They voted today and gave corporations the right to give unlimited $$$$$ to political campaigns.
There will no longer be the Senator from Kansas or the congressperson from Wyoming or the Governor of New York. We will have the Senator from EXXON and the representative from Bank of America and the Governor of Pfizer.
In 1907 congress banned corporations from donating to campaigns. The 5 conservative judges overthrew these laws without precedent.
You think our government is corrupt now? Here comes the US of Big Business. Goodbye America.
The only hope is if this congress can pass laws to stop this corporate interference and control of our government. Florida Democratic Representative Alan Grayson has 5 bills in congress right now. Let's hope they get passed. Obama is against this ruling.
Iowa Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell has an amendment to the constitution to negate this ruling.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) is also promising legislation.
If this congress doesn't do it, the next one will have more bought and paid for politicians and it will get worse every election year until the whole government is completely bought and paid for.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he's going to hold hearings on the impact off this ruling.
Dems Consider New Laws in Response to Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
President Obama called it “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.”
This is very scary. Can the Democrats fight this off? They have been pretty wimpy so far.
Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending - NYTimes.com
On many occasions Democrats have received far more in campaign contributions than Republicans. Granted corporations now have (imo) an advantage. But we'll have to see how the numbers turn out.
I'll gladly concede that we will see unprecedented levels of money funneling into campaign coffers and every other coffer in politics.
It's gonna be nuts.
Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.
They restored that right. The law was a violation of the First Amendment.
You know, the thing the stands in the way of the Fairness Doctrine.
I know it is.
With those guys on the Democrats' side, it's no wonder they didn't vote to support the First Amendment.
I'll try again.
When the court ignores 100 years of precedent and makes a decision based on the exact same Constitution that existed back then, they are MAKING LAW, not interpreting the Constitution. They are using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, not judicial restraint. They are throwing out the will of the people (through the laws passed by the people) and replacing it with their own personal opinions.
I thought you conservatives hated that.
But, as we can clearly see, you only hate it when they do that and come up with a decision you don't like.
Since the First Amendment dominates any law passed by Congress, explain how it was "activist" for the Court to say the law violated the First Amendment and hence was not allowed.
You're not tyring to argue that because a law was passed in 1907 that the Constitution is nullified, are you?