The Doors to Hell are Now Open

Tea Money (4.00 / 1)

Remember everyone's shock as Obama's small donor fundraising rocketed up?

Anyone want to wager where the "Tea Money" goes? And grows?

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 16:40:40 PM UTC

Say... (0.00 / 0)

aren't they the ones who are against "activist judges legislating from the bench"? Hmmm...

November 2012
Hope for a return to sanity.

---

by: GreyMike @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 16:45:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you want to believe. (0.00 / 0)

If you want to believe that there's a direct relationship between number of advertising dollars spent by corporation and the number of votes cast by citizens, go ahead.  I'm going to continue to suggest that the critical point is the candidate selection process at the front end and whether or not the candidates are honest in their commitment to follow the directives of the Constitution and promote the general welfare.

The effective self-selection of Martha Coakley did not turn out well.  Although we are enthusiastic about former prosecutors Leahy and Whitehouse and Kerry in the Senate, it seems the position of prosecutor enhances an authoritarian streak, if there's one present, which may interfere with promoting the general welfare, regardless of political party affiliation.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 17:38:39 PM UTC

It isn't a question of "believe." (4.00 / 3)

Advertising works. There is plenty of empirical evidence to prove that.

If you want to believe that you can displace Coca Cola while spending a millionth of their budget, go right ahead.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 17:53:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely. (4.00 / 2)

If spending money on marketing anything (including messages and images) didn't work, guys like Frank Luntz would have been out of business long ago. The skill is in doing it without looking like you're doing it, so that the intended audience truly believes that they already agree with what you are telling them (including fear). That skill costs money, and corporate interests are all too happy to pay.

November 2012
Hope for a return to sanity.

---

by: GreyMike @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 18:04:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah, yes, that's why all our national manufacturing (0.00 / 0)

corporations are enjoying such great success.  
The reality is that while our corporate giants were looking to Washington to protect their markets, their access to resources and their exclusive patents, international talent provided higher quality and better service.
Corporate America, not just the industrial, military and health care sectors, has its hand out for subsidies.  That the people who handle the money couldn't manage their assets either is just the straw that broke the whole "free enterprise" schtick.  

---

by: hannah @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 20:21:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You misunderstand "direct relationship." (0.00 / 0)

That doesn't mean advertising is sufficient all by itself to succeed - in either business or politics.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 20:41:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and don't leave out soon to be Senator Paul Hodes (4.00 / 1)

who worked as a Prosecutor in David Souter's NH AG office. He prosecuted the first case of 'white collar' criminals in NH.

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. ~ Mark Twain

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 18:33:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A big question - (4.00 / 1)

SCOTUS says that (for example) Aetna can spend a hundred million on ads for John McCain.

But, Aetna's management is legally obliged to act in the financial interest of its shareholders.

Does the CEO of Aetna risk a civil or even criminal penalty if it can be proven in court, that the causes he spent corporation money on benefited management but not shareholders?

They can argue that giving to United Way improves the company image and results in more sales. Running teabagger ads isn't in that category....

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 18:00:06 PM UTC

Adding - (4.00 / 2)

The state is free to, even required to, regulate Glaxo's ads that claim "The side effects from EudorMax are trivial compared to its benefits!" The state can block those ads.

But the state cannot block an ad in which Glaxo says the benefits of electing John Doe are obvious and tremendous.

SCOTUS protects their ability to make claims in areas where they have no special expertise - and restricts them where they do.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 18:20:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Laughing through my tears on that one. n/t (0.00 / 0)

Social Media Director for Jackie Cilley for Governor. Follow her on Twitter & Facebook!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 23:19:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting angle... n/t (0.00 / 0)

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 18:56:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Going further - (0.00 / 0)

A public corporation, owned by shareholders and registered as a profit-seeking company, cannot spend money to utter anything EXCEPT "commercial speech." (So I tentatively claim.)

We can create a non-public corporation to support a candidate, and not be subject to those rules. But I tentatively think this ruling does not open the door to NYSE / NASDAQ corporations to run political ads.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 20:04:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The hell it isn't. (0.00 / 0)

They can simply tell the truth: spending to support certain candidates and issues, and to oppose others, helps to prevent increases in regulation and consequent decreases in profits.

---

by: Tim C. @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 19:44:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"In that category" (0.00 / 0)

I said, such an ad isn't in the same category as donating to the United Way or sponsoring Masterpiece Theater. I stand by that.

You're saying it may nonetheless be legally defensible. Yes; but that wasn't my point.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 20:00:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disclosure (4.00 / 3)

This decision means that we have to turn toward better disclosure, and also enforcement of the laws regarding non-profits and political activity.    



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 18:35:26 PM UTC

I would emphatically (4.00 / 2)

include churches in the category of disclosure and enforcement.

The Diocese of Portland, ME had special collections to make sure gay people couldn't get married. If they want to play politics, they can pay taxes.  

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 18:56:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

All non-profits that engage in any type of electioneering should have to disclose. (4.00 / 1)

many of them are abusing their non- profit tax status.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 19:21:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For-profits, too (4.00 / 1)

They are abusing their own tax status if they claim ideological spending is a legitimate cost of business.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 20:42:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Trying to sort this all out but my first reaction... (0.00 / 0)

is tbat we must IMMEDIATELY pass state and federal legislation insisting on timely and complete public disclosure of all monies spent on any activity towards the support or defeat of any candidate or political measure by any person, business or group. Everyone period.

Yet another reason to be furious over the 2000 election...

Have you told a stranger today about Bill O'Brien and his Tea Party agenda? The people of NH deserve to hear about O'Brien  and his majority committed to destroying New Hampshire and remaking it into a armed survivalist preserve.  

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 21:01:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, but (4.00 / 2)

this country just isn't working out.  As long as we either cling to an 18th century document without understanding that its interpretation changes with time or refuse to revise parts thereof, we're going to keep running up against stuff like this.  And coupling this with things like a legal body that can't accomplish anything by a majority vote, means that we just keep running in circles getting nothing done.  Something's got to give, and unfortunately, it looks like it might be democracy.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 19:12:40 PM UTC

Or our structure of democracy (4.00 / 1)

No other democracy in the world looks like ours. Maybe we should start asking ourselves why...

because who is to doubt the American Way is not the way?

---

by: peacekeeper @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 19:30:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't blame the 18th century - (4.00 / 1)

The problem is the re-interpretation of the Constitution to cover corporations, originally in the 1886 Santa Clara case.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 20:45:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]