Congressman Grayson Explains Recent Supreme Court Ruling In Simple Terms

[goog2k]

"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."

The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.

If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait.  All consumer protection will be the first to go.

We haven't seen anything yet.

[Maxwedge12000]

I hope the corportations replace all you losers.

Time for some new blood in DC, in mass.

[ReliableInsider]

Maxwedge12000,

Am I seeing things? Corportations WILL replace corrupt Republican corporate lobbyists in Washington . . .

with even more corrupt corporate lobbyists!

They will also replace honest members of Congress . . .

with corrupt corporate lobbyists.

Why in God's name are you pro-corruption???

[Maxwedge12000]

The system is already corrupt as hell. Unions gave obama over 60 million dollars and no one complained. Now we have a bunch from chicago running things. Corruption is to be expected.

[ReliableInsider]

You heard what Grayson said. The Supreme Court allows FOREIGN corporations to spend anything they want on campaign advertising. That means wealthy Arabs or the military of Communist China may be exercising their "First Amendment rights" as foreign corporate "citizens" to decide who our representatives should be.

Abandon all hope ye who vote for Republican-style change.

[Maxwedge12000]

Foreign corps are currently banned, remember the money clinton took from the chinese and the stink that made? We the people have not been doing a good job of running the nation, let corporations have a shot and see how they do. :)

[sngrmnsthsm]

Hey since corporations are considered a person now how about I marry one of them? Let's fight for the right to marry corporations and take it all the way to the supreme court and then may be they'll rule that they're really not a person and don't deserve the same rights as people do, like freedom of speech. ;) Grayson Rocks, may be he should run in 2012.

[JayEllJayToo]

Plain and simple: If you want to prohibit the freedom of speech, amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court was right. It's not their job to "protect the democracy" and so forth. It's their job to interpret the Constitution. If Congress wants to do something in violation of the Constitution (which McCain-Feingold clearly is), they need to change the Constitution. I'd vote for the amendment, but without the amendment, then the law is clearly unconstitutional.

[ReliableInsider]

JayEllJayToo,

The Constitution protects the rights of people. Of human beings. A corporation is not a person.

The individual employees and executives within a corporation are voters. The corporation is not a voter, and it's not a citizen.

Corporations are tools for organizing capitalism. They are not human beings.

[JayEllJayToo]

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Sorry to have come across as being on the "other side" in my last post. All I'm saying is that corporate personhood is terrible law, but it's the law nonetheless. My take is either the Supreme Court or Congress needs to get rid of both corporate personhood (which unduly protects corporations) on one hand and limited liability (which unduly protects the actual people) on the other. It would take a Constitutional amendment if Congress were to do it. That was my only point.

[ReliableInsider]

All men are created equal.

A corporation is not created equal to a man.

That's where the right-wingers on the Supreme Court went astray, years ago. They started trying grant the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to abstract legal entities.

[whoo689]

Last but not least, do any of these idiots forget that we have literally THOUSANDS of special interest groups in Washington?? There are tons of lobbying groups, left right and center. For every issue, there's at least one big group for each side. So if you, as a legislator, change your mind and vote often enough for the other side, you can convince the opposition group to give you funds, replacing lost funds from the FORMER group. It's so EASY and obvious! No one is chained by donations.

[whoo689]

Is anyone here REALLY stupid enough to believe that if we just "rein in special interest money" that all of a sudden we'll get "clean" elections, and races will suddenly become incredibly more competitive, and we'll oust all the corporatist Dems and Republicans for progressives?? Dream on! The voters would have to be MOTIVATED to vote for those kinds of people first, and that's not gonna happen anytime soon. Face it, you're wasting your time with campaign finance reform.

[whoo689]

All the bitching about this ruling goes at the heart of the Left's fallacy about campaigns: money is everything. IT'S NOT! There's more to politics than just money. There are the people who vote for candidates, of course. It doesn't really fucking matter how much a candidate gets in campaign funds if he totally sucks ass, and the people want him gone. Money can work to your advantage, but it's not always a determinant of success. The facts are a lot more nuanced here.

