Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash
Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that allows massive sums to be spent to influence future elections.

I think I've been playing too many RPGs.

Ah, sensationalism alive and well in American media. That first line is incredibly misleading. The ruling allows them to spend independently to run adds for or against a candidate, but giving money directly to a candidate's campaign is still highly regulated (for now). And its interesting to note that Obama's quote is all about the big bad evil corporations, big oil and (oooooh) Wall Street. They barely mention that the same rules (or lack thereof) apply to labor unions, which spent an incredible amount of money to get him elected.

Anyway, to keep this on topic (barely) I would say that the sensationalism is just as "SR" as the corporate money that is going to flood into politics. Best be prepared to see a campaign ad in between every drug ad in 2010...

it sound too much like :
M. Johnson : My Client does not want this guy in power. Do what ever you want to blacklist him.
Runner: Like BTL him with prostitutes.
M. Johnson : What ever you want ! Here 2000Y in advance !

Back in the old online edition of Pyramid magazine, there was an article posted "How much for that Congressman?", which describes most of the ways people with lots of money can bribe politicians. Most of them are perfectly legal, like organizing fundraisers, donating to a politician's pet social causes, or even simply buying a copy of that politician's latest biography for every one of your employees as a Christmas gift.

Just a note: 2% of the net profit of ExonMobile in 1 year spent as campaign advertising money would be more money than either candidate spent in the 2008 election combined.

Couldn't Corps already donate to non-party political entities without limit anyway? So this is pretty much business as usual, but Corporations are now allowed to be more transparent about their partisanship, whereas they were previously mandated to engage in shell games to fund political ads.

No offense to the Americans here, but I'm so glad I don't live in the US anymore...

- J.

Yeah, I'm planning on declaring my independence soon.

Term limits are the answer.

yep. that's how books by a wide variety of "famous" (read: useless) people end up on the NYT bestseller list. they are bought in bulk, then sit and rot in warehouses and shelves until someone marks them down. both Barrack Obamas and Sarah Palins books were supposedly top sellers. you ever met anyone who read either?


repealing the 17th amendment would be far more effective IMHO.


also, this thread is getting way offtopic.

Also not a bad idea.

How about doing away with the Filibusterer? Did you know that the number of filibusters last year was greater than the sum total of all filibusters from the creation of the USA until 1970*?

*Early Use of the Filibuster

Getting rid of the filibuster is a horrible idea. Its entire purpose is to keep the majority in check. I don't want to live in any country where the majority has unchecked power- regardless of which party is in the majority.

I read Obama's book. Of course you probably haven't met me

Carl

Or we could get nothing done at all.

I do agree that there needs to be something, but the way it is now is not going to work.

What the solution is, is to eliminate the idea that a Corporation is a legal person, with all the rights thereof. Kennedy is correct that the current law limits the Corporation's Freedom of Speech. He's wrong (not legally, just ethically) on whether or not Corporations have a genuine right to Freedom of Speech.

Since a corporation will have the resources to actually use this 'freedom' in ways we can't, it has more 'freedom' than we do. It also has a slew of other freedoms we don't. For instance, a corporation can't be put into prison.

Combine that with this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/1...27+News+Feed%29

And you have corporations which have all these powers + run all our critical "government" services + have the ability to dodge all their past trouble through a quick restructuring and name change (which is probably why corps like Renraku don't do their own work. Beyond the fact that Renraku makes more money branding and off-shoring production/design elsewhere, it also means that if Renraku's child corp RANDI corp does something bad, it can be restructured, renamed, remarketed and resold without any fallout to the main Renraku line/name.)

We're running a bit slower than the SR timeline, but give it another few years and maybe another war. We'll have Xe Security (formerly Blackwater) setting up corporate strongholds in the occupied country which operate not under direct US control, or the control of any other corp, but under Xe control, laws and regulations.

Then it's only a matter of time.

I like the filibuster---it encourages good government, which is the one that governs least.

Unfortunately paratisan politics have made the filibuster the norm cause neither party wants to talk to each other anymore. Thye talk past each other instead, and everything is about the next election. I wonder if this is why Rome fell?

This. It was a good idea until it became the only idea.

More like this. I'd rather have a government that does nothing than changes everything in the middle of the night on Christmas eve, for example of course. The legislature (especially the senate) was not designed to do things quickly. That's what local governments are for.

Exactly. That's why we should have term limits on everything.

