In the late 19th Century large "Trusts" controlled by a handful of powerful individuals were considered by many to be one of the greatest threats to American democracy because they allowed those individuals to lord over enormous portions of the American economy. Carnegie dominated steel, while Rockefeller controlled oil. The Vanderbuilts amongst a few others controlled transportation, and Morgan lorded over the entire group through his control of the burgeoning finance industry on Wall Street. In response, the Sherman Anti-trust Act was passed and President Theodore Roosevelt became America's first "Trust Buster." Fighting back, these early Corpocrats lobbied for the creation of the Federal Register and its regulatory environment, while also urging the creation of the Federal Reserve that provided these individuals greate control over their corporate destiny. The court system in a series of early decisions following the enactment of the 14th Amendment granted artificial personhood to the corporate entity that divorced business owners from responsibility for the business's actions, while imposing a responsibility upon the corporate form to maximize profitability. Following the Florida real estate bust in 1927 and the stock market crash in 1929, the Great Depression of the 1930s created a period of opportunity for a counter-force to strike a balance against the strengthening power of corporate interests. The National Labor Relations Act and other elements of the New Deal era provided some cushion against corporate power for the masses.
By the end of World War II with the rebirth of American industry thanks to war spending, the Corpocrats started to reassert their power with the Taft-Hartley Amendments to the NLRA and by using their influence to ensure that a Cold War developed between the United States and the Soviet Union to fuel the rise of a permanent military industrial complex. At the end of his Presidency, General Eisenhower warned of the debilitating effects this development could have on American democracy. Through the growth of military industrial complex the Corpocrats asserted great influence over the policy makers in Congress by providing jobs in key districts and providing mutual favors for policy makers who provided lucrative government contracts.
After the disaster of Vietnam, the influence of the MIC started to fade during the Carter Administration, but the Corpocrats had already won significant concessions from policy makers who had grown favorable to their thinking through the influence of the MIC. In 1974, with the enactment of ERISA, the Corpocrats had secured the right to severe all responsibility to their employees. Devastating monetary policies set into play by the Corpocrats through their privately controlled bank the Federal Reserve during the late 1970s paved the way for the rise of the leading Corpocrat champion, Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election. Technological changes coupled with Reagan's policies that repealed many of the key provisions the New Deal era's media regulations that required objectivity and balance in reporting, as well as ownership by numerous individuals were supplanted by a new regime that eliminated the requirement of objectivity, and began the era of media consolidation. These changes were vital to a corruption of the collective American cultural intellect that has continued unabated to this day.
The Reagan era also rolled back key banking regulations that protected both debtors and depositors, laying the foundation for uncontrolled and irresponsibility borrowing that is fast approaching a day of reckoning. In addition to the roll back of key New Deal era banking regulations, the Reagan Administration began a period of irresponsible government borrowing by rolling back the tax rate for business and the wealthy, effectively shifting the tax burden to unborn generations of Americans, enacting a policy of taxation without representation, unprecedented in the history of American self-governance.
During the Reagan era corporate consolidation and corporate raiding to maximize profits by selling off business assets began at another unprecedented rate. During this period many major US companies started to "outsource" their production to overseas facilities where labor and regulatory environments were more favorable. The most notable example of this quest to maximize profits by reducing costs is General Motors, which twenty years after its infamous closures in Flint, Michigan, is considered by many to be tettering near collapse because of mismanagement, and poor sales, often associated with the poor quality of the vehicles that company has been producing.
The "outsourcing" of jobs reached new heights again as NAFTA and the WTO rose to power under the Clinton Administration. At the same time an "innovation economy" took root in the United States and promised to build a new American economy built on brain power, as opposed to muscle power. Unfortunately, the Corpocrats had other plans and the American educational system continued to decline, while poorer nations like India and China redoubled their efforts to effectively educate the masses.
Elected in 1992 with a promise to provide universal health care to the American people for the first time, President Clinton failed to achieve that policy objective, and in 1994, the Corpocrats took a giant leap forward by electing a Republican controlled House of Representatives and Senate. The health care industry and policies in the United States best demonstrate how the Corpocrats control the agenda of the US government. With 4 health insurance lobbyists for each member of Congress, the money these individuals funnel to campaigns, and the jobs available to friendly politicians such as Billy Tauzin after they leave Congress, with multi-million dollar salaries buy considerable influence.
In no small part because of legal duties imposed by the current laws governing the corporate structure, and its ability to divorce owners from responsibility for the corporation's action, most large corporations as "artificial persons" can be clinically diagnosed as sociopathic institutions meeting all of the DSM requirements for a diagnosis of an anti-social personality disorder. Through the influence that can be purchased with the vast pools of money these corporations control, American government has become sociopathic in many of its policies as well.
Unfortunately for these sociopathic institutions, and more unfortunately for the American people, the consequences of such divorce from responsibility loom on the immediate horizon. The failure of government to impose appropriate societal duties and require social responsibilty of these publicly chartered institutions has lead the world to the verge of another major Depression. Like the previous Great Depression, a real estate bust is the beginning of the cycle, which has caused a credit crisis that has spilled over from the mortgage industry to the credit card industry that currently has a high default rate greater than 5%, and this is dramatically effecting the stock market. It is likely this will begin effecting the labor market, unfortunately because the pattern in America during the last two decades has been individuals losing a good paying job, then taking a bad paying job or two in its place, unemployment numbers might not show this decline, but purchasing power will continue to decline.
Full Version: Corpocracy
I would get out now but there's nowhere to go.
I'm guessing by the lack of interest that there is essentially consensus with the theory that corpocracy reigns supreme in the US?
