm right on that one.

Corporations were originally overseen by the state which granted their corporate charter for a limited, short term basis with a mission to accomplish very specific tasks and then be disbanded. So corporations would be approved and formed to build bridges, or complete something specific. Corporations could not own stock, or property, or buy or sell other corporations. They couldn't participate in elections. They were not counted as "people" under the law, and were not awarded any personal rights under the law.

I believe very much in the possibility of free and fair enterprise conducted in free but fair markets. I do not believe that corporations can be properly "regulated" by politicians that corporations pay for and invest hundreds of millions of dollars in each year. 3 lobbyists for every one legislator. We can't function like that.

WeDidIt doesn't ignore me because I think corporations are evil. He ignores me because I'm right, and I beat his ass in an argument every single time.

[Political Heretic]

9. No, I tie support to DU members who generally support corporatist POLICY

and do so BECAUSE it is supported by the Democrats or the President.

[NYC_SKP]

13. Then perhaps the problem is with those disingenuous Dems and not with DU members.

I think we can all rally around the likes of Alan Grayson and Anthony Weiner.

I think we all, every one of us, wish we had nothing BUT their type representing us.

Trust me, there are dozens of Dems in Congress I'd gladly toss out if only we could replace them with better.

Well, money doesn't seem to follow better people around.

So, perhaps we could focus our attention on reform, and not on attacking others who agree on 90% of Democratic principles.

We are long past needing to do that, IMO.

[Political Heretic]

15. The problem is, in point of fact, both.

[NYC_SKP]

30. I haven't found the perfect words or phrase for it, but...

...I think that the root of disagreement among us (at DU) regards style, not substance.

For example, I don't think many love Rahm or the core of the DLC.

And I think we all want movement, action, and leadership from the administration (and congress) toward progressive ideals.

But we disagree on some minor and a few major points with respect to how best to get this movement to take place.

And I think it's unfortunate that our differences over style and strategy overwhelm the many things upon which we agree.

:shrug:

[Motown_Johnny]

3. There should be limits to anyone receiving government funds donating to political candidates/parties

That would mean extending that rule to people on Unemployment and Welfare but as of today it would be worth it.

[zazen]

7. great idea--and restrict to anyone _loaned_ government funds

This would eliminate welfare, Medicaid, SS, federal flowthrough of contracts and grants to salaried persons, etc. They're not _borrowing_ money.

Still, a lot of corporations could still donate. But it'd be the quickest way to get all the TARP funds back, at least.

[enlightenment]

5. My favorite cartoon - what was before is now again . . .

"The Bosses of the Senate" - 1889
The funniest part is where I found this particular copy . . . on the senate.gov website!

[BP2]

10. FUCK! Every Democrat that supports the new bank fees will have the deck

stacked against them in the next election. Citibank, Chase, etc will throw money at the Pukes by the carload.

Not good at all! :mad:

[WeDidIt]

12. Prior elections had millions of dollars spent on them

The magnitude will be altered exponentially.

My prediction for 2010 is more money will be spent than in any election in history, and that by a factor of ten.

[BP2]

19. Now instead of millions, it will be BILLIONS!

[flamingdem]

11. we have to FIGHT nt

[BP2]

23. You know, I'd love to fight this - I really would. But I see it playing out this way:

We yell and cause action in the House.

Nancy and the rest of the House Democrats write a strong law to overcome the Supreme Court's action.

And then the corporate-loving Pukes filibuster and slap it down in the Senate.


Did I miss anything? Please tell me if I did.

We may be stuck with this fucking court action for at least a few years! :argh:

[WeDidIt]

24. Dude, Dems can't stop a filibuster now

what makes you think they'll be able to stop a filibuster after billions are spent by corporations in the 2010 elections?

And what makes you think anything can be changed after they spend billions upon billions in 2012?

[BP2]

26. I agree. What's the plan? I'm at a loss at the moment. Everything is upside down now.

[flamingdem]

32. true, I like that nt

[guitar man]

14. Will it really make any difference?

It seems like they've already been able to buy everybody they needed ruling or not.

(tongue in cheek)

[earth mom]

16. Why in the hell do you care, you're a corporatist which you spewed in this OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7414196

:puke:

[leftstreet]

18. Ugh. You need to post a warning with that

:puke:

:hi:

[laughingliberal]

21. Thanks. I thought I remembered something like that. nt

[laughingliberal]

17. Of course they will do that. They've been using our money to stop regs

Just look at the loophole Melissa Bean (D) IL opened up for them in the regs that passed the House. Now, it will be worse. And with no independent media in this country, well. But regulations are still popular with the people and, perhaps, that will push some of it through.

[WeDidIt]

20. Market Reasearch will be performed to gain a majority in favor of whatever postion they want

This will spell the end of all regulation on corporations.

Complete lassez faire capitalism is the new norm.

[leftstreet]

22. Hmm...that YOU oppose this gives me pause

Interesting

[WeDidIt]

25. When properly regulated, there is nothing wrong with corporations

In fact, they are a good thing.

But we needed additional regulation, not less.

And this crap means there will be NO regulatory mechanisms in place within a few years.

And the phony accusation of "corporatist" thrown around DU during the past few months redefined the term completely. It's meaningless in the context of using it to insult DUers or politicians like Obama.

But the REAL corporatists have realized their wet dream and a new set of robber barons will now take over everything.

And there's no national boundaries to this, either. There will be robber barons controlling the political machine in the U.S. from all over the world.

[krabigirl]

27. Well, us just complaining on here won't do any good. Then again, nothing will...

[WeDidIt]

28. Yep, this is checkmate

What can be done?

Watch for millions to be pumped into the media markets in Grayson's district for attack adds on Grayson.

And that just for complaining about the ruling and proposing laws to fix it.

[BP2]

29. CHECKMATE. Uggg. What an ugly proposition. But not far from the truth. It's amazing how

the Progressive movement can be dealt a near deathblow from real, effective change in only a few moves.

- no agreement out of the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit
- Brown-stain's election and loss of Teddy's seat
- the fall of Health Care Reform
- the Supreme Court's thumbs up to corporate campaign spending

I'm in a daze over this shit. I really am :cry:

[DemoTex]

31. This cartoon nails it ..