Thursday, January 21, 2010


The Supreme Court today overturned parts of the McCain-Feingold legislation which made it a crime for a corporation to pay for political ads near an election. This was brought to the Supreme Court via a Wisconsin Right To Life Organization that was shut down from paying for a movie because some of the movie was financed by corporations.

The President, along with others, expressed his displeasure with this ruling, concerned about how corporations will now throw money into the political arena. In his view, you can only exercise free speech if no corporation has agreed to back your play. The majority argument for the ruling was basically this: They didn't think we were constitutionally allowed to limit speech based on who financed it.

In related news, the President today has declared he will fight Wall Street, intending on punishing all the banks in the country because some of them were bailed out by our finances. President Obama stated that the industry would be responsible for the bailout funds given to the industry. No, the businesses that actually received the funds are not going to be responsible for repaying them, but the industry itself.

It appears that the administrations zeitgeist is against corporations. Maybe the banks should call themselves something other than corporations, so they could be safe.

Oh, and what of the auto industry. Shouldn't Toyota have to pitch in and help pay for our bailout of GM. If banks that didn't get bailout funds and banks that have already repaid what was loaned to them have to pay, why shouldn't auto makers that didn't get any funds have to pay for those that did.

Oy Vay.

Oh, and if you are still reading, what will change with campaign financing? Absolutely nothing. Corporations have been giving large contributions to attempt to influence elections all during the era of McCain-Fiengold, including donations from huge donors, unions and *gasp* corporations giving to both McCain and Obama, all they way up to election day. They merely did it through alternative (527) organizations.


Agent Pipes said...

what the heck! isn't the Obama administration the ones that gave the money to the banks in the first place!!!! here in middle america we call that propietary lending. so President and his administration can't make a budget (AND stick with it), can't "live within it's means", borrows money from Communist governments to pay for their "wants", and hypocritically condemns anyone who does the same.
I think anyone running for office needs to make his or her personal finances, budgets, and debts for the last five years public knowledge so that we can discriminate between stupid politicians and wise ones.

Jaime said...

I think the banks were given their "bailout" when Bush was still in office. Much of it, unlike with the automakers, was with the caveat that it be repaid.

It is interesting to note the the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lending institutions are not targeted, when many believe that much of the problems were from their policies.

Agent Pipes said...

oh yeah. good point about the bush administration. i'll stop using exclamation points now.