Banks and Corporate Political Advertising
Okay, in a country where we have the highest unemployment we've seen in a long time, folks who can't get loans for their small businesses let alone their homes and workers who are lucky to get any kind of raise this year ... we have a financial sector completely disconnected from reality.
The massive banks dubbed "too big to fail" by the Bush Administration and the fools in Congress who followed them and giving raises and bonuses of head-shaking proportions.
Bank of America is increasing salaries and bonuses by 31% for 2009 (over 2008 numbers) that's an average income for employees of $235,193.
JP Morgan has increase salaries and bonuses by 22% for 2009 (over 2008 numbers) an average income of $378,600.
Goldman Sachs takes the cake though with average income for 2009 after increases and bonuses of $498,246!!
Oh we're supposed to not pay attention to Goldman's payouts because they also managed to give $500 million to charity in 2009. Smoke and mirrors to distract from the real story.
They all had glorious profits in 2009. Yet it remains difficult to get loans or credit if you are one of us poor working stiffs. The TARP etc was supposed to stimulate these big companies into granting loans, into putting more capital out into the economy, to (hello!) stimulate it. Apparently they only had interest in stimulating their own bank accounts.
If that didn't make you scratch your head in wonder or completely piss you off how about this one:
The Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 vote overturned long established law and set corporations loose on the political ad landscape.
So what you say? Consider: corporations (yes insurance companies fall into this group) can now run ads and spend as much as they want to support or vilify any candidate or issue they please. The airwaves will be full of "swift boat style" ads by groups, organizations and corporations maybe not at first but give it at least one election cycle and we will be drowning in them.
To my mind this sets the stage for the corporate world to "buy" the candidate of their choice. The "little guy" running for office will not stand a chance against such buying power. Support the cause of the corporation (say, no health care reform) and TA DA the corporation will run ads supporting you and/or bashing your opponent and you don't have do to the fundraising yourself.
The folks who support this decision say it is a victory for the 1st Amendment. Okay, I thought citizens were protected under this Amendment, not corporations. But turns out organizations of citizens which the Court defines in this decision as including corporations also should have this protection. I don't agree. I don't think this is right and it scares me.
Maybe I've read too many science fiction books were corporations have taken over and are running the world without benefit of input from the citizens they lord over but with this step it feels to me to be all too possible a future.
The massive banks dubbed "too big to fail" by the Bush Administration and the fools in Congress who followed them and giving raises and bonuses of head-shaking proportions.
Bank of America is increasing salaries and bonuses by 31% for 2009 (over 2008 numbers) that's an average income for employees of $235,193.
JP Morgan has increase salaries and bonuses by 22% for 2009 (over 2008 numbers) an average income of $378,600.
Goldman Sachs takes the cake though with average income for 2009 after increases and bonuses of $498,246!!
Oh we're supposed to not pay attention to Goldman's payouts because they also managed to give $500 million to charity in 2009. Smoke and mirrors to distract from the real story.
They all had glorious profits in 2009. Yet it remains difficult to get loans or credit if you are one of us poor working stiffs. The TARP etc was supposed to stimulate these big companies into granting loans, into putting more capital out into the economy, to (hello!) stimulate it. Apparently they only had interest in stimulating their own bank accounts.
If that didn't make you scratch your head in wonder or completely piss you off how about this one:
The Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 vote overturned long established law and set corporations loose on the political ad landscape.
So what you say? Consider: corporations (yes insurance companies fall into this group) can now run ads and spend as much as they want to support or vilify any candidate or issue they please. The airwaves will be full of "swift boat style" ads by groups, organizations and corporations maybe not at first but give it at least one election cycle and we will be drowning in them.
To my mind this sets the stage for the corporate world to "buy" the candidate of their choice. The "little guy" running for office will not stand a chance against such buying power. Support the cause of the corporation (say, no health care reform) and TA DA the corporation will run ads supporting you and/or bashing your opponent and you don't have do to the fundraising yourself.
The folks who support this decision say it is a victory for the 1st Amendment. Okay, I thought citizens were protected under this Amendment, not corporations. But turns out organizations of citizens which the Court defines in this decision as including corporations also should have this protection. I don't agree. I don't think this is right and it scares me.
Maybe I've read too many science fiction books were corporations have taken over and are running the world without benefit of input from the citizens they lord over but with this step it feels to me to be all too possible a future.
Comments