Most parts of the world don't even know what a filibuster is, we still did not fall back into the Dark Ages



As a more on-topic note, my thoughts were "hmmm, in SR that would make our profession poor - corps can donate the money directly instead of sponsoring runners" ^^

Well aren't you all so enlightened...

For the record, most of Europe was still using a form of government that originated in the Dark Ages when the U.S. came up with their current system, but whatever.

Be patient. At the rate things are moving, I don't think the U.S. as it is will make it much past it's 250th year, let alone the tricentennial.

Upon hearing about the new ruling, I did two things: Raved and screamed obsenities, then though about how the real world is starting to resemble the dystopian, sci-fi, corperate run worlds portrayed in various works. With the way things are going, all we need for RL to mirror SR is a massive cataclysm that brings magic back into the world.

I wish!

(everyone has a different idea of what would be fun)

Though William Gibson's world suits me just fine.

No offense to the Australians here, but I'm glad I'll never set foot on your misbegotten country.

Funny how "no offense" works, ain't it?

1) Why are term limits a panacea? Do you really think either party couldn't find somebody to fill the seat and continue to support exactly the same policies?

2) We already have a mechanism for keeping the majority in check. It's called an election. A filibuster, whatever its origins, has become an act of cowardice and asinine petulance: "I'm gonna keep you from doing your job even though the voters clearly like you better, so there!"

I don't recall ever saying that term limits were a panacea, but I think they are a crucial component of changing the partisan two-party sham that has entrenched itself in Washington. There are numerous advantage to term limits, but I don't think this is the time and place to go through them. To address your question, tho, there is no guarantee that the new guy is going to be any different, but when you have the same guy in office for *decades* (which is a distinct advantage during an election) there is no chance for anything different. If it works for presidents, why not congressmen?

As for the filibuster, you do realize that all democratic elections are based on a majority vote right? Are you seriously going to argue that if 51% of the voting population elect someone to office the other 49% should shut the hell up and let the majority do whatever they want? I sure don't want to live in your democratic utopia, my friend. My home state (Wyoming) has exactly 3 congressmen- should we just call Nancy Pelosi and the other 54 congressmen from California and let them decide what our taxes should be? Wyoming's unemployment rate is 2.5% below the national average (4.9% below CA) and we had a $900 million budget *surplus* in 2009. The best thing the majority in Washington could do for us is leave us the fuck alone.

Yes, I do, yes, I am, and yes, they should. That's what democracy is. That's how democracy works. We have a slate of options, we all vote, and whichever option gets the most votes (whether as direct referenda or through the medium of congressional elections) wins. If it turns out to be a bad idea, then we vote for something else the next time the cycle comes around. But nobody gets to derail the cycle. Nobody gets to stand up and say, "My vote is more important than anybody else's." That's what a filibuster is. It's one group of people trying to disenfranchise everybody else.

I'm glad things are going so swimmingly in Wyoming. But last I checked, Wyoming was just one of fifty states in the union, and being "left the fuck alone" is not an option. Unless, of course, you want to secede. Eleven states tried that before. It didn't work out well for them.

Well then I'm sure glad I live in a constitutional republic with representative democracy, and not the nightmare of direct democracy you seem to favor.

The definition of which of these two includes "minority opinions should have the same weight as the majority of voters"? As Tanegar said, accepting the majority's vote even if it runs contrary to one's own beliefs is the core of democracy. Someone like Dankwalther, who is doing everything to sabotage the winners out of sheer spite, is great in SR because it means lots of work for runners opportunity for runners, but IRL it is just childish.

Anyone else see this quote?

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, long an opponent of the law, said, "For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process."


How long until corporations get to vote?

I didn't say that minority opinions should have equal weight. But in the US the minority still have a right to representation and I do think they should have some recourse from a majority rolling over them. Democracy is not about silencing all opposition or imposing your will on everyone that disagrees. Its about competing ideas, and that doesn't end for 2, 4, or 6 years when one side wins an election. Whether you gentlemen like it or not, the US government is designed such that the minority still has a voice, and I sure appreciate that.

And what's childish is oblique insults on an internet message board (and thats two now).

Pure democracy is a nightmare. Even aside from the well-documented stupidity of humans in large groups, what's to stop the majority from simply voting away the minority's right to vote next time? That way madness lies. There is too much of a history in this world of the majority using its power to screw the little guy, and I think a little protection from political thuggery isn't too much to ask.

Welcome to Dumpshock, Rystefn. I can already see we're lucky to have you.