[whoo689]

A single corporation can't spend $3 Billion on Congress alone. That's just psycho talk. Look at actual campaign finance law. PACs, which are what corporations have to create to give any kind of donations (donations from corporate treasuries have been banned since the 1900s) can ONLY give, remember this, 5 grand per candidate!!! They can legally give more TO THE POLITICAL PARTIES!! so, no, they cannot "buy" candidates. And bribes are of course totally illegal.

[whoo689]

$5,000 per candidate is quite a small sum of money. I wish people would quit buying into this load of crap that individual corporations are spending MILLIONS on individual candidates in single election periods.

You know what it really is? It's called BUNDLING, which is something entirely different. Bundlers are simply people within a corporation working on behalf of a candidate raising funds in his workplace or org. Sometimes donation records list the employer and not so much names.

[ReliableInsider]

whoo689,

You're talking about the old campaign finance laws. The Supreme Court ruling means that a corporate lobbyist can spend ANY amount of money putting ads on television attacking a decent Member of Congress. ANY amount of money.

That's the death of democracy.

Because when people see a campaign ad attacking someone, they think that the ad must somehow be at least 1% true.

[ReliableInsider]

When they see enough ads, they forget where they learned the false information and they think the false information is somehow partially true. Advertising works. Attack ads work. Even when they are 100% fabricated.

Especially when they're 100% fabricated.

How can a candidate debate an accusation against him that is 100% fabricated? How would voters have reacted if Barack Obama had come out and said, "I am not the Antichrist," or "I am not a Muslim terrorist."?

[ReliableInsider]

All it would have done is helped McCain.

Until voters wake up to the fact that the guy who is being slimed is always the good guy, bribing Congressmen by pouring money into tv ads will continue to work.

And the American system of government will die.

[savior02]

msnbc no one watches that crap he needs to go on faux to reach millions

[Steadno]

grayson is one of a very few with any bawlz!

[Navywxman]

I remember George Carlin on Olbermann and he said that this country is done. I try to be hopeful and continue to work toward a better future but I agreed then and even more so now that Carlin was correct.

Those who would destroy us all to persue selfish short term objectives, the wealthy corporate sector, keep taking more and the resistance is too small. That is a recipe for disaster and those suckered by the two parties who think they work for you are only helping rush in that disaster

[kungfujones1]

Geithner was president of the NY FED. When AIG gave Goldman the money people in his office told AIG not to disclose what the did to the SEC. What happens next? Paulson rides off into the sunset, and Little Timmy becomes Treasury Sec. And btw, Geithner might get indicted. Come on people. They're all fucking guilty. They're all fucking criminals. Every one of them. All we do is play bullshit he said she said games. We need to come together and demand accountability from our elected leaders.

[NwZ2]

Rah rah! Lets all cover everything with one generic swash of the brush!.....

[prayfortruejustice]

Someone who gets it! ...

the two headed party of the US Oligarchy.

[avoiceinthewild]

All this crap started in Sept of 2008, President Obama wasn't even chosen as President by the majority of the American People! Get your facts straight. Paulson was from Goldman/Sacks His past employer, DUH.That's why they got such a sweet deal. Not the Conservative in the Supreme Court have given them more power. REEMBER CONSERVATIVES, that's Alito, Roberts, Scalia,and Kennedy all voted for the Corporate right to control Congress and screw the public. Mark this in the History Books.

[xxEROxxSENNINxx]

We're stuck with those 5 sell out criminal supreme court justices until they die.

AWESOME.

[avoiceinthewild]

We will now live in corporate hell on earth,

They will get everything they ever lobbied for and we the people will suffer at the hands of self-service and greedy companies. They will fu*k you up no matter if your a republican or democrate. You can't even complain to your Rep because they will be bought by Corporate Special Interest. Woe to the people of the United States.

[danbowski40]

We DO NOT live in a Democracy! We live in a Constitutional REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!

[halliburtoncrusher]

we SUPPOSEDLY live in a constitutional republic

[ReliableInsider]

danbowski40,

You've been lied to.

Those are two aspects of what we are.

