Special Interest Groups, Supreme Court, Move On, Freedom Watch, Michael Moore, Humana, Health Care Legislation
Have
you Zinged someone lately? Please forward a link to a friend, family
member or neighbor. You can sign up to receive ZingerKing by entering
your email address in the box on the right (Subscribe). You will
receive the Morning Briefing and a link to the full article whenever a
new article is published. Your email information will be kept private. ____________________________________________________________________________
Sunday January 10, 2010
Today's Zinger:
A Political Special Interest Group Is Organized Deception
The Morning Briefing:
President Obama has another problem to add to his list. This coming week, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on campaign finance law changes governing unions, businesses and special interest groups. The case was brought in response to censure of conservative groups that sponsored a pre-election movie “Hillary, the Movie”. The movie depicted candidate Hillary Clinton in a negative light. Liberal groups were able to get the movie blocked under the statute that constrains corporations (unions and special interest groups) from such activity.
Obviously, individuals like Michael Moore are permitted to “advertise” with their negative movies about George Bush or the Republicans, since Moore is not a regulated "special interest group". But the conservative groups did not rollover on this one. They mounted a challenge to the restrictions that has found its way to the Supreme Court.
Zinger looks at the implications of changes that may occur as a result of a landmark verdict that may be handed down this week.
Who Said It?
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
The Discussion:
The law was put in place to ensure that corporations and unions do not have the same powers as individuals regarding elections. Surely, this is one of the reasons why politicians slam Big Business (Big Oil, Big Pharma, Wall Street) and others without concern for their political life. But, if the Supreme Court rules that corporations and unions can become more involved in the political process with advertisements and other actions to sway public opinion, we may see a dramatic change in political the tone towards business and unions. We may also see a dramatic increase in political spending with business and unions facing off against their supported candidates with negative advertisements.
If passed, the change in law portends significant risks and opportunities. First, the Democrats will be at risk. The Democrats have traditionally flailed at business to excite their base. How often have we heard the phrase “focus on Main Street and not Wall Street”. The Democratic Congress, since 2006, has focused on linking Dick Cheney and the Republicans, with BIG Oil, inferring that there was some secret impropriety. Hillary Clinton leveraged BIG Pharma and the Nancy and Harry show has used health insurance companies as the bad boys of health care costs. Of course, this appeals to the average American that feels the pain of higher gasoline prices and health care costs and doesn’t alienate a voting block since corporations can’t vote or take out advertisements to fight back.
A matter of fact, when Humana, the health insurance company, did fight back with an advertisement against the government program during the health care debate, the administration silenced them declaring that they were not to sponsor anti-government position advertisements. Interestingly, the pharmaceutical companies got on-board with the health care program (they were bought off by the administration in private deals) and were permitted to sponsor pro-government ads. (Sounds like the Chinese system more than the American system of information control).
But the Supreme Court may just unleash a political tiger. I anticipate three responses to the Supreme Court decision, should it be affirmed. First, the Democrats will move to pass new legislation that will block companies (and maybe unions) from political advertising. There will be fear of retribution for years of flogging business as the reason for our countries problems. There will also be a legitimate concern that corporations may gain too much power in the political process.
Secondly, the Democrats will change their tune. We will hear less business bashing as we approach the 2010 elections. For fear of losing control of the Congress, I anticipate that the administration, along with the Nancy and Harry show, will be a kinder and gentler advocate for business growth and legislation to assist business. The Republicans will engage business in an almost zealot way as we approach the elections.
Lastly, corporations and unions will (potentially) be given the opportunity to give their side of the story. In some respects this should be allowed. These organizations represent a significant interest to our country, our economy and the American people. On the other hand, knowing the negativity and the way different groups play loose with facts to support their point of view, there should be a real concern that special interest will be dishonest and shape public opinion for their own self interest and not that of America.
The Conclusion:
As the Supreme Court rules on the role of business, unions and other organizations ability to advertise during the election process, the Republicans and Democrats will scramble to engage a new and powerful advocate or enemy. Unions and corporations may wield significant power in shaping the political agenda. While I have major reservations about the degree of influence that these organizations could potentially wield, I also have reservations about the power that other existing organizations (like Move-On, Soros, Michael Moore, Freedom Watch) exercise in the political process today. Either we restrict the process to all, or we open the process to all domestic comers.
