The United States of the Corporation
 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/...sis/index.html

Regardless of your political affiliation, this is bad. Say hello to the Senator from WalMart, the Congressman from Humana, the Representative from Halliburton.

We are right and truly screwed.

I just love how the country is going....

http://www.toiletology.com/images/Crapper-1.jpg

Its a victory for free speech.

Corperations are made up of what?? People...

The McCain Feingold bill was unconstitutional

Really? What corporation has your best interests at heart? What corporation places anything BUT the pursuit of profits above all else? Hint: not any successful one.

And free speech? Puh-leeze. To go with your premise, corporations have free speech rights like people. Except they're better than people, because you can't jail a corporation for not obeying the law in the search for profits. You can fine them, sure, but that's no big deal as corporations are flush with money and lawyers. So what they've done is turn YOU into a second class citizen.

Your free speech rights don't mean diddly when major corporations can buy and sell politicians at will. You think they're going to listen to what YOU have to say, when they're getting 99.9% of their campaign funding from a corporation?

Free speech? You think this is good for free speech? Let's take one of your heroes, Glenn Beck. Beck likes to inflame people against the government. When the government is a corporate-tocracy, how much dissent do you think they'll allow?

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.

Now what part of 'shall make no laws' is misunderstood here?

When they wrote that, did it apply to corporations? In fact, the founding fathers specifically LIMITED corporations and their powers - they could be dissolved for breaking the law.

It wasn't until 1886 that corporate personhood was established. You think giving a corporation (which have all the characteristics of a sociopath) unfettered access to the halls of power is a good thing? Enjoy your chains of slavery.

I invite you to actually THINK THROUGH the repurcussions of what has happened, instead of parroting back whatever feces John Boehner spouted out about this. Truly think this through and come up with a reason why this is a good idea.

I'm on the fence on this one. It's going to be interesting to see what changes come from this.

First off it's not "unfettered access". Many spending restrictions remain in place. Your cries of wolf are not helping anything here.

Second the law as written was unconstitutional. Shame on Congress for passing something that doesn't stand constitutional muster.

If you Democrats really object to the SJC's ruling then convene a constitutional convention and change the 1st amendment.

BTW let's take the lefts objection to this ruling to it's natural conclusion.

Who owns the New York Times? That's right, a corporation. If corporations shouldn't have free speech then the corporate owned NYT shouldn't either.

"Freedom of the press" you say? Well as we see these days you don't have to belong to a corporation to report the news. Just ask any blogger.

So mookie, I expect that you and Keith Olberman to immediately start advocating that the New York Times, the Boston Globe and any other corporation owned "news" network be banned from providing politically related news reporting during elections.

First off, it is in effect unfettered access. It doesn't matter that direct contributions are still illegal. The point is they now have the ability to control the debate by controlling the flow of information. With no cap on political ad campaigns, corporations can now run total media blitzes supporting their position, no mater how right or wrong it is over and over until people just accept it at face value.

And while I appreciate your cute little "HURR HURR If you Democrats hate it so bad, change the 1st Amendment Why do you hate freedom" comment, its not about the 1st Amendment. It's about the SCOTUS' interpretation of the 14th, back in 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that established the idea of "corporate personhood."

And actually if you want to go down the rabbit hole even further, I'll let Wikipedia take it from here:

Wrong natural conclusion. Since companies can now use the media to run ads supporting the positions of the politicians they've contributed to, they can basically pay to get whomever they want elected.

Hate the price of prescription medication? Sorry, the Senator from Merck, in a bill co-sponsored by the Senator from Pfizer, has established that drug company patents don't expire, thus effectively ending the generic drug market.

Hate the bailouts? Well, hate to break it to you, but the House of Representatives brought to you by Goldman Sachs will vote 434-1 in favor of the next one.

Want to start a business? Well, the City Council, sponsored by WalMart along with the Mayor, brought to you by Target has changed the zoning laws, and your store must close.

Good luck with that when the President, brought to you in part by Boston Globe and Rupert Murdoch signs a bill preventing "unlicensed news reporting."

So corporations should not run political ads but Acorn should? :doh:

Agreed.
This is why USA is generaly forced to choose between "the lesser of 2 evils" in most elections.

The "2 party system", also makes things easier than neccesary for big business interests that generaly support "both" sides.

Which one of those is a non-profit?

Mookie and I disagree a lot. It's all good though. However, on this issue I agree with Mookie 100%. We see what the power of money and lots of it can do to an election. The companies with unions who just got a closed door deal with Obummer on healthcare....gee how much will be filtered to the campaign account on the next go around? You scratch my back and I will scratch yours...using $100 bills of course. :03: