At Fascism's Doorstep

[slurper_la]

if SCOTUS also rules in favor of rolling back election law restrictions corporations will be set free to do whatever they want to get their favorite candidates elected and that would include foreign corporations having a say in our government.

I don't care on which side of the political divide you stand, this is and will be the end of our democracy as we've known it.

If you think the bank bailouts and private contractor mercenaries and CEO bonuses were bad before, we haven't seen anything yet.

Court Rulings Erode Spending Restrictions for Elections - NYTimes.com

 

[B_Nick4444]

congrats on your insight

I remain so terribly frightened

 

[HazelGod]

this is and will be the end of our democracy as we've known it.

We haven't been a democracy for a very long time.

And no, I'm not quibbling over the distinction between direct and representative democracies.

 

[Mark_UK]

We haven't been a democracy for a very long time.

And no, I'm not quibbling over the distinction between direct and representative democracies.

I am quite surprised that anyone thinks America has anything to do with democracy. Democracy is a highly over-rated system anyway any system which allows people who watch The X-Factor to vote people into power is doomed to failure.

 

[mitchymo]

We should vote for our leaders not have them gain power by leading the party we vote for. Ban party politics, power to the people, better democracy.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

As bad as the 19th centuries backroom politics were, they were more honest, than the PAC money has made the legislatures of today. Buckley vs. Valeo was the beginning of the end regarding campaign contributions, and needs to be overturned. It's about the only issue I agree with Scalia and Thomas on.

Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[3664shaken]

You are correct in your concern, but incorrect in calling this fascism.

This would be a form of Corporatism - the business groups controlling and dictating government policy through the use of money and advertising. Fascism is many times incorrectly called this but that is false. Fascism is actually the government takeover of business, the state (government) is then dictating to businesses how they need to operate.

Both are bad and not in the best interest of the people, however Fascism almost always leads to despotism where corporatism has too many competing interest to get to that outcome.

 

[B_Nick4444]

Despite the sharp differences from classic fascism, there are also some basic similarities. In each, a powerful oligarchy operates outside of, as well as through, the state. Each subverts constitutional government. Each suppresses rising demands for wider participation in decision making, the enforcement and enlargement of human rights, and genuine democracy. Each uses informational control and ideological flimflam to get lower and middle-class support for plans to expand the capital and power of the oligarchy and provide suitable rewards for political, professional, scientific, and cultural supporters.


A major difference is that under friendly fascism Big Government would do less pillaging of, and more pillaging for, Big Business. With much more integration than ever before among transnational corporations, Big Business would run less risk of control by any one state and enjoy more subservience by many states. In turn, stronger government support of transnational corporations, such as the large group of American companies with major holdings in South Africa, requires the active fostering of all latent conflicts among those segments of the American population that may object to this kind of foreign venture. It requires an Establishment with lower levels so extensive that few people or groups can attain significant power outside it, so flexible that many (perhaps most) dissenters and would-be revolutionaries can be incorporated within it. Above all, friendly fascism in any First World country today would \ use sophisticated control technologies far beyond the ken of the classic fascists.


Indeed, the president under friendly fascism would be as far from personal caesarism as from being a Hirohito-type figurehead. Nor would a president and his political associates extort as much "protection money" from big-business interests as was extracted under Mussolini and Hilter. The Chief Executive would neither ride the tiger nor try to steal its food; rather, he would be part of the tiger from the outset. The White House and the entire Chief Executive network would become the heart (and one of the brain centers) of the new business-government symbiosis. Under these circumstances the normal practices of the Ultra-Rich and the Corporate Overlords would be followed: personal participation in high-Ievel business deals and lavish subsidization of political campaigns, both partly hidden from public view.

The Specter of Friendly Fascism excerpted from the book Friendly Fascism The New Face of Power in America

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

if SCOTUS also rules in favor of rolling back election law restrictions corporations will be set free to do whatever they want to get their favorite candidates elected and that would include foreign corporations having a say in our government.

I don't care on which side of the political divide you stand, this is and will be the end of our democracy as we've known it.

If you think the bank bailouts and private contractor mercenaries and CEO bonuses were bad before, we haven't seen anything yet.

Court Rulings Erode Spending Restrictions for Elections - NYTimes.com

I think there should be a hard and fast rule on people not posting on subjects which they know nothing about.

For instance:
1) Corporations are going to be "cut loose." As though they are neatly constrained and the SC is just going crazy. If anything the SC is leveling the playing field.

2) Corporations represent real people. These people are really affected by laws passed by a legislature that doesn't represent them. (wasn't a war started over something similar?) These people deserve to fight back against a government hell bent on overtaxing and massively overspending.

3) Corporations, and the people therein, have rights. They can support any political process they wish. Unions are some of the largest political donors, and we see what a great result that has had. Corporations need to fight back. (less we let the unions 'encourage' more jobs to go over seas)

4) It has become trendy to hate "corporations" and everything that they represent. The fact is corporate America employs almost the entire work force. One should make sure that their opposition to fair election practices is based on rational argument instead of emotional drivel fueled by a left wing rag.

Just FYI, the bank bailouts of GM and Chrysler were done to protect the UAW.

 

[ericbythebay]

Either you support free speech or you don't. I'd much rather see unlimited contributions with real-time public reporting.

Most corporations are small businesses. If corporations shouldn't be able to get involved in the political process, then they shouldn't have to pay taxes right?

 

[B_New End]

Pfft. You still think we are at the doorstep? Dude, we are already in Fascism's living room having a beer. It's only a matter of time before we are facedown on Fascism's bathroom floor getting ass raped.

 

[B_New End]

I think there should be a hard and fast rule on people not posting on subjects which they know nothing about.

4) The fact is corporate America employs almost the entire work force.

Got proof of that?

2) Corporations represent real people. These people are really affected by laws passed by a legislature that doesn't represent them. (wasn't a war started over something similar?) These people deserve to fight back against a government hell bent on overtaxing and massively overspending.

They are also real people who really want taxpayers to forcibly give them money for real projects taxpayers really don't need... like wasteful wars, wasteful empire, wasteful entitlement programs to energy companies. Corporations use the legislature to stifle competition, and siphon public money to themselves.

3) Corporations, and the people therein, have rights. They can support any political process they wish. Unions are some of the largest political donors, and we see what a great result that has had. Corporations need to fight back. (less we let the unions 'encourage' more jobs to go over seas)

Yah, that is why I am all for secret donations. They should be able to donate all they want to candidates, but candidates should not be able to know who the money is coming from.

Just FYI, the bank bailouts of GM and Chrysler were done to protect the UAW.

And the financial firms to whom they owed tens of billions of dollars.