"Corporations own the government"

So? It's been that way since industrialization began.

John D. Rockefeller owned several senators and had a huge influence on policy for more than a decade.

The railroads had James G. Blaine in their hip pocket-and he wasn't the only one bought and paid for by the railroads. Him and these other were disparagingly referred to as the "railroad senators".

John Pierpont Morgan pretty much got anything he wanted out of Congress and the White House until TR got into office, and even Roosevelt leaned Morgan's way from time to time.

Andrew Carnegie had his own Congress-critters and his own leverage in Washington.

So why are people acting like Citizens United gives corporations fiat control over the government that it never had before? The only difference between then and now is that now they can spend a little more freely and be more sneaky about where they spend it but not much has changed and not much will change.

 

Its like the difference that would exist if bribery were made legal vs the at least minimal discretion required NOW with it illegal, and the damage from the loss of legal and social stigma for those who practice it.

Corporations will greatly expand their spending in this regard, and further utilize government controls rather than competition as a means of expanding profits.

 

You are very correct, Small_government_caligula.

Obama has no qualms at all about continuing and encouraging this well established trend!



Obama schmoozes with bankers and very wealthy potential donors. This event took place at a $35,800-a-plate dinner with Wall Street executives in a posh Manhattan restaurant. Could this seriously undercut the image he has tried so carefully to craft? Here is the greatest authoritarian and one of the phoniest and most insincere presidents we have ever had!

 

And I bet they all use tax loopholes.

 

So if it's been happening for a while it's perfectly okay...

 

Citizens United? The people that make all those stupid documentaries?

 

No of course it's not okay, it's appalling. It's why the 17th amendment was passed, to try to limit corporate control over the Senate. The problem is that it has a long and well-established precedent so it's not going to end no matter what anyone does. Oligarchies exist in all societies across time and will do anything and everything they can to protect themselves.

 

FEC v. Citizens United

 

Oh, yeah. I remember that. Terrible idea. Don't know what they were thinking.

Anybody know what they're thinking? Can a rational case be made?

 

Of course a rational case can be made, based on Constitutional Originalism. Liberals don't believe in Constitutional Originalism, so any arguments to made would automatically be dismissed by the liberal mind as "irrational" because to them a "rational" mind should be able to break or bend the Constitution as necessary to solve social problems.

An Originalist interpretation is listed quite clearly in the recent 11th Circuit court of Appeals decision, which is in my sig.

Congress does not have unlimited power to solve intractable social problems. At some point, Liberalism is going to hit a Constitutional Stone wall it cannot breach. It hit one with McDonald vs Chicago, and with Citizens United. The Rights listed in the first 10 amendments are nearly absolute, no matter what the social consequences of the exercise of those rights might be.



I can't wait to hear the Supreme Court's decision on the limits of the Commerce Clause. I'm almost positive it won't go the way Liberals hope it will, and a narrow, originalist interpretation will make it very difficult for liberals to engage in national action.

 

If you really want to go back. The constitution was written by rich land owners...specifically with the purpose of keeping them rich land owners.
it's done a fine job.

 

Canada banned political contributions from both corporations and unions. It's the only way to go. The system where corporations can contribute to a politician's election, and thereby facilitate their employment to a high paying job, is a direct conflict of interest.