 |
 |
   Read the story and see the video discussion by the authors about why creeping consolidation is crushing American livelihoods.
 A forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison.
 If you liked Hamid Karzai and Pervez Musharraf, youll love our latest ally, Yemens Ali Abdullah Saleh.
 Crises can force even the most dysfunctional governments to changeand Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou aims to prove it.
|
   |
|
|
October 15, 2006
By: CLEAN MONEY....I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but the LA Times has recommended a No vote on Proposition 89, the Clean Money initiative on the ballot in California this November. They agree it's a splendid idea, but:
Yeah, Prop 89 really sticks it to corporations. It's funded by a 0.2 (that's zero point two) percentage point increase in the corporate income tax, and it prevents corporations from donating more than $10,000 to initiative campaigns unless they set up a PAC to do it. Can we get real? 0.2% is a tiny increase, and forcing corporations to set up PACs that raise money from wealthy executives and stockholders is a speed bump, not a death sentence. But that's still too bold for the Times. Your liberal media at work. —Kevin Drum 5:51 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)Comments
For the outside world, the LA Times (owned by the Chicago Tribune) is undergoing major trauma internally. The parent company fired the publisher (who has overseen a moderate progressive editorial page) and replaced him with a headquarters guy who worked in the Reagan administration, had his hands in some dirty business (I believe with El Salvador or such) and is close friends with Chief Justice Roberts. Yet most of their readers still likely regard them as quasi-progressive. Watch them endore the right wing zealot Tom McLintock for Lt Gov (Arnold will be reelected easily), probably on the grounds that he should be the same party as the governor, although in reality they prefer his hard-right stands (which are totally out of sync with the state, and Arnold much of that time for that matter). Posted by: hopeless pedant on October 15, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINKJust think of all the jobs that would be lost if this tax went into effect! The only taxes should be on poor people, to encourage them to work harder! Posted by: Al's Mommy on October 15, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINKYes, because the greatest threat facing our nation, and planet, right now is the slim possibility of giant coprporations losing tiny slices of profit. Hooray for democracy! Wanna buy some? Posted by: Kenji on October 15, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINKThere is a reason that corporations don't get the vote. Nor should their money be available in such a way as to corrupt the political system as it so obviously has done. Nobody's anti-industry, union, corporation, etc. We all have an interst in successful business, effective economy, and a society that functions. It's the last that has been under severe threat for some time, and perverted these last 5 years. Corporations don't get the vote, period. Not by proxy, or bribery and corruption either. I know it's boring of me, but external organizations' money doesn't meed to be, nor should it be in the political process. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. California is trying to infringe the first amendment, limiting the ability of individuals under the law to support their favored candidates. All patriotic Americans should oppose it. Posted by: American Hawk on October 15, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINKAmerican Hawk -- the courts have upheld it, you can spend all your own money on yourself, you can spend all your money advertizing for someone else, as long as your interest is declared. Nobody has any god-given right to own our politicians. Their allegiance and duty is to their electorate and the country, not to any narrow interest. Unfortunately, I can't sau both major parties don't do it. However, the Republicans under Rove have made it their business to deliver legislation and tax breaks for donations, and to ignore the best interests and governance of this country. You are obviously not a conservative or libertarian tending Republican. Just a K street licking party hack! The ultimate LA times editorial will be when they endorse David Broder for chairman of the central committee of our one-party state. Seriously, the LA Times _news_ is one of the best papers in the country, but the editorial page is just BORRRING, in that mind-numbing Wash Post way, without EJ Dionne. Fortunately they don't have anybody quite as banal as Broder. Well, I don't think they do, but how would I know? When I stumble upon a copy of the WS Journal, I look at the editorial page (in addition to the news coverage of course). Just to see what's goin on over there. Not the LA times, which I read daily. Broderism - yeah, things are bad, but change is even scarier! Its kinda strange how scared they are of change. Posted by: BoulderDuck on October 15, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINKProp 89 has a great rap video by the webmaster of the California Nurses Association, Colette Washington. Check it out at YouTube if you dare. About time for 89 Cant get health if you dont have wealth Proposition 89 is real reform You can also see it at the Yes on Prop 89 pages. Posted by: jamester on October 15, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINKAnd what a surprise... they also endorsed Ahnold. Their rational for rejecting Angelides was that he had some good policy ideas, but he would raise taxes! He would actually make unpopular decisions instead of Ahnold's smoke and mirrors crap. Posted by: wilder on October 15, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINKThe well-funded tv ads against Prop 89 all claim it benefits "special interests." There's a joke in there somewhere. Posted by: fyreflye on October 15, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINKAll newspaper corporations are owned by swine. Without exception. Murdoch at least is no hypocrite about it. And of all those swine, the people who mismanage the Tribune corporation would probably win a vote among those in the industry as the most swinish owners of all. Posted by: JMG on October 15, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINKKevin, Curious...are you going to break your abstinence from supporting ballot measures for this one? Posted by: Zacher on October 15, 2006 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINKNewspaper endorsements have been declining in influence for years, like the print media themselves. Fortunately. Posted by: janinsanfran on October 15, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINKOverturn Buckley v Valleo ! Money does not equate to political speech. End of story. