■ 23 March 2010 | 5:00 AM
Politics Inc.
We should all send a thank-you note to the Supreme Court for allowing corporations to spend all they want on political issues.The Chamber of Commerce, under the phony name of 'Employers for a Healthier America,' spent millions telling us how great Rep. Glenn Nye was for voting against health care the first time and urging us to call him to vote against it again on Sunday.
The message was clear: The Chamber of Commerce will spend millions on advertising for congressmen who vote its way, and of course, millions for an opponent if they don't.
Now get ready for November. This year there will be four times as many ads because corporations will spend a billion dollars buying them to influence every single candidate.
Thomas Vitanza
Virginia Beach
COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
this is exactly what we need
I hope they flood the airwaves
i guess if you're simple
i guess if you're simple minded enought to vote for someone because you see tv ads for them , then you shouldnt be allowed to vote in the first place
Politics = Advertising
Most of our problems in this country and the fact that we are falling behind most other industrialized democracies in almost every way (health, education levels, poverty rates, participation, happiness, etc.) can be traced to the fact that our politics has devolved to battles between advertising agencies fueled by money. Politics should be about ideas, policy alternatives and the objective results obtained. Instead it is about emotional hot buttons that advertisers have learned how to manipulate to sell us products we do not need or want. This is a core problem and the Supreme Court overturning a century of precedent to give corporations the same protection as actual people does not help us solve this core problem. It makes it harder. McCain-Feingold was a bi-partisan attempt to get at the problem - money. This ruling will make it that much easier for court challenges to cripple similar reform efforts.
I don't understand. Where
I don't understand. Where does it say that we are a democracy?
It says it everywhere you look
Phrog, I don't know what your hangup is, but the United States of America is a democracy. A typical dictionary definition of democracy is: "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." Your error is that you think "democracy" is exclusively a system where all decisions, regulations, laws and so forth are made by popular referendums or plebiscites. Clearly you are mistaken, so stop the nonsense. Given that most people of your political persuasion are also fond of the fact that we are not a plebiscite form of democracy, I found it ironic, to put it mildly, that they were recently quoting alleged opinion poll numbers to justify their demands that health care reform be stopped. Well, the republican (lower case "r") form of democracy that you keep reminding us we have gave us in November 2008 the Democratic (upper case "D") White House and Congress that is there now, so deal with it. If you don't like what your representatives do, then vote them out next time. That's how it works.
Sorry to burst your bubble
Webster's Dictionary or any other dictionary is NOT the law of the land. The Constitution is. I know, I know. You progressives hate the Constitution and everything it stand for. But still, it is the law of this land. And the Constitution specifically states Republic. Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever mention democracy.
There. Try to swat that. You can't because it is FACT. The only nonsense around here comes from progressives who do everything they can to undermine the Constitution.
And for your information, all elected officials must abide by the guidelines of the Constitution. That is why we have a governing document. All this "elections have consequences" rhetoric is infantile.
I'll try one more time
Trying to reason with Beck-addled adolescents is a fools errand, but I'll be a fool one more time. I never said a dictionary is law. It just gives definitions of words. And it defines "democracy" as the kind of government we have. If we are not a constitutional democracy, then what are we? The "demo" in "democracy" means that the ultimate power of government resides in us, the people. If you are saying that isn't true, then, who is it has the ultimate power? Maybe Glenn Beck can help you limp through this, but I'm not going to waste any more time on your brain droppings, or his.
Keep the discussion civil
The Constitution, the law of the land, clearly defines our form of government as a Constitutional Republic. Look it up. I don’t define our form of government by a dictionary. I read the documents that establish our form of government. Just because a bunch of left-wing freaks try to redefine our government does not make it so. You just can’t get past the FACT that the Constitution is STILL the law of the land. I do think for myself and am fully capable of reading and understanding history. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule; 51% determining the fate of 49%. Our Constitution determines that 2/3 of a majority is required to determine the fate of everyone else (Article 1 Section 7). That is very clearly NOT a democratic form of government. Don’t confuse yourself with voting. Even a popular vote can be over ruled because of the establishment of the electoral vote (Article 2 Section 1).
Phrog, the scholar
I'm sure that all who read your posts are impressed with your utterly careful scholarship and ironclad reasoning. But I'm a little slow, so would you please explain to us your assertion about Article I, Section 7, "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law." You say of these words in the Constitution, which only prescribe what is necessary to overcome a presidential veto, "2/3 of a majority is required to determine the fate of everyone else." What the .....???? Shame on me - I just wasted more time.
Waste of time?
Why do you call this a waste of time? I thought you liked free and open debate and sharing ideas? I guess that is only with people who completely agree with you.
Now, you answered your own question when you entered the words from Article 1 Section 7 "If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law". Did you happend to see the part that says "two thirds"? Okay, so I didn't write out 2/3. 2/3 is still two thirds and not 51%. A democracy is 51%. I think our framers were very careful to NOT create a democracy. They learned from history how bad it was. Read about the greek empire.
I don't think this is a waste of time. This is learning from each other. If you think it's a waste of time then that is your problem.