Florida is in big trouble! When you hear people argue that our crooked Gov. Rick Scott was chosen by the voters to run this state they are lying. This last election was a vivid example of the power of corporate control over our national elections. Mr. Scott was purchased for this state. The goal? Unregulated business which includes unlivable wages, no environmental responsibility, and reduced legal responsibility. In other words huge profits at the expense of everyone.
Please read this alarming article printed in the Fort Lauderdale local newspaper:
Corporate millions have paid off in 'pro-business' legislative agenda
Here is a snippet:
"An Orlando Sentinel analysis of campaign-finance data released last week shows the top two dozen companies and interest groups gave a combined $4.2 million during the first three months of 2011 — a bit more than $500,000 to Democrats and the rest to the Republican Party of Florida, individual GOP lawmakers or the political funds they control.
Those same 30 largest Florida contributors combined to pour more than $45 million into the 2010 elections, the vast majority of the money put to use for Republicans.
It has paid off.
Business interest groups in Tallahassee are already describing this year as a "generational opportunity" to pass sweeping "free-market"' reforms that have sat on their shelves for years."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
Wow, just wow.
Lisa in Indy
"wow"?
"alarming"?
Let me see if I've got this right:
1. A bunch of free-market Republicans run for public office on a platform of proposals openly designed to encourage a more business friendly economic and regulatory climate in Florida.
2. Individuals, Groups, and Businesses that agree with these policies make completely legal donations to the candidates of their choice.
3. The voters of Florida freely elect these free-market Republicans into office.
4. Once in office, these Republicans begin to fulfill, in a completely legal and constitutional manner, the campaign promises they had made to the voters before the election.
Sounds like a free and proper exercise of the democratic process to me. Isn't this how a representative Republic is supposed to operate?
What am I missing?
What you're missing is that the GOP ran on "Job Creation".
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!
Obama didn't create any jobs! He wasn't born here. He needs to be investigated. Where's his birth certificate!?
OMG.
That was their platform. At least when Dems run, they stick with their platform campaign. They don't dismantle social programs for the needy. They actually defend them when the so-called conservatives want to dismantle and completely take away our entitlement programs that we've paid into all of our working lives.
The GOP lied to the citizens of their states. Just like Fox Spews. They lie about their agenda.
And the voters that stayed home on election day got the gov't they deserved.
Sadly.
Lisa in Indy
What you are missing Andre is the power that corporations have on the outcome of an election. Money is power - especially in an election where advertising has the influence to change peoples minds - even if the information presented is distorted, out of context or blatantly untrue.
You will notice the first order of business for the corporate elected officials was to begin to silence the only real opposition to their money campaigns - collective bargaining unions. Few, if any, individuals could afford to counter a bitter corporate ad attack.
Allowing corporations to literally buy elections while silencing the voice of the people allows for unprecedented corruption in politics. You don't see a problem with that?
They don't want to dismantle the programs we've paid for all our lives so much as design them such that we will give all our earned money to some Republican controlled corporation who will provide no benefits in return. Similar to our current health insurance industry. Corporate controlled insurance is a giant con-job. It always has been.
Republicans are looking at the dollar signs our our national debt as a business opportunity. We will still have to pay the same - likely even more - but they will get that money rather than the government. That's what it's all about.
The government is losing money on these entitlement programs because they are actually providing a service to an ever increasing population. Private business hopes to make money by collecting the same money - or likely more - and not providing the same level of service.
Cha-ching!
Wait - a few comments have arrived in my email that didn't get posted here. I'll repost them. My last comment was a reply to those.
Andre's post I was responding to prior:
Andre has left a new comment on your post "Corporate Controlled Elections":
Lisa,
...conservatives want to dismantle and completely take away our entitlement programs that we've paid into all of our working lives.
Andre
I think that it is accurate to say that you are indulging in a little bit of over-the-top and exaggerated partisan rhetoric (not that I haven't done similar at times).
However, I think it is important to point out, for the record, that what you have said is untrue and a complete distortion of the actual facts.
