Tea Party test
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Tea Party test
There is so much that could be said about today's travesty of a mockery of a travesty of a sham Supreme Court decision that puts the exclamation point on the hostile corporate takeover of the American body politic. But one thing that interests me the most is how will the muscle-flexing Tea Party movement, having helped change the balance of power in the U.S. Senate, react to this. Now I'm willing to give many of them the benefit of the doubt -- that they really are "populists," not tied to either the Dems or the GOP.
But any true populist would hate this decision -- for just one obvious example, it would allow Goldman Sachs to spend billions on behalf of pro-obscene bonus, pro-bailout pols (in both parties!). Or, if you insist, substitute the SEIU. Anyway, if the Tea Party folks are not up in arms, then they are just another lame wing of the lame Republican Party, marching in lockstep with talk radio hosts still pushing the GOP/big business agenda.
I honestly don't know which way they'll go.
I know which way I'm going! Have a great weekend -- although that may not be possible if you're a liberal or a Vikings or Colts fan.
Comments (151)
Ooohhhh! Big Business is the bad man under the bed. Last time I checked big business was putting gas in my my car, CAT Scan machines in hosptitals, inventing new drugs, employing Americans and paying dividends to stockholders- a substantial portion of which are ordinary people'401k and pensions. What has the Dem's masters, the trial lawyers and union bosses produced for society? oh yeah- a disapearing manufacturing base and the loss of jobs overseas due to litigation and wage extortion.— valentsgrif- Oh that's right Will, you're not "marching in lockstep" with any agenda... you probably think of yourself as an "independent". I don't know why the Right having talk radio drives you guys so bonkers, afterall you have the rest of the media, hollywood, and academia marching in lockstep with you guys. Speaking of hollywood, how come I never see any of you wailing against the "obscene" payouts in that industry? aren't those paychecks "unfair"?— Bud Fox
- oh, and let me second the point made by valentsgrif.... "big business" bought my computer that's enabling me to post on this blog which is supporting advertising rates at philly.com which is employing Will.— Bud Fox
- Right wing idiots playing loose and fast with the facts as always.— No Ids
- One large corporation got to say anything they wanted right up to election day. The liberal media. Now all sides can speak.— BSinPA
- Academia: meaning people with critical thought. I know how people who think frighten you talking point machines.— No Ids
- @valentsgrif: Last time you checked, was big business supplying you with your politicians? If not, it will be next time you check. Ask yourself if you as an individual really want to be able to outspend (for instance) Independence Blue Cross in order to feel like you've got a say in your own governance. @budfox (from one semi-iconic '80s movie character to another): When was the last time we had to bail out Hollywood in order to prevent the entire U.S. and world economy from making like Chernobyl? When a movie producer makes a flop, he bears the cost even if it means he's too busted ever to make a movie. When the banking industry takes on too much risk and it goes south, we the taxpayers ride to the rescue just to make sure that some of us will continue to have jobs and pay taxes.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- BSinPA: The "liberal media" is "one large corporation?" Did you send that memo to Rupert Murdoch? I'm pretty sure that conservative voices are plenty well-represented among media outlets. If you feel differently, make like you believe in the free market and go start your own.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
Libs get their rear ends kicked by the tea-party movement, and all Will can come up with is that they, and Republicans, are lame. No Will, your lame, a big lame-o. So there.— jmc- Will: Regardless of what the run of the comments on here has been (many of which seem to be motivated by nothing more than unreflective opposition to whatever you happen to be against), I would like to thank you for posting on a story of truly monumental disaster for all citizens coming out of DC, a story that I've been worried would get overwhelmed by news of a disaster of questionable proportions for liberal citizens coming out of Boston.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Edit: meant to say "unreflective opposition to whatever you happen to be FOR." Sorry, I'm distracted today. I'd better toddle off and go do my real job. Cheers, all!— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- What makes liberals think that big, corrupt incompetent government has any moral authority or technical expertise to regulate anything? The hypocrisy of Obama is a bad joke, like the rest of his Presidency so far. Here is someone who raised more than $700 million for his campaign, more than Bush and Kerry combined just 4 years earlier from wealthy donors, big business and especially Wall St. Now he's a populist, and Will like the rest of the media propagandists on the left lap it up willingly.— tr88
Comment removed.- Yes, free speech is a travesty. And you still seem to miss the fairly major fact that corporations still cannot donate directly to candidates, they can just run ads.— RG
Will is upset because this ruling upsets the almost monopoly that the biased media has over speech. Leftwing Media, meet the Sherman Act. Now the little guy can band together and be heard during an election cycle. Great decision for proponents of TRULY free speech.— rudytbone- Comment removed.
