Olbermann: Supreme Court Ruling Makes Every Politician A Prostitute

[SAMSON123]

Olbermann: Supreme Court ruling makes every politician ‘a prostitute’

By Diana Sweet
Friday, January 22nd, 2010 -- 2:40 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

Yesterday evening's Countdown with Keith Olbermann began with his traditional 'heads up' diary entry at Daily Kos.

Titled 'Pandora's Box,' Olbermann explains before the segment, "Pandora's box meets the bottomless pit and becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. What the Supreme Court did today. My special comment, could be the last of them, next."

"Finally tonight, as promised, a special comment on the Supreme Court`s ruling today in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission."

Olbermann warns of the consequences of Thursday's Supreme Court ruling, including as he describes it, American politicians becoming 'prostitutes.'

"It is almost literally true that any political science fiction nightmare you can now dream up, no matter whether you are conservative or a liberal, it is now legal. Because the people who can make it legal can now be entirely bought and sold," the liberal talk show host explains. "No actual citizens required in the campaign fund raising process. And the entirely bought and sold politicians can change any laws. And any legal defense you can structure now can be undone by the politicians who will be bought and sold into office this November, or two years from now. And any legal defense which honest politicians can somehow wedge up against them this November or two years from now, that can be undone by the next even larger set of politicians who will be bought and sold into office in 2014 or 2016 or 2018."

Then Olbermann's prediction for the ultimate fate of our political representation "Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, this will now change. Unless this near mortal blow is somehow undone, within ten years, every politician in this country will be a prostitute."

From Youtube and MSNBC, Countdown with Keith Olbermann's 'Special Comment' which originally aired on Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010: Part One:

Part Two:

"Russ Feingold told me today there might yet be ways to work around this," Olbermann continues. "To restrict corporate governance and how corporations make and spend their money. I pointed out that any such legislation, even if it somehow sneaked past this the last US Senate not funded by a generous gift from the chub group, would eventually wind up in front of a Supreme Court, and whether or not John Roberts was still at its head would be irrelevant. The next nine men and women on the Supreme Court will get there not because of their judgment nor even their politics. They will get there because they were appointed by purchased presidents and confirmed by purchased senators."

"Maybe it won`t be this bad," Mr. Olbermann offers in his final conclusions. "Maybe the corporations, legally defined as human beings but without the pesky occasional human attributes of compassion and conscience, maybe when handed the only keys to the electoral machine, they will simply not redesign America in their own corporate image."

"Let me leave you with this final question: after today, who is going to stop them? Good night and good luck."

[drkaje]

They're already prostitutes.

[Soul Crusher]

They're already prostitutes.

I guess this morons Olbermann didnt know that GS spent about one million dollars last election cycle trying to get Obama elected. 

[Skip8282]

I guess this morons Olbermann didnt know that GS spent about one million dollars last election cycle trying to get Obama elected. 

I've been thinking over this decision a lot and I'm not convinced it's the right one.  It just doesn't sit right.  Perhaps treating corporations as individuals under the law needs to be reconsidered by our judiciary.

I don't think most people are too happy that politicians now act like the whores for businesses.  I don't see how compounding the problem helps.

[Soul Crusher]

I've been thinking over this decision a lot and I'm not convinced it's the right one.  It just doesn't sit right.  Perhaps treating corporations as individuals under the law needs to be reconsidered by our judiciary.

I don't think most people are too happy that politicians now act like the whores for businesses.  I don't see how compounding the problem helps.

And what is to stop the govt from saying individuals csant run ads 60 days prior to an election? 

While I too dont like all the ads, giving the govt any power to regulate free speech for politics is an absolute non-starter for me. 

[Skip8282]

And what is to stop the govt from saying individuals csant run ads 60 days prior to an election? 

Because the first amendment applies to individuals.  What I'm questioning is whether or not it should be applied to corporations.  Plenty on this board, including yourself, have accused the "typical" American of not being all that bright.  And even I would agree that many don't even bother following politics.  Which essentially tells me their vote is contingent on either simply following party lines or going with the candidate who has the best propaganda.

