cybercoma Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 The state's sparse population and reliance on farming and natural resources "make Montana especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government," Chief Justice McGrath wrote.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204368104577139100369896494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj People may criticize OWS, but it seems they've changed their attempts at changing the political discourse was enough to inspire some movement in another direction. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Hmmm... I'm not sure if 'defy' is exactly accurate: The U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 striking down federal limits on corporate and union political spending doesn't apply to similar state laws, the Montana Supreme Court has found, renewing a legal debate over how sweeping the high court intended its ruling to be. However, I never found purchasing of millions of dollars of airtime to fit the definition of 'freedom of expression', so I'm glad that this happened. On the other hand, if this is a defiance of the Supreme Court it could be very bad. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Shady Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Hmmm... I'm not sure if 'defy' is exactly accurate: However, I never found purchasing of millions of dollars of airtime to fit the definition of 'freedom of expression', so I'm glad that this happened. On the other hand, if this is a defiance of the Supreme Court it could be very bad. It doesn't seem to be in defiance of the Supreme Court. Apparently they're saying the law complies with the Supreme Court ruling. Quote
MiddleClassCentrist Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Hmmm... I'm not sure if 'defy' is exactly accurate: However, I never found purchasing of millions of dollars of airtime to fit the definition of 'freedom of expression', so I'm glad that this happened. On the other hand, if this is a defiance of the Supreme Court it could be very bad. America is a plutocracy of corporations. Not a democracy or republic. If you think of a corporation as an entity that has a right to express it's interests... Freedom of Expression can apply. In my opinion, that is sick and twisted. At least unions represent people when they support political parties, not that endorse that action at all. What I do feel is needed heavily, is transparency. If any organization contributes to a campaign, they need to publicly display all of their contributors in order of largest donation to smallest. That way, oil companies and other corporations wouldn't have such an easy time hiding their investment in "grass roots" organizations to spread misinformation. Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
Michael Hardner Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 What I do feel is needed heavily, is transparency. If any organization contributes to a campaign, they need to publicly display all of their contributors in order of largest donation to smallest. That way, oil companies and other corporations wouldn't have such an easy time hiding their investment in "grass roots" organizations to spread misinformation. I generally support the idea is a ban on all political ads on TV, but I feel that this domain of communication will soon collapse anyway. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.