Supreme Court - corporations can now buy candidates
Comments
-
If someone is going to vote they should research candidates before making a decision, regardless of party.
Now I know it is hard for some of you to believe but the current POTUS had some pretty unfair media bias in his corner this last election. Did Fox give Obama as much airtime as McCain? Probably not. But did CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, or any other media outlet give McCain the amount of airtime as Obama? I doubt it.
As much as some of you hate to admit it this is a First Amendment victory, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it is wrong.
Let's not even pretend for one second this last Presidential election came down to the issues either. Maybe it did for a minority, wait poor choice of a word, maybe it did for a smaller group but those of us who researched our candidates and didn't fall for the media hype were making our choice on actual information and facts.
Elections should start coming up with a qualification to vote, maybe a simple math test or spelling. Instead we have people who vote by the color of one's skin and who MTV tells them to vote for.0 -
Another thing about the media forcing certain candidates down our throats...
Let's take a simple debate before the primaries, I'll use the GOP at the Reagan library for example. The questions went back and forth to Romney and McCain like they were the only ones there. Yet there were three or four other guys there. So who decides they don't get airtime? The media? Each candidate should have to answer the same questions, each candidate should get the same amount of airtime to voice their plans.0 -
With this decision we won't have to worry anymore where a potential president was born. A corporate influence from outside this country with enough money can now elect a president. These corporations have plenty of ready cash (EXXON) than any amount grassroot citizens can donate to a presidential race. In fact it's a waste, I wouldn't give a dime nor should anyone else, just let the corporations pick who they want, why bother even to vote. This is one of the worse Supreme Court decisions ever, the end of the world is certainly possible in 2012. Even somebody like Sarah Palin could be backed with enough corporate money, the thought of that alone is just too scary.
Watch it here...In Landmark Campaign Finance Ruling, Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate Campaign SpendingAMY GOODMAN: We begin our show today looking at yesterday’s landmark Supreme Court ruling that will allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates.
In a five-to-four decision, the Court overturned century-old restrictions on corporations, unions and other interest groups from using their vast treasuries to advocate for a specific candidate. The conservative members of the Court ruled corporations have First Amendment rights and that the government cannot impose restrictions on their political speech.
Writing the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy described existing campaign finance laws as a form of censorship that have had a, quote, “substantial, nationwide chilling effect” on political speech.
In the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens described the decision as a radical departure in the law. Stevens wrote, quote, “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.” Stevens went on to write, quote, “It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.”
To talk more about this ruling, we’re joined by Jamin Raskin. He’s a professor of constitutional law at American University and a Maryland state senator. He is the author of several books, including Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. The American People.
Professor Raskin, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
JAMIN RASKIN: Good morning, Amy.
Well, we’ve had some terrible Supreme Court interventions against political democracy: Shaw v. Reno, striking down majority African American and Hispanic congressional districts; Bush v. Gore, intervening to stop the counting of ballots in Florida. But I would have to say that all of them pale compared to what we just saw yesterday, where the Supreme Court has overturned decades of Supreme Court precedent to declare that private, for-profit corporations have First Amendment rights of political expression, meaning that they can spend up to the heavens in order to have their way in politics. And this will open floodgates of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in federal, state and local elections, as Halliburton and Enron and Blackwater and Bank of America and Goldman Sachs can take money directly out of corporate treasuries and put them into our politics.
And I looked at just one corporation, Exxon Mobil, which is the biggest corporation in America. In 2008, they posted profits of $85 billion. And so, if they decided to spend, say, a modest ten percent of their profits in one year, $8.5 billion, that would be three times more than the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign and every candidate for House and Senate in the country spent in 2008. That’s one corporation. So think about the Fortune 500. They’re threatening a fundamental change in the character of American political democracy.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about President Obama’s response? He was extremely critical, to say the least. He said, “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics…a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” Yet a number of especially conservatives are pointing out that there was—that President Obama spent more money for his presidential election than anyone in US history.
JAMIN RASKIN: OK, well, that’s a red herring in this discussion. The question here is the corporation, OK? And there’s an unbroken line of precedent, beginning with Chief Justice Marshall in the Dartmouth College case in the 1800s, all the way through Justice Rehnquist, even, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, saying that a corporation is an artificial creation of the state. It’s an instrumentality that the state legislatures charter in order to achieve economic purposes. And as Justice White put it, the state does not have to permit its own creature to consume it, to devour it.
And that’s precisely what the Supreme Court has done, suddenly declaring that a corporation is essentially a citizen, armed with all the political rights that we have, at the same time that the corporation has all kinds of economic perks and privileges like limited liability and perpetual life and bankruptcy protection and so on, that mean that we’re basically subsidizing these entities, and sometimes directly, as we saw with the Wall Street bailout, but then they’re allowed to turn around and spend money to determine our political future, our political destiny. So it’s a very dangerous moment for American political democracy.
And in other times, citizens have gotten together to challenge corporate power. The passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 is a good example, where corporations were basically buying senators, going into state legislatures and paying off senator—paying off legislators to buy US senators, and the populist movement said we need direct popular election of senators. And that’s how we got it, basically, in a movement against corporate power.
Well, we need a movement for a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not persons entitled to the rights of political expression. And that’s what the President should be calling for at this point, because no legislation is really going to do the trick.
Now, one thing Congress can do is to say, if you do business with the federal government, you are not permitted to spend any money in federal election contests. That’s something that Congress should work on and get out next week. I mean, that seems very clear. No pay to play, in terms of US Congress.
And I think that citizens, consumers, shareholders across the country, should start a mass movement to demand that corporations commit not to get involved in politics and not to spend their money in that way, but should be involved in the economy and, you know, economic production and livelihood, rather than trying to determine what happens in our elections.
Peace*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
JB811 wrote:If someone is going to vote they should research candidates before making a decision, regardless of party.
agreed - unfortunately, this does not happen. what this decision does is allow certain candidates to have a much higher public profile, based solely on their affiliation with certain interests that only benefit a small few. and, sad though it makes you and me, this higher public profile WILL translate into votes.JB811 wrote:As much as some of you hate to admit it this is a First Amendment victory, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it is wrong.
however, on this point, i think you are way off. corporations (and unions too!) should not have the rights that PEOPLE do under the bill of rights. should corporations have the right to independent armies, under the second amendment? (nevermind that they kind of already do.) this is not about the first amendment...
(but i do love your avatar...)0 -
your entire argument sounds like a man that has some sour grapes...blame the media because your guy lost by nearly 3 million votes and 100 electoral votes...JB811 wrote:If someone is going to vote they should research candidates before making a decision, regardless of party.
Now I know it is hard for some of you to believe but the current POTUS had some pretty unfair media bias in his corner this last election. Did Fox give Obama as much airtime as McCain? Probably not. But did CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, or any other media outlet give McCain the amount of airtime as Obama? I doubt it.
As much as some of you hate to admit it this is a First Amendment victory, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it is wrong.
Let's not even pretend for one second this last Presidential election came down to the issues either. Maybe it did for a minority, wait poor choice of a word, maybe it did for a smaller group but those of us who researched our candidates and didn't fall for the media hype were making our choice on actual information and facts.
Elections should start coming up with a qualification to vote, maybe a simple math test or spelling. Instead we have people who vote by the color of one's skin and who MTV tells them to vote for.
this is not a first ammendment victory. where in article one of the constitution does it allow for corporations to have the same rights as a living human being? to help you out i will post the first article. hell i will even post the entire bill of rights and see if anywhere in them guarantees a corporation the rights or title of personhood.....
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
i see nothing in there to even base the decision of the supreme court on anything. i skimmed through ammendements 11-27 as well and did not see anything establishing a corporation as a person.
what this law does is grants even foreign companies a vote in our elections. we can have a foreign corporation bankrolling a candidate which amounts to foreign bodies influencing our elections. you being the patriotic american, xenophobic man that you are should immediately cry foul over this decision. through your partisan blinders you complain of people not researching their vote decisions, i can make the same argument about your support of this supreme court decision.
another thing i take issue with is your proposal to make math and spelling tests a qualification for voting rights. last i checked, literacy was not a qualification to vote for anything. neither is it a requiremet to have to see or hear, because they have had blind and deaf ballots for generations. why not disenfranchise all of the poor and uneducated while you are at it? the fact is, most of the poor people in this country have traditionally voted democratic. by you silencing their voices and throwing out their votes, you are unfairly tiliting the odds in your favor. maybe if you had a more palatable candidate they would vote republican. but somehow i don't see the party of rich, old, white men appealing to the poor and most likely immigrant or minority populations.
you also seem to take issue with blacks voting for blacks and whites voting for whites. did you ever think that people relate to people with the same ethnicity? did you ever think a rich white guy is going to identify with mccain or bush over obama, or a poor african american is going to identify with the son of a kenyan dad and american mom over a rich white man born with a silver spoon in his ass? god forbid they may think that they have shared similar life experiences and have some common experiences... :roll:
i have no problem with mtv trying to get voters engaged in the process. you only care because the mtv generation voted heavily for obama. had they voted for mccain i am sure you would never have said anything. so like i said, sounds like a lot of sour grapes to me......"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
I don't have time right now to respond to your novel but I will. Right now I will say I did not vote for McCain so ask before making assumptions.0
-
Please let's not make this a red vs. blue thing. This is terrible for all of us. The "red" of the court may have voted for this but democrats are just as guilty of bowing to their corporate masters as anyone. What this does is make the corporate voice as loud as possible and further diminishes the voice of the private individual. Some here have said that we still have the power as voters and that is correct. We as voters need to be smart enough to not vote for candidates that take corporate money and demand our elected legislators write new laws to limit corporate power."First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
"With our thoughts we make the world"0 -
More and more of the voter power is being taken away and no matter who becomes president that person is beholding to someone or some corporate entity. Whether he or she likes it or not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX2jcNlofO4
PeacePost edited by g under p on*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
i would not refer to your bill of rights as "a novel", as novel implies a work of fiction...then again, maybe that is what we now have in this country....land of the free, home of the brave, sounds like a good topic for a novel to me...JB811 wrote:I don't have time right now to respond to your novel but I will. Right now I will say I did not vote for McCain so ask before making assumptions."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
I like what Michael Moore had to say here in this video on the Supreme Court decision and he's totally right. At the 24 minute mark great interview.
Michael Moore on Haiti, the Supreme Court Decision on Corporate Campaign Financing, and Why He Calls the Democrats “Disgusting”
[color]AMY GOODMAN: OK, let’s talk about—well, Capitalism: A Love Story just came out. And we’re looking now, today, when we look at the economy, when we look at the state of our union, Ben Bernanke, the question of whether he should be confirmed, reconfirmed, Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary. And we’re looking at a Supreme Court decision, unprecedented, overruling years of precedent of corporate money just—if it hasn’t already, the floodgates opened on them—flooding politics in this country. Put that all together.
MICHAEL MOORE: Man, that’s so depressing. It’s like the way you—I mean, you just—this last week has been a rough week for democracy. I mean, I would be lying if I said that I wasn’t in a total state of despair at this moment. And I’m not usually one that goes there. I mean, I’m usually like, “Let’s go!” I have—that Supreme Court ruling—and the disgusting part of it is how I got dragged into it, that there’s the whole argument before the Supreme Court and the justices and the attorneys for the other side discussing Fahrenheit 9/11. I don’t know if you followed this.
AMY GOODMAN: Wait, explain the whole thing.
MICHAEL MOORE: Well, the Supreme Court case that was decided was based on the fact that the Federal Elections Commission declared this anti-Hillary ad an ad. And the other side was—they were calling it a documentary.
UNIDENTIFIED: She’s deceitful. She’ll make up any story, lie about anything, as long as it serves her purpose of the moment. Ruthless, vindictive.
ANN COULTER: Venal, sneaky.
UNIDENTIFIED: Ideological, intolerant.
ANN COULTER: Liar is a good one.
MARK LEVIN: Scares the hell out of me.
MICHAEL MOORE: And the FEC said, no, this is an ad, and you have to follow the election laws. In terms of where the money comes from, you have to report this. They said, no, it’s just like Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. That was produced and distributed by a corporation, the Weinstein Company, etc., etc. And so the justices—they all had this discussion about how—why did Michael Moore get to distribute his film and not have to deal with the FEC, and they did? And that was the case that was decided. The justices decided, yeah, that’s not right. And so, we’re just going to let—now open up the floodgates and let all this money pour in. So I—
AMY GOODMAN: So you’re the cause of this?
MICHAEL MOORE: Well, I’ve got to tell you, my own Catholic guilt and my own—I have thought about this for the last few days. Not that I’m the cause of it, but, you know—see, the thing is, and this is where—this is how they got away with it, is basically, you really never want the government, any arm of the government, whether it’s the FEC or the Supreme Court, deciding who can say what, period.
You know, I think what I do is a form of journalism. You know, it’s essentially a filmed version of the op-ed page, my op-ed page, and it’s full of lots of facts and information, and it also is full of my opinion. And, you know, the right would say, “No, that’s not true. You were just out there trying to get Bush out of the White House and get Kerry elected with Fahrenheit 9/11.” And I could say and prove, of course, that I started working on that film long before there was a John Kerry for president. And I never spoke to anybody in the Kerry campaign, and I’m sure they didn’t want to speak to me. So, that had nothing to do with that, whereas the Hillary thing was specifically set up to be out there during the campaign in ’08 to stop Hillary Clinton. But you can see how it could get confusing and how they can create the ball of confusion in all of this.