Megacorps have been running the show for a long time. They are tightening their grip.
QUOTE (CFKane_ @ Jan 23 2008, 12:15 PM) 
I'm guessing by the lack of interest that there is essentially consensus with the theory that corpocracy reigns supreme in the US?
That guess only fits your preconceptions.
Maybe there's just a genuine lack of interest in the topic as presented. Not every topic near and dear to one's heart catches fire amongst the other posters.
As a separate topic I found it just part of the usual ranting against business and profit, in the name of the people, but not necessarily the interest of the people. Ifm public responsibility meant creating good jobs and paying shareholders a decent profit it would be one thing. Just paying a lot of taxes is not the only thing beneficial to the public.
QUOTE (beasty @ Jan 23 2008, 10:05 PM)
As a separate topic I found it just part of the usual ranting against business and profit, in the name of the people, but not necessarily the interest of the people. Ifm public responsibility meant creating good jobs and paying shareholders a decent profit it would be one thing. Just paying a lot of taxes is not the only thing beneficial to the public.
There was a mention of taxes, but that mention I think was in line with the context of the entire piece, which is that the institutional design of corporations in America which has placed a duty upon the managers of a corporation to solely consider their actions in the context of the corporate pursuit of profit, while divorcing management and owners from responsibility for the actions taken by the corporate entity in pursuit of such profit, has had debilitating effects on the American government, and the American economy, because by the very nature of these government chartered institutions, power is accumulated without responsibility to the society that generates the source of that power in the form of wealth. The problem is that through the consolidation of power in the form of wealth that has been occuring in America, and through the exploitation of that wealth to influence governmental policy, corporations have effectively eroded any countervailing force, upsetting the traditional democratic system of checks and balances that served America well during its early history, and replacing it with corpocracy. Government of, by, and for the corporation.
The problem is that by design, the corporate structure in America discourages social responsibility such as the creation of good paying jobs that you mentioned, and such as providing shareholders not simply with the benefit of a reasonable profit, or a "decent profit" as you termed it, but denies those shareholders or managers the ability to demand peripheral benefits that come from the ancillary improvements to society that could be created if the duties of corporate officers and corporate boards were not solely governed by the profit motive, but also guided by additional requirements of their charters.
During the 1800s a corporate charter was a more rarified thing than it is today, and at the time of early American corporations, there were numerous ancillary duties aside from pure profit motive that were required to obtain such a charter, which granted the privilege of limited liability for the collective actions of the corporation's partners, i.e. shareholders and management.
To my way of thinking, one such ancillary duty that it would seem reasonable to impose is in fact the creation of good paying jobs as you mentioned, and depending on the nature of the business additional duties might also be appropriate. For example, it may be appropriate to require certain standards of environmental excellence from a corporation that seeks to provide energy, or possibly it may be appropriate to require a corporation that exploits certain natural resources, such as coal, oil, or natural gas, to use a certain portion of the profits generated from such exploitation, to re-invest in the creation of a sustainable clean energy supply to replenish the resources they have helped to consume. This ultimately has nothing to do with taxation, or the "usual ranting against business and profit" as you called it, but it is ultimately a question about the nature of power in American society.
A question of whether the nation will continue on a path that has divorced one of the greatest sources of power in American society from the duties of social responsibility imposed on individuals, or whether the nation will use its power to channel that power to more productive ends.
I honestly think there are many people in America, including many corporate leaders who would have no problem redirecting the power of the institutions that they lead towards more community oriented goods, unfortunately, the laws that currently govern corporate actions prevent such actions, because that would deviate from the sole duty of a corporation under the law, to maximize profit, and externalize costs.
As I see it, the problem with the American corporation, isn't primarily one of profit, but a problem of externalizing costs through a liability shield that treats corporate criminals differently than human criminals. If a living breathing human being were to cause thousands of deaths, even accidentally, jail time, at the very least is likely, in addition to fines, and civil judgments. If a corporation acting intentionally caused the same thousands of deaths by disposing of a carcinogen in a manner that is illegal because it was cheaper than legal disposal for example, then jail time isn't going to result because you can not imprison a "legal fiction." A corporation is essentially a document in a file cabinet, you can't imprison a piece of paper. The corporation will be fined, and in the case of a major corporation worth multiple billions of dollars, the maximum fine, which may be several million dollars -an amount likely to leave most individuals destitute- will be simply factored in as a cost of doing business, as will any civil judgments that may result, in fact, auto manufacturers have been found to have calculated the cost of paying off lawsuits versus the cost of implementing safety design changes and chose to kill people because the cost of paying off the lawsuits cost less than implementing the design change, so this isn't a new phenomenon. These problems are the kinds of problems that I was considering, the problem of divorcing people from responsibility for their actions, coupled with legal duties that make the institution of the corporation meet the clinical requirements to be diagnosed a sociopath. More importantly, I was attempting to spark some discussion about the problems that stem from institutions with legal duties that require sociopathic personalties gaining considerable power over the government of a nation.
You should talk to some of those corporate bigwigs in jail. I'm all for jailing criminals, corporate or otherwise, but I don't want business weighted down by being too risk averse because losing a dime anywhere in the company may result in major jail time for corporate officers.
There are corporations that SAY they work for other than maximizing profit, but even Ben and Jerry sold out for bigger bucks.
(One reason I haven't answered much is trying to do 5 days worth of work in 3 days)
There are corporations that SAY they work for other than maximizing profit, but even Ben and Jerry sold out for bigger bucks.
QUOTE
More importantly, I was attempting to spark some discussion about the problems that stem from institutions with legal duties that require sociopathic personalties gaining considerable power over the government of a nation.
