Corporations Can’t Fool California?
Whеn I mаdе a video earlier thіѕ year supporting thе Supreme Court’s holding іn thе Citizens United v Federal Election Commission case thаt “thе Government mау nοt suppress political speech οn thе basis οf thе speaker’s corporate identity,” I gοt a lot οf negative reaction ѕοmе οf whісh wеnt аѕ far аѕ tο claim thаt protecting “corporate free speech” wουld lead tο thе еnd οf democracy, bυt thе failure οf two corporate backed events іn California’s June 2010 primaries despite thе massive spending advantage persons events hаd fοr advertising іѕ strong evidence persons concerns аbουt thе recent Supreme Court сhοісе wеrе somewhat overblown аѕ I ѕhοw іn thіѕ video. Thе news clip οf consumer watchdog Harvey Rosenfield I υѕе іn thіѕ video comes frοm thе Mау 17, 2010, KABC-TV news tаlе unfilled online аt abclocal.gο.com Thе images I υѕе οf mу previous video aristocratic “Iѕ It Jυѕt Corporate Free Speech” come frοm thе YouTube player page аt www.youtube.com Thе persona I υѕе οf thе election results іn California’s June 8, 2010, primary comes frοm thе California Secretary οf State’s webpage аt vote.sos.ca.gov Thе persona I υѕе οf Dan Morain’s June 10, 2010, Sacramento Bee editorial aristocratic “Voters gеt wise tο sly corporate power plays” comes frοm thе webpage аt www.sacbee.com And, finally, thе images I υѕе οf thе text οf Proposition 16, thе ѕο-called “Taxpayers Aptly tο Vote Act,” аnd Proposition 17, thе ѕο-called “Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Money οff Act,” comes frοm thе California …
also, there were other factors at play here. example: people were pissed off at PGE
anecdotal ^_^
Politicians are not ballot initiatives, but people that can stay on instructions for the aptly price. Companies could outspend political campaigns a hundredfold. The only choice at the polls will be between two pre-bought candidates. The Citizens United choice was for that very function.
I disagree too, corporations don’t make multi-million dollar mistakes twice.
They will be far more subtle next time.
I don’t agree, given time, all that money will find other ways to convince voters who to vote, there just hasn’t been enough time for the corportations to get all that clever yet, but they will…
LV is using the kind of dishonest “logic” he usually opposes to defend corporate rights. Low turnout elections give superior effect to sophisticated voters who can figure out the kind of scams that the anti-consumer insurance and utility industry initiatives were. If persons corporate thieves had been willing to wait and invest more money into a November general election they might have persuaded enough dummies with their dissembling soundbites to win – as did the mormons with Prop 8.
money may not “guarantee” an election, but by and large money is s huge tool that more often than not results in a win for the side who can generate the most funds. Yes, a few exceptions exist, but looking at the Presidential elections alone, every winner at least since Nixon has been the party who has obtained or spent the most money to garner votes. This includes tax refunds for persons already in power to buy elections. Corporations are giant pools of money that regular people cannot match
In general, money does rule elections. There are some cases where it won’t, but usually money decides who wins. Why do you reckon it is so hard for 3rd Party candidates? The money is locked up in the two main parties.
As you pointed out, this was essentially an unimportant election which was voted on by few people. People En Masse tend to choose their election opinions based on who spent more money because we have this idiotic belief that persons in power only want the best for everyone. Just remember that persons who want power the most tend to be sociopaths.
i’m not voting anymore *-_-
An vital point that is not taken into account: Persons candidates that are eventually elected. To whom will they owe their dept? The people that elected them or the corporations that financed their election? Doesn’t this system work in favor of growing corporative influence in governmental decisions?
But LV, I still don’t know how General Motors can make a political contribution. Surely all of the stockholders cannot be in absolute agreement. There is no General Motors to question. This is simply an chance to allow some of our citizens, the ones who already delight in more ‘get to’ than most, to gain another toe hold in the political process.
Nothing excellent can come out of this.
it would be nice to see “liberalviewer” revisit this issue considering how many people rightfully disagree with his screwed up position.
The problem is more in backing candidtes than ballot events. It’s not about who wins but about who can play and that’s where the money comes in. The media won’t even stay on guys who can’t place campaign ads on tv and point to huge warchests of campaign funds that they’ve raised. With no way to get their face out there they are viewed as such a long shot they fall victim to people not even caring what they have to say on issues because they don’t want to “throw their vote away” .
I disagree. With a referendum, one can read what they are getting. With a candidate, one does not know how they will vote. That is the right trap of the supreme court judgement.
Now, I don’t reckon advertising could ever convince everyone to vote for a particular candidate, but they could influence enough people to change the race in favor of a chosen candidate, at which point the elected official is indebted to a corporation for being elected, not indebted to the people who elected him/her.
I must strongly disagree with you on this topic. You can’t compare a national election to a low turn out vote on bills. In the case of the bill vote, the voters had a pretty simple choice to make, and because it was low turn out they were probably more educated on the issue than the average person. In a national election, the candidates are always honestly close (ie election 2000).
The very thought of a John Roberts court voting for corporate spending upsets me before I even read the fine print. What you note is encouraging; they have still made things harder it seems to me.
The evidence you used was not an example of how corporations can e in support of a party or a candidate, only a ballot issue. Their power comes from their ability to readily spend millions on businesses that spend their duty on political mudslinging, distortion of facts, and fearmongering. Corporations do not have the limitations of finances of an American, and the don’t have the liability that comes with being an individual.
I don’t necessarily reckon the (in)ability to buy an election is assess way to see the problem. I see campaign donations like a similar manner to indirect voting. In this case, people or corporations are voting with their money. They don’t necessarily win based on greatest “votes” of money, so it’s not a guarantee. What my point is, but, is that corporations have a superior ability to support their interest by “voting” with their money than most normal people do.
I’m sorry, I’m going to join most of the rest of the responders and suggest back to you that during this low turn-out, off year election only persons voters that cared and had knowledge of the theme voted. I reckon that we will have to wait and see what we can glean from the election that occurs this November.
“Given that corporations couldn’t buy the results they sought after in these low turn-out, off-year California primary eletcions, doesn’t that prove corporate money just isn’t that overwhelming a factor in these kind of elections.” No, it does not. Barely anyone votes in the off-year elections; persons who do are USUALLY intelligent people, aware of what is happening. When voting for the head and senate seats, but, you get the huge amounts of ignorant people who believe everything the TV says.
improper sampling(using just two examples and applying it to the total country), added to the fact your samples are from a state where their views are a minority in the rest of the country are your main mistakes. Add to that the sheer power of corporations to drown out challenger messages to the point that all you see and hear is what they want you to see and hear means yes you are incorrect.
PG&E may not have succeeded in their have a crack to secure their monopoly, but aren’t you at all concerned at how close they came considering how blatantly anti-consumer this initiative was?
The ONLY thing that would have resulted from prop 16 is that consumers would continue paying HIGHER prices for electricity to PG&E. If nearly half the voters getting conned into voting “I want to pay more money for no reason” doesn’t tell you how perilous corporate spending can be, what would?
@MartySchrader Huge Corperation + Huge Government = The End of Democracy as we know it… That, and electronic voting booths (which some may believe has already ruined democracy)…