Quote:
Originally Posted by August
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.
|
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:
Quote:
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in U.S. v. Detroit Timber and Lumber (1905), headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."[5]
The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[6]
In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.[7] However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion itself.
|