(One reason I haven't answered much is trying to do 5 days worth of work in 3 days)
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Jan 23 2008, 04:02 PM)
Another guess on your part. Posting here merely bumps another worthless thread. As far as I'm concerned you can take your anti-capitalist bullshit and shove it.
That's another view. Making anti-capitalism a separate thread is probably just as well. Collect the rants in one spot.
Here you go Kane-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1
Wall Street, as opposed to community banks, is driven by Sales commission on investments sold to someone else, not the profitability of the investments for the investors over time.
"Investment Banks", are not "banks" at all. They are sales organizations. They hide behind the "Investment Bank" name because people wouldn't be nearly so comfortable putting their money in the hands of "Investment Salesmen".
Unfortunately, since the demise of the Glass-Stegal act, large banks are now no longer prohibited from being in the investment sales business as well.
This allowed folks like Citibank to sell independent investors the safest parts of these mortgage backed securities while earning huge sales commissions, and still retaining the worst of the risks in off balance sheet sock puppet entities. When the loans finally go bad, CITI ends up having to eat the losses from the off balance sheet sock puppets which should never have been off balance sheet to begin with.
At the end of the day, Citi was able to buy the worst part of these debts with depositors money while booking big profits on the commissions on the better parts sold to outsiders.
QUOTE
Capitalism's Enemies Within
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, January 23, 2008; Page A19
Amid the mayhem on world financial markets, it is becoming clear that capitalism's most dangerous enemies are capitalists. No one can have watched the "subprime mortgage" debacle without noticing the absurd contrast between the magnitude of the failure and the lavish rewards heaped on those who presided over it. At Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, large losses on subprime securities cost chief executives their jobs -- and they left with multimillion-dollar pay packages. Stanley O'Neal, the ex-head of Merrill, received an estimated $161 million.
Everyday Americans will conclude (rightly) that this brand of capitalism is rigged in favor of the privileged few. It will be said in their defense that these packages reflected years of service, often highly successful. So? It's not as if these CEOs weren't compensated in all those years. If you leave your company a shambles -- with losses to be absorbed by lower-level employees, some of whom will be fired, and shareholders -- do you deserve a gold-plated send-off? Still, the more serious problem transcends the high pay itself and goes to the wider consequences for the economy.
Wall Street's pay practices perversely encourage extreme risk-taking that can destabilize the economy. Subprime mortgage losses may simply be chapter one. Now there are signs of problems involving securities known as "credit default swaps." Never mind the details. Concentrate on the possible fallout. If banks and investment houses sustain more losses, the nation's credit system will be further wounded and so will the economy. The Federal Reserve cut its key overnight interest rate yesterday from 4.25 percent to 3.5 percent -- a huge move -- in part to shore up this wobbly credit system.
By "Wall Street," I mean all the commercial banks, investment banks, mutual funds, hedge funds and the like that comprise the financial sector -- but particularly investment banks. Pay is eye-popping. In 2007, Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, received compensation estimated at $68 million. But pay is also heavily skewed toward annual "bonuses" based on the profits that traders and bankers generate. I asked Johnson Associates, a compensation consulting firm, for typical Wall Street pay packages. The results describe "managing directors" based in New York with 10 or 15 years experience. Most would be in their 40s.
Here are estimates for 2007:
# Investment banker: $2.1 million, consisting of $275,000 in base pay plus $1.2 million in cash bonus and $625,000 in long-term bonus. (An investment banker helps firms raise capital by selling new stocks and bonds and also advises on mergers and acquisitions.)
# Bond trader: $1.5 million, with $240,000 in base pay, $975,000 in cash bonus and $310,000 in long-term bonus.
# Hedge fund manager: $1.8 million, split between a salary of $265,000 and $1.5 million bonus.
Just why investment bankers and traders out-earn, say, doctors or computer engineers is a question I've never heard convincingly answered. Are they smarter? Unlikely. Do they contribute more to the economy? Questionable. True, Wall Street often performs a vital function. It channels savings into productive investments. It helps provide access to capital and credit. In 2006, U.S. companies raised nearly $4 trillion through new stocks and bonds. Many financial innovations, including mortgage-backed securities, have benefited individuals and companies.
But Wall Street also frequently misallocates capital and credit. The "tech bubble" of the late 1990s was one episode. Now we have subprime mortgages. Why? Well, the herd mentality of financial crazes has a long history. But compensation practices skewed so heavily toward bonuses based on annual profits make matters worse.
"People self-select for careers. On Wall Street, they self-select for the money," says pay consultant Alan Johnson. "Wall Street is a sales business -- they sell bonds, securities, transactions, ideas. . . . They're not paid to be long-term, philosophical, reflective." The pressure is to do the next merger, sell more stocks and bonds, do more trading -- whatever boosts current profits and bonuses, the long-term consequences be damned.
"These are my MBA students, not just mine but MBAs from Harvard, Stanford, Pennsylvania," says economist Allan Meltzer of Carnegie-Mellon University. "They were buying and selling this garbage [subprime mortgage securities]. Are they so stupid? They got compensated for doing it. If they didn't do it, they'd lose their jobs."
To be fair, the real estate bubble had many causes, including low interest rates, the political popularity of homeownership and the (mistaken) belief that housing prices could never fall. This may explain why, so far, the backlash against Wall Street has been muted.
But if the subprime failure turns out to be a preamble to a larger financial breakdown, flowing from the creation of new securities that offered short-term trading possibilities but whose long-run risks were underestimated, then the mood could turn uglier. Indeed, many Americans may conclude that capitalism has run amok.
