Is Georgia Politics, Religion, Gay Bashing Or The Eddie Long Mess On Our Mind?

The Bishop Eddie Long alleged sex scandal is now on an incredible news media roll that could run into the November midterm elections and even beyond. But, is Long’s high-profile mess really about his alleged illicit sex, relations with gays or gay bashing; the power and influence of black churches, mega churches, television ministries or black ministers in general; or, the rough and tumble of Georgia based politics and political campaigns?

For bloggers, public affairs, politics and media junkies, it’s interesting and engaging what’s going on in Georgia these days.

The Democratic candidate for Governor, Roy Barnes, who cancelled an upcoming political campaign fundraiser to be hosted by Bishop Long, is in a tough election contest with a Tea Party supported opponent. And, Newt Gingrich, the former Georgia Congressman, U. S. House Speaker and leader of the conservative Contract With America movement that influenced mid-term House elections in 1994 under President Clinton, is making rumblings about launching a candidacy for the upcoming Presidential Election. With all that going on, there is renewed national debate about the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy affecting gays in the military, on the heals of a court decision declaring the policy to be unconstitutional, while Reverend Long takes a hit about his gay bashing.

WOW!!! What a mess, what a scandal and what a blast for politics, current and future Georgia based political campaigns, religion, gays, television ministries and black ministers all rolled into one!

Perhaps it’s all a coincidence; perhaps not. It will be interesting to see who gets paid out of all this at the end of the day.

But, one thing is for certain.

Georgia will certainly be on our mind for a while.

 

Small Business Political Money & Free Speech-Will Their Political Activism Lead To Gushers Of Political Cash And Campaign Ads?

After considering Ted Olsen’s comments in The Wall Street Journal about the impact of the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it is clear that the free speech rights of small business and their entrepreneurs were as much intended targets of the decision as those of major corporations. Olsen, the lawyer for Citizens United, said:

 The decisions that the Court today overruled rested on the faulty premise that political speech can be restricted in order to prevent corporate money from “distorting” political discourse. In fact, the vast majority of corporations are either nonprofit advocacy groups–like Citizens United–or small businesses. Far from “distorting” the political process, the speech of these corporations reflects the views of their members or the entrepreneurial individuals who formed the corporation. Permitting these individuals to have a voice in the political process adds an important perspective to the public debate and enables individuals of limited means to band together to counterbalance the political speech of the super-rich. McCain-Feingold silenced those speakers, and, as the Court concluded, was therefore impossible to reconcile with the First Amendment. 

That was a mouthful. Link: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/21/free-speech-v-democracy-rounding-up-the-citizens-united-reactions/tab/article/

Apparently, Olsen envisions significant and substantially increased levels of activism in policy making and politics by thousands upon thousands of small businesses and entrepreneurs. Those are the legions of “S” Corps, LLC’s, LLP’s and their owners. For the most part, they have not been players in politics: they have not set up PACS; they do not have lobbyists; and, have not spent money on political ads.

But, they will have a lots of political money, heretofore untapped gushers of political cash in the millions of dollars, to spread around on the political playing field and deploy for all types of public affairs advocacy; to influence policy; and, to take sides and spend those millions on ads for political candidates they like or dislike influencing the outcomes of elections.

In that respect, whatever the original intent of the litigation was, the Citizens United decision has fostered a new, unchartered and possibly unlimited frontier for the deployment of political money and advertising dollars spent lavishly not only by major corporations, long term players in politics; but also, by small businesses and their owners, the new entrants.

 That conceivably will revolutionize, and perhaps even radicalize, politics, policy making and election outcomes well beyond the bounds as we now them!

 

Corporate Free Speech Decision May Usher In A New Era Of Political Rapid Responses & Heightened Public Interest To Corporate Activism

The SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission could unleash nearly unlimited expenditures of corporate treasury funds in politics.

One view is that the full impact of the decision probably will not be limited to an unprecedented expansion of corporate political advocacy directed at policy and the election or defeat of candidates for political office.  Another view, as articulated by Dr. Stephen R. Weissman, a former associate director for policy at the Campaign Finance Institute, is that the “decision is unlikely to change the political situation on the ground very much.” Los Angeles Times, Opinion (January 28, 2010). Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/28/opinion/la-oe-weissman28-2010jan28

In any event, the decision in Citizens United is also likely to usher in a new era of political rapid responses by savvy politicians on a range of policy issues affecting corporations.

As corporations raise their profiles, advocate and engage in politics by hitting politicians for their  positions on policy issues, savvy politicians intuitively will respond and hit back. Increased spending for corporate speech and political advertising should generate significant media coverage. That spate of news articles, commentaries and editorials on corporate public affairs matters ostensibly will heighten the public’s interest.

Heightened public interest expands the political playing field. The more intense the debates, the attacks on politicians and the  media coverage, the better for the politics in general.  Savvy politicians and candidates for political office can take advantage of the new found political play, expensed for the most part by corporate political money, and prosper!

Certainly, there will be  legitimate concerns expressed about the possible corrosive influence of corporate political money on policy making and the outcomes of elections.

But, good politicians should be ready to hit back if they are attacked by corporations. 

And, shrewd candidates for political office should position themselves to take advantage of corporate political activism.