Best week ever? [Archive] - Richard Bey's Message Board

Datalapper

01-22-2010, 09:20 PM

January is usually the doldrums for me, but this has already been like the Best Week Ever:
...I am *so* buying a lottery ticket on my way home.You forgot to mention the near 600 point drop in the three days (http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1264194000000&chddm=1955&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=INDEXDJX:.DJI&ntsp=0) since Scott Brown's "Mass. Revolt" ;)
One would think that with Obamacare seemingly derailed and you & your fellow money=speech proponents vindicated (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Major-Supreme-Court-Ruling-on-Campaign-Finance-82288007.html) by those 5 *unelected lawyers* (™M.Levin) in the latest SCotUS decision that the market would react favorably to greater influence wielding by corporations.
Go figure.
& it looks like John Stewart got suckered again by following that 'truth' prognosticator Jim Cramer (http://www.politicususa.com/en/Cramer-Brown-Stewart) and his Election Day musings...

On Election Day Cramer said, “A Scott Brown victory is one of those things that will send markets up, that’s the truth.” That 'truthy' nugget was predated by last week's signaling of the demise of the 'Pelosi Politburo' and the wonderous pro-business age that will soon be dawning...

“More important, though, I think that investors who are nervous about the dictatorship of the Pelosi proletariat will feel at ease, and we could have a gigantic rally off a Coakley loss and a Brown win.
It will be a signal that a more pro-business, less pro-labor government could be in front of us...How about a little bit less like the old Soviet Union? Yeah, that would be a bit more like it. Pelosi politburo emasculation!”I think Cramer's a little confused about his Cold War USSR metaphors.
'proletariat dictatorship'? WTF.

And WTF is with Cramer ascribing male genitalia to female Democratic politicians? Usually that's a Rush Limbaugh thing, like Hillary and her testicle-lockbox...

As for the 'gigantic rally' spawned by the Coakley trouncing...
I guess that magical invisible market moving hand just slapped Cramer upside the head. Again!:D

bazzer

01-22-2010, 09:58 PM

Cramer is an idiot. Unlike him, I didn't view the Mass race in terms of the DJIA, and I wouldn't even know how to interpret it thus. I suppose the "pro-Brown" interpretation might be "buy the rumor, sell the news." OTOH, maybe unionguy's right, and the market's bemoaning the loss of a massive giveaway to the health care sector.

Or, these could all be wrong and it's just the fallout from a shitty earnings season. ;)

johnr

01-23-2010, 12:53 AM

January is usually the doldrums for me, but this has already been like the Best Week Ever:

* A Republican gets elected to Ted Kennedy's old seat
* The Democrats' supermajority is ended
* The current version of health care reform is effectively dead
* Air America goes silent
* The Supreme Court guts McCain-Feingold
* The Copenhagen accord on climate change is collapsing (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/science/earth/21climate.html)

I am *so* buying a lottery ticket on my way home.

Good, Your getting your "Jollies" Bazz~ this must be the post of the Year.:eek:

But, you missed Haiti,it must have slipped between the cracks.:rolleyes:

Your great,great,great grandfather must have been p#@%%$^##&%^^d when Galileo was proved correct.:cool::rolleyes:

PS: That post, must make you a honourary Tea-Bagger of the month Of January, Bazz!!!!

bazzer

01-23-2010, 02:00 AM

Your great,great,great grandfather must have been p#@%%$^##&%^^d when Galileo was proved correct.

Jesus, how old do you think I am?!

Richard Bey

01-23-2010, 02:15 AM

And Sarah Palin was hired by FoxNews.

And corporations were given EVEN MORE power over our political process!!

Oh, lucky, wonderful month!!

johnr

01-24-2010, 03:07 AM

McDonalds corp is a reckless, godless, capitalist pig of a company, but those Mac snack wraps are sure yummy. CRB is right, life is good. :D

Yes UGuy,but the shares are doing well ~ I just bought a slug the other day.;):rolleyes:

In the Times today, it says most Union workers are now employed by the Government,It shows that USA heavy industry, is going down the tubes in favour of foreign stuff,`a disaster for the future.:eek:

Bart Lidofsky

01-24-2010, 04:31 AM

January is usually the doldrums for me, but this has already been like the Best Week Ever:
* Air America goes silent

I hope Ron Kuby finds a venue somewhere. Maybe Rich can be his conservative counterpart in a team-up.