There is clearly a need for honesty in advertising. It seem to me that most interest groups, organizations and individuals are not honest with the American people. They spend vasts amount of money to influence and shape the public opinion of the voters for their own profit or objective. While the Supreme Court is busy deciding this case, I wonder if we could get them to add "truthful and verifiable" to the language. Of course, this should be required for everyone. I'm not sure there would be nearly the number of advertisements if these organizations had to tell the truth.
Who Said It?
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
Ronald Reagan
How Parenting Style Shows Up In International Politics. Non-Verbal Communications.
The Role Of Government: Provider or Enabler?
The Corruption Of Health Care Legislation
Inflation Is Coming, Inflation is Coming. Inflation And The Deficit
The Administrations Decision Process For Afghanistan
President Obama's Job Fair and Search for Jobs
President Obama's Afghanistan Strategy and Speech
The Environmental Impact of Hybrid and Battery Powered Automobiles
Geithner, Stimulus, Health Care for Troops and more
Torture, Rendition and Iran's Nuclear Ambition
Shameless Request For Support:
ZingerKing operates without advertising or government funding (obviously). The purpose is to inform and educate its readers about economic and political issues that affect our lives.
Help ZingerKing grow. Have you Zinged someone lately? Please forward a link to ZingerKing to a friend, family member or neighbor. If you enjoy reading the Zinger please subscribe (see the subscribe box at the top of the article in the purple side band). Subscribers receive the"Morning Briefing" when published with a link to the full article.Periodic alerts are sent to subscribers only with important updates and insights into critical issues. Your email address will not sold to others and will not be shared.
Write To Us:
You can comment on any article by clicking on the comment button at the bottom of each article or you can write to us at ZK@ZingerKing.com
Sunday January 10, 2010
Today's Zinger:
A Political Special Interest Group Is Organized Deception
The Morning Briefing:
President Obama has another problem to add to his list. This coming week, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on campaign finance law changes governing unions, businesses and special interest groups. The case was brought in response to censure of conservative groups that sponsored a pre-election movie “Hillary, the Movie”. The movie depicted candidate Hillary Clinton in a negative light. Liberal groups were able to get the movie blocked under the statute that constrains corporations (unions and special interest groups) from such activity.
Obviously, individuals like Michael Moore are permitted to “advertise” with their negative movies about George Bush or the Republicans, since Moore is not a regulated "special interest group". But the conservative groups did not rollover on this one. They mounted a challenge to the restrictions that has found its way to the Supreme Court.
Zinger looks at the implications of changes that may occur as a result of a landmark verdict that may be handed down this week.
Who Said It?
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
The Discussion:
The law was put in place to ensure that corporations and unions do not have the same powers as individuals regarding elections. Surely, this is one of the reasons why politicians slam Big Business (Big Oil, Big Pharma, Wall Street) and others without concern for their political life. But, if the Supreme Court rules that corporations and unions can become more involved in the political process with advertisements and other actions to sway public opinion, we may see a dramatic change in political the tone towards business and unions. We may also see a dramatic increase in political spending with business and unions facing off against their supported candidates with negative advertisements.
If passed, the change in law portends significant risks and opportunities. First, the Democrats will be at risk. The Democrats have traditionally flailed at business to excite their base. How often have we heard the phrase “focus on Main Street and not Wall Street”. The Democratic Congress, since 2006, has focused on linking Dick Cheney and the Republicans, with BIG Oil, inferring that there was some secret impropriety. Hillary Clinton leveraged BIG Pharma and the Nancy and Harry show has used health insurance companies as the bad boys of health care costs. Of course, this appeals to the average American that feels the pain of higher gasoline prices and health care costs and doesn’t alienate a voting block since corporations can’t vote or take out advertisements to fight back.