It IS true that Conservatives (and some Liberals) realize that many of the major entitlement programs are out of control and unsustainable at their current growth rates, and are rapidly heading towards full failure and insolvency. Major reforms are needed if they are to be saved, but I am unaware of a single House or Senate bill (are you?) that proposes to "dismantle and completely take away" any established ("that we've paid into all of our working lives")entitlement programs. I am also unaware of any elected Conservative representative who have called for or advocated any such legislation (with the possible exception of Ron Paul; but as a full blown Libertarian, he is certainly not representative of most main stream Conservatives, who, while being opposed to European style Welfare State Socialism, still recognize the need for some Government support of a social safety net).
Andres comment I will respond to later:
Andre has left a new comment on your post "Corporate Controlled Elections":
Unless you are alleging some kind of direct ballot tampering or similar type of voter fraud, which I don't think you are, then I disagree with the very concept that corporations can "literally buy elections".
Sure, like all other voluntary associations (and individuals), private corporations have the Constitutional right to donate their money to politicians who they believe will further their interests (and unlike union leaders who force their membership to donate money to politicians whether they want to or not, at least corporations are only spending their own money).
In every election, there are all sort of interest groups that spend large amounts of money to lobby you for your vote. Ultimately though, you are responsible for the choice you make in the ballot box. No one stands there holding a gun to your head, telling you how you have to vote (again, unless you are a union member...and even in that case the threat of retaliation for an "incorrect" vote is usually more implied than explicit, although it can in some cases be quite explicit!).
The end goal of political speech is to try to convince people to "change their minds". There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as a matter of fact, free, open, and vigorous debate in the "public square" is one of the crowning glories of Western Civilization and Democracy.
They can try to persuade you, but I seriously doubt they can "buy" you.
Look at it this way:
What is the exact dollar amount to buy your vote?
How many millions more would the Scott campaign, and his corporate supporters, have had to spend to convince you to vote Republican in the last election?
5 million? 10 million? 40 million?
Would a few more Scott lawn signs in your neighborhood have turned you? Or more pro-Scott junk-mail or TV commercials?
In the last Presidential election, Obama outspent McCain by over 200 million dollars. Do you seriously expect me to believe that if only McCain had been able to outspend Obama, then you would have been more likely to have voted Republican?
Of course not.
Ideas win elections, not advertising budgets.
Lisa
What you're missing is that the GOP ran on "Job Creation".
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!
Andre
How do you figure that I missed that?
Here is another snippet from the SunSentinal article that Dennis linked to; one that he didn't quote:
"...we ran on creating jobs. So the idea that it looks like we may have a pro-business session shouldn't surprise anybody." - Kissimmee Republican Rep. Mike Horner
Pro-business is not necessarily pro-jobs. Businesses run just fine by shipping our jobs over seas or laying off workers and forcing us all to work under very stressful situations. It's another big lie.
The street I live on (Polk) is lined, on both sides, with storefront after storefront of small businesses, as far as the eye can see.
Not a single one of them could benefit in the slightest way by sending any jobs overseas.
However, every single one of them would benefit immediately from lower taxes and less government imposed paperwork and regulation (City, State, & Federal).
They are not very likely to receive any relief of that kind from Governor Brown, although it certainly sounds like they would be likely to receive some from Governor Scott.
It will be very interesting to observe and compare what happens to job growth in both California and Florida over the next few years.
I love small businesses like that! I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that none of those small businesses would support corporate controlled elections.
If, as you seem to use the phrase,"corporate controlled elections" is merely a euphemism for any election where heavy regulating, high tax, big spending Liberals loose, then I'd take that bet (mmmm...dougnuts!)
Regarding the high gas prices: Speculation is part of the story, but a far larger factor seems to be the role a weak US dollar has in raising commodity prices:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42683030
Expect things to get far, far worse as the debt bomb begins to explode.