Richard Bey

01-24-2010, 01:29 PM

Bart, Frank has become an astute and educated debater. We spent about an hour yesterday going back and forth over Tarp, government programs, education, the wars in the ME, auto bailouts etc. and he gave as good as he got! There was no namecalling or snarky innuendos just facts and opinionated deductions derived from facts. I don't think either of us was trying to win. We just wanted to expose the other to our strongest argument...Eventually my voice started to give out because I'm getting over the flu but it was fun, entertaining, informative and I was touched and influenced by some of his arguments.

How about Captain Frank and Radical Richard? Or Air Force Urbanic and Bolshevik Bey? lol

PeteE

01-24-2010, 03:54 PM

And corporations were given EVEN MORE power over our political process!!

Thus said the Court, Chief Roberts said
Let my corporates go
If not, I'll smite your first-born dead
Let my corporates go

bazzer

01-24-2010, 05:24 PM

This is an excerpt from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion that I found compelling:

"The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions.
Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit
advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or
defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications
within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election.

Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under
§441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days
before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a
Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle
Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the
challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban;
and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the
public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.…"

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems pretty hard to argue with.

PeteE

01-24-2010, 05:27 PM

If corporations do not have free speech rights like individuals, is it okay for the government to censor the New York Times' editorial page? If not, why not?

I believe that, under McCain-Feingold, the New York Times was subject to the same limitations that other corporations.

Corporations could make their views known under McCain-Feingold. There was no censoring, just limitations on types and timing of advertising.

What happened prior to McCain-Feingold is that a mysterious group could flood the airwaves just days before an election. After the election, one could figure out that "Farmers for Fairness" was really Tyson Food, but then the election was over.

PeteE

01-24-2010, 05:33 PM

This is an excerpt from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion that I found compelling:

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems pretty hard to argue with.

I personally think that the 30/60 day rule was harsh. I do, however, believe that a 10 day rule allows for some verification and scrutiny. Otherwise, a company with a lot of money can flood the airwaves with lies just prior to an election and there would be no opportunity for response. (And the benefitting candidate could just deny responsibility as it didn't come from his campaign. It all could be a mystery where these ads have come from.)

PeteE

01-24-2010, 05:40 PM

Happy Days are Here Again!

Saturday, March 4, 2000

Bush denies ad attacking McCain on environment

by Mark Sherman, Jena Heath, Cox Washington Bureau

Ads in New York and elsewhere sponsored by the campaign of George W. Bush and his supporters are "the worst kind of American politics," John McCain said Friday.

Four days before the Republican primary in New York, McCain faced a barrage of attack ads in a key state that polls show is up for grabs. Republicans also will vote Tuesday in contests in California, Georgia, Ohio and nine other states.

McCain objected to one television ad in particular that is being aired by a previously unknown group called Republicans for Clean Air. The organization is spending $ 2 million --- according to records compiled by the McCain campaign --- in New York, Ohio and California to criticize McCain's record on the environment and praise Bush's.

"To have undisclosed a couple of million dollars coming into a campaign that's very close without knowing who's behind it and what it's all about is the worst kind of American politics. It just reinforces my zeal for campaign finance reform," McCain said.

His campaign tried to rebut the ad by bringing to New York the leader of a 5-year-old Republican group that has endorsed McCain. Martha Marks, a Lake County, Ill., commissioner and president of Republicans for Environmental Protection, said McCain's environmental record is far from sterling, but it is better than Bush's. "His environmental record in Texas is flat out lousy," Marks said.

The new organization running the anti-McCain ad is headed by Sam Wyly, a wealthy Dallas investor who with his brother, Charles Wyly, has given Bush more than $ 200,000 for his campaigns for governor in 1994 and 1998. Sam Wyly runs Maverick Capital Fund, an investment fund.

Bush denied any involvement with the ads Friday.

"I don't know who funded those ads," he said prior to being told that Wyly acknowledged heading Republicans for Clean Air.

"There is no connection between my campaign and this ad," he repeated. "We had no knowledge whatsoever that Sam Wyly was going to run this ad."

bazzer

01-24-2010, 06:34 PM

Otherwise, a company with a lot of money can flood the airwaves with lies just prior to an election...

You mean like CBS did on "60 Minutes" with those forged TANG documents? I'll admit it was pretty sleazy, but do you really feel comfortable filing criminal charges against them? :confused:

bazzer

01-24-2010, 06:55 PM

Happy Days are Here Again!

