Grayson: Fight now or ‘kiss your country goodbye’, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 75 times

Topic started on 22-1-2010 @ 08:49 AM by whaaa

rawstory.com...

Inaction will create 'Congressmen from Wal-Mart'

grayson Grayson: Fight now or kiss your country goodbyeWASHINGTON -- Responding to the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday to overturn corporate spending limits in federal elections, progressive firebrand Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) immediately highlighted a series of moves to "avoid the terrible consequences of the decision."

"If we do nothing then I think you can kiss your country goodbye," Grayson told Raw Story in an interview just hours after the decision was announced.

"You won't have any more senators from Kansas or Oregon, you'll have senators from Cheekies and Exxon. Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos like Nascar drivers."

Grayson said the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling -- which removes decades of campaign spending limits on corporations -- "opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law."

If ever there was a time when conservatives and the progressives sould get together, perhaps under the TPM banner, now is the time.

I doubt if it will happen. The ideological differences on other issues are just to great.

It't a brave new world; welcome to the monkey house.

"It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell elected officials through the campaign process," he said. "It allows them to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected officials who actually try to do what's right for the people."

Fearing this decision before it became official, Grayson last week filed five campaign finance bills and a sixth one on Thursday. Grayson said the bills are important to securing the people's "right to clean government."

The bills have names like the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act and the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act. The first slaps a 500 percent excise tax on corporate spending on elections, and the second mandates businesses to disclose their attempts to influence elections. More details are available on the congressman's Web site.

"These bills will save us from drowning in corporate money and special interest money," Grayson said. "They should have been passed a long time ago but after the Supreme Court opened those floodgates, I think it's imperative we get these things done."

Next the www. will be stritcly regulated and taxed. Mark my words!!

[edit on 22-1-2010 by whaaa]

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 09:02 AM by Dock9

reply to post by whaaa

Too important a topic and too good an OP to fall down the page

I don't live in the US, although what happens in the US seems to have tentacles that spread wide

Thanks for this info

and yes, we'll probably all look back and say to each other, 'Remember when internet was free. Gee, those were the days '

Will people refuse to pay to talk online, do you think ?

Nah ... they'll pay

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 09:06 AM by AllexxisF1

Anyone here like Ron Paul?

Well you can kiss him good bye.

Because sure as all hell you can expect the bankers and the military industrial complex will spend UNFATHOMABLE amount of money on his challenger.

They will run ads night and day, every minute of every day for months on end with their new pretty face puppet.

You like Dennis Kuchinich?

They will do the same to him.

You like a third party candidate ...don't even bother they are the first to be utterly destroyed.

Welcome to real Facism folks. The real deal.
Not some kooky conspiracy theory but actual Fascism.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by AllexxisF1]

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 09:07 AM by ChrisCrikey

Thanks for posting this, whaaa. Grayson doesn't mince his words and I'm glad people are beginning to see the big picture. I wonder if this is going to impact the 2010 elections? Are corporate candidates already in a flurry of activity or can this new law be acted upon immediately?

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 09:08 AM by DataWraith

Being in the UK , and loving the common person and common good, I can't help but feel that this isn't going to go anywhere as people are too lazy , too ignorant and simply too blind to understand that what happens somewhere else WILL eventually affect them.
This will go nowhere in the US as the people over there will simply be told " to disagree makes you unpatriotic , unAmerican and therefore a terrorist", and the people wil tow the line because they are too scared, hoping that someone else does the dirty work for them.

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 09:12 AM by defcon5

Lobbyists have been buying and selling the law for years before this happened. As long as folks are focusing on fixing this issue, you might as well try and get the lobbyists removed as well.

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 09:20 AM by AllexxisF1

Originally posted by defcon5
Lobbyists have been buying and selling the law for years before this happened. As long as folks are focusing on fixing this issue, you might as well try and get the lobbyists removed as well.

But Lobbyists and the corporation they represent have never been able to buy commercial ads for their candidate.

If they gave money to their pact that was severely restricted as well.

Moreover that money had to come from U.S. citizens.

Now Dubai, Russia hell even Iran can come in and literally run and pay for their own candidates.

People. You really need to get with the program on this one.

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 09:25 AM by mclarenmp4

I actually think the American elections prior to this ruling was bad enough for funding. To run a successful campaign for the presidency you have to raise millions to even be in with a shout, with this ruling it's just going to get worse.
I think the UK has it right in respect to this, election campaigns in the UK are funded by the party and the parties have a limit of £20m for their campaign. They also have to declare all donations above £5000 to the public.
This keeps funding election campaigns down to a minimum and it doesn't mean the party with the most funding will win, as is the case most of the time in the U.S.
I just read that the U.S election cost $5.3billion pounds, that is a staggering amount of money for what is really just a popularity contest.

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 09:45 AM by ItsallCrazy

reply to post by AllexxisF1

I understand the implications I really do.. but all they'll be able to do is run adverts and stick billboards up... if the American people would vote for a president who on his campaign advert has a little McDonalds or Starbucks sponsorship logo then they really deserve what they get!