So Andre - you are in favor of corporations having this control over our elections? You said money doesn't change people's minds - so why do they bother to advertise? Why the smear campaigns? Why all the money spent on ads? Do they just enjoy spending money?
You know you are wrong. You are correct that no amount of money will sway those who are already decided. It's the undecided voters the ads target. And the ads do have a huge influence on those voters.
Wha...what did you say?
Sorry...I was still thinking about donuts.
Oh yeah, advertising, persuasion, etc...
No, I'm not worried about people expressing their opinions, because I know which side has the stronger arguments, and the more that the issues get publicly debated, the better Conservatives will do.
It's the Liberals who are obsessed with managing and controlling free speech, because they are so afraid of the truth.
Well.....there you have it folks!
It's just the truth, man...I understand that you might not like hearing it, but that doesn't change the facts, and dismissive mockery doesn't refute them.
Just ask yourself the following questions:
Which side institutes and enforces campus "speech codes" at public Universities?
Which side organizes boycotts to get radio talk show hosts silenced?
Which side stands up and chants slogans at public speaking events trying to shout down the lecturer?
Which side pushes for legislation attempting to limit free speech in political campaigns?
Which side organizes loud demonstrations in front of the family homes of their political opponents to try to intimidate them into silence?
Which side organizes campaigns attempting to ban their political opponents from even being allowed to speak on college campus's?
Which side is obsessed with trying to control the very language that we use, and claims for itself the right to dictate which words may or may not be spoken, and then routinely demands that anyone who doesn't bend to their dictates be fired from their jobs?
Which side is more likely to tell people that they disagree with to "sit down and shut up"?
And he claims I'm the partisan one. Seriously?
I remember Meg Whitman spending 150 million and she still lost. The conservative message isn't WINNING.
And shame on the Dems for letting the other side control the message. I really wish we had a couple of other parties, like the Social (not Corp) Democratic party or the Green Independent party to compete against our other two HUGE parties.
Lisa in Indy
Lisa
I remember Meg Whitman spending 150 million and she still lost.
Andre
Thanks Lisa, that is a good example in support of my argument above that money doesn't necessarily "buy" elections.
OK Andre - I've asked myself all those questions and my answer to all of them is the GOP! Remember the Town Hall meetings where not only were they loud and obnoxious - they were packing heat!
Now - let me ask you one. If all this corporate campaign cash were being used to support the Democratic agenda and candidates would you still approve?
I believe the answer to that has already been presented with the attempts to squash union collective bargaining.
Sorry Dennis, that's a fail on both counts:
1.Show me a single Town Hall meeting anywhere where conservatives audience members attempted to PREVENT free speech from occurring on the stage. Loud and obnoxious comments & questions? Sure. Booing if they didn't like the answers? Sure. But nowhere would you ever see conservatives standing up and leading group chants for the specific purpose of trying to drown out and prevent opposing speech even being spoken or heard (and if you can find such an example, I will happily condemn it). Those types of tactics are standard operating procedure among Left wing rent-a mob "activist" groups. I know. I've been there; I've seen it and heard it for over 30 years (first on one side, then on the other).
I'm not talking about street demonstrations, where emotions run high and both sides tend to shout at the other (although a quick comparison of Youtube videos shows clearly that the Tea-Partier folk are much more civil, and way less vulgar in those situations than their opponents). I'm talking about indoor lectures and debates, where you would expect some more conscious respect for the principle of free speech rights.
One representative example: I remember a debate I attended at Harvard back in the 80's on U.S. policies in Central America between a State Dept. spokesman and a leader of the FMLN (the Marxist Revolutionariness who were waging a guerrilla war at the time against the military junta in El Salvador). When it was the State Dept. spokesman's time to speak the Lefties in the audience would shout and scream and chant, doing everything they could to silence him. It got so bad that even the Commie Guerrilla leader got embarrassed by the disgraceful spectacle and ended up pleading with the audience to let the other guy, his blood enemy, be heard!
Now, granted that was many years ago, but I've witnessed countless similar incidents, and I am constantly reading about the same type of thing happening all the time all over this country today.