- Note that almost every interest group has its own lobbying operation and money they give to politicians, representing the spectrum of political interest. NRA, AARP, NAACP, SEIU, AAA, for every Scaife there is a Soros. There is an easy answer - if you don't like the mix of money or support any given policitician receives, don't vote for them!— Mirror
- Really good point Rudy. The media's power to influence elections is hurt by this and they are all about power, not providing information. They will attack any threat to their disproportionate influence unmercifully.— tr88
The Republican and Democratic parties are both owned by big business (if that is not obvious to you, dear reader, stop whacking yourself on the head with a board every morning before you log on), but Dems do one thing that Repubs don’t - usually - the4y put real jurists in the USSC who believe in the rights of the American people and American Democracy. Well, you tea baggers of the power elite should be very happy, fascism (Mussolini style) marches on! The big corporation provides you your computer, your living, provides you with clean air (if it doesn’t cost too much), tells you how to dress, how to walk, how to talk…how to vote. Yes sir, you righties are True Americans!— Hamlet- "The big corporation provides you your computer, your living, provides you with clean air (if it doesn’t cost too much), tells you how to dress, how to walk, how to talk…how to vote. Yes sir, you righties are True Americans!" Would you prefer the government provide you all this, ala the Soviet Union? Do you bother to think before you post?— RG
- Once again bunchie has his FACTS wrong. Goldman Sachs is a DEMOCRAT Party cash cow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!— WriteWinger
- "They will attack any threat to their disproportionate influence unmercifully." Uh, I know this is a useless post, but tr88, what is it that you think Viacom, Disney, General Elec, er,Comcast, Knight Ridder, Gannet, et. al. are trying to influence? A move to the Socialist Utopia?— Hamlet
- "Would you prefer the government provide you all this, ala the Soviet Union? Do you bother to think before you post?" Wow! That's the only choice I have, one form of slavery or another? I think before I post, do you?— Hamlet
- Comment removed.
- "That's the only choice I have, one form of slavery or another?" Clealry you don't think, as you basically stated that people are sheep and only follow what they are told to do. I'm not really sure why you think corporations, non profits, and unions buying air time will turn us into slaves, except for the fact that you beleive yourself to be easily influenced by images and sounds from the picture box in your living room.— RG
- Hamlet, please educate me. When was the last time a big corporation told you what to do in your private life, and what was it that they made you do?— rudytbone
Who's kidding who here? The only thing SCOTUS has done is expose the charade. The beauty of it is that political advertising will now be the voter's guide on who's the puppet and who's the puppeteer. Oh, and the added bonus of a new first amendment precedent to build on. "Speech" must always be as broadly interpreted as possible short of causing personal injury, no matter how offensive. Think of this and the Skokie Nazi parade case.- Or, Hamlet, has the evil corporation mind control machine simply not gotten to you yet? Maybe you are one fo those brilliant people who can resist the manipulation, unless the rest of us dolts. Feeling.....urge....to.....buy.....Starbucks......— RG
- One more post (I actually have to work for a living - that's a half-joke guys, cool it!) Mass, who exactly is infringing on your right to free speech? Or are you parroting other righties who say that anyone who dares criticize them (and makes them feel foolish and inferior, and therefore shuts them up) is denying them to say whatever they want? Well, back to work for my Corporate Master (please don't lay me off; do it to Julia, do it to Julia!)— Hamlet
- Hamlet, who gets to choose who has influence? Should Oprah be regulated? You can't deny her influence. Fox? NBC, CNN, the NY Times? The Motion Picture Industry? The Unions? Dudge? Huffington? George Soros? Everyone is out for their own, it's the American Way. It's Free Speech. If I'm reading correctly into your point, you would favor people who speak out for the common good. The problem is that we don't all agree with what that is.— tr88
- ""Speech" must always be as broadly interpreted as possible short of causing personal injury, no matter how offensive." Good point, I forgot about our inaleinable right to not be offended.— RG
- "The problem is that we don't all agree with what that is." Our progressive betters most certainly do. Its whatever they say it is.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Gotta hand it to Will, complainign about free speech being unconstitutional, while cheering helath care reform that mandates that each individual must purchase insurance. Where's that power granted in the Constitution?— RG
- Okay, one more. Tr88, I couldn't agree more (on whose version of the common good). That's why concentration of corporate power and corporate-owned media power is a bad thing, IMHO. Will thinks, like many print journalists, that many people stopped reading newspapers because of the Internet. Well, speaking for myself, I stopped reading the Inky during the run-up to the Iraq War. They lied to me and knew they were lying when they printed those issues. But I digress. I agree that more voices, sides and opinions are needed in the public debate. This phony left/right "debate" being played out in the big business-owned MSM which frames almost everyone’s' political thought in this country does not come anywhere near what any thinking person would call “diversity”.— Hamlet
- "Good point, I forgot about our inaleinable right to not be offended." . . . . to the point of inciting violence or mayhem, anyway, if that's the speaker's intent. Tr88, you are absolutely right. The problem here isn't speech, it is how we communicate and get information. Public policy should be focused on expanding everyone's access to public communication and political participation rather than pretending that it's trying to preserve it with laws that marginally pare back the influence of concentrated wealth.
