"Yes, the Heartland League of Fundamental Churches supports the good and holy name of Sara Palin for President in 2012, and we can only pray that rumor about Mr. Obama being born illegitimately, is unfounded..."

"John Edwards for the Senate--Let's give him a break." - Miller Beer

"Honda Motors believes the best man for Congress in 2010 is Rush Limbaugh, a fearless and honorable man respected throughout Japan and America."

"Only Joe Lieberman understands the critical need for free trade in oil in times like these. He is respected as one of the great Americans at CNPC (China National Petroleum Corporation)."

(Why not foreign corporations? If they're people, don't they all have equal rights? The reality boggles the mind.)

@Meremark - So it's OK to patronize the Phone companies and Paypal, while we're allegedly boycotting all commercial corporations?

Maybe you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Campaign finance reform has done nothing to get corruption out of politics, but it has been effective at keeping corrupt politicians in politics.

It's not money that corrupts it's the lure of arbitrary political power. A true crusader against political corruption would not strip American citizens of their right to free speech; he would seek to put an end to the government's power to grant special favors to any group.

Do large contributions buy political favors? They can, but only because politicians "have power to grant special favors to special interests in the first place. Take away that power and politicians will have nothing to sell.

To those who claim that in the absence of campaign controls, wealthy private citizens or corporations would have the power to censor the speech of others, Only the government has the power to stifle free speech and replace persuasion with coercion and I add that "Private citizens or corporations can refuse to support, finance or promote ideas or candidates they disagree with--which is their inalienable right--but they cannot forcibly suppress them.

A wealthy individual, for example, can spend lavishly on ads, even buy an entire newspaper or broadcast station, to convince Americans of his viewpoint; he cannot force us to listen or agree.

At the same time a candidate lacking money is free to seek financial support from citizens who agree with him, whether it be a few wealthy individuals or millions of like-minded Americans who are willing to put their money where his mouth is.

If stopping the selling of favors in Washington is the goal, why does no one demand that we simply enforce the laws that make such action illegal? After all, we combat police corruption by prosecuting officers who take kickbacks to overlook crimes. We combat judicial corruption by prosecuting judges who accept bribes in exchange for making unjust rulings. Why not similarly go after Congressmen who trade legislative decisions for campaign contributions?

Because the depressing fact is that most of the dispensing of favors, and punishments, is done within the law. Unlike the police or judges, Congressmen (and many other government officials) have legally acquired arbitrary power. They routinely make decisions that are governed, not by objective fact or principle, but by subjective preference.

Suppose that Congress is considering "The Pristine Nature Act," which would close vast tracts of private land to logging and commercial development. A few timber companies argue that such restrictions on their property would be unfair and hurt their profits. The local homeowners association supports the bill, because it would allow residents to maintain their traditional, bucolic lifestyle. And environmentalists clamor that the trees must be protected from mankind.

What basis should a Congressman use in making his decision? The common answer is that he should do whatever furthers the "public interest." But which parties count as the "public" and so gain the privilege of having their interests advanced? The timber companies? The neighboring residents? The environmentalists? The trees? The people who would have lived in the houses that would have been built with the timber that would have been harvested? Each is as plausible as the other.

In cases like this, which are endless, the non-objective standard of the "public interest" justifies any decision. Which really means: there is no guiding principle, there is only expediency. A Congressman simply latches on to whatever arguments he finds convenient. The presence or absence of campaign contributions from an affected party is thus as "convincing" a factor as anything else. In fact, this is the essence of lobbying--donating money to an official so that the giver can be granted the magical title of "the public."

This kind of arbitrary power--not money--is the fundamental source of influence-peddling in Washington. And a true opponent of government corruption would seek to restore the system that was created precisely to eliminate such power: the American system of individual rights. He would advocate the principle that the rights of the individual, including property rights and freedom of speech, are inalienable, and that no invocation of the "public interest" can justify their abrogation. He would realize that the indefinable rule of the "public interest" is what gives government officials unlimited power. He would see that only a severely limited government--limited by the standard of individual rights--has no arbitrary powers to exercise, and to sell.

