Look, let me spell it out for those of you who actually agree with this decision.

They stopped researching the question of whether money makes a difference in political campaigns about three decades ago because it was obvious in every study: it DOES. The better financed campaign is more likely to win. PERIOD. Nobody even questions this any more. It isn't an absolute guarantee, but it is more likely, and the bigger the difference is between campaigns the MORE likely it is the campaign with more money will win. There are many reason for this but it's a fact.

So that means whoever can get more money is more likely to win power. And the candidates most likely to get the most are the ones most supportive of the status quo, especially those who have lots of money already.

That's unamerican and scummy.

I've tried to spell it out as simply as I can.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by ClintK]

Originally posted by ClintK
Look, let me spell it out for those of you who actually agree with this decision.

They stopped researching the question of whether money makes a difference in political campaigns about three decades ago because it was obvious in every study: it DOES. The better financed campaign is more likely to win. PERIOD. Nobody even questions this any more.

So that means whoever can get more money is more likely to win power. And the candidates most likely to get the most are the ones most supportive of the status quo, especially those who have lots of money already.

That's unamerican and scummy.

I've tried to spell it out as simply as I can.

In terms of "spelling" your opinion out, it would have been nice if you would have mentioned who "they" were who "stopped" researching the question whether money makes a difference in political campaigns.

The idea that money alone makes the difference in influencing demographics is demonstrably false. There are countless corporations and businesses who have invested millions and even billions of dollars on ad campaigns that failed to sell their product.

Most recently the McDonald's corporation has experienced problems in PR due to its "giveaway" campaigns where they give free toys or products in packages such as "Happy Meals" for children. One such campaign involved teaming up with GM to give children free toy models of the Hummer they hoped to influence the parents of children by giving away 42 million toy Hummers in "Happy Meals". This campaign failed to sell any significant Hummers for GM and proved to be disastrous for McDonald's in terms of PR. Only a few months later, McDonald's blundered again when they attempted a giveaway campaign in Japan offering free MP3 players that came with free ten songs and unfortunately for McDonald's a Trojan virus as well.

GM also experienced a misfire and loss of investment when Chevrolet teamed with NBC's The Apprentice launching a commercial contest where the winner would get a Chevy Tahoe. Consumers were encouraged to visit a special website created by Chevy that allowed the consumer to customize their own version of Chevy Tahoe commercials. It didn't take long for anti-SUV commercials to appear on this Chevy Tahoe web site and Chevrolet failed to take control of the situation and the attention created by these anti-commercials went viral sweeping the internet and was a dramatic disaster for GM.

Sony attempted to capitalize on diversity by using a black woman and a white woman in one advertisement, but blundered by having the white woman holding the black woman's jaw, and while this ad was only run in the Netherlands the controversy and debate it sparked was world wide. Sony complicated the matters by at first defending the ad, only to have to finally pull the billboards and apologize for the controversy it created.

Intel blundered by featuring an ad of white man surrounded by six sprinters who all happened to be black. The artistic vision, if one can call it that, behind the ad was to convey the performance capabilities of their product by using the metaphor of the sprinters. What happened instead was a public reaction offended by six black man all bowing down before one white man and Intel had to pull the ads and apologize profusely.

These are just a very few examples of large amounts of money invested with the full on intent of influencing peoples decision making only to backfire and cost large amounts of money as well as great damage to the credibility of the corporations that made these investments.

Further, the insistence that Corporations should not be entitled to free speech because of their status in wealth, arguing that such wealth can be used to influence people adversely, is an elitist attitude that implies that individuals are incapable of making informed decisions and are just mindless automatons that only respond to propaganda and advertising.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
[
The idea that money alone makes the difference in influencing demographics is demonstrably false.

Didn't say "money alone." read my actual post, where I say, and I quote myself, "It isn't an absolute guarantee, but it is more likely, and the bigger the difference is between campaigns the MORE likely it is the campaign with more money will win."

That's the point. Period.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
In terms of "spelling" your opinion out, it would have been nice if you would have mentioned who "they" were who "stopped" researching the question whether money makes a difference in political campaigns

"They" would be the people who usually research these questions: academics in the social sciences and marketing research professionals. Who else could "they" possibly be?

[edit on 23-1-2010 by ClintK]

The CONSTITUTIONALITY of any law passed by the government is decided in the Supreme Court. What the Court did was to apply the 2cd Amendment of the Constitution to the law and the law was found in violation. All citizens of the United States have the right of "free Speech". This means money as well. If big time unions can do it. If Acorn can do it. If Hollywood can do it. If Move on dot org can do it.... so can the rest of us.

The Constitution of the United States of America "is" the law of the land and the final voice for the people.

I thought the legislature and executive can revoke the decision?

Originally posted by die_another_day
I thought the legislature and executive can revoke the decision?

Congress can attempt to legislate an Amendment that would declare corporations as being subject to certain regulations that natural persons are not subject to. Even so, if this Amendment can't hold Constitutional muster then the SCOTUS can strike that Amendment down as unconstitutional, just as they have done with Section 441b of the BCFR.

The Executive Branch is tasked with upholding and enforcing the law. That law begins with The Constitution for the United States of America and serves as the Supreme Law of the Land. All subsequent legislation is bound by any restraints the Constitution has imposed upon Congress. Thus, if it is ruled that a statute, bill or act is unconstitutional, then only a future court or that same court can overturn the ruling.

Congress can and should do all they can to restrain the antics and malfeasance of corporations and any Amendment that passed that would make a distinction between artificial entities and natural persons can only be a win for individual rights. The confusion with this recent ruling lies in the actual wording of the 1st Amendment which makes no distinction between who and/or what can rely upon its protection, what the 1st Amendment does is prohibit Congress from making any laws that abridge speech.

i fully support the death penalty for all involved in this ruling


i would be more then happy to sign any petition


on top of that i firmly believe we need to end life long politicians


this is a democracy not a monarchy

we need to end these practices immediately and we must overturn the ruling instantly


to be fully truthful, we should ban corporate financing and funding all together

nothing good has ever come nor will ever come from a corporation buying a politician and america wont ever truly be free until we destroy the corporations presence in our politics

Corporations are considered entities. They have a birth, life, and death just as people do even though they are not people. A corporation may be sued and named as a party to an action civil or criminal. Hence, a corporation may exercise free speech rights under the constitution in that there are actual people running things and making decisions.

What Congress may do is prohibit foreign corporations and citizens from exercising rights such as free speech, that belong to the people of the United States.



[edit on 23-1-2010 by Fromabove]