- Hamlet, if you think denying certain segments of our society certain rights that you allow others, loopholes will be found. Corporate money is bad, private money is good? Billionaire George Soros has proven that you can be successful legally by going around McCain Feingold. John Corzine, mega millionaire has proven that. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has proven that. and on and on and on. Then if you move to restrict private money where eveyone has equal influence, you have nothing. An far out of the mainstream group, say Lyndon LaRouche would have equal funding and influence as would a main stream organization that represents large groups of citizens.— tr88
- Comment removed.
- "Public policy should be focused on expanding everyone's access to public communication and political participation" good point, everyone should be required to read X amoutn of articles, evenly distributed amongst viewpoints per day. Then voting should be mandatory. You can lead a horse to water, then lock it up if it isn't thirsty.— RG
- "Hamlet, if you think denying certain segments of our society certain rights that you allow others, loopholes will be found. Corporate money is bad, private money is good?" I'm choking on all the words you just put in my mouth...cough, cough— Hamlet
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Not putting words in your mouth but making the point that dismantling Mccain Feingold will expose us to the evils of special interest big money is preposterous.— tr88
- Swifty, repeat after me, "Its not your fault". You saw an advertisement on the TV and couldn't control yourself.— RG
- The new breakfast sandwiches are dynamite. All hail WAWA, somebody in this country knows what they're doing.— tr88
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Man I miss Wawa. Circle K sucks.— Hamlet
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Billy Ray Winthorpe - believe me, libs have been wailing against "wall street fat cats" LOOOOOOOONG before any bailouts. the idea of people making a ton of money drives them crazy, except hollywood. hollywood's okay. No Ids - I love how you libs worship higher education like a god. I bet Obama's degrees from columbia and harvard were enough to get your vote. plenty of people are capable of, as you say, "critical thought"... it's just that people in business are additionally capable of applying it to solving actual problems instead of arrogantly lecturing NPR listeners who drool at their every word because they are "critical thinkers". please.— Bud Fox
- Comment removed.
- "Yes, free speech is a travesty. And you still seem to miss the fairly major fact that corporations still cannot donate directly to candidates, they can just run ads." Meanwhile, Will posts whatever opinions he wants on a corporate-paid website. I guess corporate paid free speech is fine and dandy for him, just not for others.— db_cooper
- "Clealry you don't think, as you basically stated that people are sheep and only follow what they are told to do. " As you routinely noted (and Will routinely ignored), a ton of corporate money went to the Coakley campaign. But Brown raised most of his money through internet money bombs. Seems to me the Tea Party types have already spoken on this subject - they voted against the corporate-supported candidate. Actions speak louder than words.— db_cooper
- Hamlet, I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. Instead, how about if I just make the point. What effect have you observed that Mccain-Feingold (passed in 2002) had in limiting money and influence on our elections? I would say none.— tr88
- Comment removed.
WOW three blogs in succesion without TPS's bullsh*t taking it over this is great , hopefully he was so upset over 'Ted Kennedy's seat' going red he hanged himself . The only way you will change this system is if laws are passed limiting the ammount of money you are allowed to spend during any election cycle and all money spent comes from taxes , then ban all special interest groups from donating anything . The problem with that is people will simply cheat , no way will Soros or Bloomberg obey the law thats only for little people .— PAEnglish- Comment removed.
- Give what you want but every dollar must be on the internet. Amtount. Name. City. Occupation.— abnrgr
- While I certainly do not miss TPS wrongminded screeds, I hope TPS is well and the lack of participation is not due to health or well being issues.— rudytbone
- Comment removed.