Across the Bay at UC Berkeley, it is a fairly regular occurrence for speaking engagements by right leaning figures to be cancelled because of threats from Leftists. Needless to say, the same never happens to left leaning speakers.
It should go without saying (but probably doesn't here, so that's why I am saying it now) that I am speaking about the more radical and activist Liberals and leftists. I am sure that in every audience where there are leftist idiots trying to shout someone down, there are other left-leaning folk present who are disapprove and are embarrassed by such behavior (all too often though, they seem to be a minority).
2.
Den
If all this corporate campaign cash were being used to support the Democratic agenda and candidates would you still approve?
Andre
Hello? Earth to Dennis...wake up and smell the money: the Democrats are drowning in corporate cash!
In the 2008 Presidential campaign the Democrats actually took more corporate money than the Republicans.
During the Deepwater spill last year it was revealed that the American politician who had taken the most cash donations from BP, over the last 20 years, was none other than Barack Obama.
As a matter of fact,it was only last year that Republicans began receiving more corporate donations, reversing a three year trend that previously had heavily favored the Democrats:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503933125159928.html
Lisa
I really wish we had a couple of other parties, like the Social (not Corp) Democratic party or the Green Independent party to compete against our other two HUGE parties.
Andre
I'm pretty sure that the Green Party candidate was on the ballot in most states during the last Presidential election, and most likely will be on the ballot next time too.
I would like to enthusiastically encourage you to stand by your principles and vote Green in 2012!
Andre,
1. LIAR! (yelled during President Obama's health care speech). I don't know how you got on this free speech bit.
2. Thank you for getting back around to the current topic. I am against corporate controlled elections no matter who they support. But the level of corporate influence right now is unprecedented. I suggest we start a taxpayer supported presidential election fund where each final candidate gets an equal share of the proceeds and can't spend a dime more publicly or privately. Let's level the playing field. That would be good for the country.
Lisa
And he claims I'm the partisan one.
Andre
My reference to you "indulging in a little bit of over-the-top and exaggerated partisan rhetoric" was NOT intended as claim that you were a partisan. We are all partisans here, in that we all arrive at this discussion previously committed to specific views and opinions; that goes without saying.
What I was claiming was that, either through ignorance, malice,or simple shooting from the hip, you were presenting a falsehood as fact ("conservatives want to dismantle and completely take away our entitlement programs that we've paid into all of our working lives..")
By couching it in terms of "rhetoric:" I was trying to leave a door open for you to gracefully walk it back a little, and re-present your position in a less emotionally distorted, and more accurate, form.
Which I suppose, come to think of it, is what I am doing again now.
Den:
head right over to this link from The Nation that obtained a pdf file from the Koch Industries outlining their choices for the past election. While browsing through it, I wondered, how in the world can they get away with this? Oh wait, I thought; that Citizens United supreme court ruling allowed this. Were those employees fired if they didn't VOTE for their selected candidates?
Read it and weep.
http://www.thenation.com/sites/default/files/Koch%20Vote%20Record-2-WM.pdf
Lisa in Indy
P.S. Buona Pasqua: Happy Easter!
wow.
Let me say that again:
WOW.
Dennis, you can put Lisa's last post above on that list that I sent the other day of examples of Liberal antagonism towards free speech. Heck, you can put it at the top of the list!
Although, in fairness to Lisa, it's seems pretty cleat that in her case it's not only that she doesn't like freedom of speech but, more fundamentally, that she obviously has no clue what the concept even means.
"..how in the world can they get away with this?" How in the world, indeed. That is very much the point, isn't it? In most parts of the world (even Lisa's beloved Europe) people do not enjoy the same freedom of thought and speech that we all too often take for granted here. Luckily, the Koch brothers are not citizens of "the world", but citizens of the freest country in the world, the United State's of America.
And DO read all 14 pages of the pdf she linked to. It rocks! It's quite inspiring.
"Read it and weep."? Hell no, read it and cheer!