It's not all that exciting that America is a republic or that we have a constitution or representative government. There are awful governments all over the world that are one or more of those things.

What matters is that we are an American-style democracy.

What is *most* important about this country is that we have government by and for The People, and we have a robust Bill of Rights protecting fundamental rights.

[ReliableInsider]

Who is behind this strange campaign that's emerged online against majority-rule?

Presumably, it's some group that wants minority-rule! Hmm, who could that be?

It's the neocons again. Somebody, drive a wooden stake into 'em.

[prayfortruejustice]

@ReliableInsider

/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&feature=P­layList&p=08CE0D95F7138D1F&ind­ex=0

[prayfortruejustice]

/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&feature=P­layList&p=08CE0D95F7138D1F&ind­ex=0

[ReliableInsider]

prayfortruejustice,

You've been angry ever since we started enforcing the right of African Americans to vote, haven't you?

Well, sorry. Our system of government is one man, one vote. And one woman, one vote.

Not one slave owner, one vote.

If you hate democracy, there are still a couple of countries out there where you'll feel comfortable.

Burma, for example.

[kungfujones1]

A list of Barack Obama's campaign contributions

Goldman Sachs $994,795

Harvard University $854,747

Microsoft Corp $833,617

Google Inc $803,436

Citigroup Inc $701,290

JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132

Time Warner $590,084

"I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest." Keep lying buddy. The people are waking up.

[NwZ2]

shut the fuck up.

he could be CHRIST REBORN and you'd still shit on him. Just shut the fuck up. No facts to back up your "lying" accusation on this issue. NONE.

[iFixComputer]

You have just owned kungfujones1. You are right, no matter what Obama does there are going to be morons talking shit as always.

[kungfujones1]

How was I "owned?" Obama has done nothing but go back on promises he made during his campaign.  I think I have a right to be skeptical of his rhetoric.

[kungfujones1]

I'm just pointing out the man's hypocrisy. Nevertheless I do appreciate being labeled a conspiracy nut. Obama has given the banksters trillions of dollars in bailouts. Goldman Sachs, the bank which gave him $994,755 in campaign contributions would have gone bankrupt if not being 30 billion by AIG through the TARP. Now Goldman is giving out $16.2 billion in bonuses. That's about $500,000 per employee. But I guess he's not a puppet, you're right. Now go fuck yourself.

[avoiceinthewild]

It was Paulson under the direction of Dumbass Bush that gave the bailout to the AIG Dumb, Dumb. Why can't you people admit that??? Do you have Alzheimers?

[clayfromsanantonio]

that occured in 2008... obama wasnt president until january 20, 2009... Bush gave them that money dumbass.

[NwZ2]

D'ahaha, and you think such a comment merits a reply? (Aside form this one of course).

Try coming back with a cogent argument.

[kungfujones1]

@NwZ2

You're kidding, right? I can send you the link where I got that information from. Why would I lie? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Obama is a puppet (just like Bush) to the banking oligarchs and the military industrial complex. Why don't you do a little research before attacking someone who is only trying to spread some truth?

[NwZ2]

See my post addressed to Shorty on why you're still wrong (unless you can provide a better rational for your argument). Till then, be easy.

[NwZ2]

Also: "puppet" ???

LOL. Trying to win an argument with a conspiracy nut (See: flat earth/lunar landing hoaxes) is like trying to win a fist-fight with a brick wall; it's just stupid. You can't "verify" something if it's unfalsifiable (See: science) and that is the very DEFINITION of conspiracy theory. Any contradictory evidence is explained away as evidence FOR the conspiracy.

[shortywarn]

so that list of campaign contributions isn't a fact???

hasn't obama been on the side of big banks most of his tenure up until recently when public outrage became to loud to ignore

it seems in the same light

he could be satan and you'd still defend him

[kungfujones1]

Thanks buddy

[NwZ2]

"so that list of campaign contributions isn't a fact???"

Don't know where you would think I said/meant that. Isn't it obvious that I'm saying it's *not* fact that that list is evidence of lying. IF you want to make such a claim, you'll have to indict every single politician of similar circumstance, which would be absurd because you'd be making a generalization that, under no circumstances, could be proven wrong. Not because it's true but because its unreasonable.