- And I'm sure the liberal media (MSNBC, Inky, DN, etc.) will refuse to run those corporate ads based on their lofty principles. We don't want your money, they'll claim in lockstep. Yeah, that'll be the day.— jimmymack
- JMack...an antiabortion organization has been trying to get Superbowl ad time for years...and always is rejected. Since the government is not rejecting, it's not censorship...but it's certainly limiting free speech, even in the form of paid advertisments.— rudytbone
- "Academia" people who never have to produce anything to keep their jobs-— Manny Trillo
- And political writers for the Inquirer and "resident in writing at UPENN. A journo and a member of the academie. Better know in the real world as a 2 FER.— tr88
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- I agree Will (with the tragedy of the SC decision, not your predictable partisan whinyness) You really shouldn't play this as a win for the right. Remember in 08, John McCain was the one who refused special interest financing while Obama's campaign enjoyed the largest cash-stash in history (you think marketing Hopenchange is cheap? I mean, they have to pay someone to come up with a logo and everything!)— tjm333126
- If you have no spending limit with full disclosure, what is wrong with that? If you know who is supporting candidates, then don't vote for the ones who take money from the people you don't like or trust. By the way, Will, poor people hire no one, businesses do. Why do you continue to demonize business?— frankfj
- Here's the money quote from the SCOTUS opinion: "Political speech is so ingrained in this country’s culture that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws. Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression—counsel against upholding a law that re-stricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers." As I wrote earler today, SCOTUS has simply exposed the pointlessness of McCain-Feingold's ban. All it really does is serve politicians who DON'T want the public to connect corporate money to their campaign, and it gives them deniability if asked. It didn't touch corporate PACs or individuals vested in the corporation's political interests, and it only banned broadcasted speech within 30 days of election day.
- "By the way, Will, poor people hire no one, businesses do." . . . . . By that reasoning, it's fair to say that businesses produce nothing, their employees do.
- The decision yesterday by the Supreme Court can not be all bad if it irritates people like Chuck Schummer of NY. Talk about hypocrits.— junethe4th
- What's with all the resentment for higher education? Like wealth, it shouldn't be disparaged just because you don't have it, right?
- HAVANA -- Twenty-six patients at Cuba's largest hospital for the mentally ill died this week during a cold snap, the government said Friday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/15/AR2010011502840.html Well, at least they cover everyone.— RG
- "What's with all the resentment for higher education? Like wealth, it shouldn't be disparaged just because you don't have it, right?" Well, when enough people with higher educations band together and decide they should dictate how others should conduct their affairs, it can get rather annoying. Especially when many of those people have never worked a serious job in the private sector.— db_cooper
- You know what else got nary a peep? The UN admitting a dearth of errors in it's Nobel Prize Winning Report regarding the melting of Himalayan Glaciers by 2035. Uh oh, it looks like that baby isnt coming true. A one day story by the AP, no more. Spiked. Inconvenient timing coming as close as it did to the Copenhagen disaster and Climate gate. I heard a story on NPR assessing the damage of Climate gate and you would think this story would be relevant. I did anyway. But the ideologues who sold global warming to us? Nary a peep. Will, your thoughts, as a Global Warming guy? http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/features/science/82147082.html— tr88
- “What effect have you observed that Mccain-Feingold (passed in 2002) had in limiting money and influence on our elections? I would say none.” I wouldn’t say none (just this side of none?). It’s just that there is a difference between water seeking its lowest point (the most common analogy of campaign finance funds slipping through whatever laws limiting it we institute) and people who FAVOR corporate rights over the rights of American citizens. Corporations are not “persons” I don’t care how many lawyers say so. Say, MSI, if corporations are American citizens fully protected by the Bill of Rights are they also subject to laws such as rape (inflicted collectively on the people) or treason?— Hamlet
- "Well, when enough people with higher educations band together and decide they should dictate how others should conduct their affairs, it can get rather annoying." . . . . An Exxon board meeting? It dictated how Alaskan fishermen have conducted their affairs for the last 20 years thanks to their brilliant clean-up decisions, and all for the SCOTUS approved bargain price of $500 million.
- "Say, MSI, if corporations are American citizens fully protected by the Bill of Rights are they also subject to laws such as rape (inflicted collectively on the people) or treason?" Holy hyperbole. Go ahead and charge Walmart with rape, let me know how it turns out. They can enter into contracts, own property, can be sued and held liable, etc. All characteristics of an individual person.— RG
- "Say, MSI, if corporations are American citizens fully protected by the Bill of Rights are they also subject to laws such as rape (inflicted collectively on the people) or treason?" . . . . . Hamlet, you don't need to be a citizen, nor a natural person for that matter, to enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. There's no such limitation in the 1st Amendment. In fact it offers the same protection to the "press". Should that exclude corporate publishers?