PE, I get the fact that you don't like the Sam Wily ad. As a die-hard McCainiac in 2000, believe me when I say I don't like it either. But don't you think there's a baby/bathwater issue here? One that McCain-Feingold ran afoul of?

PeteE

01-24-2010, 10:21 PM

PE, I get the fact that you don't like the Sam Wily ad. As a die-hard McCainiac in 2000, believe me when I say I don't like it either. But don't you think there's a baby/bathwater issue here? One that McCain-Feingold ran afoul of?

I think the 30/60 day restrictions are excessive. Beyond that, I think that there are differences between the Wiley ad and a CBS report. First, the Wiley ads were on all the channels and, second, no one had any idea where the Wiley ads were coming from until after the fact. At least with CBS, you knew who was reporting the information.

Datalapper

01-24-2010, 11:09 PM

You mean like CBS did on "60 Minutes" with those forged TANG documents? I'll admit it was pretty sleazy, but do you really feel comfortable filing criminal charges against them? :confused:I thought there are numerous federal statutes that address the criminality of the forging of government documents, (esp. military records). Why weren't any criminal charges filed? Or were Dan Rather's head & career on a platter sufficient retribution? Then again, I've heard that it was the Whitehouse (KarlRove & Co.) who were the actual producers and original source of the TANG forgeries.

It's not like the previous administration ever had any qualms about fabricating falsehoods to bolster, or reinforce their pre-determined agenda; whether it was Saddam & Al Qaeda conspiring (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12308.html) on the 9/11 attacks; or pressuring the FBI to produce a memo falsely linking the anthrax attacks (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2008/08/02/2008-08-02_fbi_was_told_to_blame_anthrax_scare_on_a.html) to AlQaeda.
Given Rove's previously sleazy campaign dirty tricks history, I certainly wouldn't rule out that he totally punked CBS & Rather with a juicy TANG tidbit at the very same time Kerry was being Swiftboated all across the airwaves.

As for corporations and their inherent right to unlimited, unfettered free speech with regards to no-holds barred electioneering; I think this ruling does nothing but open up a whole new can of worms.

What constitutes a 'corporation' under this new ruling? Only wholly-owned AMERICAN 'corporations'?
What about multinationals?
What about corporations owned by foreign nationals, or foreign governments?
What about 'US companies' that are 'headquartered' in a Cayman Island post office box and pay no US corporate taxes?
Hell, even 19 year old Bristol Palin is a corporation now. Can special interest groups now funnel tons of money into her 'corporation' (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Bristol-Palin-to-give-political-advice-No-really-81262972.html) to be used for unlimited commercials that Bristol Palin, as an individual citizen would be constrained to a mere $2400 maximum contribution to a candidate??
Inquiring minds want to know.

More questions than answers here, IMO.
And Bazz, as for your NRA/Sierra club scenarios, they are very good examples that I really don't have an answer to.
IMO, It's really hard to draw a hard line in a shifting-sand landscape. When our whole world has become so blurred and the way we communicate has changed so radically.
Even before the ruling, what would define banned speech? Just radio ads, or TV commercials on Fox/MSNBC?
What if you decide to release the very same content on a Kindle?, or as an iPhone app that will keep you updated daily on the latest *news* from *Farmers for Fairness* :confused:

As for Foxnews itself, although the Australian Murdoch did become a US citizen (if only to satisfy the rule to allow him own TV stations here); one can't say the same for the Saudi prince who is the second-largest stakeholder in the NewsCorp conglomerate. And he is now looking to embed himself even further (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/01/17/financial/f015126S24.DTL) into the FoxNews empire.
Even though the prince is and will always be a foreign national, what can stop him from use his corporate leverage to influence US politics to his own personal benefit?

Richard Bey

01-24-2010, 11:24 PM

Television ads are commercial advertising. The FCC imposes regulations and restrictions upon broadcasters regarding advertisers in many different areas: from types of services and products to certification that their advertising contracts require advertisers are not making advertising decisions based on the race or gender of the audience of the broadcast station.

As far as I'm concerned, the real problem to democracy is television advertising (to a far lesser extent radio). It is the pervasive nature of television, the 5 hour a day viewing habits of Americans and the puerile, simplistic (and often inaccurate) nature of 30 second spots, their cost and their effect that distort the system. Why should the most important decisions of democracy rely so heavily on the mechanism that sells hamburgers and vaginal douche? I also find the foundational logic that money=speech and corporation=individual repellent as well as ridiculous, but that's another matter.