Do you really not see how this could be abused by corporations down the road?  The fact that corporations are involved now doesn't mean we should compound the problem.

IDK, I just have a lot of misgivings about this ruling.

[MCWAY]

As if the Reid's buying off Nelson and Landrieu's Senate votes weren't a prime example of that.

As for Olbermann, he's one to talk about such. Between him and Matthews, I don't know which is the more progressive "lady of the evening" for the left.

All that remains is for them (especially Matthews) to slant their eyes, don some G-Strings, break out the clear heels, fire up the karaoke machine, dust off the old 2 Live Crew albums, and start squeaking (with Obama's image in plain view), "Me so horny, Me love you long time!!!"

[Soul Crusher]

Because the first amendment applies to individuals.  What I'm questioning is whether or not it should be applied to corporations.  Plenty on this board, including yourself, have accused the "typical" American of not being all that bright.  And even I would agree that many don't even bother following politics.  Which essentially tells me their vote is contingent on either simply following party lines or going with the candidate who has the best propaganda.

Do you really not see how this could be abused by corporations down the road?  The fact that corporations are involved now doesn't mean we should compound the problem.

IDK, I just have a lot of misgivings about this ruling.

I dont.  I dont want the govt having any ability to regulate political speech whatsoever, whether for individuals or corporations. 

Lets say for example Obama or a congressman makes his whole campaign strategy bashing a particular business, say 123, Corp.  You dont think 123 Corp should have the ability to defend itself by running ads calling that politicians out for the lies?   

[BM OUT]

I find it incredible that Olbermann is outraged over this,but he NEVER EVER blinks an eye when unions STEAL their members money and give it to politicians without any regard if their members want it or not.THATS perfectly fine in Olbermanns eyes because unions support limp writed libs like himself.He knows now that those days are finnished.I cant wait to see the ads about Obama in the next election cycle.Libs are finally going to get the fucking they deserve.

[Soul Crusher]

I have no idea why people feel comfortable with the idea that the govt should be able to regulate free speech for political speech in any scenario. 

Truly bizarre IMHO. 

[MCWAY]

I have no idea why people feel comfortable with the idea that the govt should be able to regulate free speech for political speech in any scenario. 

Truly bizarre IMHO. 

Maybe it's because they want people to be forced to hear their sorry message(s). Hence, you have some liberals, whining about using the "Fairness Doctrine", so that people will subsidize their sorry cash-hemmorhaging talkshows.

[Soul Crusher]

Maybe it's because they want people to be forced to hear their sorry message(s). Hence, you have some liberals, whining about using the "Fairness Doctrine", so that people will subsidize their sorry cash-hemmorhaging talkshows.

Its amazing to me that people trust the govt to regulate free speech considering what is going on.   

[MCWAY]

Its amazing to me that people trust the govt to regulate free speech considering what is going on.   

If the shoe were on the other foot, liberals would be SCREAMING to the heavens about free speech. They have the freedom to counter any conservative media outlets with liberal ones. They also have the freedom to SUCK at it and go belly-up in bankruptcy.

The issue here is that some liberals want to freedom to spew their ideas, but they want someone else to foot the bills, should their message ring hollow and they fail to rake in the cash, needed to survive.

The networks don't back Rush, simply because his message is cool or his cause noble. They back him, because HE GENERATES THE $$$$$$$.

[Soul Crusher]

Remember this gem?

I am almost a free speech absolutist.  The govt and all its apologists can go fuck themselves.    

Notice Al Gore at 3:26!

Thank God that POFS was never elected.   

 

[Skip8282]

I have no idea why people feel comfortable with the idea that the govt should be able to regulate free speech for political speech in any scenario. 

Truly bizarre IMHO. 

I suppose it's not sitting right with me because I'm not sure that a corporation should have a right that I would typically assign to an individual.  A person has a right to free speech.

So what I'm really questioning is why should we give a corporation, what in essence, I see as an individual human right.

I understand that you've said that the law has historically given corporations this right.  What I'm questioning is if that was the right thing to do.

