for example a foreign corporation can now buy airtime and run ads for a sympathetic candidate to their cause and its all legal
as far as betrayal goes, money already has been shown to do that, it is a great motivator and yes we do have some very very serious problems within our govt, that is not new
Last edited by elbatrop; 01-22-10 at 12:34 AM.
Your reasoning is as thin as all the partisan explanations defending this activist decision. You all mindlessly recite back what you heard on FNC, Rush, or Drudge...
Not one far-right partisan hack on DP has been able to give a logical explanation why corporations, an artificial legal entity should be entitled to the same free speech protections as individuals.It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.
The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that, unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt.
You morons freak out about socialism, communism, and the Acorn boogyman, but you've drunk so much of the Teaparty cool-aide you can't see how totally ****ed up this is...
This is not a victory for Free Speech. It's a ****ing disaster. I wouldn't even call it right-wing judicial activism. A true conservative jurist would have thrown this out.
Bottom line.. there is far far too much money in US politics and this ruling might bring it to the public view but it will also increase it considerably since now it is legal for special interests to spend billions on a candidate.
It use to be that politicians were elected by the people for the people. Now days it looks more and more like it is politicians elected by the people for the special interests and corporations.
Do you believe a group of friends have the right to speak freely about a candidate?
Do you believe that group of friends would have the right to attempt to pool their money and buy a local newspaper ad to speak freely about their candidate?
Do you believe a group of friends that form a club that gets more people that pool their money to send out letters have a right to speak freely about their candidate?
Do you believe a group of friends that form a club that gets more people that does a bake sell that raises money they use to send out letters have a right to speak freely about their candidate?
Do you believe a group of friends who start a business which grows large enough to have employees that makes a good that sells for money that they use to buy a commerical have a right to speak freely about a candidate?
I'm curious at which point you feel that individuals grouped together become to large to be allowed freedom of speech.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Or you don't have a democrasy. You have a corporitocracy(sp?)
And secondly this was about corporate financing wasn't it?
Last edited by Alvin T. Grey; 01-22-10 at 08:32 AM.
The courts (until now) have always viewed the idea of corporate personhood as a gift bestowed onto business. In exchange for this legal standing, government has reserved the right to limit the extent to which corporations can be treated like humans.
I'm not a big fan of restrictive campaign finance laws...but there are bigger issues at stake here. Anyone who agrees with this ruling has no basis to ever complain about "judicial activism."
Last edited by Kandahar; 01-22-10 at 08:58 AM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD