My off the cuff reaction is that this Supreme Court ruling on corporate campaign giving is bad for the lobby. It might bring much money into the system from sources that have nothing to do with Israel. And it may even encourage the oil companies to exercise their “free speech” in ways that AIPAC doesn’t like. Surely this is not a “progressive” opinion. I’d be curious if someone who knew more about it confirmed my reaction.
-
-
- Rafah march for deteriorating hunger strikers as family appeals for … 0
- Rafah’s nicest tunnel: Siege meets surf in Gaza 2
- Iranian talks fail after neocon ‘blitz’ — as Obama dispatches … 24
- Saving Illinois from Senator Kirk 8
- Human rights activists will hardnose the highway from Woodstock to … 0
- American Zionist responses to Tel Aviv riots– largely indifferent, but … 33
- Division: Romney supporter puts kibosh on Wasserman Schultz appearance at … 7
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 104
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 709
- ‘New York Review of Books’ calls it ‘apartheid’ and prepares … 566
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 466
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 397
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 370
- March of the Flags 342
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 317
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- March of the Flags 125
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 95
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 85
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their descendants (104)
- justicewillprevail: Thanks, American. What an extraordinary story, and great example of the myth making machine in...
- homingpigeon: Thank you for the pilpul reminder. I again bring to the attention of new commenters and remind old ones...
- Shingo: Where did you get this revisionist history from? I’m not being rude, I’m genuinely curious. It...
- Saving Illinois from Senator Kirk (8)
- Hostage: “The CFI member then argued that Palestine never existed and couldn’t have ever existed “because the letter...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (77)
- justicewillprevail: Oh come on with the cheap hasbara, the rabbi deserves a lot more respect than such drivel.
- sardelapasti: “Not one mention in his diatribe about Palestinian rejectionism of an independent Jewish...
- Iranian talks fail after neocon ‘blitz’ — as Obama dispatches aide to reassure Tel Aviv (24)
- justicewillprevail: No, it’s whole strategy is to use US lives and money to carry out its demented, deathly...
- American Zionist responses to Tel Aviv riots– largely indifferent, but some outrage (33)
- Division: Romney supporter puts kibosh on Wasserman Schultz appearance at Miami temple (7)
- notatall: “And we know which state decided the 2000 election.” Small correction: the Supreme Court...
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their descendants (104)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- James North
- Alice Rothchild
- Ahmed Moor
- Mya Guarnieri
- Michael Ratner
- Alex Kane
Blogroll
Its like the web as journalism.
Many more opinions presented, some more insightful (likely few), some more fashionable, some more corrupt and opportunistic.
The general questioning of the constitutionality of national and state election legislation, will add to the lack of accountability of sources of political advertising and funding, including directly from foreign sources. The trail of who said what libel will be weaker. Money will talk.
How would it weaken the lobby? What this ruling does is make transparency null and void. Now since campaign contributions are not illegal and in fact are “free speech” what this means is that someone can open an office in Albuquerque , call themselves a non-profit, pass on their contributions to another office in Cincinnati, [also a non-profit] from where it can jump several more offices around the country and finally end up gawd knows where. Combined with Sunsteins penchant for undercover “independent” contractors, what this has done is created a money laundering scheme for the lobby.
The ruling doesn’t have anything to do with campaign contributions. It involves political advertising.
I should clarify: it has opened the floodgates for campaign “spending” by corporations and unions, much of which will likely go towards advertising, particularly towards negative ads in the last month of a campaign.
Bans on direct campaign contributions are still intact, though surely will be tested in the future.
Excellent point, Scott, and one I hadn’t thought of. We’ll see how it plays out.
The ruling means that public opinion can be even more manipulated by moneybags. It dilutes the power of one-man-one-vote by equating as a practical AND LEGAL matter a simple, average individual person, with any corporation of whatever giant size. The business of the USA is business, and for a tonic to go along with that solid helping at your table, it better be kosher.
Who can ask for anything better?
We watch China, when we should be watching ourselves too:
link to rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com
Of course Rothkopf does not go into the Israel angle.
RE: Will SCOTUS decision re campaign funding weaken lobby? – McConnell
MY COMMENT: My first thought was that it might, but upon further reflection I seriously doubt it. To the extent corporations can make money off foreign policy, the vast majority is lucre made from wars. If Iran is bombed, “Big Oil” will ‘make a killing’. Does Lockheed (which worked diligently beginning in the mid 90s to see that Iraq was invaded) benefit from the cessation of hostilities? There is a considerable overlap between the ‘Likud lobby’ and the military-industrial complex.
First of all, it should be realized that corporate (in which Israel should be seen as a corporate entity) as well union money already had polluted our election process well before the latest court decision. It just made legalized bribery, what no doubt makes the US unique in the world, that much easier (which means less money for the lawyers who had been paid to figure out ways around the obstacles up to now). I mean, can Haim Saban give even more to the Democrats than $12.3 million her gave in 2002? Or Goldman-Sucks, more than the $27 million it contributed to Obama’s inauguration party? (Don’t ask what G-S got for its investment. Beyond the White House, not much.)
The decision court was, however, effectively the final coffin in nail in the delusion that passed itself off as American democracy. The fact that there is no organized outrage over the decision compounds the effect.
Will it hurt The Lobby? As much as finding a pot of gold on its doorstep!
What this decision means is that Jewish corporate biggies will compete even more to prove their support for Israel without having bothered to hide it. Universal health care, of course, is even deader than it is at the moment. As for the oil companies, forget about it. Their money is considered tainted by most American, not they that it doesn’t deserve to be, but the oil companies gave up fighting the Jewish establishment long ago when the Lobby made it an issue. This decision will not change that. The arms manufacturers don’t need to spend more money. They already get what they want at the present levels. What they have going for them is that they provide manufacturing jobs so they don’t need to contribute that much to get their way.
Since support for Israel is largely a negative for the US, any way you look at it, it and its supporters are the ones who will benefit the most.
You may be right. My thought was that since AIPAC type contributors are already hyper organized, and perhaps near their maximum, while other money (and sentiment) is diffuse and not organized, changing the rules might bring the money game more line with American opinion (both elite and popular) which is more divided than the current money situation would indicate.
Can you provide any links and sources to when the lobby made an issue about oil contributions. I don’t recall that. . .
To Scott:
Recall that in response to a question Mearsheimer decared on CSPAN during the “Lobby” book tour that then oil industry does not lobby regarding US foreign policy.
Mearsheimer gave no source bu he was definite about it.
Can’t you email him for us?
Well before the internet became popular, the oil companies backed out of competing with the Zionists in providing dollars for the votes of US politicians, relying on the simple fact that oil is essential to virtually every element of the capitalist economy whereas Israel in a word or two, is not. Over the years I have seen references to oil companies having accepted the fact that most Americans consider their money to be tainted and, at least, overtly–where it can be traced–have not made reshaping a different Middle East a part of its agenda. As for Iran, I believe that the big oil companies would rather obtain and sell Iranian oil than see Iran bombed and run the very great risk of destabilizing the entire oil producing region, but the Zionist lobby will not let them to do that, as for example, having successfully pressured Washington to force Conoco to cancel a major contract with Iran in 1995.
One way of tarnishing those in the State Department and Foreign Service who have been considered too friendly with the oil companies has been by labeling them “Arabists” which is a nice way of accusing them of being “anti-Semites.”
Okay Jeffrey and Paleo1540,
We’re agreed that this a somewhat significant subject. If I come across anything, I’ll let you know. The reasoning behind my original post is restated by Jeffrey — that oil (or peace, to some extent) is essential to the capitalist economy, while Israel is not — so loosening restrictions on corporate giving may have some unanticipated beneficial consequences. Of course I realize there are major schools of thought which do believe that capitalism=peace, and the record is certainly mixed. Perhaps in the midst of so much bad news I’m looking for silver linings. But I’m waiting/hoping for the inevitable (Carl Gershman?) article quoting Lenin about selling the rope to hang themselves with.