Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
Wrong natural conclusion. Since companies can now use the media to run ads supporting the positions of the politicians they've contributed to, they can basically pay to get whomever they want elected.
Hate the price of prescription medication? Sorry, the Senator from Merck, in a bill co-sponsored by the Senator from Pfizer, has established that drug company patents don't expire, thus effectively ending the generic drug market.
Hate the bailouts? Well, hate to break it to you, but the House of Representatives brought to you by Goldman Sachs will vote 434-1 in favor of the next one.
Want to start a business? Well, the City Council, sponsored by WalMart along with the Mayor, brought to you by Target has changed the zoning laws, and your store must close.
|
Companies still cannot directly contribute money to a candidate so your use of "sponsor" is misleading at best and if a mayor changes zoning laws to favor one company over another he's just setting himself up for a lawsuit.
Quote:
|
Good luck with that when the President, brought to you in part by Boston Globe and Rupert Murdoch signs a bill preventing "unlicensed news reporting."
|
So you totally ignore the fact that your corporate owned Boston globe can publish partisan propaganda as "news" and get away with it but you object to Joe Liquor store owner being able to send out a flyer asking it's patrons to support the candidate that opposes higher liquor taxes? This type of thing is why the law was thrown out.