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, January 23, 2008; Page A19
Amid the mayhem on world financial markets, it is becoming clear that capitalism's most dangerous enemies are capitalists. No one can have watched the "subprime mortgage" debacle without noticing the absurd contrast between the magnitude of the failure and the lavish rewards heaped on those who presided over it. At Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, large losses on subprime securities cost chief executives their jobs -- and they left with multimillion-dollar pay packages. Stanley O'Neal, the ex-head of Merrill, received an estimated $161 million.
Everyday Americans will conclude (rightly) that this brand of capitalism is rigged in favor of the privileged few. It will be said in their defense that these packages reflected years of service, often highly successful. So? It's not as if these CEOs weren't compensated in all those years. If you leave your company a shambles -- with losses to be absorbed by lower-level employees, some of whom will be fired, and shareholders -- do you deserve a gold-plated send-off? Still, the more serious problem transcends the high pay itself and goes to the wider consequences for the economy.
Wall Street's pay practices perversely encourage extreme risk-taking that can destabilize the economy. Subprime mortgage losses may simply be chapter one. Now there are signs of problems involving securities known as "credit default swaps." Never mind the details. Concentrate on the possible fallout. If banks and investment houses sustain more losses, the nation's credit system will be further wounded and so will the economy. The Federal Reserve cut its key overnight interest rate yesterday from 4.25 percent to 3.5 percent -- a huge move -- in part to shore up this wobbly credit system.
By "Wall Street," I mean all the commercial banks, investment banks, mutual funds, hedge funds and the like that comprise the financial sector -- but particularly investment banks. Pay is eye-popping. In 2007, Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, received compensation estimated at $68 million. But pay is also heavily skewed toward annual "bonuses" based on the profits that traders and bankers generate. I asked Johnson Associates, a compensation consulting firm, for typical Wall Street pay packages. The results describe "managing directors" based in New York with 10 or 15 years experience. Most would be in their 40s.
Here are estimates for 2007:
# Investment banker: $2.1 million, consisting of $275,000 in base pay plus $1.2 million in cash bonus and $625,000 in long-term bonus. (An investment banker helps firms raise capital by selling new stocks and bonds and also advises on mergers and acquisitions.)
# Bond trader: $1.5 million, with $240,000 in base pay, $975,000 in cash bonus and $310,000 in long-term bonus.
# Hedge fund manager: $1.8 million, split between a salary of $265,000 and $1.5 million bonus.
Just why investment bankers and traders out-earn, say, doctors or computer engineers is a question I've never heard convincingly answered. Are they smarter? Unlikely. Do they contribute more to the economy? Questionable. True, Wall Street often performs a vital function. It channels savings into productive investments. It helps provide access to capital and credit. In 2006, U.S. companies raised nearly $4 trillion through new stocks and bonds. Many financial innovations, including mortgage-backed securities, have benefited individuals and companies.
But Wall Street also frequently misallocates capital and credit. The "tech bubble" of the late 1990s was one episode. Now we have subprime mortgages. Why? Well, the herd mentality of financial crazes has a long history. But compensation practices skewed so heavily toward bonuses based on annual profits make matters worse.
"People self-select for careers. On Wall Street, they self-select for the money," says pay consultant Alan Johnson. "Wall Street is a sales business -- they sell bonds, securities, transactions, ideas. . . . They're not paid to be long-term, philosophical, reflective." The pressure is to do the next merger, sell more stocks and bonds, do more trading -- whatever boosts current profits and bonuses, the long-term consequences be damned.
"These are my MBA students, not just mine but MBAs from Harvard, Stanford, Pennsylvania," says economist Allan Meltzer of Carnegie-Mellon University. "They were buying and selling this garbage [subprime mortgage securities]. Are they so stupid? They got compensated for doing it. If they didn't do it, they'd lose their jobs."
To be fair, the real estate bubble had many causes, including low interest rates, the political popularity of homeownership and the (mistaken) belief that housing prices could never fall. This may explain why, so far, the backlash against Wall Street has been muted.
But if the subprime failure turns out to be a preamble to a larger financial breakdown, flowing from the creation of new securities that offered short-term trading possibilities but whose long-run risks were underestimated, then the mood could turn uglier. Indeed, many Americans may conclude that capitalism has run amok.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1
Wall Street, as opposed to community banks, is driven by Sales commission on investments sold to someone else, not the profitability of the investments for the investors over time.
"Investment Banks", are not "banks" at all. They are sales organizations. They hide behind the "Investment Bank" name because people wouldn't be nearly so comfortable putting their money in the hands of "Investment Salesmen".
Unfortunately, since the demise of the Glass-Stegal act, large banks are now no longer prohibited from being in the investment sales business as well.
This allowed folks like Citibank to sell independent investors the safest parts of these mortgage backed securities while earning huge sales commissions, and still retaining the worst of the risks in off balance sheet sock puppet entities. When the loans finally go bad, CITI ends up having to eat the losses from the off balance sheet sock puppets which should never have been off balance sheet to begin with.
At the end of the day, Citi was able to buy the worst part of these debts with depositors money while booking big profits on the commissions on the better parts sold to outsiders.
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Jan 23 2008, 04:07 PM)
A spot that deserves to sink to the bottom of the pile, should no one show interest. Conclusions not to be made based on lack of posts.
Members and topic starters have to take some responsibility for how busy threads are. Space, beasty and I can't do it all alone. People have been invited and given opportunities to host, moderate, invite and participate as they please. Sometimes threads have to be kept alive by the efforts of one person alone, whether by inviting people to participate with them like Servo, or just bumping them now and then.
