[FoRK] My sentiments exactly...

Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca
Fri Jan 22 18:28:35 PST 2010

--- On Fri, 1/22/10, Damien Morton <dmorton at bitfurnace.com> wrote:

> Bill Stoddard <wgstoddard at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > You underestimate the power of a well run propaganda
> campaign.
> No - I dont - it is a reality that money buys persuasion,
> and persuasion does work.
> Its not a legally recognised reality though. As in,
> democracy is one-man:one-vote, not one-man:one-unit-of-persuasion.

Well, if you live/die by a dictionary, I suppose that definition will work for you. 

The reality is that it changes the one-man:one-vote relationship significantly. 

    That's the ENTIRE point of it! 

They wouldn't spend the money otherwise.

What I'm trying to understand, and clearly missing completely, is **What is the benefit?**, direct or indirect, to individual Americans in allowing and even supporting the status of corporations in this particular context: right to freedom of speech to the extent that their spending on political influence cannot be curtailed in any way by the elected representatives of the people? 

What benefit is there that is sufficiently compelling to cause intelligent and thoughtful individuals to defend it and declaim that the Supreme Court decision is an excellent outcome? That's what I'm trying to figure out.


Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! 


More information about the FoRK mailing list