Now we see the evil done by the re-election of W. in 2004 (thanks Ohio), allowing him to sway the balance of the Supreme Court, appointing young pro-corporate gangsters (for life). The BIGGEST threat to giving "speech" rights to corporations is even bigger than swaying elections. Rather, it's in the THREAT of swaying elections. Major companies now have a huge bat with which to threaten any member of congress who resists voting for a pro-corporate bill. "We'll make sure you don't make the primaries in the next election." Politicians being what they are (masters of rationalizing), expect the sound of screeching brakes on most progressive legislation, especially the most important, campaign finance reform proposals. What to do? Start the drumbeat: We need a Constitutional amendment which simply declares that the people's rights are reserved to the people and not to commerce-based organizations.

The shape of things to come ...

Dear Cincinnati city council members, We need you to drop your zoning rules about adult entertainment clubs nearby schools, and we need a 15 year tax abatement for our "Barely Legal" gentleman's clubs. Your average campaign budgets are $25,000 per candidate, we are prepared to spend $10 million in ads opposing anyone who opposes our initiatives.
Sincerely, Larry F.

Dear Enid OK city council, Luigi Brothers Construction of Queens is pleased to announce that we will be opening a branch in you city. We will be needing the contract to build the new county stadium, along with a waiver on all city fees, As an incentive we have a contingency fund of $4 million to pay for issue ads during your next election should we find it necessary.
Ciao. Bruno Luigi

Dear US Congress.
We need another war. Doesn't matter where.
United Defense Industries.

Lost Freedom Day, Black Jacked Day, Founders Spin Day, (in their graves), Corporate Logo Day, etc.
(As long as it ends in Day....(I like that ending)....:-) 01-21-10 the Day that democracy bled, or died....We could put it to the Don McClean song: Bye Bye Miss American Pie.....They sold our freedoms for some logos so our elections are mere promos...for....Bye Bye to our American Rights ....All hail the corporations, the true owners of our nation...This will be the day that Justice cried . Or this will be the day that we all die. That January was funerary, for the promises so long carried, it was the twenty first that freedom died. Oh this...
Man...I gotta stop smokin this stuff...

I don't understand how the court doesn't see this as more rights for the corporation than for the individual. If the individual is limited and not allowed to spend freely for a candidate, then how can the corporation be allowed unlimited privilege. I understand the money can't be directly given, but is John Q. Public allowed to take out anti-Palin ads on television by this new standard?

This could be a win for Democrats. In an odd sort of twist, companies that might support Sarah Palin (good Lord), might actually come out of their proverbial closet. I might be able to win the argument with my Republican friends to not vote for her because Exxon is paying for her so they can bilk them on gas later.

A competitive ad might sound like "Sarah Palin is backed by Exxon, but who is backing you America?"

This will backlash. If a corporation is a 'person' under the law, how can they be expected to pay less tax than a 'person'? Equal rights ought to mean equal responsibility.

Nice work Thom in identifying the villians in America.

DDay,

'Should have said the last URL is for the speaker, George Greene. Do you know Chuck Prentice? He's a dynamo. You'd really like him, I think, if you don't know him already.

DDay,

How about if I send you thanks and a virtual hug? Maybe we will meet at some DFL political convention or gathering. (And I bet I will talk your ear off I'm so wound up by what's going on! I attended an SD41 meeting the other night and found a number of us just couldn't exchange thoughts and ideas fast enough! Great, smart people!) BTW, I had to laugh. The speaker said we in MN should stop introducing ourselves by SD numbers! It confuses new people.

http://myaurora.org/aurorawiki/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=8

Quark,

print this post out and bring it to the Blue State Bash Saturday. It will be good for 2 drinks! Present it to a fat bald guy with DDay on his lapel. (You'll probably find him either near Thom or Stephanie or the bar.) :-)

The 1-21 project?
The Coffee Party Patriots?

Actually, if we frame this right, the Tea Party'ers might climb on board if they can be made to recognize it as rights being taken away from natural born citizens and given to multi-national corporations.