Once again, guests and lurkers are welcome to sign in and participate. (however some of us DO bite)
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Jan 23 2008, 11:02 PM)
Another guess on your part. Posting here merely bumps another worthless thread. As far as I'm concerned you can take your anti-capitalist bullshit and shove it.
Corpocracy has nothing to do with capitalism. Two very different subjects.
Corpocracy is a social system dominated politically and economically by large corporations. Corpocracy might also be characterized as an economic and political system characterized by the corporate control of government as well as the production and consumption of goods and services.
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Capitalism might also be characterized as an economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption.
Corpocracy is the enemy of capitalism, much as it is the enemy of democracy.
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Jan 23 2008, 04:37 PM)
I kinda think there ought to be room in an existing thread if this has to be in the soabox. Or doesn't Kane already have a sub forum? If a thread dies, it just dies. No need to bump it with such a preposterous statement.
Not criticizing anyone on any front. It's fine to start a separate thread just so people will see it, or pop things in where people think they'll fit. Some things just get read, and others responded to. This topic has 80 page views so it isn't like it's ignored, but we'll have to see how it lasts. No rule against bumps. (or ignoring topics)
QUOTE
My point was that it's totally ridiculous to make the assumption that since nobody cares to post in a thread, that everyone who chose not to do so agrees with the premise. That's just plain stupid.
A rhetorical device for sure.
QUOTE (CFKane_ @ Jan 23 2008, 04:47 PM)
Corpocracy is a social system dominated politically and economically by large corporations. Corpocracy might also be characterized as an economic and political system characterized by the corporate control of government as well as the production and consumption of goods and services.
As opposed to one overreaching government controlling the production and consumption of goods and services.
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Jan 23 2008, 11:50 PM)
A rhetorical device for sure.
I'm not sure that it is purely a rhetorical device. Some people in their responses have had what I think is misplaced disagreement from conclusions they drew that weren't the intent of the topic, but the true premise, that the American government and its policies have been dominated by the interests of large corporations hasn't taken too much of a hit from what I've seen.
QUOTE (CFKane_ @ Jan 23 2008, 04:56 PM)
I'm not sure that it is purely a rhetorical device. Some people in their responses have had what I think is misplaced disagreement from conclusions they drew that weren't the intent of the topic,
Saying if nobody complains everyone agrees is a bit unfair.
QUOTE
but the true premise, that the American government and its policies have been dominated by the interests of large corporations hasn't taken too much of a hit from what I've seen.
Government panders to all sorts of interests. Corporations are powerful, no doubt, but then they are important as well. And they don't all pull government in one direction either.
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Jan 23 2008, 11:56 PM)
As opposed to one overreaching government controlling the production and consumption of goods and services.
I think that would be problematic too. Call me crazy, but I do think there is ground for a happy medium, a medium that doesn't seem to exist in the current environment.
It is troubling that the American manufacturing base has so greatly eroded that it is unlikely the nation could meet the challenges of producing the material needed for the kind of all out fight for survival that was waged during World War II, for example, and perhaps there should be a certain duty to maintain a manufacturing base in America for a business that has extracted enormous profits from this country, wouldn't you agree?
Just one tiny example, but I think divorcing the institutions that allow for capital formation from certain duties to the civilization that allowed their existence is troubling on many levels, and it is an issue that certainly isn't being addressed by many people in either of the political parties.
QUOTE (CFKane_ @ Jan 23 2008, 05:03 PM)
I think that would be problematic too. Call me crazy, but I do think there is ground for a happy medium, a medium that doesn't seem to exist in the current environment.
I'm thinking less power for both, but that's just me. All things considered I worry more about government power than corporate, but I am all for corporate responsibility. A happy medium is subjective.
QUOTE
It is troubling that the American manufacturing base has so greatly eroded that it is unlikely the nation could meet the challenges of producing the material needed for the kind of all out fight for survival that was waged during World War II, for example, and perhaps there should be a certain duty to maintain a manufacturing base in America for a business that has extracted enormous profits from this country, wouldn't you agree?
It's troubling that the same people who drove them out are complaining they're gone. I'll give you that.
QUOTE
Just one tiny example, but I think divorcing the institutions that allow for capital formation from certain duties to the civilization that allowed their existence is troubling on many levels, and it is an issue that certainly isn't being addressed by many people in either of the political parties.
Dems certainly pander to the WalMart haters, but they sit on boards too. Maybe more honest advocacy would lead to a better balance.
The Vanderbuilts were greate
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Jan 23 2008, 03:56 PM)
As opposed to one overreaching government controlling the production and consumption of goods and services.
No, as opposed to a democratic republic.
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Jan 23 2008, 06:41 PM)
No, as opposed to a democratic republic.
Kane pointed out one end of the scale, and I pointed out the other. A Democratic Republic could fit in anywhere between the two extremes.
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Jan 23 2008, 06:54 PM)
Kane pointed out one end of the scale, and I pointed out the other. A Democratic Republic could fit in anywhere between the two extremes.
The democratic Republic is it. Both centralized autocratic government and corporatocracy are deviations in kind from a democratic Republic.
Now were down to arguing which way to deviate and how far. Realistically.
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Jan 24 2008, 07:59 AM)
Now were down to arguing which way to deviate and how far. Realistically.
Realistically, the option you put forth as the counter to what Kane claimed is the reality is so far removed from reality that it is, well, unrealistic. Your counter would be unrealistic in farking Sweden and Denmark and France and Germany, let alone in the U.S. and e.g. Canada.
And don't bring up Mexico. We don't compare ourselves with our lessers.
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Jan 24 2008, 11:49 AM)
And don't bring up Mexico. We don't compare ourselves with our lessers.