I think they should ban all political ads and require broadcasters to furnish free time to the candidates to speak directly to viewers during election years as a license requirement. The FCC now regulates and even bans types of advertising based upon its effect upon the public good. Why can't the same argument be made about political advertising? Has anyone seen a 30 second ad that actually makes a citizen a better voter? Its gone downhill since the little girl plucked a daisy causing an atom bomb to explode because Goldwater was elected...or something like that.

Tangentially related to this, I recently saw the LINCOLN IN NY exhibit at the NY Historical Society. Horace Greeley was the publisher of the most powerful newspaper in NY and although Seward, the NY senator was the clear favorite for the Republican nomination Greeley was certain that a radical abolitionist from a Northeastern state would never win the national election. He was backing Edward Bates of Missouri, at the time a border state. When Lincoln made his speech in NY at Cooper-Union Greeley jumped to his support as he was the only candidate that he thought could carry Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and the new Western states. Greeley, it seemed to me, made Lincoln's candidacy and election plausible. Now at the time there were 175 papers in NYC but Greeley's paper, THE TRIBUNE had such influence that it actually successfully pressured the Lincoln administration to make military and political decisions (many of them not good ones). Greeley, himself ran for the presidency later but lost. Whether you want to see this as related to Obama's TV hyped speech making his presidency or the ability of FoxNews to actually sway news rather than report it probably relies upon your political opinions...but history may not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme!

Datalapper

01-25-2010, 12:19 AM

McCain objected to one television ad in particular that is being aired by a previously unknown group called Republicans for Clean Air. The organization is spending $2million --- according to records compiled by the McCain campaign --- in New York, Ohio and California to criticize McCain's record on the environment and praise Bush's.

"To have undisclosed a couple of million dollars coming into a campaign that's very close without knowing who's behind it and what it's all about is the worst kind of American politics. It just reinforces my zeal for campaign finance reform," McCain said.I just find it hard to take McCain seriously when it comes to this issue. It seems that while he's all about 'reform' and making rules, he feels they just don't apply to him. Like using lobbyists' (and his wife's corporation's) jets to shuttle him around the campaign trail in '08.
And forget about my earlier question about what constitutes an American, or foreign owned corporation; McCain couldn't even stay on the right side of the 40 year old law banning foreign individuals from participating in the financing of our politics.
He had no problem threatening to "Beat Al Gore like a drum (http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=72222&keyword=integrity&phrase=&contain=)" over the Buddhist monk thing, but in his latest run at the Presidency had a $2300/plate LUNCHEON held for himself in London?!?
He tries to brush it off by saying his whole trip was "non-political" and that his campaign was paying for all his hotel & airfare. So where did all this money go to? In my book, a hundred guests = almost a quarter million dollars.
I know his wife controls the purse strings in the family and he has to squeak by on his Navy pension and Social Security checks, but c'mon....
The freakin lunch invites all said JohnMcCain.com on them.

McCain London fundraiser raises issues about illegal foreign donations

Presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain has raised suspicions that he is either skirting or violating federal campaign laws that prohibit candidates from accepting donations, cash or "in-kind" from foreign interests.

Tomorrow, McCain will be feted at a campaign luncheon at London's swank Spencer House at St. James's Place by Lord Jacob Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild. The invitation sent out to prospective attendees clearly lists McCain's campaign web site www.johnmccain.com (http://www.johnmccain.com).

.... the event in London sponsored by the Rothschilds is clearly a campaign event with attendees being required to fork over between $1000 and $2300 to lunch with McCain. McCain's campaign insists that it is paying for McCain's flight back to the United States from London and his London hotel room.

What McCain's campaign will not address is the provision of Spencer House by the Rothschilds and the groundwork undertaken by the wealthy and influential family to plan the event as "in kind" donation to McCain from foreign sources -- acts which are specifically prohibited by federal election law. -full article (http://watchmanwhatofthenight.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1668045%3ABlogPost%3A8301)http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/custom/Mcainlondon%281%29.jpg

Richard Bey

01-25-2010, 01:57 AM

In the UK all paid political advertising is prohibited from television and radio broadcast since the Television Act 1954 created commercial television.