"Citizens on every continent enjoy more prosperity, cleaner environments, longer lives and higher literacy rates in economically free societies."
and:
“Tea parties reflect a spontaneous recognition by people that if they do not act, the government will bankrupt their families and their country. They are absolutely right about that.
Citizens must become more active and involved if our trend towards economic ruin is to be reversed. It’s truly a bipartisan problem.
Our nation needs more people defending our constitutional principles in an effective and civil manner. Free societies depend on such dedicated efforts.
AFP and its state chapters have begun collaborating with tea party groups, and we’re in favor of any group willing to constructively address irresponsible government policies”
God Bless the Koch brothers.
God Bless the United States of America.
And especially, on this Good Friday, God Bless Lisa!
She is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Tea Party activists expect the government should provide all of our needed services without any sort of funding. Delusional.
Come on, man. Splash some cold water on your face, or have a cup of coffee or something.
That is just a silly, silly statement on your part.
I have never heard, ever, a serious Conservative leader or activists call for the abolition of all taxation.
And I have been paying attention...
Come back later with your A-game, 'cause this ain't it.
Better yet, it's Friday night,so go out and have some fun (I'm heading to the Giants game!).
Agreed Andre! With the way you have been going on this week accusing Democrats with blocking freedom of speech it sounds like you could use a break too. Enjoy the game!
Well, it seems that free speech is only 'okay' as long as you agree with the message, right?
For example, I said, "read it and weep" earlier about the Koch memo. Agreeing with the memo's contents is fine because some may agree with it. But let me prove my point in another way.
Let's say that this is not a so-called Christian country (and it's not, the founders were seeking freedom FROM religion) and the Koch memo said that every one needed to kneel down and pray 5 times a day like the Muslims. Or how about, displays of a cross were not allowed EVER in the work place. That would infringe on your free speech rights, correct? That would be forcing you to do something that was against what you believed it.
In another extreme example; how about if this were China? How about if you wanted 5 children for your family? China's rule is one child and you were forced into an abortion for every subsequent pregnancy despite wanting 5 children? Easily seen as something against your beliefs.
And the point about the Koch memo is that they were suggesting that if you were going to vote, you needed to vote in those candidates or what? Or Else? Did anyone lose their job over that voting right? Is there any way to prove that the firing was based on your job vs your vote?
You see, that's the point. I think Andre is a big huge conservative stuck in the midst of all of that liberalism on the west coast and I am the opposite. I am a bleeding heart liberal stuck in a sea of conservatives here in the Midwest.
I believe something different. I have a right to my free speech just like Andre. So does everyone else in this country and the liberals are not trying to shut you up, but we are trying to make you stop spouting the lies and untruth about this country and the citizens beliefs.
You see, we are NOT a Christian nation even if Christians outnumber every other religion in this country. We are not a Muslim nation even though there is a growing number of Muslims in this country. We are not a Jewish nation either.
We are a secular and diverse country with many colors, many cultures and beliefs or non-beliefs and if you try to shut us up, we will fight back. Because that is one of the American dreams; for everyone to come to the table and to have a voice even if we disagree. Elections free from corporate control and corporate war lords give the citizens the right to vote secretly and without threat of losing their job or their pursuit of the American Dream. All one has to do is look to the Mideast to see what those protestors there are fighting for.
Thank you for reading and have a good holiday (even if I don't believe in it). Buona Pasqua
Lisa in Indy
Oh and about that 'beloved Europe' comment; yes, Europe is beloved for me. Not afraid to admit that one iota. My paternal grandparents came from Europe and I'm still researching my maternal family that came from there, as well. My husband is also an immigrant from Europe and we lived there recently. I can almost guess that most reading this also have ties to Europe and there is nothing wrong with that.
I can compare the two countries because I have experienced both. They do many things I approve of and they also fail in other areas in comparison to the US. One is not better per say than the other, just different. In a perfect world, you could take good things of one and incorporate them in the other for the betterment of the society.