"Have a great weekend -- although that may not be possible if you're a liberal or a Vikings or Colts fan." HMMM I'm not a liberal, decided the day the Eagles signed Vick that I would be a Jets fan for 2009 but I would like the Jets to face Favre in the Super Bowl so I guess if will is right I'll only have a very very good weekend.— bird11- Comment removed.
- db_cooper didn't those enlightened - educated radicals write the wrangle with England, write a constitution, and formed our democracy? They were not liberal, they were hard working, and they educated. Those leaders lack in today’s politics because of Obama and Bush (Jr). Real leadership for positive change needs strongly moral and educated people ready for the opportunity and having the courage to take it.— Fisher
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
Imagine. It wasn't very long ago that the lefties here were telling us that the Republican party was in disarray. Hah!— ocjones- Comment removed.
- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece Unfortunate timing. More bad news for the Global Warming Fraud. You know it's bad swhen the UN Climate Chief threats an investigation. HAHAHAHAHAHA, the wheels are really coming off.— tr88
- I never thought I would live to see the day where a newspaper, much less openly liberal writers at the newspaper, actually bemoan a Supreme Court decision that promotes free speech. This is truly a bizarre world. I'm going to start drinking distilled water and grain alcohol like my friend Brig. General Jack Ripper. Liberals against free speech... well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.— General_Turgidson
- So Hamlet do I understand you correctly. There is almost no effectiveness in McCain Feingold in limiting the influence of money on our electoral system. You're OK with giving independent Billionaires influence but not corporations? Why let everyone's money buy influence except corporations? That doesn't seem disciminatory to you?— tr88
- ///Wow! That's the only choice I have, one form of slavery or another? I think before I post, do you?/// Anyone who equates the existing freedoms in the United States with the "slavery" of the Soviet Union is guilty of riding a rocket of hyperbole into outer space. Here on Earth, the difference between the two is pretty clear.— General_Turgidson
- Will; the real question is...Why don't you charge the Dems for the free advertising you give to them in your newspaper under the guise of 'news'. Maybe it would save the Inky/DN and a few jobs.— E Plebnista
- "They can enter into contracts, own property, can be sued and held liable, etc. All characteristics of an individual person." . . . . . Again, so-called personhood is immaterial regarding the first amendment. A corporation can "speak" because it is made up of human beings who have to create the speech and the policies that determine it. It's not an alien life form. That being said, a corporation doesn't have the characteristics of a natural person. The whole idea of a corporation is simply to pool risks as well as profits among a broad group of persons. It cannot vote, run for political office, marry and raise kids, or enter the downhill at the Olympics.
- "Imagine. It wasn't very long ago that the lefties here were telling us that the Republican party was in disarray. Hah!" . . . . . . I wouldn't say they're in disarray inasmuch as they're united in their Obama obsession. I'd just call that being in denial.
- "Hamlet, you don't need to be a citizen, nor a natural person for that matter" So are you saying a mouse has eighth amendment rights? I better watch what kind of traps I use.— Hamlet
- "I better watch what kind of traps I use." . . . . . LOL, just call consider it an enemy combatant and you'll be fine.
- Comment removed.
- "Anyone who equates the existing freedoms in the United States with the "slavery" of the Soviet Union is guilty of riding a rocket of hyperbole into outer space. Here on Earth, the difference between the two is pretty clear." Yes, someone who did that would be an idiot. Learning to read might help such a person. Of course reading comprehension, along with Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy could sap and impurify all of that person's precious bodily fluids.— Hamlet
- Well Hamlet, it is good to see that you admit you are an idiot with no reading comprehension. Good luck with that.— General_Turgidson
One thing I never want to hear again is the right whining about "activist judges". This was as "activist" a decision as anything any liberal judge ever decided. It goes against years of precedent and overturns established laws. Leave it to the right wing though to defend the rights of money. Because that is the most important thing to them, more so than people and the every day citizens of this country. Because this decision essentially says that some entities have more freedom and freedom of speech. Because freedom of speech just became a commodity to be bought, and those with the most money can buy the most speech. And to those who think that it doesn't matter because people aren't so stupid as to believe everything in political advertising, ask yourself why, if this is true, would hundreds of millions be spent on these ads if they didn't influence people? In fascist countries propaganda is highly controlled for a reason. Corporations are despotic institutions with no democratic input; they are also neither flesh nor blood. Yet now the government is just another wing of the corporate world, and we flesh and blood citizens are nothing but meddlesome creatures that need to be kept under control. It is amazing to see the right wingers here defend corporations over American citizens. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at their worship of money over all else.- Thank you, General.— Hamlet
- "They can enter into contracts, own property, can be sued and held liable, etc. All characteristics of an individual person." So this is the definition of a human being? Wow, all those philosophers for all these centuries struggling to come up with life's meaning, and you've broken it down so well.