That leaves nobody.
QUOTE (beasty @ Jan 24 2008, 11:44 AM)
That leaves nobody.
So, we have no peers?
Court opens door to possibility of corporate political spending
Campaign finance watchdogs are concerned that a little-seen order issued on the Supreme Court’s final day could lead to tens of millions of corporate dollars being spent on television advertising — an ad blitz candidates would have difficulty countering.
On Monday, instead of ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court issued a rare order for further arguments on the case. The suit sought to test whether corporate contributions to a documentary slamming then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton should have kept it from being distributed during the campaign.
The case will be expanded, with lawyers for both parties asked to file briefs answering whether the court should overturn two other landmark suits.
One of those suits was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the 1990 decision in which the Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s right to prohibit corporations from using money to support or oppose candidates. The other, McConnell v. FEC, upheld the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) over the objection of petitioner Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
By seeking new arguments on those cases, campaign finance watchdogs said, the court is poised to make a substantial ruling that could have wide-reaching consequences.
“The court, at the very least, is considering reversing more than 100 years of campaign finance precedent prohibiting corporate spending,” said Paul Ryan, associate legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “It would be a pretty large step, and remarkable step, for the court to overturn a century of public policy.”
Specifically, the high court is seeking new arguments on Section 203 of BCRA, which regulates electioneering communications and prohibits corporations from running so-called issue advertisements.
“The court is seeking to address a fundamental issue in campaign finance law, and that is whether corporate money can be used for certain types of political advertising,” said Jan Baran, a partner at Wiley Rein LLP who published a guidebook for corporations on election law. Baran called the court’s move “a significant order.”
Overturning that ban would presumably allow corporations to begin spending money on political campaigns, either in support of or opposition to a candidate. It would be the first time since Congress banned corporate political expenditures in 1947.
If the Supreme Court does overturn either case, the effects on political campaigns will be dramatic, said Marc Elias, a partner at Perkins Coie who served as general counsel on Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) 2004 presidential campaign and who is heading legal efforts for Democrat Al Franken in the disputed Minnesota Senate contest.
“The ban on corporate spending on federal elections is at the center of our current campaign finance system,” he said. “If that were to change it would radically alter the system that we have.”
The court is substantially different today than it was even in 2003, when McConnell was decided. With the retirement of former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the five-justice majority to uphold BCRA, the court may have shifted against reformers.
“It was thought that Justice O’Connor was the deciding vote who tilted the court in favor of campaign finance reform, and once she left and Chief Justice [John] Roberts joined the court, there’s been some expectation that the balance of power was going to shift against campaign finance reformers,” said Rob Kelner, who heads Covington & Burling’s Election and Political Law division.
“This new order seems to point in that same direction,” added Kelner, who has argued against BCRA before the court.
The court’s order asks both parties to specifically address whether justices should overrule either or both Austin and McConnell, and election law experts are torn as they try to read the tea leaves.
“I don’t think the court would have ordered this type of argument if there wasn’t a chance, if not a likelihood, of at least five justices thinking these cases should be overruled,” said Baran, who has argued against some finance measures before the Supreme Court. Still, said Baran: “They’ve been flip-flopping all over the place.”
“You could see the glass half-empty or half-full,” Elias said. “If there were five justices ready to [overturn Austin and McConnell], they would have done so.”
But even hearing the case is an unusual step that worries Ryan, the prominent campaign finance reform backer.
“We have a long line of precedents, Supreme Court decisions upholding these restrictions,” he said. “I’m hopeful that there are still some open minds on the court.”
Those on both sides see Justice Anthony Kennedy, long the swing vote on controversial cases, as the fulcrum on which the cases will rest. And that, in the end, could be the tipping point against reformers: Unlike O’Connor, who joined the majority in the McConnell decision, Kennedy dissented from majority opinions upholding bans in both earlier cases.
The re-argument is scheduled to take place Wednesday, Sept. 9. That could have an impact on the confirmation process of Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to fill a vacant seat on the high court.
Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin July 13, and Democrats in the Senate could push for a final vote on her nomination before they leave for August recess in order to have a full complement of justices. Given her past experience on the New York City Campaign Finance Board, Sotomayor is likely to have something to say on the case.
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/court-ope...2009-06-30.html
Campaign finance watchdogs are concerned that a little-seen order issued on the Supreme Court’s final day could lead to tens of millions of corporate dollars being spent on television advertising — an ad blitz candidates would have difficulty countering.
On Monday, instead of ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court issued a rare order for further arguments on the case. The suit sought to test whether corporate contributions to a documentary slamming then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton should have kept it from being distributed during the campaign.
The case will be expanded, with lawyers for both parties asked to file briefs answering whether the court should overturn two other landmark suits.
One of those suits was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the 1990 decision in which the Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s right to prohibit corporations from using money to support or oppose candidates. The other, McConnell v. FEC, upheld the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) over the objection of petitioner Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
By seeking new arguments on those cases, campaign finance watchdogs said, the court is poised to make a substantial ruling that could have wide-reaching consequences.
“The court, at the very least, is considering reversing more than 100 years of campaign finance precedent prohibiting corporate spending,” said Paul Ryan, associate legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “It would be a pretty large step, and remarkable step, for the court to overturn a century of public policy.”
Specifically, the high court is seeking new arguments on Section 203 of BCRA, which regulates electioneering communications and prohibits corporations from running so-called issue advertisements.
“The court is seeking to address a fundamental issue in campaign finance law, and that is whether corporate money can be used for certain types of political advertising,” said Jan Baran, a partner at Wiley Rein LLP who published a guidebook for corporations on election law. Baran called the court’s move “a significant order.”