[NwZ2]

But of course with idiotic comments such as this:

"

it seems in the same light

he could be satan and you'd still defend him "

I can tell that i'm talking to someone too stupid or too proud to admit to the use of such horrendous reasoning. I've (and much of the left) have criticized him for a LOT of things (as everyone does. See: Nice guys finish last). But you're too blind to see this.

[chad00023]

research the site;..

kickthemallout . com

[AgeisLiberatisLuces3]

well at least corporations can get things done which is more than i can say for the flaccid obama administration.

[bigc028282]

Show the one where Chris Mathews hands Grayson his ass over his understanding of the Health care bills, and Congressional rules.

He is just another wannabe professional politicians.

Grayson will take the money!!!!!

We already have "their" people. Look at the lobby written "have to buy insurance health care" bills. There are far more not swallowing this shit, than are; and our reps like Grayson need to wake the f*ck up!

[shortywarn]

ed schultz is a piece of shit anyway

talking about massachusetts,,,

"i'd rig the votes and cheat,, i'd try to vote 10 times"

[shortywarn]

except for a few most of our reps are already schills for big business

alan watts tried to derail audit the fed,, why?? because his biggest donor are banks

we the people are low on the list as to who the politicians represent

most of this crazy stuff anymore barely surprises me,,,, we are so screwed ,,,, by both bush and obama,,, it's not a dem or repub thing,,,,,, it's a big gov't vs. all of us thing

[jboyko3]

I love how people toss around the word "democracy" like candy without fully knowing what it actually means. Democracy means that 51% of the people in power can vote away the rights of the other 49% without objection. We were established as a constitutional republic. Totally different system of government. We've been manipulated by our educational system into believing that we were meant to be a democracy. The democratic system is part of the reason we have been voted into most of these problems.

[bigc028282]

@jboyko3 We are REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

[NwZ2]

Not really. =\ The founding fathers were suspicious of democracy, that is true, but things like the separation of powers and such hold a democratic vein in them: the PEOPLE having the power rather than it being concentrated in the hands of the few.

Also: Democracy = 3 wolves and a sheep getting together to decide what's for dinner, and it WON"T be the sheep (in other words, the majority CAN"T sacrifice the minority in the extent that you claim they can in the U.S.). (See: inalienable rights).

[jboyko3]

We were founded as a republic first with SOME democratic principles. But we were not established as a democracy. However the only way a republic can function effectively is if the citizens play an active roll in it. Basically if the people are told that the system of government they live under is not the system of government that they actually do live under. Then they will take whatever else it is you offer them. But most won't care as long as they can watch dancing with the stars.

[NwZ2]

And again, no, democracy isn't the reaosn why we're *in* this mess...we're in this mess because we're *not* in a democracy, in the true sense of the word (See: Athens). Like i said, the founding fathers were suspicious of democracy (ie of the poor getting together and leveling property rights, and all that) and so they made it so that we are a *representative* democracy (definitely not the same thing). There's a layer (well, several layers) from the people and the decisions made in the country.

[jboyko3]

Why don't you download an original draft of the United States Constitution. Then do a search in the document for the word democracy. You will not find it anywhere in the document. Then do a search for the word republic. And I guarantee that you will find it under Article IV in which it states that "the federal government will guarantee every state a republican system of government".

[jboyko3]

I think you're making a desperate attempt at comparing apples to oranges here friend. What the hell does a document that establishes the entire framework for the function of government have to do with a forest? That's a very simplistic analogy. The point I'm making is that article IV section IV of the US constitution establishes a republic or "representative democracy" that provides independent sovereignty to the states. That's how our version of a republic is supposed to be effective.

[NwZ2]

"That's a very simplistic analogy."

Of course it is. I'm attempting to illustrate how such thinking is erroneous. Just because they don't CALL it something doesn't mean that thing ISN'T that something it's being called. Simple, I think.