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 15, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINKWhen a corporation can vote for a candidate, Hawk, let me know. Posted by: keptsimple on October 15, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINKThis is a big infringement of free speech, as is McCain Feingold CFR, which the SCOTUS sadly upheld. It's easy to agree with not letting rich people "own" politicians, since they have so much more money than the rest of us. But, the same argument could apply to newspapers and other media. The New York Times can virtually "own" a New York politician, because their slant can often get him elected or defeated. Rush Limbaugh has the same sort of power over national conservative figures. So, if we're going to limit the ability of the rich to use their wealth to influence elections, maybe we need to limit the media as well. That would require government censorship of all media for 3 months before each election -- an ugly concept. This is the slippery slope to which campaign finance reform can lead. That's why it's a bad idea. Posted by: ex-liberal on October 15, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINKKevin doesn't try hard enough to distinguish between dismay and bafflement that a genuine liberal media organ would put out an opinion like that, and sarcastic reference to the MSLM clich with full realization that outlets like the LATcats had their editorial pages co-opted by their corportate owners Posted by: Neil' on October 15, 2006 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINKqd铃声 来电铃声 经典铃声 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 Posted by: mmf铃声 on October 15, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINKI will be voting against Prop 89. Not because of the taxes, but because of the distributions. It virtually shuts out third party and independent candidates in a maze of qualifications, rules, and restrictions. America is ready to move past a two party government. Prop 89 further entrenches the two party system. http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/pdf/prop89_text.pdf I'm all in favor of public financing of campaigns. I'm not for Proposition 89. Posted by: ascap_scab on October 15, 2006 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINKThis is the slippery slope to which campaign finance reform can lead. That's why it's a bad idea. But Campaign Finance Anarchy is an equally slippery slope, and has been directly responsible for giving us the Military Industrial Complex, Enron, Halliburton, and Microsoft. How about bringing back public flogging for politicians who quid pro quo with donors? That sounds like an even trade. Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on October 15, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINKAmerican Hawk makes me long for the relative sanity of Al. American Hawk has got to be Michael Savage or something. Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 16, 2006 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINKIn the details, however, Proposition 89 runs aground. The funding would come from a tax on corporations and financial institutions. I'd love to ask them - so, what source of funding would not "run this aground"? Are corporations now some kind of protected species? Posted by: craigie on October 16, 2006 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINKYeah, they endorsed Arnold today, too. Put out some crapola about charming being better than smart. It's just sad. Posted by: cmac on October 16, 2006 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINKMoney does not equate to political speech...End of story. They're certainly not identical. But one effectuates the other. Don't think so? How many minds would Paul Krugman or George Will reach without the money that disseminates their ideas? I believe when it comes to something as precious as speech -- especially the speech involving the great political debates of our democracy -- we ought to err on the side of caution and put as few strictures on it as possible. That means the widest possible dissemination of ideas and debates and opinions about politics. And that means no limits on spending money to disseminate those ideas. By limiting what free people can contribute to campaigns and to the advocacy of causes and ideals they support, our society indeed curbs the dissemination of political speech. The reality is that there is less dissemination of political speech in the America of 2006 than there would otherwise be because of the existence of laws curbing political donations. I tire of the mindless attack ads and general political advertising BS as much as the next person. But, given all that is at stake, do we really want less debate than we would otherwise have? Posted by: Jasper on October 16, 2006 at 3:03 AM | PERMALINKThis is a big infringement of free speech, as is McCain Feingold CFR, which the SCOTUS sadly upheld. The Supreme Court merely upheld the constituionality of Congress's taking action to fight political corruption, or even its mere appearance. The Supreme Court didn't order Congress to do so in the manner it has chosen (contribution limits). Congress could take action against the appearance or actual existence of corruption simply by mandating strict disclosure requirements -- via a publicly funded website. Voters could then decide for themselves whether or not to vote against Congressman X because he's taking too much money from big pharma or the gun lobby. Posted by: Jasper on October 16, 2006 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK1993 助听器协会网 Is it really a good idea for the party of free speech to enforce silence on businesses that want to campaign for or against initiatives? Posted by: Adam Herman on October 16, 2006 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINKI eagerly await when the Tribune Corporation restores the "True Industrial Freedom" flag, complete with eagle, on the Times mast, as it brings the paper full circle to its days as a right-wing, anti-labor voice. Unfortunately for the owners, Los Angeles is not similarly going to revert to a haven for Anglo midwestern emigres. Posted by: Vincent on October 16, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINKTwo repugnickins: Corporations can be neither insulted nor injured because they aren't people. Posted by: jefff on October 16, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINKjust fyi for the hopeless pedant (the first post here), the lat endorsed mcclintocks opponent, democrat john garamendi, today. Posted by: name on October 16, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINKDiscount online pharmacy - no prescription! Cheap meridia - 
March 2010
February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