Overturning that ban would presumably allow corporations to begin spending money on political campaigns, either in support of or opposition to a candidate. It would be the first time since Congress banned corporate political expenditures in 1947.
If the Supreme Court does overturn either case, the effects on political campaigns will be dramatic, said Marc Elias, a partner at Perkins Coie who served as general counsel on Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) 2004 presidential campaign and who is heading legal efforts for Democrat Al Franken in the disputed Minnesota Senate contest.
“The ban on corporate spending on federal elections is at the center of our current campaign finance system,” he said. “If that were to change it would radically alter the system that we have.”
The court is substantially different today than it was even in 2003, when McConnell was decided. With the retirement of former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the five-justice majority to uphold BCRA, the court may have shifted against reformers.
“It was thought that Justice O’Connor was the deciding vote who tilted the court in favor of campaign finance reform, and once she left and Chief Justice [John] Roberts joined the court, there’s been some expectation that the balance of power was going to shift against campaign finance reformers,” said Rob Kelner, who heads Covington & Burling’s Election and Political Law division.
“This new order seems to point in that same direction,” added Kelner, who has argued against BCRA before the court.
The court’s order asks both parties to specifically address whether justices should overrule either or both Austin and McConnell, and election law experts are torn as they try to read the tea leaves.
“I don’t think the court would have ordered this type of argument if there wasn’t a chance, if not a likelihood, of at least five justices thinking these cases should be overruled,” said Baran, who has argued against some finance measures before the Supreme Court. Still, said Baran: “They’ve been flip-flopping all over the place.”
“You could see the glass half-empty or half-full,” Elias said. “If there were five justices ready to [overturn Austin and McConnell], they would have done so.”
But even hearing the case is an unusual step that worries Ryan, the prominent campaign finance reform backer.
“We have a long line of precedents, Supreme Court decisions upholding these restrictions,” he said. “I’m hopeful that there are still some open minds on the court.”
Those on both sides see Justice Anthony Kennedy, long the swing vote on controversial cases, as the fulcrum on which the cases will rest. And that, in the end, could be the tipping point against reformers: Unlike O’Connor, who joined the majority in the McConnell decision, Kennedy dissented from majority opinions upholding bans in both earlier cases.
The re-argument is scheduled to take place Wednesday, Sept. 9. That could have an impact on the confirmation process of Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to fill a vacant seat on the high court.
Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin July 13, and Democrats in the Senate could push for a final vote on her nomination before they leave for August recess in order to have a full complement of justices. Given her past experience on the New York City Campaign Finance Board, Sotomayor is likely to have something to say on the case.
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/court-ope...2009-06-30.html
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Jan 24 2008, 04:51 PM)
So, we have no peers?
Not really.
QUOTE (Davis 2.0 @ Jul 6 2009, 06:58 AM)
Court opens door to possibility of corporate political spending
Campaign finance watchdogs are concerned that a little-seen order issued on the Supreme Court’s final day could lead to tens of millions of corporate dollars being spent on television advertising — an ad blitz candidates would have difficulty countering.
On Monday, instead of ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court issued a rare order for further arguments on the case. The suit sought to test whether corporate contributions to a documentary slamming then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton should have kept it from being distributed during the campaign.
The case will be expanded, with lawyers for both parties asked to file briefs answering whether the court should overturn two other landmark suits.
One of those suits was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the 1990 decision in which the Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s right to prohibit corporations from using money to support or oppose candidates. The other, McConnell v. FEC, upheld the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) over the objection of petitioner Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
By seeking new arguments on those cases, campaign finance watchdogs said, the court is poised to make a substantial ruling that could have wide-reaching consequences.
“The court, at the very least, is considering reversing more than 100 years of campaign finance precedent prohibiting corporate spending,” said Paul Ryan, associate legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “It would be a pretty large step, and remarkable step, for the court to overturn a century of public policy.”
Specifically, the high court is seeking new arguments on Section 203 of BCRA, which regulates electioneering communications and prohibits corporations from running so-called issue advertisements.
“The court is seeking to address a fundamental issue in campaign finance law, and that is whether corporate money can be used for certain types of political advertising,” said Jan Baran, a partner at Wiley Rein LLP who published a guidebook for corporations on election law. Baran called the court’s move “a significant order.”
Overturning that ban would presumably allow corporations to begin spending money on political campaigns, either in support of or opposition to a candidate. It would be the first time since Congress banned corporate political expenditures in 1947.
If the Supreme Court does overturn either case, the effects on political campaigns will be dramatic, said Marc Elias, a partner at Perkins Coie who served as general counsel on Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) 2004 presidential campaign and who is heading legal efforts for Democrat Al Franken in the disputed Minnesota Senate contest.
“The ban on corporate spending on federal elections is at the center of our current campaign finance system,” he said. “If that were to change it would radically alter the system that we have.”
The court is substantially different today than it was even in 2003, when McConnell was decided. With the retirement of former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the five-justice majority to uphold BCRA, the court may have shifted against reformers.
“It was thought that Justice O’Connor was the deciding vote who tilted the court in favor of campaign finance reform, and once she left and Chief Justice [John] Roberts joined the court, there’s been some expectation that the balance of power was going to shift against campaign finance reformers,” said Rob Kelner, who heads Covington & Burling’s Election and Political Law division.
“This new order seems to point in that same direction,” added Kelner, who has argued against BCRA before the court.
The court’s order asks both parties to specifically address whether justices should overrule either or both Austin and McConnell, and election law experts are torn as they try to read the tea leaves.