Thanks. I do what I can.

QFT



Oddly enough, the way the current institution is set up, and playing out, the little guy is screwing the ability of the majority to make a change which is objectively a good one, for no reason other than spite.

Rystefn: Because you're new I should point that political discussions like this aren't really allowed on these boards (even though this one is pretty tame thus far). Don't let this be an example.

Mostly because politics results in flames. Odd that we can keep ourselves mostly in check here, but when it comes to the ability to decide on a choice we start hurling insults.

Yeah most of the really heated debates I've seen around here were about the game.

At any rate, we should probably get back on topic...

Actually, you're living in exactly the kind of democracy that I favor. You're right, it's about competing ideas: whichever side has the majority gets to implement its ideas. The minority doesn't get to stymie them out of childish spite, which is what is happening and has happened consistently in relatively recent history (since approximately the 1970s, I think). I think you're kidding yourself if you think filibusters today are in any way connected with principle, political or otherwise. They're a way to stop the opposition from doing the job(s) they were elected to do, and that's not right.

Hmmm...constitutions?

And like I said, most of the world has never even heard of filibusters and it still seems to work

Not without the minority. Thats the whole point. If the majority wants to advance its agenda, they need to move to the middle.

Thats funny, when I presented the idea of a constitutional republic you seemed to argue that did not entitle the minority to a voice. So which is it?

In other words, opinions of minority and majority have the same weight, which means nothing else than giving more power per vote to the minority. And if every fringe group (I mean, there's alway more than one minority opinion) has to agree and is given equal weight no matter how neglectible their voter turnout is, what's the point of elections anyway?


I said that the minority is not entitled to have the legislative power of the majority, not that the minority is to be deprived of all constitutional rights.

By the by, not Shadowrun-related at all, but having seen the original post, how many people here wrote to their representatives?

If you don't vote, you don't get a say, majority or otherwise.

Yes, without the minority. The ideology that won the election is, ipso facto, the ideology that most people prefer and want to see implemented. So it gets implemented. The minority has already been heard: they voted against it, and lost. They don't get another bite at the apple until the next election. Correct me if I'm misapprehending you, but you seem to be saying that the minority has the right to sabotage the workings of the government every time the majority tries to do something they don't like. This leads inevitably to paralysis and the inability of government to do anything at all.

On a tangentially related note, I think it would be interesting to know how many federally funded projects there are in Wyoming and their impact on the state's economy. In other words, how much of that $900M surplus was subsidized by the Federal government?

That's not a pure democracy, then, is it? Luckily, there's no such thing. Not on any real scale.

Oh, and even if you did vote, odds are, your vote didn't matter anyway.Most elections are essentially a foregone conclusion, and counting the votes is really just a formality. If you live in a place where it's close enough that a handful of voters actually matters one way or the other, then good for you. Sadly, most of us just don't.

Not that much from my understanding, much of the incoming investment originates from energy companies. While the oil drilling may have ground to a near halt, they still employ a lot of people to maintain the wells already open. And with the I-80 corridor (the entire southern edge of wyoming, which interstate 80 follows) being one of the best locations in north america for wind energy, and the permitting process so short (time from declaration of interest to turbine built and operational, 2 years if they drag their feet, permitting is done well before they begin construction), the state is raking in fees and taxes on wind turbines that are sprouting like dandelions.
I really don't know about the state budget currently, we're still on a "keep spending to a bare minimum!" at work.


Method, where you from?

McCarthyism.

I believe that a 49% minority and a 51% majority should have 49% of the representatives being of the minority and 51% of the representatives being of the majority.

If they can't get at least 60 percent of the total group to agree, they can sit on it.

If they agree, good for them. Make it a law.

If it's something minor like changing their coffee break from 15 minutes to 20 minutes, make it 50%.
Something decent such as their lunch budget should be a two thirds vote.
If it's a significant thing like socializing health care, it should be 3/4 of the total pool.
If it's instating a religious practice as law, it should be an all or nothing job.

Politics is just a red herring anyway.

You're never going to get 49 zebras and 51 lions to agree on what to have for lunch. Which is about how the senate works.

Just so you know, the senate is "60 votes to pass a bill" it's 51. But you can't even call the fucking vote unless you can get everyone to shut the fuck up, which takes 60.

Oh, and to filibuster today you don't even need to stand up and talk, all you need to do is file a small notice saying that you don't like the bill and you will filibuster against it.

Well that's just asinine.