And, of course, where did my money come from? Well, my money came from a Hollywood studio. Hollywood studio is a corporation, not only just a corporation, but in this case, Fahrenheit 9/11 was made by Miramax, which is part of the Walt Disney Company. So you can see where they go with this.
And I think that I just—it just—I hate it when the other side, they’re so—I mean, I hate it because I also, in some weird way, also admire them. They’re so good at what they do, the evil that they perpetrate, their ability to rally people, and of course the amount of funding that they receive. Just to make this clear, the Walt Disney Company, once they saw Fahrenheit 9/11, Mr. Michael Eisner said, “We no way are ever releasing this movie.” And as everyone knows the story, you know, we made this public, and he had to admit that they were trying to censor the film, and then I was able to get the film out because of a public outcry about it. So, we will never have the resources.
I just got a phone call from a freshman congressman in Michigan, a good guy, who beat the incumbent Republican in ’08, asking me for a donation for his reelection this year. And I just felt like, why? Because I have—whatever amount of money I could give you, or everybody else in here or people we know could give you, will never ever match what corporate America has. If that’s really the new—if that’s the new rule now, then we’ve already lost. We’ve already lost.
So how do we fight this now? Because their propaganda machine that’s funded now with—will have billions of dollars behind this to manipulate an uneducated American public—when I say “uneducated,” I’m talking about an American public, as you know, where we rank in the world, in math and science and literacy, all these things—we’re so far behind so many other countries. We have 40 million functional illiterates in this country, 40 million adults who can’t read and write above a fourth grade level. If you create a country where the education system sucks so bad, where you make it your lowest priority, and then you want to create some propaganda to easily lead them down the path you want to lead them down, it’s a cakewalk at that point, when you have this enforced ignorance, the illiteracy that’s encouraged, the C-minus president who was so proud of himself and encouraging others that that was cool, it was cool to be dumb. And that’s what we’ve just lived through, through this first decade of this century. And now they’re going to have billions of dollars to manipulate our fellow Americans? What are we going to do, Amy? Seriously. I mean, as I sit here, I don’t have the answer. But, you know, we have your show. What else do we have?
AMY GOODMAN: You talk about us and them, us and them. Timothy Geithner, do you think he should be Treasury Secretary?
MICHAEL MOORE: Absolutely not. He never should have been. I said that at the beginning. And it was—you know, I joked, I think, about it with you like a year ago. I said maybe he’s just bringing him in to clean up the mess he created, you know, something like a parent would do. You know, “OK, you broke this. Get in here and clean it up.” Clearly, that’s not what his purpose was for this year. His purpose was there to protect Goldman Sachs, to protect the banks and Wall Street. And he’s done a fine job of doing that, in making sure that, again, they are back to record profits, record bonuses, all of this stuff.
AMY GOODMAN: How does this play in Michigan? That’s where you live now. And you live in Flint, one of the most depressed areas in the country.
MICHAEL MOORE: People are so angry. And I think, of course, this is what—partly what happened in Massachusetts. And it’s partly why Obama got elected, because people were so angry at what happened to their lives, to the economy, to our reputation as Americans, that a country that is essentially—still has a huge problem with race, a certain number of Americans were able to put their feelings about race aside, because they were so angry at what was going on. That was interesting and somewhat impressive.
I think that anger and the anger in Michigan, we’re going to end up with a Republican governor this November. I can—I already see it. I can already feel it happening, I think, because people are so upset. I mean, you’ve got an official unemployment rate of over 15 percent. Unofficially—I mean, the county I live in is over 20 percent officially, so you know it’s really over 30 percent, at least. People are very, very upset and can now be easily manipulated now, as people who are hurting have been, I mean, historically.
I mean, we don’t have to—we know the examples. We’re sitting here—you know, what happens when those in power, those who support corporate interests, who support right-wing ideology—they used to call it “fascism”—they’re the pros at manipulating the public when the public is hurting. And so, expect to see that. And that’s what I expect to see. And, of course, I’m not just going to sit back and let it happen, and I know people watching this, listening to this, feel same way. But we’re going to have to—we’re going to have to get it together, and get it together pretty damn quick, because they’re already ten miles down the road in front of us.
Peace*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
This decision upholds the constitution. It upholds a basic american principal of free political speech.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/o ... edu/supct/
Didn't Obama raise more money than any other Presidential Candidate in History through Private donations ?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 279 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help