“I don’t think the court would have ordered this type of argument if there wasn’t a chance, if not a likelihood, of at least five justices thinking these cases should be overruled,” said Baran, who has argued against some finance measures before the Supreme Court. Still, said Baran: “They’ve been flip-flopping all over the place.”
“You could see the glass half-empty or half-full,” Elias said. “If there were five justices ready to [overturn Austin and McConnell], they would have done so.”
But even hearing the case is an unusual step that worries Ryan, the prominent campaign finance reform backer.
“We have a long line of precedents, Supreme Court decisions upholding these restrictions,” he said. “I’m hopeful that there are still some open minds on the court.”
Those on both sides see Justice Anthony Kennedy, long the swing vote on controversial cases, as the fulcrum on which the cases will rest. And that, in the end, could be the tipping point against reformers: Unlike O’Connor, who joined the majority in the McConnell decision, Kennedy dissented from majority opinions upholding bans in both earlier cases.
The re-argument is scheduled to take place Wednesday, Sept. 9. That could have an impact on the confirmation process of Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to fill a vacant seat on the high court.
Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin July 13, and Democrats in the Senate could push for a final vote on her nomination before they leave for August recess in order to have a full complement of justices. Given her past experience on the New York City Campaign Finance Board, Sotomayor is likely to have something to say on the case.
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/court-ope...2009-06-30.html
Campaign finance watchdogs are concerned that a little-seen order issued on the Supreme Court’s final day could lead to tens of millions of corporate dollars being spent on television advertising — an ad blitz candidates would have difficulty countering.
On Monday, instead of ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court issued a rare order for further arguments on the case. The suit sought to test whether corporate contributions to a documentary slamming then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton should have kept it from being distributed during the campaign.
The case will be expanded, with lawyers for both parties asked to file briefs answering whether the court should overturn two other landmark suits.
One of those suits was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the 1990 decision in which the Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s right to prohibit corporations from using money to support or oppose candidates. The other, McConnell v. FEC, upheld the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) over the objection of petitioner Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
By seeking new arguments on those cases, campaign finance watchdogs said, the court is poised to make a substantial ruling that could have wide-reaching consequences.
“The court, at the very least, is considering reversing more than 100 years of campaign finance precedent prohibiting corporate spending,” said Paul Ryan, associate legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “It would be a pretty large step, and remarkable step, for the court to overturn a century of public policy.”
Specifically, the high court is seeking new arguments on Section 203 of BCRA, which regulates electioneering communications and prohibits corporations from running so-called issue advertisements.
“The court is seeking to address a fundamental issue in campaign finance law, and that is whether corporate money can be used for certain types of political advertising,” said Jan Baran, a partner at Wiley Rein LLP who published a guidebook for corporations on election law. Baran called the court’s move “a significant order.”
Overturning that ban would presumably allow corporations to begin spending money on political campaigns, either in support of or opposition to a candidate. It would be the first time since Congress banned corporate political expenditures in 1947.
If the Supreme Court does overturn either case, the effects on political campaigns will be dramatic, said Marc Elias, a partner at Perkins Coie who served as general counsel on Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) 2004 presidential campaign and who is heading legal efforts for Democrat Al Franken in the disputed Minnesota Senate contest.
“The ban on corporate spending on federal elections is at the center of our current campaign finance system,” he said. “If that were to change it would radically alter the system that we have.”
The court is substantially different today than it was even in 2003, when McConnell was decided. With the retirement of former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the five-justice majority to uphold BCRA, the court may have shifted against reformers.
“It was thought that Justice O’Connor was the deciding vote who tilted the court in favor of campaign finance reform, and once she left and Chief Justice [John] Roberts joined the court, there’s been some expectation that the balance of power was going to shift against campaign finance reformers,” said Rob Kelner, who heads Covington & Burling’s Election and Political Law division.
“This new order seems to point in that same direction,” added Kelner, who has argued against BCRA before the court.
The court’s order asks both parties to specifically address whether justices should overrule either or both Austin and McConnell, and election law experts are torn as they try to read the tea leaves.
“I don’t think the court would have ordered this type of argument if there wasn’t a chance, if not a likelihood, of at least five justices thinking these cases should be overruled,” said Baran, who has argued against some finance measures before the Supreme Court. Still, said Baran: “They’ve been flip-flopping all over the place.”
“You could see the glass half-empty or half-full,” Elias said. “If there were five justices ready to [overturn Austin and McConnell], they would have done so.”
But even hearing the case is an unusual step that worries Ryan, the prominent campaign finance reform backer.
“We have a long line of precedents, Supreme Court decisions upholding these restrictions,” he said. “I’m hopeful that there are still some open minds on the court.”
Those on both sides see Justice Anthony Kennedy, long the swing vote on controversial cases, as the fulcrum on which the cases will rest. And that, in the end, could be the tipping point against reformers: Unlike O’Connor, who joined the majority in the McConnell decision, Kennedy dissented from majority opinions upholding bans in both earlier cases.
The re-argument is scheduled to take place Wednesday, Sept. 9. That could have an impact on the confirmation process of Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to fill a vacant seat on the high court.
Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin July 13, and Democrats in the Senate could push for a final vote on her nomination before they leave for August recess in order to have a full complement of justices. Given her past experience on the New York City Campaign Finance Board, Sotomayor is likely to have something to say on the case.
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/court-ope...2009-06-30.html
Now let's ban the press and unions from working for democrats.
We the People are not corporations.
QUOTE (Davis 2.0 @ Jul 6 2009, 09:32 AM)
We the People are not corporations.
A union isn't the people either. Not when the leadership works for one party when the members vote for many parties.
QUOTE
the leadership works for one party
the party that works with the leadership
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.