The United States of the Corporation

[mookiemookie]

The Supreme Court has given big business, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, a major turnaround that threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

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.

[AVGWarhawk]

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

[SteamWake]

Its a victory for free speech.

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

The McCain Feingold bill was unconstitutional

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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.

[SteamWake]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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.

[Onkel Neal]

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

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

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.

[August]

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.

[mookiemookie]

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:

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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

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.

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.

"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.

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."

[SteamWake]

So corporations should not run political ads but Acorn should?

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

So corporations should not run political ads but Acorn should?

Which one of those is a non-profit?

[AVGWarhawk]

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.