[PLUG-TALK] [PLUG] todays supreme court decision.

[Rich Shepard]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Michael Rasmussen wrote:

> A couple of examples to consider:
>
> Telecoms are upset about net neutrality.  They run heavy ads supporting
> candidates that know little about the issue, but understand whose
> supporting their bid for office. Once in office they become opponents to
> net neutrality.
>
> Media groups don't feel the DCMA went far enough.  Apply above scenario
> and, bingo, we have a legislative body that fiercely fights for the IP
> property rights of their corporate sponsors.  Reverse engineering becomes
> a crime.  Microsoft rolls out new file formats and changes network
> behavior of AD servers.  It is no longer possible to create compatible
> products.

Michael,

   As the Oregonian's editorial board wrote in today's paper, the only change
from the Supreme's decision is that payments can once again be made directly
and openly. Yes, restrictions were put on political contributions as far
back as Teddy Roosevelt's administration in 1906, but all this did was
change the structure and methods, not the amounts or effects.

   PACs (Political Action Committees) have been around for years. There are
no restrictions on how much money any individual or group can contribute to
a PAC. There are trade association PACs and trade union PACs. It's across
the political spectrum. When direct candidate contributions were limited by
the McCain/Feingold bill, indirect contributions that complied with the new
law were created -- legally -- and fed the same amounts as before. It was
called "soft money" but seemed to be the same "hard cash."

   With good reason it is said that we have the best government that money can
buy. And before anyone starts railing against big business, take a look at
how much money is spent buying influence by labor unions (including teachers
and state employees) and associations of cities, counties, and states. If
you look at Oregon's list of approved lobbyists you see that they include
folks working on behalf of the Oregon Association of Counties and other such
groups. Everyone is a member of a "special interest group" and each group
bites and claws for as much political clout and benefit as it can get
regardless of who else loses. It's the way the system functions.

Rich