- "Ooohhhh! Big Business is the bad man under the bed. Last time I checked big business was putting gas in my my car, CAT Scan machines in hosptitals, inventing new drugs, employing Americans and paying dividends to stockholders-" So this means we should give them corporations the same rights as human beings? What a lemming.
- "Clealry you don't think, as you basically stated that people are sheep and only follow what they are told to do. I'm not really sure why you think corporations, non profits, and unions buying air time will turn us into slaves, except for the fact that you beleive yourself to be easily influenced by images and sounds from the picture box in your living room." RG, you didn't do so well in history in school, did you?
- Free speech is an alien concept to our progressive friends.— ocjones
- "Free speech is an alien concept to our progressive friends." Actually it's not. What is an alien concept is the notion that money equals free speech and that corporations=human beings. Only an alien would argue either. So what planet are you from? "Kleptu, Barrata, Nikto".
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- DonCheech - Corporations do speak in one voice - every heard of the US Chamber of Commerce - The American Manufacturer's Association, etc.? Also, where in the Constitution are corporations given any rights regarding speech? I would submit to you that "The Founders" were very wary of corporations. This is supposed to be a country, "of the people, by the people, for the people", not of, by & for the corporations. If the corporations are so smart, why do we have recessions, why are there so many people out of work, why are there so many jobs missing from this country. People carp about unions all the time, and I'm no big union fan, BUT, my siblings, and I, would not have the lives we have today if our father had not been in a union after he returned from the US Navy in WWII. People seem to forget history very quickly (or maybe very conveniently) and as the saying goes, "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it". To assume that corporations have the best interests of the citizenry of the USA in mind is beyond foolish. The corporations are run by very well paid, and in many cases very over-paid, people who have THEIR best interests in mind, not yours and mine!— philasportsfan
- a multi-million dollar business like the Phila. Newspapers and NYTimes are allowed to spew their agenda/endorsements/lies but a multi-million dollar business like Goldman Sachs cannot? Hey Will, can you say "HYPOCRITE"??— keapitreal
- "those with the most money can buy the most speech" Incorrect Bill. Everyone has the same amount of free speech...those with the most money can buy the most listeners. Nothing wrong with that.— legatus
- "my siblings, and I, would not have the lives we have today if our father had not been in a union after he returned from the US Navy in WWII." Did your father's union enter into a contract with a corporation? Did your father's paycheck draw money from the union's bank account or from the corporation's? While there may be some truth in your statement, you should also realize that if there had not been a corporation you and your siblings would not have the lives you have today.— legatus
- Found TPS.....he is busy writing letters.....Ellie Light sure gets around................................. In recent weeks, Light has published virtually identical “Letters to the Editor” in support of President Barack Obama in more than a dozen newspapers.Every letter claimed a different residence for Light that happened to be in the newspaper’s circulation area..................................... Associated PressPresident Barack Obama has both detractors and fans. A curious number of his fans are named Ellie Light.“It’s time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can’t just wave a magic wand and fix everything,” said a letter from alleged Philadelphian Ellie Light, that was published in the Jan. 19 edition of The Philadelphia Daily News. A letter from Light in the Jan. 20 edition of the San Francisco Examiner concluded with an identical sentence, but with an address for Light all the way across the country in Daly City, California. Variations of Light’s letter ran in Ohio’s Mansfield News Journal on Jan. 13, with Light claiming an address in Mansfield; in New Mexico’s Ruidoso News on Jan. 12, claiming an address in Three Rivers; in South Carolina’s The Sun News on Jan. 18, claiming an address in Myrtle Beach; and in the Daily News Leader of Staunton, Virginia on Jan. 15, claiming an address in Waynesboro. Her publications list includes other papers in Ohio, West Virginia, Maine, Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania and California, all claiming separate addresses. philly.comLight – who e-mailed an identical missive to this reporter on Jan. 16 without listing a hometown – would not answer e-mailed questions about the address discrepancies in newspapers that ran her letter, or her identity, although she did say she wasn’t a former co-worker of this reporter’s who had a similar name."— Manny Trillo
"I would submit to you that "The Founders" were very wary of corporations." Oh, really philasportsfan? Please name said corporations that existed at the time. Maybe the Betsy Ross Flag Corporation. Perhaps American Cannon and Flintlock Corporation? LOL What an inane post.- Comment removed.
