Monday, March 28, 2016

Big Money in Georgia Politics

Often Democrats complain about "Big Money" influencing and controlling our political system.  I have to wonder if they are disappointed that blackmail by "Huge Money" caused the Governor to VETO this bill.  Ironically the NFL who Liberals love to hate were one of the deciding voices.


Now isn't it ironic that the will of the people of Georgia is being denied because the very wealthy and powerful prefer LGBT freedoms over Religious freedoms.  Thoughts?


CNN GA Governor to Veto Religious Liberty Bill
Fox News VETO Due Boycott Threats

29 comments:

Laurie said...

I have nothing new to say on this topic.

Anonymous said...

Irony is fine but the fact of it's existence shouldn't drive policy choices. And in this case, we might want to take a look at what actually drives the choices being made. Take the NFL. While I am sure the mud encrusted dinosaurs who run the league have have a genuine commitment to gay rights, the reason they made the choice they made was a business decision having to do with the fact that they don't want to be perceived as anti gay, and moving a Super Bowl out of Georgia is perhaps the least significant thing they could do to avoid that image.

In fact, what is going on Georgia is like an elaborate Noh play, where each character is wearing a mask an performing a previously assigned role in a highly stylized manner in a tradition that goes back hundreds of years. We have the legislators, stern upholders of religion in one of it's nastier forms. We have local business, on the one hand, supporting the legislators, but on the other hand, secretly signalling the governor that it's ok with them if this decision is taken out of the hands of much washed legislator. And then we have the governor, with all the unpredicitability of the deus ex machina whose has been written into the play for a thousand years, appearing at the end to save the day, and the drama is complete, and when the theater goers emerge from the theater, they find that nothing has really changed at all, that among other things that people are still suffering horrendous injuries in the NFL, which at least as the fact that they are not visibly anti gay going for it.

Irony would almost be an improvement.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Somebody points out that Disney, one of the major players threatening Georgia, is based in Florida, which has a much stricter RFRA law. I wonder when they are going to threaten to close Disney World unless Florida rescinds its law?

You have to wonder when the "Gaystapo" will have gone too far?

Anonymous said...

Are existing business in Georgia threatening to close their doors over the measure?

--Hiram

John said...

Laurie,
This post is not about LGBT or Religious Rights.

It is about very large businesses, many from out of state, being able to flex their financial muscle to influence laws... This is something that you typically would be against... It is like PAC money on steroids.

And yet here you say " No Comment" Interesting.

Anonymous said...

It's also about businesses, like the NFL, with some extremely important and looming existential issues, worried about it's public issues. Do our Minnesota Vikings, who don't even have enough influence to get a street name changed, really want to associate themselves with prejudice and hatred? All they are is image, as is that damage their image can afford to sustain?

--Hiram

John said...

Influence = $500 million of public funds for new stadium...

I wonder if typical NFL fan cares about LGBT vs Religious Rights war that is going on?

Anonymous said...


I wonder if typical NFL fan cares about LGBT vs Religious Rights war that is going on?

For the NFL it's part of a larger problem having to do with discrimination generally. And no business is eager to be tied to this stuff. Somebody raised the Disney World issue. Maybe the more pertinent issue to raise is with the businesses and sports teams actually in Atlanta. The Falcons, for example, aren't leaving but they are certainly working behind the scenes against this stuff.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

please remember "corporations are people, too."

Corporate America shuffles away from pure conservatism

John said...

Sounds funny coming from you...

Sean said...

I don't know any liberal who looks at the Georgia outcome and says, "Gee, we were wrong. Money in politics is awesome and we should have more of it!" You, on the other hand, only care about the influence of big money when it produces results you don't like.

I don't think it's hypocritical to use the system to your best advantage while it's in place while looking to change it going forward.

jerrye92002 said...

Sean nails it. The only problem with "big money" is when they come down on the "wrong side" of an issue. The problem is that elected officials, eager to be politically correct, do not stand up for the RIGHT side of the issue and tell such meddlers to "stuff it." I wonder how Disney would like to see Georgia officially advising people to boycott Disney World and Disney movies?

The PC Nazis will demand, intimidate, scream and riot if you do not toe their line, and once you do, they move on to the next line. It has to stop, and the only way is for our leaders to simply do the right thing, whatever that is, and ignore them.

John said...

Please note that I don't complain about super pacs and citizens United. Unlike many liberals.

I am even somewhat okay this situation, though it feels a lot more like corporate control of our government than a lobbyist or super pac.

John said...

I mean the idea that big business can threaten politicians to force them to cave to their will. Why aren''t the anti-corporate control of our government people marching in the streets?

John said...

Yes I think this is hypocritical.

If the Koch brothers lobbied for something and got it, the liberal press would be screaming bloody murder.

jerrye92002 said...

I don't have a problem with any lobbyist or pressure group, from any side, so long as the elected officials come down on the right side of an issue. Georgia didn't bow to corporate threats, IMHO, but to the gods of PC. Trump proves that there is a growing plurality that want PC taken down several notches.

Sean said...

"If the Koch brothers lobbied for something and got it, the liberal press would be screaming bloody murder."

Dude, the Kochs have been lobbying for stuff and getting it for decades.

If there's one thing the so-called "liberal media" is terrible at, it's identifying corporate corruption -- primarily because they're all controlled by large corporations.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how Disney would like to see Georgia officially advising people to boycott Disney World and Disney movies?

I don't think they would like that, but it's a choice they would live with. I am mostly against boycotts myself. I routinely deal with people I disagree with politically and I don't see a problem with that.

Ironically, people who very much want to discriminate against others seem to be also very much concerned that others might discriminate against them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6PPk2NOQXs

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

And that's the point, isn't it? That tolerance ought to be a two-way street? If you don't want to do business in Georgia, don't do business in Georgia. If you don't want to do business with somebody that offends your personal standards for any reason, you should not be forced by law OR the mobs of PC Nazis who will insist you do. If it costs you some business, so be it. Live and let live. Why does every human interaction seem to require getting the lawyers and legislators involved these days?

John said...

Jerry,
How exactly would one know if this occurred?

"so long as the elected officials come down on the right side of an issue"

Sean,
Not that old excuse that is used by both the Far Left and Far Right... "they're all controlled by large corporations" or "they're all liberal mouthpieces"...

I just want to see any Liberal Pro-Voter / Anti-Big Money person say they are disgusted that corporations could cause a VETO like this... Instead you are being very pragmatic and saying Corporate control of our society in this case is OKAY.

I just find it amusing... :-)

Sean said...

"Instead you are being very pragmatic and saying Corporate control of our society in this case is OKAY."

I'm saying that we should change the rules to limit corporate control of our society. Until then, the system is what it is. And sometimes that system is going to produce good results, and sometimes it isn't. refusing to work in the current system isn't an option, because if I do that, I have no chance of making the change that I want to see.

I'm consistent in saying the system should change, even if the system sometimes produces results that I like. While you only raise it as an issue when it produces results that tilt away from your preferences.

John said...

Actually I only raised the topic because it was ironic.

Kind of like when a Liberal demands that corporations stop sending jobs overseas as they climb into their Subaru while talking on their Samsung phone.

jerrye92002 said...

"How exactly would one know if this occurred?"

EASY! If the "system" produces results I agree with they are on the right side of the issue. YMMV.

John said...

I assumed that was the answer... At least you were honest.

jerrye92002 said...

Not only honest, I am right. YMMV

Anonymous said...


Kind of like when a Liberal demands that corporations stop sending jobs overseas as they climb into their Subaru while talking on their Samsung phone.

This form of argument is never a problem for me because I make a distinction between policy choices, and the choices we make under policy choices once they have been made. For example, in a tax context, I may have a disagreement with the policy behind a tax deduction, but once the policy choice has been made, I have no problem at all in taking the deduction.

With respect to trade, I think our policy should be to encourage domestic production, and to take a hard look at policies and practices that become barriers to domestic production. But I would never tell a consumer what to buy on that basis. More specifically, I think our policy should be to encourage America to make better cars, but not to tell consumers they can't or shouldn't buy a car that's better. Our economy is far better served by encouraging manufacturers to build better cars, than it is by policies that delude consumers into thinking inferior cars are better than they are.

If that's hypocrisy, I have no problem at all in living with it.

--Hiram

John said...

Now the Feds are trying to brow beat North Carolina

Anonymous said...

The Feds are bound by the constitution, and a whole lot of laws, that aren't applicable to private individuals.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Are they?