America *is*, by definition, a representative democracy. Sure the forefathers wanted it to be a democracy of the "propertied class" (See John Locke), but that's besides the point. It is what it is.

[jboyko3]

"I'm attempting to illustrate how such thinking is erroneous"

No you're not. What you're doing is trying to prove a negative. And you're reaching. The point I'm making is that the founders DID establish us as a republic. And the point of using article IV as an example is that it limits the federal government from using influence in order to dictate the policies of the states. Under article IV the states determine what's in the best interest of it's citizens based on the needs of it's citizens.

[NwZ2]

"No you're not."

And you explain how/why this is the case....when exactly? Seems like you just threw out a bunch of things with no real justification/rational behind the accusations.

"And the point of using article IV as an example is that it limits the federal government from using influence in order to dictate the policies of the states."

Thus falling into line with my factual mention of their distrust of democracy (hence property qualifications and all that).

Still democracy though.

[jboyko3]

Okay, now I get what you're doing. You're trolling and I'll humor you one last time. I did explain my case with the sentence immediately after the "No you're not." remark in which I also state that you were attempting to prove a negative. Now I feel like I'm arguing with a 5 year old who was sent to bed without dinner only to discover that he snuck the dessert in with him because I didn't specify that dessert was part of the punishment. Have fun trolling.

[NwZ2]

LOL Trolling? That the best you can come up with? You're FAILING at presenting your argument appropriately so now it's my fault??

Seriously, just leave the internets. It'll make you jump off a bridge or something.

Also: You don't have a right *not* to have your retarded arguments eviscerated when you submit them to an online forum such as this. Have a good day, retard.

[NwZ2]

Also: I didn't bother reading your post (stopped at the trolling comment) because you're clearly running away from the argument (See: responsibility of having to check yo shit). So why bother? Any reply I make will just be ignored so I'm preempting your douchebagery of a move and ignoring you first and foremost.

[kungfujones1]

The dude won't stop. Just get out while you still have your sanity.

[NwZ2]

And no, it's not reaching; it' historically documented. Being a "republic" doesn't preclude it from being democratic (in a representative sense, as the founders intended. Remember, they wanted to get away from the "Tyranny" of the monarchy in england? they HAD to set up some sort of democratic element to ensure that the power was with the people, well at least the propertied class).

[prayfortruejustice]

@NwZ2

/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&feature=P­layList&p=08CE0D95F7138D1F&ind­ex=0

[NwZ2]

I mean, c'mon, how can you ignore the whole "no taxation without representation" bit of the America Revolution in and of itself? That "representation" *is* democracy (or rather, a very limited form of it at that).

[NwZ2]

We need *direct* democracy if we want the decision making process to be in *our* hands.

[ReliableInsider]

jboyko3,

You're wrong. 

If you hate democracy, you hate America.

And you probably hate people.

You've been lied to.

[prayfortruejustice]

@ReliableInsider

Please explain. Are you saying we have rule of the people (democracy), or rule of law (democratic republic)?

If rule of law, what is the supreme law?

If rule of the people, are you saying the majority rules for all?

[prayfortruejustice]

Do you know the story about Twenty Century Motors? A microcosm of of socialist democracy - a rule of people with out the premise of the company constitution.

Read this, you may learn something.

/watch?v=KCmJUobwKQk&feature=r­elated

[jboyko3]

That makes as much sense as saying "if you hate apple pie, you hate America." But I have been lied to and so have you. The difference is that I have learned to see through the lies and you still choose to embrace them. So keep believing that the majority has your best interests in mind every time they vote on another bailout at your expense, or spend your kids money on some foreign relief program. Remember that the last thing on their mind is you.

[shortywarn]

alan grayson supports ron paul's hr 1207

let's audit the evil fed and throw bernanke out on his ass with summers and geithner as well

[bigc028282]

@shortywarn So did hundreds of others who don't shill agenda's as hard.

[rohgenextfan]

Dear Grayson, Democracy is already ruined.

[prayfortruejustice]

/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&feature=P­layList&p=08CE0D95F7138D1F&ind­ex=0

[delta9999]

Obama is just pissed that ACORN has competition now