You make a good point that a corporation should have a right to defend itself publically from a politician.  So maybe there should be some compromise.

Let me ask you this:  Electronic voting is now standard in my state.  What if the company (Ex: Diebold) decided that they wanted to exercise their right to free speech and have a commercial playing on the monitor, for the candidate that they support, while people are doing their voting.  Would that be OK?

[Soul Crusher]

I suppose it's not sitting right with me because I'm not sure that a corporation should have a right that I would typically assign to an individual.  A person has a right to free speech.

So what I'm really questioning is why should we give a corporation, what in essence, I see as an individual human right.

I understand that you've said that the law has historically given corporations this right.  What I'm questioning is if that was the right thing to do.

You make a good point that a corporation should have a right to defend itself publically from a politician.  So maybe there should be some compromise.

Let me ask you this:  Electronic voting is now standard in my state.  What if the company (Ex: Diebold) decided that they wanted to exercise their right to free speech and have a commercial playing on the monitor, for the candidate that they support, while people are doing their voting.  Would that be OK?

Absolutely not of course since most states have electioneering laws making that no one can advocate or electioneer for a candidate within 150 feet of a polling place.

[Skip8282]

Absolutely not of course since most states have electioneering laws making that no one can advocate or electioneer for a candidate within 150 feet of a polling place.

So, we can agree that free speech is not an absolute?  Fire in the theater and all that...


I guess the question, for me then, is where to draw the line for corporations.  I'm not sure giving them carte-blanche ability to skew an election is something I want to do.

Billy made a good point with the unions, and I hate the fact that unions can push a political candidate even though their constituency is against it.  But, isn't that what corporations will now do?  What if the majority of shareholders don't want a certain candidate and you have a renegade CEO with a F_ck you attitude towards shareholders?

Seems this could get awfully messy...

[Soul Crusher]

So, we can agree that free speech is not an absolute?  Fire in the theater and all that...


I guess the question, for me then, is where to draw the line for corporations.  I'm not sure giving them carte-blanche ability to skew an election is something I want to do.

Billy made a good point with the unions, and I hate the fact that unions can push a political candidate even though their constituency is against it.  But, isn't that what corporations will now do?  What if the majority of shareholders don't want a certain candidate and you have a renegade CEO with a F_ck you attitude towards shareholders?

Seems this could get awfully messy...

Nothing is easy or clean.  My views come from weighting the worse of the two evils.  On the one hand having corps have the ability to spend their own money on ads 60 days before an election and sway voters on the one hand, and having the govt regulate political free speech 60 days before an election on the other.

To me, in my mind 9 aout of 10 times I know where I fall.     

[kcballer]

This isn't about 'free speech' in the slightest.  This is about giving corporations and UNIONS (yes unions billy) more power over politicians and over the people who will vote for them.  The public is already mostly uniformed.  Allowing corporate interests a greater foothold over politicians and the public we will have even more corrupt politics than ever before. 

This is clear cut and simple in my mind.  I don't even think people should be able to give money to candidates.  It should be an even battlefield so to speak.  I thought Obama gained an unfair advantage over McCain during the last election and to some extent may have effected the outcome.  Politics should not be about the will of the wealthy but about the will of the people.  End of story.

[Soul Crusher]

This isn't about 'free speech' in the slightest.  This is about giving corporations and UNIONS (yes unions billy) more power over politicians and over the people who will vote for them.  The public is already mostly uniformed.  Allowing corporate interests a greater foothold over politicians and the public we will have even more corrupt politics than ever before. 

This is clear cut and simple in my mind.  I don't even think people should be able to give money to candidates.  It should be an even battlefield so to speak.  I thought Obama gained an unfair advantage over McCain during the last election and to some extent may have effected the outcome.  Politics should not be about the will of the wealthy but about the will of the people.  End of story.

So then you are ok with the media shilling for a canadidate and not allowing people to collectively to form a corp. to counter that bias?

What about the NRA or ACLU, they cant run ads?

[Skip8282]

You bring up a lot of good points 33.  I think I'll need to think about this more.