Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArlJim78
It is a great ruling, and about time.
Let corporations or other groups make their case directly to the people if they want. I would prefer that corporations try to sell the public than buying off congressman with lavish trips and sweetheart deals on this or that behind the scenes. I think this ruling takes a bit of power from congress and will make it easier to take out incumbents.
It might not be pretty, but I'm all for opening things up. As long as the names of the corporations appear clearly on the ads, they shouldn't be able to hide behind some phony name thats just a front and disguises the real funder.
I just assumed that in our Idiocracy future, elections and politicians will resemble Nascar racing events. They will have corporate sponsors, wear the logos, etc. Acceptance speeches will begin with "I'd like to thank the entire Tide-CocaCola team that did such a wonderful job getting out the vote.."
okay only joking about that but I wouldn't bet against it.
|
i don't think you're going to see corporate names on the ads. more likely you'll see money funneled through the chamber of commerce or similar organizations.
they already filter the limited pac money through made up names like "americans for a strong economy" instead of "big coal company". why would they treat unlimited corporate cash differently?