The United States of eBay

We all know what America's biggest problem is, right? You thought it might be healthcare, climate change, the economy, financial regulation, immigration reform? Well you were wrong! Corporations don't have enough influence on government. They don't have a strong-enough voice. Those 57,642 paid corporate lobbyists in Washington DC spending $140 million every day lobbying Congress just aren't getting their messages across strongly enough. And then there are those messy elections where voters think they have the right to exercise some control and even donate money to candidates.

So, today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations have unlimited free speech rights under the Constitution and can put unlimited amounts of money [money which originates from you, of course] behind the candidates and issues they support. So much for citizen-based democracy, but maybe that's a good thing.

But why just let corporations buy off the President and Congress with campaign donations and corporate-funded campaigns? Why not let them BE the President? I mean, why not just cut out the middle men?

And if corporations can name every stadium in America, why not let them just buy the country? We could be the Petco United States. Or the United States of eBay. I mean, Meg Whitman is running for Governor of California in an attempt to make California the California of eBay. Why stop there?

 

Comments

[escriva]

09:35 PM on 01/26/2010

Welcome to the world of the United States of America, Incorporated

[mcrichmary]

08:30 PM on 01/26/2010

Also, regarding the free speech rights of corporations. If we look at the negative distortion caused by Union ads, I'm ok with corporations. If corporations are successful, it keeps people working and paying taxes. It also helps public employees with 401K plans. Everyone should have a voice. I'm not sure why we should eliminate free speech from some and not others. Seems hypocritical. Why not free speech for all? Novel concept... hmmmm maybe the 1st amendment.

[mcrichmary]

08:27 PM on 01/26/2010

It's easy to demonize the job creators of the world. I sell items and purchase on e-bay often. Wow, it's a great concept. What I like is that I'm not forced to sell an item that I belive has value to some hack that is going to low-ball me. This was a great idea that leveled the playing field across America.

Over the past few years, I've purchased and sold over 250 items. I am so grateful that it is and was a well run company. Wouldn't it be great to have a proven leader that had to answer to stakeholders and make a payroll. She ran a well-run company and met budget.

You bet, I'm voting for her!

[Patricia013]

08:16 PM on 01/31/2010

Wow - rubbing my eyes. If what you say is true you are about the only person selling on Ebay that thinks its a well run company LOL

[billstewart]

07:33 PM on 01/26/2010

Meg Whitman's a perfectly legitimate candidate. I'm highly unlikely to vote for her (she's a Republican, after all, and wrong about some important issues), but as candidates go she's above average. Yeah, she made her money running an actual business, unlike so many candidates who've inherited either money or political positions or been celebrities, or made their money as lawyers who then spent years as politicians. (Imagine hiring a business person to straighten up a financial mess like California's! )

Besides, I thought when politicians and pundits say that they want to tax corporations, they claim the money is coming from stockholders or rich people or floating around in the sky - you're not supposed to notice that it actually comes from us...

While I'm not thrilled with the implications of the Court's position, I don't see how you can forbid Citizens United to make a biased political movie and not also forbid Michael Moore from doing the same thing, nor do I see how you can clearly distinguish between media corporations promoting their views of politics, whether that's Fox or Air America or Arianna, and other corporations doing the same thing. Freedom of the press is for everybody, and while it's cheaper to get in the game now that we've got an Internet, it still takes money.

[Patricia013]

04:49 PM on 01/26/2010

When is this country going to wise up and get rid of the supreme court? Let each state have their own court and be done with it. So far, our so called supreme court are nothing but right wing henchmen catering to the rich corporations at the expense of the poor taxpayer. Most states had to scramble to put a stop to their eminent domain ruling a couple years back when they ruled that your home could be taken from you and given to someone who can build something bigger and pay more taxes. Some conservatism is good for the country but the present day right wingnuts are way over the mark....we'll all (both republican and democrat) be pecking at the crumbs if they have their way!

[billstewart]

07:40 PM on 01/26/2010

The Supreme Court's a Federal court - if you're going to have national laws and not just state laws, you're going to need national courts to address them. And that appalling Kelo decision about eminent domain was the Supremes allowing state and local governments to confiscate property; the only "scrambling" that was done was legislators telling the public (and the local governments) that they weren't going to do it. The Supreme Court are the people who brought you the Miranda warnings and forced cops to actually get search warrants instead of busting your door down and planting evidence and desegregated the schools even in states where the white people didn't mind having their own schools; they're usually the good guys, even though there are occasional bad apples like Roberts.