A matter of fact, when Humana, the health insurance company, did fight back with an advertisement against the government program during the health care debate, the administration silenced them declaring that they were not to sponsor anti-government position advertisements. Interestingly, the pharmaceutical companies got on-board with the health care program (they were bought off by the administration in private deals) and were permitted to sponsor pro-government ads. (Sounds like the Chinese system more than the American system of information control).
But the Supreme Court may just unleash a political tiger. I anticipate three responses to the Supreme Court decision, should it be affirmed. First, the Democrats will move to pass new legislation that will block companies (and maybe unions) from political advertising. There will be fear of retribution for years of flogging business as the reason for our countries problems. There will also be a legitimate concern that corporations may gain too much power in the political process.
Secondly, the Democrats will change their tune. We will hear less business bashing as we approach the 2010 elections. For fear of losing control of the Congress, I anticipate that the administration, along with the Nancy and Harry show, will be a kinder and gentler advocate for business growth and legislation to assist business. The Republicans will engage business in an almost zealot way as we approach the elections.
Lastly, corporations and unions will (potentially) be given the opportunity to give their side of the story. In some respects this should be allowed. These organizations represent a significant interest to our country, our economy and the American people. On the other hand, knowing the negativity and the way different groups play loose with facts to support their point of view, there should be a real concern that special interest will be dishonest and shape public opinion for their own self interest and not that of America.
The Conclusion:
As the Supreme Court rules on the role of business, unions and other organizations ability to advertise during the election process, the Republicans and Democrats will scramble to engage a new and powerful advocate or enemy. Unions and corporations may wield significant power in shaping the political agenda. While I have major reservations about the degree of influence that these organizations could potentially wield, I also have reservations about the power that other existing organizations (like Move-On, Soros, Michael Moore, Freedom Watch) exercise in the political process today. Either we restrict the process to all, or we open the process to all domestic comers.
There is clearly a need for honesty in advertising. It seem to me that most interest groups, organizations and individuals are not honest with the American people. They spend vasts amount of money to influence and shape the public opinion of the voters for their own profit or objective. While the Supreme Court is busy deciding this case, I wonder if we could get them to add "truthful and verifiable" to the language. Of course, this should be required for everyone. I'm not sure there would be nearly the number of advertisements if these organizations had to tell the truth.
Who Said It?
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
Ronald Reagan
Today's ZingerToon:
Recent ZingerKing Articles:
Articles can
be found under “Recent Articles” in the purple sidebar. Older articles
can be found in the archives that are stored by month. These are found
at the bottom of the purple sidebar as well. Here is a list of the most recent
articles.
How Parenting Style Shows Up In International Politics. Non-Verbal Communications.
The Role Of Government: Provider or Enabler?
The Corruption Of Health Care Legislation
Inflation Is Coming, Inflation is Coming. Inflation And The Deficit
The Administrations Decision Process For Afghanistan
President Obama's Job Fair and Search for Jobs
President Obama's Afghanistan Strategy and Speech
The Environmental Impact of Hybrid and Battery Powered Automobiles
Geithner, Stimulus, Health Care for Troops and more
Torture, Rendition and Iran's Nuclear Ambition
Shameless Request For Support:
ZingerKing operates without advertising or government funding (obviously). The purpose is to inform and educate its readers about economic and political issues that affect our lives.
Help ZingerKing grow. Have you Zinged someone lately? Please forward a link to ZingerKing to a friend, family member or neighbor. If you enjoy reading the Zinger please subscribe (see the subscribe box at the top of the article in the purple side band). Subscribers receive the"Morning Briefing" when published with a link to the full article.Periodic alerts are sent to subscribers only with important updates and insights into critical issues. Your email address will not sold to others and will not be shared.
Write To Us:
You can comment on any article by clicking on the comment button at the bottom of each article or you can write to us at ZK@ZingerKing.com
Posted by ZK at 1/10/2010 9:01 AM 
Categories: Special Interest Groups, Supreme Court, Politics
Tags: Special Interest Groups Freedom Watch Supreme Court Politics Health Care Legislation Michael Moore Move-On
Categories: Special Interest Groups, Supreme Court, Politics
Tags: Special Interest Groups Freedom Watch Supreme Court Politics Health Care Legislation Michael Moore Move-On
Comments