- "db_cooper didn't those enlightened - educated radicals write the wrangle with England, write a constitution, and formed our democracy? They were not liberal, they were hard working, and they educated." And they created a federal government that was supposed to leave people alone instead of one that tries to run their lives.— db_cooper
- Wow. It sounds like Fox News on here with the same idiocy and commentary. This decision is a bad one for representative democracy. It enhances the position of incumbents, makes House races easy to directly influence, and already enhances the outsized role of large corporations. Historically, this has benefited the Republicans but the Democrats were pretty savvy at pitching themselves & bringing in dollars too in '04 and '06 too. It is hard to believe that anyone on the left or right would support this decision but the good thing is that this is one area that actually has some true bipartisan support yet including several Republicans who spoke out against the ruling in the House/Senate. Hopefully this is one area that some common ground can be found to reign in the ability of large corporations to anonymously pour in as many dollars as they like to print, radio, and TV ads during the last 30 and 60 days of a campaign.— MG77
- BILL ATK- I say over 90 times.— Manny Trillo
- Bud Fox says: "oh, and let me second the point made by valentsgrif.... "big business" bought my computer that's enabling me to post on this blog which is supporting advertising rates at philly.com which is employing Will." So am I to take it you are using a company- supplied computer to surf the net and post here? You must be violating your employer's policy. You are certainly misusing a company asset. By the way, flip that computer over and read the label. I doubt it was made in the USA. Now corporations get even more of a "say" in voting in who sends your jobs overseas!— YeOldSalt
- The issue isn't that corporations have been granted freedom of speech. Corporations are entities composed of individuals who already have that right. The issue is that now, those entities can use their big bucks to put up ad campaigns designed to elect pro-business politicians at the expense of the people. I have nothing against making a profit but no business should be allowed to run roughshod over the average Joe and it's happening right now, and most of you guys are cheering it on- kinda like the chickens rooting for Colonel Sanders. Irv Homer is rolling in his grave.— YeOldSalt
- MG77; you are saying that corporations should not be allowed to purchase advertisements in print or electronic media during the last 60 days of a campaign? Does that mean the same print and electronic media should stop spewing their BS during the last 60 days as well? Get a grip.....— keapitreal
- Bill My bet is 86 , @RudyTBone speak for yourself mate I like the idea of TPS with his neck stretched swinging in the breeze— PAEnglish
- What in hell is so magic about 60 days? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.— ocjones
- For those of you against free speech, BillHicks, Hamlet, et al, do you realize that the NAACP is a corporation? Should their speech be limited? What about the corpporation that owns the NYT? If they ran a documentary about Hillary, it would be a-ok, but when private citizens band together to do the same, its wrong? Or is this about money? In which case, should Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros be denied the ability to run a political ad? The first amendment never denied the right of speech to anyone, corporations included. And YeeOldSalt, if you are worried about reelection rates, have you seen them lately? Both well above 80% for the House and Senate.— RG
- Comment removed.
- RASMUSSEN: Obama Approval Index: -19 Strongly Approve 24% Strongly Disapprove 43% Total Approval 44%— Manny Trillo
S E N A T O R . . . . T O O M E Y...... Say it out loud. Practice it. Get used to it.— Mr. Smith- Comment removed.
- SBVFT - I gotta bet the over for this speech, Empty Suit is in full campaign mode.— Joe Funk
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- blackhawk90 and others who don't research - "In the United States, government chartering began to fall out of vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focused on protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and corporations were required to comply with the purposes expressed in their charters. Many private firms in the 19th century avoided the corporate model for these reasons (Andrew Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited partnership, and John D. Rockefeller set up Standard Oil as a trust). Eventually, state governments began to realize the greater corporate registration revenues available by providing more permissive corporate laws. New Jersey was the first state to adopt an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state.[11] Delaware followed, and soon became known as the most corporation-friendly state in the country after New Jersey raised taxes on the corporations, driving them out. New Jersey reduced these taxes after this mistake was realized, but by then it was too late; even today, most major public corporations are set up under Delaware law." So, corporations were an idea for revenue generating by states, starting with NJ & DE. Wow, follow the money! What's happened over time? Corporations have contributed to political campaigns, which led to politicians owing favors to corporations, which led to tax laws favoring corporations, which led to higher taxes on individuals (you know - folks like you and me who works at the pleasure of the corporate officers and managers), which led to more political influence by the corporations which now had more money because they had legislators indebted to them, and on, and on, and on, to today where they now own the SCOTUS!— philasportsfan
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- john gault - your idea of stock ownership is stupid in it's entirety! The BOD is composed of the corporation's chairman & CEO and their hand-picked members. They are all committed to extracting as much money as possible for themselves. Stock owned by people like you is generally voted according to the recommendations in the prospectus - recommendations generated by the corporations leadership! And, the banking crisis was caused by the relaxation of regulation by the GOP and the greed of the bankers. The banking crisis began before Obama took office. You are in serious need of fact-checking!— philasportsfan
- jwad - where's your research from? Faux News does not count as a research entity!— philasportsfan
- Comment removed.