I was a naive American before I lived abroad and my view of the world has matured after that other perspective. I believe it made me MORE LIBERAL.
Lisa in Indy.
I agree Lisa! Traveling abroad does open one's eyes to the fact that America does fail in many ways compared to other great nations. We are still a great country and I love being an American but we have lost our leading edge in the recent past and many people still cling to the notion that we are always the best at everything. President Obama recognizes our country slipping as a leader - has admitted it in public - and is working to make us the great leading country we once were. And, I think he is doing a great job of leading us in that direction. Meanwhile the Tea Party is diligently working to slide us even further backwards unraveling many of the things that do make this country great.
As for Andre's claims that Democrats are loud and obnoxious - my complaint about Democrats is that we often are not loud enough! But we have been awakened and we will get louder. Free speech works both ways.
Lisa
Well, it seems that free speech is only 'okay' as long as you agree with the message, right?
Andre
That question is just too dopey to deserve a serious response.
Let me just say that if you are incapable of grasping the simple and basic distinction between having the content and ideas of your free speech statements challenged, and having your very right to make those statements challenged, then you should just go ask any twelve year old to explain it to you. I don't have time for such silliness (no matter how much time I have on my hands right now).
Lisa
Let's say...or how about...In another extreme example....
Andre
Yes, and it was terrible what Micheal Vick did to dogs too...what the hell does any of that have to do with what we are talking about?
China's one-child policy?
Hello?
The issue was whether or not there is anything wrong with a private company's management editorializing, in its own company newsletter, it's political endorsements for an upcoming election.
Yawn. What a non-issue. Of course they have that right. That Leftists would even consider gagging them and endorsing the right of government to censor a private publication, is just another chilling example of how clueless the Left truly is when it comes to political freedom and liberty (old news, I know).
Lisa
...they were suggesting that if you were going to vote, you needed to vote in those candidates or what? Or Else?
Andre
Rather than paranoid speculation about what they were "suggesting", how about actually quoting (or even reading?) what they actually published (on the very first page!):
"Of course, deciding who to vote for is a decision that is yours and yours alone, based on the factors important to you."
I guess you browsed over that part.
Lisa
I believe in something different. I have a right to my free speech just like Andre. So does everyone else in this country...
Andre
If that was truly what you believed Lisa, then it is not at all "different" than what I believe.
Unfortunately, by your own words, you clearly do NOT believe "everyone else in this country" has those same rights...certainly not the Koch brothers, for instance.
Or are you backtracking?
Good Grief,
I have a lot of chores to do and come back for a break to check in. Why so hostile Andre? Lighten up already. It's your biggest holiday (as a Christian) yet your badgering isn't very Christian-like. Life is too short to argue all of the time.
Have you ever read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein? Excellent book. Give it a go and see if it changes your perspective about the world's economic events. And if you could muster watching Rachel Maddow, she'd educate you a bit about how this Shock Doctrine is happening in MI and WI, right now. And read the 400+ pages of the book and not the wiki page. Wiki doesn't get to the meat of it like the book does. Cherio.
Lisa in Indy
So now you are going to play the meek female card? What happened to "hear me roar"?
That's hitting below the belt. You get to hurl all sorts of outrageously false claims and slurs at conservatives, yet when I mount a vigorousness, passionate defense about things that I deeply care about, you play the sensible female trump card?
What do I do now? If I try to defend myself I'm being an overly aggressive patriarchal angry white male bully?
Unfair (but effective: I can't think of any other response that won't just dig me deeper into the hole. Dang!).
I will check out the Naomi Klein book, but I think I would rather have someone pull out my fingernails with a pair of pliers, than to have to sit through a whole episode of the Rachel Maddow Show! (plus I joined the Kill Your TV cult a few years ago, so usually the only exposure I get of the lovely Rachel is from the mercifully short video snippets at realclearpolitics.com)
PS: The Christian reference was a dastardly low blow too, but an easier one to respond to: yes, I am a Christian, but I'm a really really crappy one!
Post a Comment