Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (129164)	1/24/2010 2:41:07 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541977

"You're assuming that all corporations will jump in and play on the same side of every issue." No. I'm not assuming anything, other than all corporations will desire to "speak"- as they quite obviously do. You assumed I assumed something I did not assume, and never even implied that I assumed. tsk tsk What I assume is that people should be people, and vote and participate in democracy, and that people's fictitious business entities should not be confused with actual "people". I assume democracy will be more like democracy and less like oligarchy if that happens. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (129164)	1/24/2010 8:08:54 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541977

Karen, The best comment on some of the consequences of the SC decision is to consider the fate of cap and trade legislation. As I recall the numbers, the amount of Exxon's annual profits alone are more by factors of 20 to 30 than the amount spent on the 2008 presidential election. I don't see how any serious legislation can be passed if entire industries decide it should not be.

To: Lane3 who wrote (129164)	1/26/2010 12:53:21 AM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 541977

>>You're assuming that all corporations will jump in and play on the same side of every issue. On many issues there may be just a few corporations. If the issue is home phone rates, for example, we're looking at a handful of corporate players. Letting their side have a handful of voices to go against millions and millions of individual phone subscribers wouldnd't alter any outcomes in favor of the phone corporations. I think you're making too much out of that. There are many more individuals than there are corporations. It's just that the corporations have more money. If you limit the allowed amount of money per corporation to the same amount is the allowed amount per individual, the corporations won't make a dent.<< But this isn't about campaign contributions. It's about paid advertising. In that area, a single large corporation can have a voice that is far louder than the voices of millions of individuals.