Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
I personally think tea companies should get on the possibilities for 2012 now... "The Republic of Tea Presents: The Scott Brown 2012 Presidential Campaign."
Whereas people can't deduct their donations, heh heh heh.
Thank God I finally ensured corporations have more rights than people!
Next term: giving corporations the right to vote, heh heh heh!
Their sovereign wealth funds can now directly own US firms and contribute to attack ads against US politicians who don't do their bidding.
Way to go, activist America-hating Justices!
"activist judge" and "legislating from the bench" are two of the most overused, entirely meaningless phrases ever.
So if a corporation is a person can we draft them? What about jail them?
We are Consumers. Corporations give our lives meaning by selling Things to us. Corporations will use our money to give us the government that will best support our Consumption. Regulation will only keep us from having the things that we want. We offer Industry our beautiful Cash, with which it will give us more beautiful Things to buy, allowing us to fulfill our magnificent destinies. We thank you, oh Lord Capitalism, for such a perfect system. God bless the United Franchises of the Bank of America. Amen.
Perhaps it would help if you listed your sources.
The 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo holding that money equals speech is the real problem. I understand that government prohibiting "Rich Guy" from spending on his own behalf is concerning despite the likely outcome that Rich Guy will have more political power than Poor Guy. But at least that case allowed reasonable regulation of corps and recognized the corrupting influence of money in elections.
Expanding that holding to corps is insane. No individual is as wealthy as a corporation. Plus, the corporation's purpose is to make money, not set policy or be engaged in democracy. Its motive is very narrow and distinguishable from that of even a John D. Rockefeller. Not to mention a corporation can be controlled by foreign entities.
We the people are now replaced by wealthy institutions. Representative Democracy is dead. Welcome to the County of Boeing, State of Microsoft, country of Goldman-Sachs.
To say that advertising spent right before an election does not sway public opinion ignores reality. It's like the Stranger placing McGinn's face on its paper. Now it will be direct and unabashed corporate advertising. No debate. No fact checking.
— U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
So in other words yesterday's ruling doesn't change anything? I'll agree with that.
Now that is change you can believe in.
LOL, you are so naive.
What if they're an American citizen held in an INS detention center or in GITMO?
Are you really sure?
Corporations have free speech. American citizens rarely do.
This ruling was part of a case of a non-profit trying to air a documentary (albeit one of I'm sure terrible quality). Just take a step back and ask yourself if you really think that it is in the interest of fair elections that a non-profit corporation not be allowed to show a documentary about a candidate because it is too close to election time. Is that what you really favor?
the Court acknowledged that as-applied challenges would be available if a group could show a “‘reasonable probability’” that disclosure of its contributors’ names “‘will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.’” Id., at 198 (quoting Buckley, supra, at 74)
That seems to me that if these same justices decide on the Ref 71 case about name disclosure they may rule that the names should not be revealed.
The most powerful corporate "persons" are not even loyal to the U.S. They are transnational. Many are foreign and can mask themselves with made-up corporations in the U.S. if they have to. So how does this fly with this supreme court?
Regarding how Obama got into office, Greg Palast writes: "Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats." http://www.gregpalast.com/supreme-court-…
So, what happens when there is evidence of threats or reprisals? Thomas' dissent gives a two-paragraph preview of Prop 8-flavored examples that I suspect will appear in the Court's Ref 71 decision.
While we're on the topic of Thomas, I love that he cites himself citing himself.
I can see where they are going on this already.
But they are.
Ralph Nader, by his actions, helped destroy America in 2000.