- "And they created a federal government that was supposed to leave people alone instead of one that tries to run their lives." This in an of itself is a contradiction. Government by its definition runs all of our lives, to some extent. It is ultimately a balancing act. Too little government to create more freedom creates anarchy in its extreme. And too much government stifles individuality and creative freedom.
- jwad - you didn't answer my question - where is your research from? I merely said Faux News didn't count - how about if I add that MSNBC also doesn't count as a source?— philasportsfan
- Comment removed.
- Typical liberal, he's all for free speech as long as its just for him.— bcsk
- "Substitute "unions" for "corporations" and "pro-union" for "pro-business" and you have the current state of affairs, which you presumably think is just swell." Poppycock. Unions had their heyday after World War II and started their decline in the 70's. At one time roughly a quarter of American workers were in. Today it is less than 10% and falling. You overestimate the influence of unions; must come from watching too much FOX news. See what happens when corporations are allowed to spew their BS unchecked?
- "Substitute "unions" for "corporations" and "pro-union" for "pro-business" and you have the current state of affairs, which you presumably think is just swell." Poppycock. Unions had their heyday after World War II and started their decline in the 70's. At one time roughly a quarter of American workers were in. Today it is less than 10% and falling. You overestimate the influence of unions; must come from watching too much FOX news. See what happens when corporations are allowed to spew their BS unchecked?
- "While there may be some truth in your statement, you should also realize that if there had not been a corporation you and your siblings would not have the lives you have today." Conversely, if it weren't for working people, corporations would not be able to make the obscene profits they make. Unchecked, business corporations would return to the days of child labor, slave wages, unsafe working conditions, etc. etc. that existed at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Unions have their flaws to be certain, but you can thank unions for the 40 hour work week, paid vacation, overtime, safer working conditions, and many other rights we enjoy on our jobs. That is assuming you right wingers here work. I suspect by the amount you post during the day that many of you wouldn't know a hard day's work from a day missing your tee time.
- "For those of you against free speech, BillHicks, Hamlet, et al, do you realize that the NAACP is a corporation? Should their speech be limited? What about the corpporation that owns the NYT? If they ran a documentary about Hillary, it would be a-ok, but when private citizens band together to do the same, its wrong? Or is this about money? In which case, should Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros be denied the ability to run a political ad? The first amendment never denied the right of speech to anyone, corporations included." Not against free speech. I am for the right of the government to limit the amount of money corporations can spend on political advertising, which has been the law of the land and legal precedent for the past century until this activist Supreme Court decided otherwise. As to what corporation that is, it doesn't matter. The Constitution talks about the rights of individual human beings, it doesn't mention "corporations" anywhere in the damn document. And I thought the right was all about "original intent". So let's see all the supposed right wing "conservative" sacred cows that have been slain by this decision: Against "Judicial activism"? Slain. For "original intent"? Slain. Against "legislating from the bench"? Slain. You people cannot claim to be "conservative" in any meaning of the word. Hypocrites, yes.
- In general the left cares about the rights of individuals and protecting the weak from being trampled under foot by the powerful. The right cares about wealth and its unfettered access. Which explains very well the disparate reactions to this ruling.
- The SCOTUS decision will pump more money into the advertising industry. Which is a good thing for the failing newspaper industry. Obviously Will is too dumb to realize this [after he and his 1970's far left liberal cronies have helped destroy this once profitable business model].— justablogger99
- The SCOTUS decision will pump more money into the advertising industry. Which is a good thing for the failing newspaper industry. Obviously Will is too dumb to realize this [after he and his 1970's far left liberal cronies have helped destroy this once profitable business model].— justablogger99
- The SCOTUS decision will pump more money into the advertising industry. Which is a good thing for the failing newspaper industry. Obviously Will is too dumb to realize this [after he and his 1970's far left liberal cronies have helped destroy this once profitable business model].— justablogger99
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: