Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Mrbsct, Sep 4, 2014.
I prefer something more comprehensive like a "dynamic geometry corporatism".
In a pure corporatism the balance of "weight" [political weight, in sense of capability of managing real power] is quite stable. What I have noted as politician is that this balance in complicated and evolved systems [like a wide modern Western country] is variable and during some institutional or political phases the weight of corporations can be predominant in relation with the weight of the government and in other political / institutional phases the government prevails.
So that, if we imagine corporatism as a drawing made by geometrical areas, these areas vary as for shape and dimensions according to the political / institutional phase [and the mutual influence between government and corporations].
A puppet wields no power. The power is in the hand of the person who controlled the puppet. If a politicians goes against their financial backers, they will lose the money, and be unable to keep office. That is enough to keep them in line.
And when has that actually stopped them?
Seriously, the "Political Action Committees" (PACs and SuperPacs) provide a nice loophole for corporations and wealthy individuals (like the Koch brothers) to donate large sums without directly donating to candidates.
The money involved in politics is largely for the same goal as marginalizing small business competition through expensive regulations and tax codes. It's not there simply to control any jerk that wants to run for office. It's there to keep the majority of good individuals from being overwhelmed by the process so they don't even consider running. The politicians, for the most part, are part of the corporate culture. They're interchangeable, literally, with the corporate board members. They aren't victims of a corrupting oligarchy, they're part of the club.
The FEC, and numerous fines and levies. Political contributions and the people who receive them are audited on a regular basis, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and in the case of election season, every 24 hours.
False, on numerous levels.
1. SuperPACs are not loopholes, but the result of a Supreme Court decision called SpeechNow.org vs FEC, which allowed SuperPACs to do independent spending.
2. SuperPACs are not allowed provide donations to Candidates or Political Campaigns. They do independent spending on their own. Because of this, SuperPACs are allowed to receive unlimited donations from virtually anyone, not just Corporations.
Are SuperPACs allowed to promote candidates and/or political campaigns, run campaign ads, attack ads, run phone call campaigns, etc. or otherwise generally influence the outcome of elections through promoting a position or opinion, regardless of factual accuracy and without stating a predisposed bias on the part of their anonymous financial backers?
Anyone is allowed to do that, regardless of financial backing.
And you as a voter have the right to do your own research and due diligence. It is no one else's fault but your own that you chose to vote on the information you received.
Also, contributors to Super PACs are not anonymous, unless they are 501 c 4 contributors.
Nice dodge and red herring. The reality is that the voting rolls are diluted, the vote is not where the power is. It's not my vote being uninformed/misinformed that I am worried about, but the vote of the majority of ignoramuses who think that red and blue have anything to do with anything.
Noted, you admit that SuperPACS are a means for those with vast financial resources to anonymously (from a public point of view) provide extensive support that will directly aid the campaign of specific representatives. Do you deny that providing such financial support can and does garner political favor?
It takes two to tango. Anyone would collude with government in a similar way if they had the opportunity. That doesn't make the corporations without blame obviously, but don't make the mistake of exempting the politicians from it also - they're the ones siphoning off the government's monopoly on the use of force for their own benefit, corporations are a means to that end.
This occurs wherever power is centralized in a strong unitary state.
That makes sense. You're using the academic term of corporatism.
I admittedly was using it in the colloquial sense. I'm guessing the OP was using it in the colloquial sense as well, although I could be mistaken.
Uh, Yea, they do all those things. The only thing they can't do in my understanding is coordinate directly with the politician they are supporting. He or She can even be in the ads the superPAC buys and can be a speaker at their events.
So, how can they be in the ads and speak at their events if they aren't coordinating? Just a rhetorical question. Obviously, that rule is flaunted, just like most others. I mean, who's going to enforce it, the government that has been paid for already?
There is no dodge or red herring. I have the right to use my sources, same as SuperPAC, to distribute information in my particular circle. The people who receive my information is free to vote on the information, or not to vote based on that information.
And what makes you believe that you are generally more informed than the ignoramuses you believe are more susceptible to being misled?
