Lawless

[paft.livejournal.com]

As I was saying:

Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald on what Walker’s union busting is REALLY all about:

If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the union, Obama is going to have a much more difficult time winning this election and winning the state of Wisconsin.

Democratic Representative Peter Barca, as the Joint Conference of Committee rams through the bill stripping public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights:

This is a violation of law. This is not just a rule. This is the law.

This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.

This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.

I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.

The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.

They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.

And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.

I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.

But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.

Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I think you misread the hypothetical.

If we barr Private Individuals/Institutions from making political donations, we would also have to barr Unions from doing the same. Likewise, If we barr unions from making donations corperations would also have to be barred.

A "conflict of interests" can be argued in either case.

[paft.livejournal.com]

The case was not about barring direct contributions. It was about a law involving direct communications that involved both corporations and non-profits (including unions.)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So what are we arguing about?

[paft.livejournal.com]

The decision struck down those laws which limited the ability of Corporations -- which are likely to have far greater resources and cash reserves than nonprofits or citizens groups -- to bankroll campaign ads. It puts those parties which either do not accept corporate donations, or are unlikely to receive them, at a distinct disadvantage.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The decision struck down those laws which limited the ability of Corporations -- which are likely to have far greater resources and cash reserves than nonprofits or citizens groups -- to bankroll campaign ads.

You do realise that in the eyes of the law that The Red-Cross, AFLCIO, NRA, and ACLU, are all corperations right?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Yes. You do realize that most of these organizations cannot compare with actual for- profit corporations when it comes to resources, cash, and clout, right?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Aside from the issue of scale what's the difference?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Oh dear. You really don't want reality horning in on this discussion, do you? That's like saying about an elephant and a mouse, "aside from the issue of scale, what's the difference?"

The difference is that private corporations have far greater resources and reserves for influencing elections.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The difference is that private corporations have far greater resources and reserves for influencing elections.

So how big does an organization have to be before they are not allowed to lobby?