Forbidden Donut

I'm just speechless with this whole thing.

Why even have a voting system at all if corporations can just buy whoever they want?

I guess the supreme court thinks that though we are all equal, some entities deserve to be a little more equal than a regular person.

Bow down to your betters, peon.

Wait, should I be outraged about this? Or should I be a sheeple?

You should doing for with am longer than. If within sheeple is outraged then doing isn't because sometimes all the should doing in the world can't outrage any more than none. When all the outrage is losing without than longer to it becomes nigh impossible for under to tall enough. I suggest that under advisement of law we act looking like. It is so important because if looking like is not then act can't be longer than... and that would be terrible.

I am collateral damage of that post, Andrew.

Ow.

I really don't see this as a problem

edit: It's not the Supreme Court's job to decide what is best for the corporations or what they should be allowed to do based on the best interests of the country. It's the Supreme Court's job to decide whether or not something is unconstitutional, and theoretically this sort of thing is protected by the constitution.

Not that it matters anyway, this sort of thing has been happening for as long as big businesses have been around. Just calling a spade a spade.

It is, however, not the Supreme Court's job to grant natural rights to legal entities. This ruling implies that the SCotUS believes that freedom of speech is a legal right that can be granted to legal entities rather than a natural right that all human beings possess with or without the consent of their particular country.

And if a right can be granted, it can be taken away.

I think this is a fairly dangerous ruling on more grounds than just how I feel about some of the corporations in this country...

Edit:
Also, how does everyone feel about corporations with foreign shareholders being able to legally affect the political landscape of the US? The 5 biggest corporations in the world are Shell, Exxon, Wal*Mart, BP, and Chevron.

I hadn't thought of it this way until today, but now I'm thinking this could easily be considered (or spun as) a national security issue.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That and we have the internet as another significant resource available to/for voters that didn't really exist until the last decade.



So I guess you don't hold for the idea of collective organizations working towards a collective goal. It wasn't so much that the SCotUS felt that WalMart needed more freedom of expression in elections. It was more that the Westport County Bridge Players association was likewise being barred from buying airtime on the local television station within 1 month of a federal election letting people know they felt that Joe Politician is in fact a total sleazeball. Individually the membership probably can't afford the ad's, but collectively, they can.

Broad spectrum and sweeping laws have broad impacts. Imagine that.



Oh like the rights "granted" to black people in the 1950's in regards to public education? How about "Miranda Rights" which while derived from the 5th Amendment, didn't "exist" until Miranda vs Arizona in 1966? Or the "right to choose" in the 1970's w/ Roe vs Wade? I'm sure we could keep going on if you like...



Considering shareholders don't (generally) have that much direct input on the operations of a corporation, I think that is a minimal concern. And judging by a certain Supreme Court justice's reaction(mouthing "That's not true, that's simply not true") to Obama during the State of the Union address, I'd say the justices would make a distinction with foreign owned/controlled corporations should that ever come before the court.

-------------

The "other side" of the coin is that historically the funding gap for purchased corporate advertising on behalf of a party or candidate has been within 1% of an even 50% split for the past several election cycles.

Now if you're discussing Union funded advertising(and it's funny how upset they are), it's tended to be more in the 80% range for Democratic issues/candidates, and 10% range for Republican issues/candidates. And they're the two biggest spenders in any election cycle so far.

...I highly doubt corporate funding practices with regards to political advocacy campaigns in regards to Democrats and Republicans is going to change appreciably in light of this change.

Right. And who do you suppose benefits more from this decision, the Bridge Players, or Wal*Mart? This doesn't give a voice to the Bridge Players, it drowns them out.



1. The Civil Rights Act extended natural rights to ALL people, explicitly, and expanded the definition of "people" in a direct way.
2. Miranda Rights are legal rights. And yes. They could be revoked.
3. Same with that pesky right to choose. It won't, but as a legal right, it could be.



That's a lot of assuming. And much of it is based on the current composition of our government as well as our economic and political climate TODAY. Maybe you should read the other 4 justices dissenting opinions. If this were no big deal, perhaps it wouldn't be a 5-4 vote.

-------------



Your doubt is noted...

Meanwhile, China's CIC just annouced that they've been using our debt with them to purchase shares of US corporations for the past several years to the tune of a few billion dollars. I guess we'll see how the next major election goes.