Major leftist corporations briefly interrupted their full-time trillion-dollar-per-year stumping for the Democratic Party today to condemn the McCutcheon Supreme Court decision allowing other corporations fuller participation in the political process.
There is a lot of money in politics, particularly in-kind contributions, and much of it comes from corporations.
The New York Times Inc, the Washington Post Inc, NBC, ABC, CBS (all Inc.'s), major publishing corporations, Silicon Valley corporations, Hollywood corporations, massive academic institutions like Harvard, Princeton and hundreds of others contribute uncountable hundreds of billions of dollars-- hell maybe trillions-- each year in in-kind political contributions to a broad range of political causes. The causes in receipt of this invaluable free corporate saturation 24-7-365 public relations campaign include the National Democratic Party, The Democrats, Democrats, Democrat Senators, Democrat Congressmen, the individual State Democratic Parties, as well as all county and city Democratic Parties, and, not to forget, the Democrats.
Massive liberal corporate conglomerates are outraged-- outraged-- that other corporations might exercise the Constitutional right to freedom of speech by the Court's easing of restrictions on corporate spending for the causes they support.
The only factor constraining the Mainstream Media and Hollywood and Publishing corporations and Silicon Valley corporations and Academic Institutions from venting their outrage at the Court's narrow upholding of basic First Amendment free speech and free assembly rights is that venting their outrage briefly interrupts their priceless saturation incessant unrepentant pro-bono water-carrying for the Democratic Party.
But of course limiting campaign contributions serves the purposes of the connected elites anyway, and it serves the purposes of their political party (starts with a "D") that already receives priceless ubiquitous in-kind corporate largesse, so I guess that connected elites venting outrage against respect for other people's First Amendment rights is no interruption at all in the liberal political agenda.
There is a lot of money in politics, particularly in-kind contributions, and much of it comes from corporations.
The New York Times Inc, the Washington Post Inc, NBC, ABC, CBS (all Inc.'s), major publishing corporations, Silicon Valley corporations, Hollywood corporations, massive academic institutions like Harvard, Princeton and hundreds of others contribute uncountable hundreds of billions of dollars-- hell maybe trillions-- each year in in-kind political contributions to a broad range of political causes. The causes in receipt of this invaluable free corporate saturation 24-7-365 public relations campaign include the National Democratic Party, The Democrats, Democrats, Democrat Senators, Democrat Congressmen, the individual State Democratic Parties, as well as all county and city Democratic Parties, and, not to forget, the Democrats.
Massive liberal corporate conglomerates are outraged-- outraged-- that other corporations might exercise the Constitutional right to freedom of speech by the Court's easing of restrictions on corporate spending for the causes they support.
The only factor constraining the Mainstream Media and Hollywood and Publishing corporations and Silicon Valley corporations and Academic Institutions from venting their outrage at the Court's narrow upholding of basic First Amendment free speech and free assembly rights is that venting their outrage briefly interrupts their priceless saturation incessant unrepentant pro-bono water-carrying for the Democratic Party.
But of course limiting campaign contributions serves the purposes of the connected elites anyway, and it serves the purposes of their political party (starts with a "D") that already receives priceless ubiquitous in-kind corporate largesse, so I guess that connected elites venting outrage against respect for other people's First Amendment rights is no interruption at all in the liberal political agenda.
It's just a revision of the lawyer's rule:
ReplyDeleteIf you can't win in the legislature, go to court.
If you can't win in court, go to the legislature.
If you can't win in either one, pound the table.
But you're completely right about the in-kind money, Doc.
I shouldn’t say this, but I’ll tell it to you, Howard. I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this [the gun issue] head on. And they’re [the NRA] going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.
--- Harvey Weinstein, proglodyte producer
A 90+ minute political ad, crossdressing as "art". It promises to be about as compelling as Weinstein's "SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden", aired two nights before the election.
By the way, speaking of political speech, Brendan Eich, creator of JavaScript, is the most recent casualty. He gave $1000 to Prop 8. Prop 8 was the California ballot initiative to legally prohibit recognition of cargo cult (gay) weddings. As we know GLBTs are so fragile and sensitive they require cultivation in Disagreement-Free Zones to prevent wilting. Therefore,
Equality is necessary for meaningful speech.
--- Mozilla press release
Now there's a statement Lewis Carroll's Red Queen would have been proud to have made: "Equality first - speech afterwards!".
Here's Mozilla's Firefox feedback page.
DeleteEnjoy.
And they count on duped idiots like you, who make there political decisions largely based on who they hate, to work against their own best interests and corrupt the political system. You LIKE the corruption because it gives your side the advantage.
ReplyDelete-KW
I object to anyone arrogating to themselves the decision about what is in 'my best interest'. Especially if it is you, KW. Run along now. I need to write a letter to the Koch brothers thanking them for doing all the heavy lifting I am unable to afford.
DeleteDaily Truth™:
ReplyDeleteLie. It's instrumentally good for the overall utility of the Collective...
It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare...
--- Hong and Zhao, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2014
I've been telling you that all along.
Gramps, what's the point of quoting two Chinese guys on this subject? Are they even trustworthy?
DeleteHoo
Toots, I have no reason to believe they're less trustworthy than any other utilitarian.
DeleteYou don't know squat, gramps, and it's a sure bet you have not even read the article.
DeleteHoo
Tooter, internet bets posed by anonymous trolls are the last stage before going full Godwin.
DeleteThat's a rather circumspect way to acknowledge that you have not read the article, gramps.
DeleteHoo