No, I didn't. I said that SuperPACs can receive unlimited funds. I also said that all funds are not anonymous. The only except to this rule are contributions from 501(c)4 Non-Profit organisations.
No, because money is not given directly to political parties, candidates or campaigns. They are spent for the advocacy or defeat of a political candidate. High Net Worth individuals advocate for the election or defeat for political candidates all the time. They don't always garner political favours.
Of course that was a dodge, you're whole MO is to try to marginalize the idea that money controls the political process when it clearly does. It's a tough job you are tasked with, but fortunately for you most people don't really get it.
That's not your concern.
Yes, you did, by saying that everyone else can do it to. Everyone who is not ignorant or dishonest with themselves knows that a 501 (c) 4 is merely a superpac that is able to be anonymously donated to.
LOL, I'm not even sure what you're saying because I asked if you were denying that it does garner political favor to which you responded "no" and then went on to suggest, speciously, that they don't garner political favor "because money is not given directly to political parties, candidates or campaigns". Are you saying that unless the money is given directly to a candidate, party, or campaign, it can't possibly garner political influence?
Again, you're in an unenviable position, for whatever reason, of trying to argue that superpacs don't influence the outcome of elections AND that they don't garner political favor. It's absurd on it's face, but you go ahead and respond in kind. I'm sure it will be amusing.
I didn't try to marginalise anything. Money has always been a part of politics. That will never change. American history shows us this.
Sure it is. You've implied, for whatever reasons, that the promotion that SuperPACs provide inadequate information and influence people to vote in an irresponsible fashion.
My questions are 1) what makes you any different from them, and 2) what makes you believe inaccurate information is spreading among these SuperPACs?
No, I didn't.
Your point being?
Yes. As I have said, many high profile individuals advocate for the direct election or defeat of a political candidate, such as musicians, actors, corporate executives and the like. Very rarely do they ever gain any political favours, and to that, I would argue that a shoutout from a celebrity such as Lady GaGa, Katy Perry or Tom Cruise can spread far more misinformation than any information a SuperPAC can, and it will cost them next to nil to do so.
I never said they don't influence elections. They most certainly do, as they help to provide balance and even the playing field.
I don't believe they gain any political favours, on the other hand, because this is all independent spending. You can find it amusing if you like, but those are the facts.
Yeah, the Republican party is the party who supports corporations, and THEY are they party that shut down the government. So technically, corporations did shut down the government.
Both parties shut down the government... This should be apparent for anyone who has paid attention in basic Secondary School Social Studies class...
MOD EDIT>>>RULE 2/INSULT<<<
Both parties support corporations, and then do the bare minimum to make sure their bases see them as the lesser of two evils. The Dems are better than the GOP, but don't make the mistake of thinking they're good.
Yes, absolutely, in the colloquial usage of the term, your conceptualization is accurate.
The GOP has done such a good job of making it where the only people who can compete in the political process are rich white guys, the majority of congressmen are millionaires, so how do you expect the Democrats to get anyone into power who actually cares about the lower classes? Democrats in power such as Hillary are not real liberals, but just because people like her pretend to be liberals doesnt mean everyone who calls them self a liberal is center-right like Hillary is. Think about it for a second, if you were a billionaire and there was two parties in the country, one that hates you and one that loves you, which one would you be busy bribing? The party that loves you? Of course not, you bribe the party that hates you because obviously bribing the one who already loves you is futile and makes no difference, so the fact they are bribing Democrats says nothing about liberal ideology, it says everything about right wing undemocratic Aristocratic elitism.
How is this even a question? Corporations have essentially bought large swaths of our politicians. Hell, lobbyists often write legislation themselves!
You don't seriously believe that the Koch brothers for instance with their "freedom Partners" SuperPAC Don't expect to gets special considerations from the politicians they help get elected? Surely you realize they have an agenda they are pushing!
Are you actually that naive or are you defending them for some reason?
What sort of special favours do you believe the Koch Brothers or Koch Industries for their electioneering communications, or any sort of advocacy campaign.
And this isn't about just the Koch Brothers. This is about everyone.
Separate names with a comma.