Some of the reasons stated by Parliament are: (1) Broadcasting was a particularly powerful and pervasive medium and impartiality was of fundamental importance. (2) Without the prohibition there would be an unacceptable danger that the agenda of political debate would be unfairly distorted in favour of the views held by those wealthy enough to spend most on broadcast advertising. Those with a different point of view would either have to find rich backers to pay for equal time, or allow the case to go unanswered. (3) The prohibition applied to all political advertising, irrespective of content. There was no discrimination by reference to content of the message.

The Brits felt a need to preserve the integrity of the democratic process in the public interest. And maybe because of their tradition of generational hiarchical wealth there was an understanding that money is property, not speech.

But of course they also have no First Amendment, nor do they have a Supreme Court heavily laden with corporatist supporters who conceal their bias within that amendment. The case the court was judging was not directly related to corporate financing of campaign commercials...it could have been decided narrowly as to whether the anti-Hillary movie qualified as a commercial. The conservative justices asked questions that broadened the case and the US attorney foolishly opened the door for them to change a century of precedent.

Talk about 'activist judges'! I would actually listen to Mark Levin to hear him BS his way around this act of radical judicial activism subverting the legislative branch and through it the will of the people...

Richard Bey

01-25-2010, 02:08 AM

A differing persuasive opinion from Justice Stevens:

The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it. Austin set forth some of the basic differences. Unlike natural persons, corporations have "limited liability" for their owners and managers, "perpetual life," separation of ownership and control, "and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets . . . that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return on their shareholders’ investments."

The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind. While individuals might join together to exercise their speech rights, business corporations, at least, were plainly not seen as facilitating such associational or expressive ends. Even "the notion that business corporations could invoke the First Amendment would probably have been quite a novelty,"given that "at the time, the legitimacy of every corporate activity was thought to rest entirely in a concession of the sovereign."

------------- ============ -------------

In light of these background practices and understandings, it seems to me implausible that the Framers believed "the freedom of speech" would extend equally to all corporate speakers, much less that it would preclude legislatures from taking limited measures to guard against corporate capture of elections.

Gelatinous Cube

01-27-2010, 03:14 PM

A differing persuasive opinion from Justice Stevens: *** SNIP ***

The problem with this "opinion" is that it overlooks Unions. To barrow from what Justice Stevens wrote but with another twist, "Unions are different from union members". Point is, Unions have a lot of money and clout that they get from the money they collect from union memebers. Those same members may have differing views then the leadership when it comes to endorsing candidates. However, the members are forced to submit their union dues regardless. Same argument could be used for the Corporation except the Corporation does not collect "dues" from it's workforce. What this ruling does is bring in line and level the playing field for both unions AND corporations.

Richard Bey

01-27-2010, 05:56 PM

How does it level the playing field between corporations and unions?

The ruling applies to both. Both were restricted prior to the decision.

Datalapper

01-28-2010, 01:29 AM

Point is, Unions have a lot of money and clout that they get from the money they collect from union members. Those same members may have differing views then the leadership when it comes to endorsing candidates. However, the members are forced to submit their union dues regardless.They may be 'forced to submit their union dues', but the law has been for almost 20 years ago that members' 'forced' dues cannot be used for any direct campaigning for or against any particular candidates; and that workers who pay union dues, but who do not want to actually join the union can be reimbursed for all the dues money not directly related to collective bargaining costs.
Back in '97 corporations were outspending unions (funded only by their members' VOLUNTARY contributions) 10 to 1.
And in the last 10 years, union membership in the private sector has dropped from about 10% in 2000, to just 8% last year.

I fail to see the unchecked 'clout' of big labor considering the ever-shrinking ranks of the union-affiliated. Unless 'less is more'? Less members + stagnant wages=more influence?? Doesn't add up for me.
Union affiliation data from the Current Population Survey

Series title: (unadj)- Percent of employed, Private wage and salary workers, Represented by unions:
2000 -9.8
2001 -9.7
2002 -9.3
2003 -9.0
2004 -8.6
2005 -8.5
2006 -8.1
2007 -8.2
2008 -8.4
2009 -8.0 Source: US BLS. (http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpslutab3.htm#union3.f.2)What about non-union corporate employees? Or corporate shareholders? What about their rights to not have corporate money spent on issues or candidates they disagree with?
Money that could have been used to increase their wages, or their stock dividends.
Why does the 'paycheck protection' crowd single out only union members as those people in need of their *protection*?
Especially since they already ARE protected.