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 10:03 AM by Zanti Misfit

reply to post by whaaa

What I would like to know , and maybe someone who understands how the Supreme Court of the United states works , is how could they have decided to Overule their previous stance on Campaign Spending ? What is their motivation for doing this ? Were some of their Members bribed to Amend it ? Isn't a 5 to 4 Ruling showing a lack of confidence that this was a Legal and Justifiable decision on their part as a whole ? Can we the People of the United States somehow through the " System " have the Supreme Court rethink this decison , and maybe amend it again ? Are there any Lawyers posting here who might possibly be able to shed some light on my questions ? ........

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 10:10 AM by AllexxisF1

Originally posted by ItsallCrazy
reply to post by AllexxisF1

I understand the implications I really do.. but all they'll be able to do is run adverts and stick billboards up... if the American people would vote for a president who on his campaign advert has a little McDonalds or Starbucks sponsorship logo then they really deserve what they get!

Did it ever occur to you that they would write it in the smallest print possible tucked in the corner somewhere.

Then eventually when their goons are in charge, change the law to say that no representation needs to be on the ad anymore period.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by AllexxisF1]

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 10:16 AM by Jazzyguy

reply to post by whaaa

I still don't quite understand the freedom of speech context when it comes to US corporations, but hell, I'm with this guy on this one.

Judge Stevens Decries Court's Corporate Turn

“The court's blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression,” Stevens wrote in his 90-page opinion.

However, I don't consider this to be a big blow. At least not yet. It's far from over.

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
Anyone here like Ron Paul?

Well you can kiss him good bye.

If I'm not mistaken Ron Paul is actually against McCain/Feingold since the very beginning.

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 10:18 AM by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by ItsallCrazy
reply to post by AllexxisF1

I understand the implications I really do.. but all they'll be able to do is run adverts and stick billboards up... if the American people would vote for a president who on his campaign advert has a little McDonalds or Starbucks sponsorship logo then they really deserve what they get!

Uh, no, what's more likely to happen is that Wal-Mart, Exxon, OPEC, whatever, will create a shell, or holding company, and funnel money into that business to run the ads for them.

For instance, Wal-Mart could create "Grandmothers and Kittens for Baby Jesus, inc." and then buy their advertising services for 100 million dollars. Then, instead of Wal-Mart billboards, it would be "Grandmothers and Kittens for Baby Jesus". You will never know it was actually a Wal-Mart ad.

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 10:26 AM by Doomsday 2029

Fight now or Kiss our Country Goodbye?

News Flash:

WE ALREADY LOST THE COUNTRY!!!!

I don't know when we lost it, but for me personally it was upon the discovery of 9/11... what really happened.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by Doomsday 2029]

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 10:30 AM by AllexxisF1

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
If I'm not mistaken Ron Paul is actually against McCain/Feingold since the very beginning.

The decision has more to do with laws on the books that are well over 60+ years old.

Not just McCain\Feingold.

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 10:30 AM by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
Fight now or Kiss our Country Goodbye?

News Flash:

WE ALREADY LOST THE COUNTRY!!!!

I don't know when we lost it, but for me personally it was upon the discovery 9/11... what really happened.

I second Doomsday 2029's post! How is this going to change anything? Why is the administration packed with Goldman Sachs executives?
I love ya Grayson, but you're a tad slow son. At least he's on the right track but he missed the train

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 10:40 AM by Carseller4

Freedom of Speech is always a good thing.

If you don't like who a company donates to, then use your free speech and boycott that company.

Free Speech combined with a Free Market is a good thing.

The people who are worried most about this are the people that think the average citizen is stupid and need to be protected from their stupidity.

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 10:47 AM by Avenginggecko

reply to post by Carseller4

Please refer to my post above. Allowing corporations unrestricted freedom of speech is not a good thing. It won't be a "Wal-Mart" ad, it will be a Wal-Mart front company that sells their services exclusively to Wal-Mart for X amount of dollars.

The people who are supporting this ruling are completely blinded by their Neocon ideology and would rather support international corporations and their paid talking heads than supporting their fellow citizens, even when doing so would actually benefit them.

Amazing that people who claim to support Conservative ideals and the Constitution would support a ruling that gives foreign governments and non-citizens power over the people.

Talk about stupidity.

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 11:00 AM by Jazzyguy

Originally posted by AllexxisF1

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
If I'm not mistaken Ron Paul is actually against McCain/Feingold since the very beginning.

The decision has more to do with laws on the books that are well over 60+ years old.

Not just McCain\Feingold.

Don't you agree with his position in this matter?
If the man himself has no problem with the overturning of McCain/Feingold, then what the fuss is all about?

reply posted on 22-1-2010 @ 11:03 AM by odd1out

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think this changes the fundamentals of what's been going on already for many years. Candidates will no longer have to wash or hide where there campaign money is coming from, but the stakes and the money is just going to get bigger and bigger.

"Free Speech combined with a Free Market is a good thing."

This isn't about free speech or a free market at all, in fact, this only helps to erode these two concepts even further from reality. Our puppets are now going to be bought and paid for by big oil and the banks, etc. They will vote & speak accordingly. There's nothing "FREE" about this.

"The people who are worried most about this are the people that think the average citizen is stupid and need to be protected from their stupidity."

No, I think that the smart people need to protect the average citizen from their stupidity, most of whom have no freakin idea about this but can surely tell you every contenders name, age, places of birth, etc., on American Idol.

Some people scare me. Who is going to protect the smart people...?

[edit on 22-1-2010 by odd1out]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^