It is misleading to brand labor unions’ use of member dues for political purposes as "compelled speech." The law is clear that no worker in the U.S. can be required to pay for any union expenses other than those associated with collective bargaining, grievance adjustment and contract administration. Workers are free to join or not join unions. Those who choose to become union members are in the exact same position as members of the NRA or U.S. Chamber of Commerce who may disagree with their organization’s political choices. But no one has called for legislation to protect members of these groups from "compelled speech." www.citizen.org (http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=451)'Dues checkoff' is so 1970's. If I want to voluntarily contribute to my union's PAC, it is a decision I have to personally take action to do. & If I go to a closed (to the public), members-only union meeting and my elected union representatives tell me which candidates they feel will be most sympathetic or actionable towards my best interests as a union member, then IMO they are just doing the job they were elected to do. To represent me, my family's and my fellow members' interests.
If I happen to have differing ideological views from the official 'party line', no one can tell me who I have to vote for.

marie from yonkers

01-28-2010, 05:55 AM

I have to agree.

Gelatinous Cube

01-29-2010, 12:03 AM

What about non-union corporate employees? Or corporate shareholders? What about their rights to not have corporate money spent on issues or candidates they disagree with?

This ruling doesn't remove the ban on Corporations supporting candidates. They can condemn a candidate, but not support it. While your point about issues is true, it should not matter. As a stakeholder, you expect the corporation to promote what is best for the corporation, because it benefits the stakeholder. If you don't believe their position, you can sell your shares. I couldn't get out of my union.

I understand you point about unions not being allowed to directly spend your money on politics, but it does happen indirectly. My union (when I was a teacher) spent money on politics and I couldn't get any of my money back, because it wasn't label politics.

You are also looking only at unions vs. corporations, rather than corporations vs. PACs and other groups.

Back in '97 corporations were outspending unions (funded only by their members' VOLUNTARY contributions) 10 to 1.
And in the last 10 years, union membership in the private sector has dropped from about 10% in 2000, to just 8% last year.

I fail to see the unchecked 'clout' of big labor considering the ever-shrinking ranks of the union-affiliated. Unless 'less is more'? Less members + stagnant wages=more influence?? Doesn't add up for me.

True, but if I recall that study correctly, it looked at all lobbying, not just advertising. Basically, it's an Apples to Oranges comparison with regards to the SC decision to allow corporations to run ads.

Bart Lidofsky

01-29-2010, 12:36 AM

To point out the obvious:

Corporations are not people.

That is too often forgotten; corporations have become the adult version of the childhood imaginary friend, notably when the child blames his or her own wrongdoing on the imaginary friend.

The question is not whether or not corporations can make political contributions or make political ads. The question is whether or not the MANAGEMENT of the corporation can USE CORPORATE FUNDS to make political contributions or make political ads.

Gelatinous Cube

01-29-2010, 07:26 PM

As a FORMER union memeber, I am well aware of how my union contributed and DID GIVE ME AN OPT OUT OPTION. I was required to be a member of a union (so-called "right to work" state). I was required to pay 2 hours per month of my pay to the union. I could not ask (even though I did) for my union dues not be be spent on "PACs" or union endorsements. When I gave up my union membership....I was paying just north of $70 per month in dues. My union local was right around 20,000 strong. You do the math. At just 5% the amount of money just this local had to spend was pretty hefty. Let's be clear. The unions only expenses were for a few salaried staff people and upkeep on a union hall. All of the money (or at least that that did not go to the international union) was free to be spent however the union saw fit. Oh, and by the way, the union never once asked me what my opinion was on a candidate. Unions by and of their nature are in the pockets of only one party...and THAT IS NOT FREE SPEECH.

Richard Bey

01-29-2010, 09:06 PM

Do you think there is any cost to negotiation at all or do you think unions and management just agree on every advantage you got from collective bargaining?

Do you understand that the USSC decision you support just gave new political power to unions AS WELL AS corporations?

What would have been a fair percentage for you to pay considering you were receiving the benefits of collective bargaining without joining the union?

You say you were in 'a right to work' state but a right to work state DOES NOT require you to join a union for employment.

The NLRB ruled in January 1997 that unions must supply financial information to workers who pay dues but who have elected not to join a union so perhaps your issue was addressed 13 years ago. In fact, in 2007 the NLRB decided that you wouldn't even have to notify the union of your decision to decline the use of dues for political purposes. You only have to do it once in your entire working life. So your complaint seems to be addressed under current labor law.